Spin-proof snapshots of America                           

Why Conservatives Can't Read

Hear no, speak no, see no...

Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.
-- Francis Bacon

In a recent debate over fair treatment of politicians (see Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton), Dr. Spade asked a Republican,

"How many Americans knew that Laura Bush had killed a man, and how many would know it if Hillary Clinton did?"

Dr. Spade's point was not to attack Laura Bush -- he believes she was in an unfortunate accident, and he has no reason to dislike her -- but to point out that such an act would be on talk radio every week if it had been done by Hillary Clinton.

Dr. Spade's friend denied the claim and directed him to Freerepublic.com, one of Dr. Spade's favorite entertainment sites, and an article on Laura Bush's driving accident, which he summarized with, "It isn't true. He was 'taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries.'"

Nothing can prevent you from learning the truth so much as the belief that you already know it.
- Jon K. Hart

In fact, that article -- on his own conservative forum -- admits that Laura Bush killed her boyfriend in an auto accident. Her other friend (and her passenger) suffered only minor injuries.

You wouldn't know it from the response, which range from further doubt ("what are the chances of running a stop sign and killing someone?")

to literary critique ("That is a poorly written sense." [sic])

to the ubiquitous jab at the Clintons ("To appropriate a phrase from the clintonists: This is 'old news.'").

In response to the last salvo, Dr. Spade wishes to note that this is not "old news," since most Americans don't know it, as they would if it were Hillary at the wheel.

He also wishes to note that it isn't important for most Americans to know it -- and he doesn't believe there was any foul play, or any conspiracy --  but he brings it up for two reasons that are important:

       - unless you believe in hypocrisy, people (and this includes politicians, amazingly) should be treated according to their actions, not their party affiliation.

          See Bill Clinton: Lie Magnet.

       - Reading is Fundamental.

You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.
- Dr. Johnson

Another poster says "Speaking of snakes, wait till' asshole Carville gets ahold of this. He'll mention it at the beginning and end of every other sentence."

Quick: can you cite anything either of the Clintons has done wrong, even 40 years ago, that has not been repeated over and over by conservative talk show hosts? Anything?

Anyone?

Bueller?

There are pages and pages of posts in response to the Laura Bush article, vacillating between sarcasm implying that liberals are crafting odd conspiracy theories...

         "I think Robert Stack from Unsolved Mysteries should be made aware of this wacky story...."

to odd conspiracy theories...

         "In the AP article I posted, it states Bush's wife struck a Corvair sedan. Now, go to post #106 and click on the link.  It states Douglas was driving a 'doorless Jeep.' Well,,,,which one was it?"

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
-- John F. Kennedy

Further fighting Dr. Spade on this issue, other conservatives refused to accept his link to impartial Urban Legend site Snopes. (Link on this topic here).

One of them was the same one who sent Dr. Spade a link to the same site to disprove a claim that George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of any president (link here. Fyi, Dr. Spade did not make that claim and doubts it is true anyway, though he does think George W. says and does things of questionable intelligence).

Choosing to doubt a source on an topic you don't like and believe the same source on one you do is called hypocrisy.

For a peek at the HUGE blinders conservatives must wear when looking at Hillary (insert your own joke here, you high-humor Forum trolls), and for "reviews" of Edward Klein's book, see our Hillary Clinton section.

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
- Arnold H. Glasgow

Conservative Rules of Reading

1) Believe anything -- ANYTHING -- disparaging said about liberals.

     "Clinton was a traitor in 1968, when he went to Moscow and held "Down with the USA" rallies, protesting the existence of America" and other such claims here.

2) Assert that liberals would do or believe anything cowardly, destructive, and unpatriotic.

    "Clinton would have court-martialed today's military officers for chasing Saddam into his unconfortable spider-hole." [sic]

3) Make up anything -- ANYTHING -- abhorrent about liberals and pass it off as high humor.

     "Liberal= an amoral, hedonistic, atheistic, narcassistic wimp of ambiguous sexuality." [sic] [from the same site above]

4) Attack the Clintons.

    Do you really need examples?

5) Disbelieve anything that reflects poorly on Republicans, and counter with Rule #4.

    See the very first Forum quotations above. Don't forget Rule #4!

Dr. Spade's Rules of Reading

Do try these at home.

1) Ask not who told you but how they know.

    Even smart people make mistakes when interpreting or repeating information.

    When Robert Novick (a smart guy) repeatedly misquoted Howard Dean on Social Security, he was either lying or just plain forgetful. Check your facts. See Rules #2 and 3.

2) If you can find a "fact" or argument only on a biased website, forum, or paper, be skeptical.

    Be skeptical of both the far left and far right when they have the only evidence for a claim. See Rule #4.

     Heard that George W. Bush "refused to sell his home to Blacks"? If so, you found it only on anti-Bush Internet sites, because the story isn't true.

     It is true that he owned a  Dallas home whose deeds included a 1939 covenant stating that "Said premises shall be used for private dwelling purposes only and by white persons only, not excluding bona fide servants of any race," but that covenant was long since made void by law, and Bush may not have even known it was part of the original by-laws of the division.

     If Bush had refused to sell his home to minorities, don't you think it would be a story worth carrying in the mainstream media?

    Which brings us to...

3) Check your facts with the mainstream media.

    They are far less biased than other sources. Conservatives like to talk about the "liberal" media, but in truth, on any given day, you can find The New York Times saying something bad about Democrats. You could through year's worth of Washington Times without finding a bad word about President Bush.

     And while their conclusions and especially editorial opinions may or may not match your views, their facts are awfully good.

See our Sources page for more.

4) Treat arguments on the basis of their reasoning, not their political affiliation.

    If it attacks liberals, it's worthy of praise. If it attacks conservatives, it's untrue or irrelevant.

    If you post on Internet forums, that is.

5) Lose your Self.

     John Rawls, in  A Theory of Justice, argues that fair decisions about society are best made behind a "veil of ignorance" -- not ignorance of the facts, but of your own ability to profit from any decision.

     When deciding how to deal with the vote count in Florida, Rawls would have suggested telling each party that one candidate had received only a few hundred more votes in some counties, then asked how they wanted to proceed.

     He would not  have told them which candidate or which counties.

     Imagine that.

     How would the Democrats and the Republicans have reacted? They would have tried to guess who was being favored, worrying less about the issue of justice, but if they couldn't be sure, they'd have to do what they thought was actually right.

     Similarly, if you heard that the wife of one of the presidents had killed a man in a driving accident, you could decide what was a reasonable basis for deciding if it were true: what is the source? what does she say in response? what evidence is there, and who accepts it? You could decide if such a claim were important enough to be part of the national debate. You could do that before knowing if it were Hillary or Laura at the wheel.

    You could decide if politician's affairs should be subject to public shame (Bill Clinton) or not (Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, Henry Hyde, Rudy Giuliani, etc, etc... oh, my, etc...)

    You could, in other words, decide on the basis of the facts, not their shades of blue and red.

    You could call a spade a spade.