Here's another Facebook conversation I shouldn't have stuck my nose into today. Please note what passes for objectivity. Also Liberal Friend B presents an interesting assumption. Apparently, conservatives have evil intentions and no other explanation for their actions is possible, or even really thinkable. It couldn't possibly be that they have an actual logical disagreement on the merits of the issue at hand...
Liberal Friend A: So we don't want to pass a treaty with Russia because... the Republicans don't want to comply with international law? We'll hunt you down if you have nukes, but don't ask us to get rid of ours. Right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/world/europe/17start.html?pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
G.O.P. Opposition Dims Hope for Arms Treaty With Russia
www.nytimes.com
The chief Senate Republican negotiator dealt a setback to President Obama’s effort to pass a treaty with Russia.
Me: Thanks for the read. It reminds me why I avoid the NYT. A 2 page article which does not address the central question of WHY the GOP might not want to go along with the treaty, and even gets that facts wrong on what the treaty does/does not do, seems like journalistic malpractice to me. Here's an alternative viewpoint which DOES address the details of the treaty that politicians MIGHT legitimately take issue with:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html
Liberal Friend B: can we really take seriously an editorial by Mitt Romney as something that is objective? National Review I easilyt dismissed, but then when I clicked the WaPo link and saw Romney's name and his uncited claims, I started to laugh and then felt bad for our NFL style democracy. Read a cited claim by an interested outside of Washington observer and then decide what the facts are: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/when-is-the-far-right-goi_b_784115.html
Liberal Friend A: I read both articles, and it seems to me that they're based on the premise that we should be the most powerful country in the world and thus be policing the world. They tell the reader that if we do this treaty then we are more likely to be attacked, which is ludicrous and intended to stir up fear. If these new republicans are so set on cutting spending why is our stance of policing the world not under reconsideration?
Liberal Friend B: Because most conservative Americans cannot imagine living for anything other than American supremacy. It doesn't even need to be confirmed by seeing how well people live in other countries: the idea must be maintained, because it evokes an almost religious feeling in its adherent.
Me: I expect the NYT to PRETEND to be objective because they claim to be journalists. I expect Mitt Romney to be biased and present a cogent argument because he claims to be an opinion leader. I expect HuffPo to post biased material and present cogent arguments as well, because they are known to oppose Republicans (even though they claim journalistic objectivity). Citation is not the norm in an op-ed format, but it is with a blog post--good reading must take into account how the "rules" of the genre influence the nature of the message. HuffPo has taken a predictably ad hominem approach with the central point that military leaders think this START treaty is a good idea (so why would Republicans oppose them?), but never DETAILING WHY any of them support it, other than in utterly vague summary statements which somehow pass as "rigor" in argumentation. The Romney piece, in contrast, states details and specifies legitimate concerns with their implications: basically that there are great loopholes for Russia, but not good guarantees for the US. This is not a question of international law if that term is meant to suggest the US is in violation of some agreement among all nations on a given subject. This is rather a discussion on a treaty--an agreement between two sovereign states--which is quite different from a UN mandate, for example. As romantically appealing as the idea may be to some, there simply is no international body capable of imposing rules of fairness about nuclear materials-and especially not the UN's IAEA. Both Russia and the US recognize this, and therefore are engaging in talks between just the two of them to find a solution. As in any diplomatic enterprise, the agreement is crafted and its verification and enforcement mechanisms are conceived not by idealism, but by what real-world leverage each can bring to bear on each other. In light of the nature of these negotiations, then, it would be irresponsible for the US to concede that leverage for mere promises. Is that what's going on here in this new START treaty? Apparently there are voices on either side. However, to the extent that Romney's concerns accurately reflect the treaty, then Senate Republican reluctance is logical and well-founded, and NOT merely political posturing. The HuffPo article also makes a good point, but is much less persuasive since it neglects to show how the military supporters of the treaty reason through their support. A careful reading of all 3 articles places the fear (not irrational panic, but critically thought and healthy skepticism due to the magnitude of damage a nuclear weapon could cause) not on some vague "attack" between treaty members, but rather on dictatorial regimes who repress their own people, with terrible human-rights records whose state leaders have a history of threatening neighbors. These regimes do not have the responsibility to their people that Russia or the US do, and should they acquire nuclear weapons the US should not be so bound by a treaty with Russia as to render it impotent to respond appropriately to threats against itself or its allies. I don't think this is an unreasonable, or emotion-based opinion. On the other hand, and as a final point, I find it strikingly and dangerously naive for a self-professed peace activist to argue for a given treaty because somehow the beautiful and air-tight drafting of the agreement will *quote* prevent any cheating *unquote*
Comments