Defending Chavez? Defending Ahmadinejad? Are DUers insane?

[jpgray]

No they aren't. Is the defensive behavior sometimes over the top and rather forgiving in a way we wouldn't apply to our own leaders? Absolutely. So what to think of this? It's not as bad as you might think, in my view. Let me explain.

To my way of thinking, any disingenuous argument is bad. I would imagine most here would agree. :D But when Bush et al describe Chavez or Ahmadinejad as wholly crazy totalitarian dictators in the Hitlerian mode, it's over the top and silly. When someone on the opposite side of the debate defends either leader as "not so bad," parsing and explaining away "careful" Holocaust denial, inhuman assaults on gay rights, or censorship of the opposition, that's also over the top and silly.

So moral equivalency, yeah? Just like on the news shows? Not at all, actually. Those who defend Ahmadinejad and Chavez are on the margins. Their opinions may be poorly reasoned and biased, but let's keep -effect- in mind. Such opinions coming from those on the margin aren't influencing policy. When the biased, poorly reasoned opinion comes from major policy makers and most of the news media, that's incredibly dangerous. So while both extremes of the Chavez or Ahmadinejad debate are guilty of facile reasoning, sophistry and politically-motivated bias, it's a lot scarier when it comes from those who can actually -act out- their crazy opinions in policy. And this causes a reaction in those who oppose such policy, and in some it creates the need to explain away or defend all aspects of those leaders under attack, even the indefensible aspects. Because the stakes are very high.

It would be great if everyone would just apply a fair standard based on complete reasoning. Bush would never behave so belligerently towards Chavez or Ahmadinejad, given his support for Musharraf or Abdullah. And Ahmadinejad or Chavez defenders would never defend their behavior if it came from their own leaders. When faced with the dilemma of two sides making bad arguments, I have to say the one that can't enact their crazy logic in policy is more forgivable. The side whose goal is to prevent destabilization and war also seems more forgivable to me.

So neither argument is great, but the crazy view coming from those in power is by far the more dangerous. A crazy view in reaction to that seems less evil, in my view.