John Dickerson is a fairly well-known journalist for the online publication Slate. When he wrote an essay praising conservatives for criticizing other conservatives (not exactly courageous, in that it coincided with George Bush’s rapidly declining approval), it occurred to ash that his giving them credit for making the same arguments liberals had been all along was based on a defective proposition. In fact, while liberals were much quicker to recognize truths, Dickerson penalized them because he assigned them ulterior motives fellow conservatives wouldn’t have.
His conclusion made no sense because it was based on unconscious assumptions. In psychology this phenomenon is known as thinking or acting out of awareness:
When a concept – such as yours – is overly simple, it probably lacks merit. In fact, you fail to consider that "Bush-haters" don't hate him for the sake of it, which reverses cause and effect. They hate him because he constantly provides reasons to hate him. Therefore, your conclusion – that conservative Bush-bashing is somehow more credible than liberal venom – is flawed on the basis of your supposition that they aren't reacting to Bush's actions as much as the Republicans. Sometimes things are that simple. I guess that makes you simplistic.
Dickerson’s reply:
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dickerson [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:18 PM
To: ash
Subject: Re: John Dickerson's Dog Bites Man article
This is the most confusing email I've ever gotten. Thank you for it.
I'm putting it on my office door.
ash loves dismissiveness (also known in Psychology as discounting). It’s so delicious to return the snide and raise it one:
Apparently you really don't get it. You've digested the conservative terminology and regurgitated it whole. "Bush-bashing": what does that mean? Subconsciously or otherwise, you've internalized their mindset, that presidential disdain is in and of itself, devoid of provocation. It's a faulty premise, reversing action with reaction. The books by liberals, though perhaps less remarkable and numerous, are no less credible than those by conservatives. They level their charges and provide the justification. Or they don’t. They make their case or they don’t. Whether they succeed or fail, and are therefore valid or invalid, convincing or unconvincing, is independent of the writer’s location on the political spectrum.
Still confused? Then I’m afraid that’s how you’ll remain. Meanwhile, you may mimeograph myriad copies of this nice long email to paper the walls of your office for all I care. Flack indeed.