Good is dumb
Nov. 2nd, 2009 11:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matthewdalyI seem to have caused a rant. Patrick Nielsen Hayden has gotten it into his mind that I am a cause for the failure of the liberal agenda, what with being so high-minded and feel-goody that I am unwilling to do the dirty work of libeling my enemies to secure victories. Specifically, in this case, my failure to endorse Florida Rep. Alan Grayson's tactic of suggesting that the Republican plan is hoping that the elderly "die quickly".
I respectfully believe Mr. Nielsen Hayden to be wrong on two counts, one political and one personal. The political reason is that there is no reason to believe that we benefit from proving that liberals don't suffer from an "asshat gap" when faced with the Michelle Bachmans and Joe Wilsons on the other side of the aisle. Passion is great for rousing the base, to be certain, but you pay a terrible price with arousing the opposition when your passion is fueled by disinformation or ignorance. Liberals should know that better than anyone, since we got here largely because we were just that pissed off at Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. It is undeniable that the most fervent birthers and teabaggers don't need reality to fuel their mistrust of liberal ideals, but there are independents who do, and we risk losses as great as our recent gains to the degree that we provide equally foolish targets. Beyond that, I don't think that there's any way to have a good faith discussion about the very real and difficult decisions that need to be made about the future of health care in the United States until everyone stops drinking the crazy juice that makes you say that the other team wants to kill Grandma. I think that both Chuck Grassley and Alan Grayson need to STFU and start listening; if I seem more motivated in calling out Grayson it is only because I think that he is marginally less inclined to ignore me.
On the personal side, Mr. Nielsen Hayden brought out several of my quotes which would indicate that I am both passionate and idealistic, and concluding: "Call me kooky, but I'm basically getting the impression that Matthew Daly simply says things that sound good in a show-offy way, no matter how completely they contradict earlier observations. This holds whether he's nobly patting himself on the back for his broadmindedness toward "thoughtful conservatives", or harshly insisting that "justice delayed is justice denied." In his mind there's no contradiction, because both kinds of statements leave onlookers with a warm glow of righteousness."
Most folks here have known me for a while, but some are new friends, and some are strangers. So let me be plain. I am not good, and I am not nice. It takes effort for me to be as good as I am, I'd like to be nicer, and I think that good has gotten me further than evil when you do a full audit of my life. But if I follow the path of good in defense of important causes, be certain that I have conceptualized and contemplated the path of evil and concluded that, today, good made the better case. There are other days when I've done what I've known to be evil for what I felt were the right reasons, and I rarely have misgivings on those matters.
There are two questions that I have to ask myself: is the cause important enough that I need to win, and is the undertaking of evil enough to bring about victory. If I am satisfied with the answer to both of those questions, then the gloves come off. If not, then on they stay. For instance, when Mr. Nielsen Hayden suggested that I call him kooky, I decided that actually doing so wouldn't convince him or anyone else and would invite the response that I was a hypocrite instead of just a Pollyanna, so I decided not to call him kooky. On the other hand, I decided to passively-aggressively post about the whole thing on my blog where I am more likely to receive kind responses than if I wrote all of this tl;dr crap on Making Light.
I respectfully believe Mr. Nielsen Hayden to be wrong on two counts, one political and one personal. The political reason is that there is no reason to believe that we benefit from proving that liberals don't suffer from an "asshat gap" when faced with the Michelle Bachmans and Joe Wilsons on the other side of the aisle. Passion is great for rousing the base, to be certain, but you pay a terrible price with arousing the opposition when your passion is fueled by disinformation or ignorance. Liberals should know that better than anyone, since we got here largely because we were just that pissed off at Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. It is undeniable that the most fervent birthers and teabaggers don't need reality to fuel their mistrust of liberal ideals, but there are independents who do, and we risk losses as great as our recent gains to the degree that we provide equally foolish targets. Beyond that, I don't think that there's any way to have a good faith discussion about the very real and difficult decisions that need to be made about the future of health care in the United States until everyone stops drinking the crazy juice that makes you say that the other team wants to kill Grandma. I think that both Chuck Grassley and Alan Grayson need to STFU and start listening; if I seem more motivated in calling out Grayson it is only because I think that he is marginally less inclined to ignore me.
On the personal side, Mr. Nielsen Hayden brought out several of my quotes which would indicate that I am both passionate and idealistic, and concluding: "Call me kooky, but I'm basically getting the impression that Matthew Daly simply says things that sound good in a show-offy way, no matter how completely they contradict earlier observations. This holds whether he's nobly patting himself on the back for his broadmindedness toward "thoughtful conservatives", or harshly insisting that "justice delayed is justice denied." In his mind there's no contradiction, because both kinds of statements leave onlookers with a warm glow of righteousness."
Most folks here have known me for a while, but some are new friends, and some are strangers. So let me be plain. I am not good, and I am not nice. It takes effort for me to be as good as I am, I'd like to be nicer, and I think that good has gotten me further than evil when you do a full audit of my life. But if I follow the path of good in defense of important causes, be certain that I have conceptualized and contemplated the path of evil and concluded that, today, good made the better case. There are other days when I've done what I've known to be evil for what I felt were the right reasons, and I rarely have misgivings on those matters.
There are two questions that I have to ask myself: is the cause important enough that I need to win, and is the undertaking of evil enough to bring about victory. If I am satisfied with the answer to both of those questions, then the gloves come off. If not, then on they stay. For instance, when Mr. Nielsen Hayden suggested that I call him kooky, I decided that actually doing so wouldn't convince him or anyone else and would invite the response that I was a hypocrite instead of just a Pollyanna, so I decided not to call him kooky. On the other hand, I decided to passively-aggressively post about the whole thing on my blog where I am more likely to receive kind responses than if I wrote all of this tl;dr crap on Making Light.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 04:28 am (UTC)i don't read making light; there are interesting things there, but it's not worth having to deal with pnh.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-04 04:34 am (UTC)