Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
After much agonizing, we've selected our first topics to deliberate -- representing a few major categories of political contention.
In rough order, the pilot arguments are:
- Domestic policy: Does collective bargaining have a place in the public sector?
- Spending: Is it fair to blame Obama for the spending binge?
- Fiscal policy: Did Reaganomics work?
- The environment: How clear is the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures?
- Social programs: Should parts of ObamaCare be saved?
- Foreign policy: What resulted from Obama's outreach to the Islamic world?
The above list is bound to raise some questions:
Q: What the heck is The Logo talking about?
We went over it here and here, although you're forgiven if you're just coming across it now. The grand plan is to articulate a vast set of concise and compelling positions our right-of-center community can use when doing battle with our antagonists. A key point: conservatives aren't immune to disagreement, so we expect to see multiple, quite possibly opposing, statements on many topics. But we have to start winning more arguments, and we think these tight summaries -- as opposed to books, or file folders full of yellowing op-eds written on papyrus -- are sorely lacking.
A second key point: we're targeting the not-terribly-committed. Not the Vehemently Opposed, because most of them are lost causes, and not the Usual Allies, because we'd be preaching to the choir. This implies that we back up our assertions with sources that are credible to the mainstream, and that we not automatically assume shared first principles. More on this here.
Q: What's the process going to look like?
- We'll proceed through the above list, at a pace of about one topic per week.
- Each topic will be inaugurated with a post on the main feed. The post will state the issue and try to anticipate competing perspectives held in some significance by our Members. If we miss any perspectives, we trust you'll let us know. We can easily add new or concurring perspectives.
- Each main perspective will get its own page that can accommodate as many conversations as we need to coalesce around a crisp and compelling argument.
- When the argument comes together, it will be summarized in a sticky post (meaning: a post that stays at the top of the page) that summarizes the argument.
- The page will remain open for changes in subsequent weeks and months. Eventually, the arguments will be converted into a wiki format.
- Members can vote on which argument they find most compelling.
Q: What's the next step?
Tomorrow, we'll start with our discussion of collective bargaining. Time to gird those loins.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
Mr. Logo, I'm just a peon in the world of political thought and analysis, without any credentials or gravitas so take this with a grain of salt, but I must confess to being underwhelmed by the choice of topics.
Are those really - really? - the issues on which we hope to move the not-terribly-committed to our side? (Really??) If I were part of the not-terribly-committed, those topics would put me to sleep before the first intermission...maybe even during the opening credits.
Collective bargaining in the public sector? Really? We win that debate and our ranks swell? Color me skeptical, and not terribly motivated to have my loins girded.
Edited on Mar 7, 2011 at 4:40pmOct '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
Another example: "Should parts of Obamacare be saved?"
How about first winning the argument about what's wrong with our health care system, and what's not? You can't fix something without first identifying the underlying problem, and in the course of fixing it you don't want to destroy something that's not part of the problem.
That's part and parcel why Obamacare is a disaster - because it doesn't address the problems. Hell, that would be a worthy topic itself for moving the not-terribly-committed rightward. "Why Obamacare Is A Disaster" or "What Is - And Isn't - Wrong With America's Health Care System."
But "Should Parts of ObamaCare Be Saved?"? Uninspiring.
I realize the debate over the selection of topics is over, but I just need to say that I feel zero passion when I read the list.
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
dittoheadadt: Another example: "Should parts of Obamacare be saved?"
How about first winning the argument about what's wrong with our health care system, and what's not? You can't fix something without first identifying the underlying problem, and in the course of fixing it you don't want to destroy something that's not part of the problem.
But "Should Parts of ObamaCare Be Saved?"? Uninspiring.
I realize the debate over the selection of topics is over, but I just need to say that I feel zero passion when I read the list. · Mar 7 at 4:58pm
"Why Obama Is a Disaster" is going to be big topic going up to 2012. In fact, we discussed starting with it, but decided it was too big for this first effort. We're going to be working out the process and format, so we're trying to pick topics that we can get our hands around. What's wrong or right with ObamaCare is probably going to be a building block for that larger question, and will be closely related to "What's Wrong and Right with the U.S. health care system."
Oct '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
I agree that "Why Obama Is A Disaster" would be too big for starters, but "Why ObamaCare Is A Disaster" wouldn't be.
Everyone can eventually find something, somewhere in its 2,000 pages that they like. But we don't get to pick and choose which parts we'll follow and which parts we'll ignore. To argue the topic "Should Parts of ObamaCare Be Saved?" is like Dick Gephardt's "I have a friend..." argument - isolated, individual anecdotes or examples do not an argument make.
We need to discredit ObamaCare itself, in its entirety, its totality, on practical and philosophical and substantive grounds. We don't need to say, "well, this part is good and this part is good, but this this and this part is bad." At the end of the day (sorry, Pat!) everyone will be able to point to something that they like, and the argument against ObamaCare will peter out. Because every piece of legislation on the books has its roses and its thorns.
Anyway, I understand the debate over which topics to debate is over, and I won't take up any more space with my objections. Thanks for indulging me this much!
Feb '11
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
About spending: Well, (as you see here) "The US is NOT Broke", according to Michael Moore, once dubbed 'the portly provacateur' during his 15 minutes (about 14 minutes too long) early this century. He recently showed up in Madison to demonstrate solidarity w/ the impoverished and exploited teachers who recently trashed the Capitol.
http://on.wsj.com/dRtL14
And, he's certainly not broke if he managed to hang on to his multi-millions. One of his financial people/advisors quit his employment years ago stating that he was one of the most difficult people he'd ever had the misfortune to work for.
Eventually, he'll be back with some new propaganda film... he actually seems kinda quaint and last century, in a way.
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
Your points are well taken. It honestly didn't cross The Logo's mind that we'd have any silver bullets in here, and I fear the drumroll-please flourishes conveyed that. These are intended as prototypes, and prototypes are rarely sexy.
Our main criteria in picking this initial set were:
Each topic has come up in our workaday Lefty interactions, so we don't think they're entirely theoretical. But maybe we should reconsider. We've left ourselves some leeway on the topics' specifics, and we could chuck the whole lot, if necessary.
Edited on Mar 7, 2011 at 7:27pmJan '11
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
squishy
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
How can questions be squishy? The questions leave the door wide open for the following answers:
What's more interesting, in The Logo's opinion, is how effectively you and your fellow collaborators substantiate those answers.
But note that Yes, Not really, No, Crystal, Yes, and Pax Americana are also potential stances, subject to the same burden of substantiation.
Let's see how it plays out.
Edited on Mar 7, 2011 at 8:26pmDec '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
The environment: How clear is the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures?
A. The Russians want global warming but their scientists report we are in a cooling trend—not because of the effect of greenhouse gases, not because of computer temperature models—because of the sun.
B. Past temperature data-sets are half-baked and the current ones are over-cooked. There is no reliable basis to measure with accuracy past or recent temperature trends on a planetary scale, much less predict future ones by plotting degree changes on a chart.
C. Water vapor accounts for over 90% of greenhouse gases. More than 70% of the planet’s surface is water. Carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.4% of atmospheric gases and exhaust from man’s output is a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction.
D. Al Gore can’t explain to the Russians what should be the temperature of the planet.
E. If you need more energy when temperatures go up or down, extract more petroleum.
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
Charles Gordon: The environment: How clear is the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures?
C. Water vapor accounts for over 90% of greenhouse gases. More than 70% of the planet’s surface is water. Carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.4% of atmospheric gases and exhaust from man’s output is a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction.
Actually, I think it's less than 0.04%.
I'm sorry... did that reveal a bias?
Jan '11
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
The Logo: After much agonizing, we've selected our first topics to deliberate -- representing a few major categories of political contention.
In rough order, the pilot arguments are:
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
Pike Bishop
Now we're talking...
Oct '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
The Logo
How can questions be squishy? Mar 7 at 8:16pm
Here's how, illustrated by what non-squishy questions would've been:
1. Who currently represents the public, and how, when public unions collectively bargain? Does this arrangement make sense?
2. Which policies of George W. Bush did Obama oppose as a US Senator, and as POTUS?
3. (Reaganomics question seems good.)
4. Why the science behind "global warming/climate change" is not reliable. (this debate shouldn't be about CO2 and/or AGW, it should be about the alleged "science" underlying the AGW claims)
5. What is right and what is wrong with health care in America today, and what effect will ObamaCare have on each?
6. Is Obama embracing our enemies and renouncing our allies? If so, why? If not, then how do you explain x, y, and z?
The reason these aren't squishy is because they don't start by accepting a premise of the Left. We on the Right too often accept the Left's premises in debate, rather than re-framing the question properly. And we lose when we do that.
Jun '10
Re: Arguments You Really Want To Win: The Envelope, Please
The Logo:
I think this is the wrong question to ask. The real questions, the political questions, are:
There are plenty of other reasons to answer "no" to both questions even if the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures turns out to be correct. Let's not exclude those from the discussion.