Energion Roundtable Week 9 Responses
This week’s Energion Roundtable question concerned informed voters, and given our differing points of view over the course of this roundtable, it is surprising how much agreement there was on this topic in the responses from Arthur Sido, Bob Cornwall,, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts and myself.
Here are a few comments. Cornwall wrote that, “Informed voting starts, in my mind, with having a good understanding of one’s own perspective on the world” I could not agree more. I would add that it is important to distinguish what is “fact” and what is perspective in one’s own view, and this is not always easy. I would argue that most disagreement here (and in most areas) do not occur at the level of “facts.” This is why neither side is extremely upset by the alleged falsehoods of their candidate. Their assumptions and their underlying philosophies are much more important.
This leads to a quibble I had with Sido. Again, I pretty much agreed but paused at his statement that, “The old saying ‘How do you know when a politician is lying to you? His lips are moving’ has never been more true”. While a common way to dismiss politicians, I do not think it is true, or at least that it is that simple.
In my classes, and in my book Preserving Democracy, I use the example of a news story on the effects of the Bush tax cuts on the middle class vs. the rich, which was based on a CB0 study. Democrats claimed the Bush tax cuts shifted the tax burden to the middle class, while Republicans claimed it shifted the tax burden to the rich. The reason I use this example is that despite the contradictory nature of these claims, both sides are correct.
Which conclusions you reach depends on a number of factors and assumptions. In this case, when we use terms like taxes, middle class, rich, fair, tax burden, etc., what do these term actually mean? Thus the CBO study supports both conclusions depending on how you understand these terms. But to get to the heart of the matter, requires much more analysis than most are willing to go into. It also goes to the heart of “fact checking” for which definitions and assumptions one make about a statement will often have a major impact on whether or not it is true. I would argue that this is not an isolated situation. As such, it might be a minority position, but I do not believe that politicians lie anywhere near as much as is commonly believed.)
An issue I had with Bevere and Sido, was their equating of Fox News with MSNBC. As Bevere, put it, “try to get campaign news from reputable and fair news sources. This excludes Fox News and MSNBC” Now I do not watch Fox News (like Sido I don’t have Cable or Satellite), but when I have seen it, I have seen far more liberals interviewed on Fox than I have seen conservatives interviewed on MSNBC.
More importantly, as I cite in my book, a study of the coverage of the last presidential election by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, showed that the coverage among the major news sources was clearly slanted in favor the Democrats; and more so than was the case in 2004, where it also favored the Democrats. The study showed that there were twice as many positive stories than negative stories for Obama, while almost 60% of the stories for McCain were negative and only 14 positive. Yet, as I write in my book,
The only network to have anything resembling balanced coverage was Fox News. While often criticized by the left as favoring Republicans, Fox News was equally critical with 40 percent of the stories being negative for both candidates. As for the positive stories, 25 percent of the stories about Obama fell into this category, compared with a slightly lower 21 percent for McCain.
So is it that Fox News is really so right wing, or is it that it just appears to be more right wing when compared to the rest of the Media which is so far to the Left?
Watts mention a number of sources saying, “First, look at foreign news sources, such as BBC and Spiegel. Canada may even contribute as well.” Good advice, but I would add that just because they are foreign does not mean that they are not biased. These sources, while good to consult are often just as bias as MSNBC in their own way. So be sure to seek out foreign sources from both the left and right, or you will get a false sense of diversity.
Finally I would add one other suggestion to my list: Seek out and engage in discussions with those who disagree. This is by far the best way to clean up the problems in your own thinking. This will not be easy for it can be difficult to find those on the opposite side of the spectrum who are both willing and able to discuss. I take it as one of the weaknesses of this roundtable, that, apart from mine, there have been very few responses, to the initial posts. But I remain hopeful and there is still some time.
Energion Roundtable Week 9 Informed Voters
This week’s Energion Roundtable question with Bob Cornwall, Arthur Sido, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts, and myself is:
An informed electorate is important in sustaining a democracy. We’ve just completed a presidential and vice-presidential debate, and will see two more presidential debates. I’ve just read some factchecking from the vice-presidential debate which suggested that accuracy was a bit scarce. What specific recommendations would you make to individual voters as to how they can become informed voters? Feel free to list and/or link to resources.
This is a particularly difficult question to answer because, for the vast majority of informed voters, the debates are irrelevant. This is because informed voters tend to vote based on issues. They follow events and have developed political philosophies that, like all philosophies, help them make sense of the chaos that is the world.
Issue voters made their decisions long ago, and in a very real sense the debates are irrelevant, because for them the candidate is just the vehicle through which the policies they support will be advanced, and the policies they opposed will be blocked. While their candidate may lose a debate, it is hardly likely that an issue voter will switch to the opposing side, though it can discourage them enough so that they don’t bother to vote.
Thus the debates are important for the very population for whom fact checking is least important. They are not picking a candidate on the issues, so what they say about the issues is not all that important. This is especially true given the current structure of the debates, which focus on gaffs and one-liners, rather than actual serious discussion and debate.
This is what made the two debates so far, with Obama’s passivity and Biden’s antics, arguably the two worst debate performances in history of modern Presidential debates. It was not the substance, or lack thereof, nor the fact checking, but the performance itself; it is not what they said, it is what they did.
The other aspect that makes this so difficult to answer is that the question of truth is not an easy question in and of itself. While I definitely believe in absolute truth, I do not believe in our ability to always discern it, nor is it always black and white. Thus each claim to be fact checked has to be taken on a case by case, charge by charge, basis that hardly lends itself to a short post.
Frankly, I believe that some slack must be cut to both sides. No one can speak for 45 minutes in such a setting on a range of specific issues where the questions are unknown, and they are not allowed any notes, but must speak from memory, and not make some errors.
As for specific recommendations, here are several in no particular order.
* Start with the premise that both sides are just as _________ where the blank is any number of positive adjectives, such as just as smart; just as good; just as concerned, etc.. Individuals may fail in some respects but if this is not your starting point, you have biased any conclusion your reach.
* Listen/Read to both sides. This is easy for those on the right, for the views of the left dominate the culture and cannot be avoided. Views on the right are largely confined to Fox News, talk radio, and a small number of newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, and thus must be sought. For example, conservative talk show host Dennis Prager gave a talk at Stanford in 2003 on The Pathology of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Zionism. The school newspaper paper cited students saying that they had not heard such views at Stanford. Thus it is no wonder that a study by Jonathan Haidt found that “conservatives understand liberals much better than liberals understand conservatives.”
Despite the claims of the left, not all of talk radio is hosts yelling at callers. Some recommendations in this area for serious thoughtful talk would be Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt, both of whom have a range of guests from both the left and the right.
* Avoid what Thomas Sowell calls Stage One Thinking. Many politicians think in term of problems and solutions, that is stage one thinking. Going beyond this takes into consideration the effects of any proposed solutions with such questions as: Will it actually work?
* In exchanges/debates pay more attention to the responses than the initial answers. Most politicians can lay out their positions; the real test is how they respond to the challenges by others.
* Note the difference between rejecting and attempting to refute. Do they just say that their opponent is wrong or do they give specific reasons and evidence to back up rejection?
* Along these lines, look for examples. Without a specific example, often it is not actually clear what a politician is talking about.
* Note who is seeking to persuade, and who is attempting to intimidate or silence opposition.
* Look for fallacies. Those who can use reason and evidence normally use it. Those who can’t, resort to fallacies, the biggest is ad hominem attack, i.e., attacking the person. Note, however, that there is a difference between attacking a person’s position and record, which is perfectly legitimate, and attacking them as a person.
While this will not make fact checking irrelevant, as what appears to be a substantive reply falls apart if it is based on false information, it will go a long ways towards helping decide who really has the better arguments.
In the end we get the politicians we deserve. If we demand from politician reasoned arguments, we will get them. There is a general derision of mudslinging but politicians use it in their campaigns because it works. Ultimately the problem is not with the politicians, but with the voters who vote them in.
Energion Roundtable Week 8 Responses
This week’s Energion Roundtable question concerned the courts and as usual there were a range of views in the responses from Arthur Sido, Bob Cornwall,, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts and myself.
As usual Sido and I pretty much agreed, and our biggest disagreement is that I spoke of original intent whereas he referred to “strict constitutionalist.” While legal scholars would find some difference between the terms, for the purposes here they are synonymous.
Cornwall did not really speak to the various philosophies and seem to focus more on preferring judges who would agree with his political views and opposing those who do not, which is a fairly common view and one of the problems with the politicization of the courts.
One of the examples of a bad decision cited by Cornwall was Citizen’s United, which is attacked on the left as much as Roe v. Wade is attacked on the Right; Sido, for example called Roe “a legal monstrosity.” But there is a huge difference in these rulings that goes to the heart of the way Judges reach their decisions.
At issue in Citizens United was whether or not a group, the Citizens United of the title, could distribute a movie about Hilary Clinton. The questioning during oral arguments showed that the statue covered far more than movies, and could even include books. Thus the problem was summed up by Justice Scalia as
“you are a lawyer advising somebody who is about to come out with a book and you say don’t worry, the FEC has never tried to send somebody to prison for this. This statute covers it, but don’t worry, the FEC has never done it. Is that going to comfort your client? I don’t think so.”
Thus at the heart of Citizen’s United was the first amendment and whether or not government could ban a movie, or even a book about a political candidate, something I would argue is pretty clearly covered in the First Amendment. One can argue about whether or not the First Amendments applies to people who organize themselves into a corporation, or if by organizing they lose their first amendment rights, but that the first amendment covers speech is not at issue.
Looking at Roe v. Wade the issue is far different. It is just a fact that the Constitution does not mention abortion. If the framers had wanted to include it they certainly could have. It is not as if abortion is some new technology like computers they could not have known about. But they did not include it. So Roe asks us to believe that either this right was in the constitution but had gone completely unnoticed for nearly 200 years, only to be discovered in 1973, or that the Court acts basically as a running constitutional convention able to change the constitution as it sees fit.
Bevere attacked the idea of strict Constructionism writing,
“Judges have judicial philosophies. It is impossible to come to any text in an objective and neutral way. Hence, I reject the idea that one can have what is referred to as a strict constructionist reading of the text.”
This strikes me as the perfect is the enemy of the good. He is probably correct that this cannot be determined in any perfect sense, but that is far different from rejecting the pursuit altogether.
Again if Judges are not going to make these decisions based on what it meant when passed as best as they can determine it, what are they going to make the decision on and on what basis can they change it? Bevere is not real clear on this point.
Finally, and surprisingly I agree with much of what Watts wrote, except that,
“Whether we like it or not, both sides have destroyed the sanctity of the separation of powers and the non-partisan court.”
While there is some truth to this, the two sides are hardly equal or the same. As I pointed out in my answer, those arguing for judges who will overturn Roe because it is not grounded in the Constitution are frequently confused with those arguing for overturning Roe, because they oppose abortion.
Thus I would argue that decisions like Roe and those who support them are the cause of the politicization. Rulings like Roe, grounded in the current majority of the Court rather than the text of the Constitution, inevitably make judges into policy makers. This puts them squarely into the political arena. They cannot use the excuse ‘We are just following the law,’ if they are the ones making the law.
Ultimately the core problem can be seen in Watts’ statement,
“The only litmus test needed for the Supreme Court is whether or not the would-be justice believes that he or she can effective rule in a constitutional manner, regardless of the issue.”
This sounds nice, but it begs the question of just what is “a constitutional manner?” Is the judge bound by the Constitution as written, passed and amended? Or is the Judge free to change the meaning of the Constitution in the process? That is the key question.
Energion Roundtable Week 8 Judges
This week’s Energion Roundtable question with Bob Cornwall, Arthur Sido, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts, and myself is:
One of the ways in which a president shapes the future of the country is through appointments to the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. How do you see each candidate shaping the future of the court, and why is this important? (If you are supporting a particular candidate, focus on that one.)
While much of the debate surrounding the election is, for obvious reasons, focused on the economy, a president is likely to have much more of a lasting impact on the country in the areas of foreign policy and judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court. This is especially true with this election for two reasons. The first is that currently there four “liberal” justices, four “conservative” justices and Anthony Kennedy who frequently acts as the swing vote. The second is that it is likely that in the next 4 years, several Supreme Court justices are likely to retire. Thus the next president may very well have the ability to shift the balance of the court one way or the other for years, if not decades to come.
The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” in the last paragraph are in quotes because, while commonly used, they are not the most accurate, for it implies that the judges are ruling based on political positions. While this is sometimes the case, more often than not the different decisions come from different views of the Constitution.
What is commonly labeled “conservative” is more accurately called a Strict Constructionist view, which is a view that seeks to understand the law and Constitution as it was written and passed. On the other hand, the “liberal” view is sees the Constitution as a Living Document, and it is the task of the judge to understand the Constitution in light of the advancements of modern culture.
While both might seem like viable approaches, as I explain in detail in Preserving Democracy, there are key differences between them. With Strict Constructionism the judge is bound by the law and/or Constitution. With the Living Document view, the judge is not bound and can reinterpret the Constitution in light of changes in society, which, not too surprisingly, tend to mirror the judge’s political views.
Supporters of the Living Document view claim this ability to reinterpret is necessary in order to for the Constitution to stay current. Strict Constructionists argue that if a change is needed, that is what the amendment process is for.
I believe there are several major problems with the Living Document view. The greatest is that since it not only allows, but encourages judges to change the Constitution by reinterpreting it, it places the judge above, not below the Constitution, and thereby undermines the rule of law.
This means that judges are not just ruling based on what the law and Constitution say but instead they are making policy decisions and based on their policy decisions they tell us what the Constitution now means. This leads to a politicization of the Courts that is most visible when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. At one time judicial nominations, even for the Supreme Court, were hardly even noticed. Now they are major political battles, with judges being nominated and confirmed, not based on judicial temperament, but on the likelihood that they will vote “correctly” on particular political issues.
Because of the difference between the two positions, the left with its predominate support of the Living Document view has been far more political. After all, many of the advances of liberalism have been brought about through the imposition of courts rather than the democratic process. This can also be seen in the fact that while several nominees of Republican Presidents have turned out to be liberal over the last ½ century, the reverse has not occurred. This was also seen in the fact that while there was a lot of discussion about whether Kennedy or Roberts might join with the liberals (as Roberts eventually did) there was no serious thought that one of the liberal justices might join with the conservatives.
Given this liberal dominance among the Living Document view, Strict Constructionists are at times falsely labeled as conservative activists. This is because a Strict Constructionist view would overturn many of the rulings based in a Living Document view and these are normally of a more liberal bent. But, to pick the most obvious example, overturning Roe v Wade and returning the matter to the states were it was before the ruling would not be judicial activism. The Constitution does not address the matter one way or the other. So overturning it in favor of a judicial ban on all abortion would be judicial activism in the opposite direction.
The real danger with the Living Document view is that it grounds the Constitution, not in the text, but in the current majority of the Supreme Court, and majorities change. Thus even if you like the direction courts in recent decades, what the court has the power to grant, the court has the power to take away just as quickly.
So for me this is easy decision. I believe the Constitution means what is says, and if society changes to the point that it needs revisions, there is an amendment process. Obama, on the other hand, has appointed two Living Document supporters who are solid liberal votes, but this only preserved the tenuous balance of the court; one that is sure to change once Kennedy retires. Romney says that he will appoint strict constructionists. I hope that he does.
I would like to see the court return to ruling on what the law and the constitution says such that the political views of the judge do not matter. My fear is that one side or the other will achieve a majority of judges on their side who support the Living Document view, and the Constitution simply becomes pretext for their political goals. With Obama that will be certain, with Romney, there is at least a chance to turn it around.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 4:2-3
Week 35: Sept 30, 2012
Study
i. How to test (4:2-3)
2 – This is how you can recognize God’s Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah[1] has become human—and remains so—is from God.
– Having said that we should test, John now gives us a means for testing.
Jesus the Messiah has become human—and remains so
– The Greek is somewhat ambiguous here. This could be translated as Has become (NIV) or is come (KJV) The ISV translation encompasses both views. Those who left seem to have drawn a distinction between physical and spiritual and as such they would have denied this. So what John has done is go straight to the core issue: the nature and person of Jesus.
– This is also the dividing line when we look at those who attend other churches. What do they say about Jesus? We may disagree on a lot of side issues, but the key question is what do they say about Jesus.
3 – But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.
– This is so important that John expresses it both in a positive and a negative fashion as a way of emphasizing it.
not acknowledge Jesus
– There is a textual issue here as some manuscripts have Jesus is come in the flesh or similar variations. These are almost certainly later addition by scribes who were attempting to make this verse match verse the wording in verse 2.
– Note that the focus here on Jesus (as opposed to saying that we should acknowledge the Messiah) and thus it serves as a perfect summary. First, it focuses the issue on the key point denied by those who left. Second by just mentioning Jesus, and it serves as a generalization, i.e., the nature and person of Jesus.
spirit of the antichrist
– Again this is a term that has taken on a lot of meaning since the first century. John usage here is not focused on the end times, but on those who claim to be followers of Christ, when in reality they are against or opposed to Christ; i.e., antichrists. ( See comments on 2:18)
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 4:2 Or Christ
[1] 4:2 Or Christ
