The Left’s War On The Western Intellect

One never needs to look far for a Berg’s Seventh Law violation.  But this one may be the big daddy of them all.

For all the left’s bargling about how smart they are and how stupid the teabagging wingnuts are, it’s the left that’s waging a war against the intellectual traditions that made the West a great, and – by world historical standards – free, prosperous and enlightened place.

The Late, Great Debate:  I did debate team for one year, and speech team for two in high school.  And with all due respect to the debaters in my social circle – including John Hinderaker, a national college debate champ – there was no question about it; debate team was the lesser set of skills.  The best “debaters” merely honed their ability to rattle off, auctioneer-style, factoids in a coherent-sounding case; oratorical style and even audible legibility didn’t make the cut as priorities.  Debaters tended to make lousy “forensics” speakers.

But debate teaches a vital skill – indeed, perhaps one of Western Civilization’s most vital skills; classical logic.  A good debater knows how to contruct a logical argument, quickly, steering clear of glaring logical fallacies which will, of course, cost them points with literate judges.

Or rather, they knew it.

John Hinderaker relates the story of the decline and fall of collegiate debate, where teams are now winning “debate” tournaments while ignoring the stated topic and swerving into their own personal polemics, often in “slam poetry” and hip-hop styles and, dumber still, declaring the idea of “logic” and “structure” to be racist:

The assertion that “the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students” is puzzling. By “privileged,” the writer apparently means that these are the people who have been good at it. Historically, most college students have of course been white and middle-class, but so what?

“Collegiate debate” has turned into the MinnPost comment section!

I’m tempted to declare that the structure, rules and equipment of the NFL are ageist, classist and ableist, and play using only a shotgun and a hockey stick; why should those privileged with athletic talent and lack of years have all the fun and money?

Well, no – I won’t.  Because I’m not an idiot.

The underlying message from the academy (and hip hop forms notwithstanding, the end of collegiate debate is a battle between academic points of view, not tastes in music) is that logic and structure – the building blocks of western philosophy, “liberal” government, modern science, and indeed every Western intellectual tradition worth preserving – are matters of racist “privilege”.

Would we have had a small-“l” liberal government, ann Enlightenment, a Renaissance, math and science as we know it, a legal system remotely worth having, and any common intellectual tradition without classical logic?

Happy To Be An Intellectual Midget For A Better Minnesota!:  Of course, it’s more than just a national thing; the Minnesota Left has been doing its best to make politics and public life in Minnesota  dumber, coarser, nastier thing.

Bill Glahn dials this tendency in as remorselessly as a sniper:

As the 2014 election campaign heats up, a drearily familiar pattern is repeating itself. Flush with big dollars from out-of-state donors, Democrat-front group Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) is attacking Republican candidates under the theme Wrong for Minnesota…Back in the dim mists of time—when dinosaurs still trod upon the earth—I was taught that arguing against the person (ad hominem) rather than what the person was saying, defied the laws of logic.

When I was in debate in high school, and moreso when arguing points in college, leading with the ad hominem was a good way to have your thesis sent to the showers.

I was taught in classical Greek rhetoric that a message that relied exclusively on raw emotion (pathos)—rather than reason (logos) or an appeal to values (ethos)—was considered the lowest form of communication.
Ad hominem and pathos are the only form of expressions ABM is capable of. The reason why ABM relies on these tactics is because they work. The object is not to engage in debate, but to end debate by surpressing voter turnout. ABM is not trying to convince you that you should vote for Democrats, they are trying to convince you that no Republican possesses the personal character worthy of your vote.

And it works.  A potential candidate for higher office talked with me about ABM’s efforts last year; this person wanted very much to run for an office that would be up for election this year, but couldn’t; while they have the political savvy, experience and record to do the job, ABM would make their personal life – things unrelated to politics, of course – a living hell.  And so a good candidate opted out of the race – leaving that bit more room for an inferior Democrat.

To add insult to injury?  The same media full of Lori Sturdevants and Keri Millers that snivel about the “vitriol” and “anger” in politics, are utterly silent about the Alliance’s crimes against logic:

Should a Republican whisper about the health of our current governor or the temperament of our junior senator, they are immediately shouted down by local media.

Either because of personal relationships or broad sympathy with the aims of ABM, these tactics are never questioned by local media. ABM’s increasingly fantastic and desperate claims against Republicans are never subjected to the “fact-check” apparatus.

And why is that?

Why has MPR, especially their “Fact-Check” operation, “Poligraph”, never systematically looked into ABM’s propaganda?  Catherine Richert?  Mike Mulcahy?  Tom Scheck? Anyone?

13 thoughts on “The Left’s War On The Western Intellect

  1. A Liberal thinks: “I did A and B resulted. I don’t like that result. Jimmy says it’s my fault for doing A and him saying so makes me unhappy. Therefore, I must get Jimmy fired from his job so the next time I do A and B results, I won’t be unhappy.”

    If logical reasoning is out, then we’re left with emotion. The fact that firing Jimmy won’t stop B from happening is irrelevent because the conversation is about feelings, not logical cause-and-effect.

    This inability to reason logically explains why Liberals are perfectly comfortable demanding a raise in the Minimum Wage while deploring Black teen unemployment – they see the first as an emotional issue for poor people and the second as an emotional issue of racism, without ever connecting the dots that their own policy causes the problem.

    Democrats raised the minimum wage several times and Black youth unemployment went up, every time. I’m confident it will, again. I’m sorry that makes Liberals feel bad but I’m not saying a word about it. I need my job.

  2. “arguing against the person, vs what the person is saying”. That’s the line I have been looking for. Whenever a Repubican announces a run for office, go to the Star Tribune story on it, then open up the comments. There is never anything said against the persons views, just nasty personal attacks.

  3. Wait, if ad hominem is excluded, what does Dog Gone have left?

    Then again, what would I have left? Because responding to that douchey, tard novella-ist commenting, butt-faced, Kos-lifting, faux-intelligent, condescending, penis-chopping troll deserves nothing more than ad hominem.

  4. You cannot defeat stupidity with reason. When you go to war with idiots you have chosen your battle poorly. Being right doesn’t matter – only outnumbering them counts.

  5. “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”

  6. I wonder if this…..attacking the person and not the person’s ideas/words….is related to the worshipping of political figures by those on the left. Many on the left treat elected Democrats almost like royalty. Its the person and note always what the person does.

  7. “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”

    Personally, I feel that is an incredibly naive statement. Those wishing to cause pain maliciously know it works in their favor.

  8. I was thinking that Emery Incognito was Powhatan Mingo. Powhatan, please forgive me if I’ve just slandered you!

    To the point, count me among those who are profoundly uncomfortable with the state of “debate” in colleges today, even though (as a homeschooler) it’s cool to see Patrick Henry dominating it. All too often, it seems to be a contest as to who can imitate the FedEx guy the best, not much to do with real rhetoric.

  9. I am not Emery!
    Our writing styles are very different. Emery makes fewer typos, but my content is more original.
    I think that Emery’s worst attribute is that he sometimes tries to pass off cliche’s as arguments. I hate cliche’s.

  10. Pingback: A Critique | Shot in the Dark

  11. QUOTE: I wonder if this…..attacking the person and not the person’s ideas/words….is related to the worshipping of political figures by those on the left. Many on the left treat elected Democrats almost like royalty. Its the person and note always what the person does.

    This is so nauseatingly true.

    No one really thinks about what really makes life better (that is genuinely possible) in the aggregate or what’s fair to individuals. It’s all “hope and change” bullshit.

    So we get too much central government doing too much, and effectively every single actuarial project attempted by government is a criminal disaster.

    This will end badly.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.