Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Sowell: "Us" or "Them"
Creator's Syndicate ^ | October 25, 2005 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

Posted on 10/25/2005 2:24:39 AM PDT by RWR8189

A reader recently sent me an e-mail about a woman he had met and fallen for. Apparently the attraction was mutual -- until one fateful day the subject of the environment came up.

She was absolutely opposed to any drilling for oil in Alaska, on grounds of what harm she said it would do to the environment.

He argued that, since oil was going to be drilled for somewhere in the world anyway, was it not better to drill where there were environmental laws to provide at least some kinds of safeguards, rather than in countries where there were none?

That was the end of a beautiful relationship.

Environmentalist true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. There are things that are sacred to them. Trying to get them to compromise on those things would be like trying to convince a Moslem to eat pork, if it was only twice a week.

Compromise and tolerance are not the hallmarks of true believers. What they believe in goes to the heart of what they are. As far as true believers are concerned, you are either one of Us or one of Them.

The man apparently thought that it was just a question of which policy would produce which results. But many issues that look on the surface like they are just about which alternative would best serve the general public are really about being one of Us or one of Them -- and this woman was not about to become one of Them.

Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.

T.S. Eliot understood this more than half a century ago when he wrote: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."

In this case, the man thought he was asking the woman to accept a certain policy as the lesser of two evils, when in fact he was asking her to give up her sense of being one of the morally anointed.

This is not unique to our times or to environmentalists. Back during the 1930s, in the years leading up to World War II, one of the fashionable self-indulgences of the left in Britain was to argue that the British should disarm "as an example to others" in order to serve the interests of peace.

When economist Roy Harrod asked one of his friends whether she thought that disarming Britain would cause Hitler to disarm, her reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?"

In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.

The ostensible goal of peace was window-dressing. Ultimately it was not a question whether arming or disarming Britain was more likely to deter Hitler. It was a question of which policy would best establish the moral superiority of the anointed and solidify their identification with one another.

"Peace" movements are not judged by the empirical test of how often they actually produce peace or how often their disarmament tempts an aggressor into war. It is not an empirical question. It is an article of faith and a badge of identity.

Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace -- not for actually producing peace but for being part of what was called "the peace process," based on fashionable notions that were common bonds among members of what are called "peace movements."

Meanwhile, nobody suggested awarding a Nobel Prize for peace to Ronald Reagan, just because he brought the nuclear dangers of a decades-long cold war to an end. He did it the opposite way from how members of "peace movements" thought it should be done.

Reagan beefed up the military and entered into an "arms race" that he knew would bankrupt the Soviet Union if they didn't back off, even though arms races are anathema to members of "peace movements." The fact that events proved him right was no excuse as far as members of "peace movements" were concerned. As far as they were concerned, he was not one of Us. He was one of Them.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; sowell; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 last
To: LibertarianInExile

I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion.

Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification.

Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some ?

If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her. Scalia recused himself from a case because he made a public comment on it before it came before the court, Miers has made no public comments. All judges have pre-conceived ideas, but they do not recuse themselves unless there is some strong pre-existing judgement/statement that would force them to recuse themselves.


141 posted on 10/25/2005 3:57:36 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2

"I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion. Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification."

Certainly, nothing has been produced that would rise to the level of 'Nazis rule!' out of Miers, but were that to pop up, I would hope you'd see the necessity of withdrawing her nomination. A minor point, to be sure, but you stated and seem to continue to state that writings shouldn't be the only evidence used to disqualify. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think a single particularly egregious writing, on its own, would disqualify any nominee.

"Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some?"

This ACLU-Ginsberg comparison is disingenuous. As John Wohlstetter has noted, "Under federal law, if Ms. Miers is confirmed, and has professionally advised on a matter that subsequently comes before her on the bench, she must recuse herself. Federal law is quite specific here. Title 28 U.S. Code sec. 455 covers recusal of judges, justices, and magistrate judges. Sec, 455 (b)(3) recites one ground for mandatory recusal: "Where [a judge, justice, magistrate judge] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." Sec. 455 (e) adds: "No justice, judge or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b)."

One case already is wending its way to the Supreme Court: a July 15 unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upholding the right of the government to detain and try unlawful combatants without giving detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. One member of that three-judge panel was Chief Justice Roberts, who must thus recuse himself on appeal to the Supremes."

"If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her."

Federal law says differently. Read the provision above.


142 posted on 10/25/2005 4:13:40 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers: A meticulous, detail-oriented woman...who forgets to pay her bar dues twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

[[Certainly, nothing has been produced that would rise to the level of 'Nazis rule!' out of Miers, but were that to pop up, I would hope you'd see the necessity of withdrawing her nomination. A minor point, to be sure, but you stated and seem to continue to state that writings shouldn't be the only evidence used to disqualify. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think a single particularly egregious writing, on its own, would disqualify any nominee.]]

Certainly an egregious writing, if documented, would rise to such a level, I didn't say otherwise. But as you admitted, Miers has written nothing that rises to that level.

[[One case already is wending its way to the Supreme Court: a July 15 unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upholding the right of the government to detain and try unlawful combatants without giving detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. One member of that three-judge panel was Chief Justice Roberts, who must thus recuse himself on appeal to the Supremes.]]

I did not say she would never have to recuse herself, I am saying it would be an infrequrent occurence. Roberts will not have to recuse himself in the Hamdan case, he was a judge on an appeals court, not an advisor or counsel to the government. One has to assume he reached his opinion on the appeals court on the same basis he will reach an opinion on the Supreme Court, on the evidence presented. There are no grounds for Roberts to have to recuse himself. There is no stipulation in the federal code that prevents a judge having ruled on a case at one level and elevated to the next level from ruling again, as long as he feels he can rule fairly.

As far as Miers is concerned, if she advised the President on this issue, she would have to recuse herself, if she didn't, she would not have to. I believe Gonzalez was Bush's counsel at the time the Hamdan case arose, I could be wrong. Once a case is filed, it is in the hands of federal prosecutors, under guidance from the attorney general.


143 posted on 10/25/2005 9:52:46 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
Well, I'm glad you've conceded the minor point. But again, you're wrong on the law. "No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him." 28 U.S.C.A. § 47. The phrase "case or issue," as used in statute prohibiting any judge from hearing an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him, refers to a final order of the lower court which may be appealed to a higher court. U.S. v. Garramone, 374 F.Supp. 256 (1974).

So no, Roberts will not be sitting on the Hamdan case. We shall see whether Miers will or not, but as WH counsel, if she's not going to produce her notes, the assumption should be on any case before the SCOTUS brought during her term of office, she would likely have to recuse. That is one big-ass arrow in the quiver to launch against the woman during the hearings.

144 posted on 10/26/2005 12:26:27 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers: A meticulous, detail-oriented woman...who forgets to pay her bar dues twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
They deal in what they perceive to be moral absolutes - except that their absolutes are devoid of both morality and reality.

A great tagline for someone...

145 posted on 10/26/2005 6:16:13 AM PDT by GOPJ (Protest a democrat -- light your hair on fire -- and the MSM still won't take your picture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
So they broke up over a discussion of environmental policy? Sheesh.

I'd say they broke up because as a true believer she couldn't handle dating someone whose opinions on the subject didn't agree with hers, and he probably couldn't stand dating someone whose thinking was so inflexible and feelings-based. I know I can't stand people who have taken a position but can't explain or defend it in any logical way.

146 posted on 10/26/2005 6:34:09 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Zechariah_8_13

Thanks. Dr. Sowell is remarkable.

I've always felt a little uncomfortable and embarrassed for conservatives trying to argue any issue with a liberal.


147 posted on 10/26/2005 9:23:28 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (But what does chicken taste like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: syriacus; Toadman; livius; wardaddy; CSM; pollyannaish; ArrogantBustard

Thanks for the congratulations, all! Sorry for the slow response, but I've been travelling.

At least one of you said you were also looking for a good conservative woman. I had been looking for six years and it was one failure after another. I even freepmailed a woman living in Ohio, which is quite a ways from me.

But luck finally came my way. I wish anyone else looking also finds happiness.


148 posted on 10/30/2005 6:47:18 AM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-148 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson