Quote:
|
True there are facts. But there are also legitimate emotional responses to facts.
|
this is entirely dependent on context. in your livingroom watching television, you're right.
in the context of what is supposed to be a democratic debate, however, emotional responses are catastrophic. they can be compelling but they add nothing but distortions to the questions at hand; they can be persuasive, but they do not operate on the same grounds. emotional responses are not amenable to argument. they are not argument. so they are not deliberation. so they are not part of a democratic process. they are anti-democratic in the context of a deliberation--they short-circuit the process. they impede decision-making. they prevent consensus. they are noise that dissolves signals.
and in a functional democratic process, such responses are excluded by the rules of the game.
what the right demonstrates through it's actions is that they do not know even the most basic rules of democratic process.
what the right demonstrates is that they know they cannot win a rational argument on this topic and so their only option is to stop the process itself.
but the style of political philosophy that's crept into conservative discourse has nothing but contempt for actual democracy anyway. it is built around the need for a Leader to enter the fray in the context of a State of Exception to make Decisions. the style of political philosophy particular to american conservatism these days is a justification for dictatorship.
political theology.
you should read it sometime, ace.
it's by carl schmitt.
it sums you up.
that the right advances this sort of position seemingly without knowing that they're doing it is what makes then unnerving as a political movement.
for a long time, i've seen the american populist right as neo-fascist.
this is why.