Reductio ad absurdum paves the road to hell (read: another Republican White House)

I haven't, to date, objected to the Socratic method, in principle. Or rather, I hadn't, not until Wednesday night's debate-acle and today's Huffington Post screaming Hillary banner, both of which closely follow on the heels of Mayhill Fowler's "expose" of Obama.

Our vetting of the candidates has deteriorated to reductio ad absurdum---reduction to the absurd.

Have we all lost our collective minds? What about our individual minds? Have we lost those too?

What are we gaining by meticulously tearing down the Democratic presidential candidates and drawing up lines?

Another four years of the Trickle Down Disaster that is Bushism.

What do we stand to lose?

The change we all believe we need.

Keep reading to see how I think this reductio ad absurdum is working against us right now.

Earlier today I popped by Imperfect Mommy's blog. "They don’t get any more important than this, and I have indicated this with many capital letters and italicized words," her blog post's title declared.

My husband was telling me last evening that our university’s student newspaper had an article about Hillary and Barack supporters. And apparently, many were saying that they had no clue how they would vote for the other candidate if theirs didn’t get the nomination. So (as all good-intentioned, college-aged CHILDREN would do), they have decided to vote for John McCain if their side isn’t successful. Quotes about things like “how could I vote for someone who I disagree with so completely?”

(Screaming loudly)

It's true: if you identify with the Democratic platform, then it is patently absurd to vote for McCain because I can guarantee you that you don't agree with any plank on his deck.

I sincerely hope that even idealistic and reactionary young people aren't foolish enough as to think the best response to losing their chosen Democrat is to hurtle their vote over to the Republican.

Actually, I am more afraid that the Democratic party will lose its voting momentum and turnout. If supporters of a candidate who isn't selected or who drops out of the race decide to abstain from voting rather than "vote for the other person" we may just lose the election.

This potential for voting abstinence comes from the building antipathy thanks to an increasingly negative campaign and scandal-mongering yellow press.

In the recent debate, the moderators---whose names I still can't bring myself to utter out of pure disgust---focused on the outre (Wright), the out and out absurd (flag pins), and the over the top (sniper fire in Bosnia).  What got left out? A host of relevant questions we all wish had been asked.

The Huffington Post is carrying a Shakespearian level tale of overheard Hillary comments about Democratic activists...what next? Bill her as Lady MacBeth for her ambition?

Is this what reporting has come to, whether traditional or citizen journalist? Listening at keyholes and taping comments in order to scintillate and titallate?

This is not reporting scandal, it's creating scandal. And it's not helpful. It's well past the Socratic method of examining concepts to find truth.

It's the Paparazzi method of examining garbage and bribing porters to get a front-[age scandal worth some money.

After reading a great article by PunditMom that was not a black swan, red herring, or other smoke and mirror misdirecting snippet of gossip, but was, rather, a useful guide to facts and information about the environmental positions of the presidential candidates, it occurred to me that this is what is missing by and large in the general conversation about this election: what makes this person electable.

I commented, "At this point, I'm done distinguishing between Obama and Hillary and am seeking things I like in BOTH."

The bottom line is that I am finished with Republicans in the White House. I am going to vote Democrat. Period. I have preferred Senator Obama, for a variety of reasons, but there is plenty to respect in the leader capabilities of Senator Clinton, as well.

At this point, we need to control the heat this close race is generating for the Democratic candidate, and settle back to understand that in the end, while we might have a preference of Democrat, the ultimate goal is to put a Democrat---either one---in the White House.

Let's use the reductio ad absurdum to our benefit and all acknowledge that the current course of setting Democrats against one another is false and absurd.

This isn't a battle. This is a war, and it isn't between Democrats; it's between Democrats and Republicans, and the field comes in November. So save your strength and your ammunition for then.

Comments

[debbie]

*claps wildly*

[John J.]

I have to say, I have been asking for this for the past 3 months, and only one candidate (by and large) as been trying to follow through on this. The sad though is that, even when he all but begged to be asked a relevant question Wednesday, his opponent merely mocked him and the moderators asked him if someone irrelevant was patriotic enough. I would have expected this from McCarthy, but these moderators?!

[Amy in Ohio]

I'm sending this to every dem I know. As sad as it is, we all need the reminder - united we stand, divided we get McCain.

I have a rash forming at the very thought.