Search This Blog

Friday, December 16, 2005

Wet Horses

An argument that I heard from a few Republican voters/sympathisers/pundits during last year's Presidential Election in the US went along the following lines:

the country is at war and as such we should not switch horses midstream

This bounced around the echo chambers of the media and it seems to be quite a strong sentiment in various walks of life. But what does it really mean when we are talking about a war-president, a term that Mr. Bush has used to describe himself?

The US is still heavily involved in a war in Iraq and beyond that the War on Terror continues. It will continue for a very long time, if not for ever. In fact it is possible that the war in Iraq will still be ongoing by the next presidential election.

Now I wonder, what do those who ascribe to the horses in streams argument think about that? Indeed what if the last election had been at the end of Bush's second term? Would we have heard that argument as a reason for allowing more than two terms for a sitting president?


Averroes said...

Well, Kav, it happened oce before, leading to the third term of King Franklin.

The country put in a constitutional amendment to prevent it from happening again. There is no way a constitutional amendment reversing that constitutional amendment could pass in time to have any effect.

Of course, that was a lousy argument anyway.

Kav said...

I agree that it was a lousy argument and I did not really think that it would result in a 3rd term (for anyone). I just found it amazing the way I heard it repeated (both in the media and on a personal level) as some sort of statement of faith rather than as a logical conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Kav - I heard that often, and though I tended to agree with the outcome of said theory, I always kind of thought that the underlying assumptions were unfounded. In order to really believe that, one would have to believe that the other choices did not have our country's best interests at heart.


Averroes said...

Actuall, the glib argument, often like threse rules of thumb, are what we get from those who already believe a certain way, and don't see the need for a fully reasoned argument.

the argument is offered more as an arrow than a bullet.

If you wander over to Cabal, you will see argument after bad argument affoered by those who have a position.

it always amazes someone like me who doesn't have a position and looks only at the arguments.

I've been hearing all day longt today the glib and shallow from both sides on the current wiretapping scandal. And then we have the more entertainintg lawyerly arguments on each side.