Bush-league

The most relevant political continuum in contemporary politics is not that between left and right, but between rationally inclined and rationally disinclined.

Admittedly, this sounds like a flawed argument the moment one puts oneself near the better end of the continuum. It sounds like Bush-league, us versus them logic.

Here’s the difference.  Bush-league logic holds that there’s an us and a them, the us being good and the them being bad, and of course we (anyone who agrees with Bush) are the us, therefore we’re right about everything.  In other words, we’re good, therefore we’re good.

However, my claim is not the basis for any specific political argument. If one were to postulate this continuum, claim to be on the preferred end, then claim that as a result of this, one is correct about something, that would be Bush-league.  That’s not the implication here.    When I say that someone like Tony Snow is severely rationally disinclined, that’s not an argument against him.  One makes the judgment that he’s rationally disinclined based on his defense of rationally indefensible positions, not the other way around.  It’s simply, in attempting to answer the question, “why would he say that?,” the best hypothesis going.

Further, if I ever say anything that flies in the face of all evidence, like, for example, that the earth is less than 8000 years old, I’d hope someone would look into my motives for maintaining such a position.

And finally, I’m not favoring any particular viewpoint but a particular approach to forming one’s viewpoints.  Simply put, it’s a meta- argument.