HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » THIS

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:21 PM

 

THIS

from David Roberts at Grist: http://grist.org/politics/in-an-era-of-post-truth-politics-credibility-is-like-a-rainbow/


Sullivan has the cover story in the latest issue of Newsweek, called “The Democrats Reagan,” about the enormous potential of a second Obama term. One of his main arguments is that a decisive defeat for Republicans in 2012 could interrupt their rightward drift. Defeat would cause soul-searching, cooler heads would once again prevail, and the party would tack to the center. Color me skeptical.

Mostly I was struck by this line, which comes in the context of a discussion about immigration:

Under Obama, deportations of illegal aliens are double what they were under his predecessor; and the number of border agents is at a record high. Both give him conservative credibility on the issue, if only the right would acknowledge it.


. . . In post-truth politics, the basic mistake to see things like “credibility” as objective phenomena in the world. Put high heat to water, you get steam. Put conservative immigration policies to Obama, you get conservative credibility.

Credibility is not like that. It’s what you might call a relational phenomenon; it exists in the relationship between object and subject. Think about a rainbow. (Always good advice.) For a rainbow to exist, you need sunlight and water vapor in the air, but also a subject positioned at a particular angle to the sun and water vapor. A rainbow is just “how the light bouncing off the vapor appears to the subject.” Without the subject, there’s no appearing, and thus no rainbow.

Credibility is like a rainbow. It is relational. “Conservative credibility” is not something that simply happens when conservative policies are enacted or conservative rhetoric echoed. It requires a subject — in this case a conservative subject — to witness and acknowledge it. One must be credible to someone, and to have “conservative credibility” one must be credible to conservatives.

. . . there are no referees any more, no members of the elite who transcend the partisan war and are respected by both sides. Or at least very few. Any more, there are only the sides and their respective worlds. Conservative credibility can only come from the conservative side, and if conservatives refuse to grant it, it doesn’t exist, any more than a rainbow exists when no one’s looking at it.


read more: http://grist.org/politics/in-an-era-of-post-truth-politics-credibility-is-like-a-rainbow/

3 replies, 1183 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply THIS (Original post)
bigtree Sep 2012 OP
bemildred Sep 2012 #1
LineNew Reply .
bigtree Sep 2012 #2
LineNew Reply .
bigtree Sep 2012 #3

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 01:30 PM

1. K&R.

. . . In post-truth politics, the basic mistake to see things like “credibility” as objective phenomena in the world. Put high heat to water, you get steam. Put conservative immigration policies to Obama, you get conservative credibility.

Credibility is not like that. It’s what you might call a relational phenomenon; it exists in the relationship between object and subject. Think about a rainbow. (Always good advice.) For a rainbow to exist, you need sunlight and water vapor in the air, but also a subject positioned at a particular angle to the sun and water vapor. A rainbow is just “how the light bouncing off the vapor appears to the subject.” Without the subject, there’s no appearing, and thus no rainbow.

Credibility is like a rainbow. It is relational. “Conservative credibility” is not something that simply happens when conservative policies are enacted or conservative rhetoric echoed. It requires a subject — in this case a conservative subject — to witness and acknowledge it. One must be credible to someone, and to have “conservative credibility” one must be credible to conservatives.

. . . there are no referees any more, no members of the elite who transcend the partisan war and are respected by both sides. Or at least very few. Any more, there are only the sides and their respective worlds. Conservative credibility can only come from the conservative side, and if conservatives refuse to grant it, it doesn’t exist, any more than a rainbow exists when no one’s looking at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

2. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:29 PM

3. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread