No safe harbor
Theory is open.
Ideology is closed.
Theory is a framework for making predictions, and when outcomes do not match the framework is tinkered, tweaked, or scrapped.
Ideology is a framework for explaining everything, and when outcomes do not match the framework is retained by explaining away the surprise as part of the ideology all along. In other words, never let the facts get in the way of your story.
Much of what is discussed in political circles comes down to a difference in ideology. And if you want to know why nobody is successful in changing another’s mind (particularly on the internet), it’s because both parties can walk away at any time knowing they are right.
This brings us to the problem I call “No Safe Harbor.” It’s the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario multiplied several times over.
Let’s say candidate X steps up to issue a plea for his supporters to stop berating candidate Y over something that is considered personal. While some might laud X for that statement, others might accuse X of cynical timing. “X was too slow to denounce,” or “X just said it to further the rumors.”
In fact, you could drill down even further, saying that an hour was too long, or not long enough. Or you could say that candidate X jumped in too soon, instead of waiting to see if the rumor died on its own.
The worst piece of cynicism is to say “Candidate X only did it for the sake of appearances.”
Reversal of Fortune
The litmus test is one of introspection: if the roles were reversed, what could my candidate have done to avoid criticism? And what potential line of attack would come from each of those directions?
If you see no way out, then you’re trapped in an ideological loop. To criticize under such circumstances is unfair because there is no Safe Harbor. To be critical of a course of action, you must outline what the proper course of action should have been — and be honest about the tenability of that prescription. If you find yourself advocating a tactic or statement that would leave your candidate vulnerable, then you’re beyond being reasonable.
Of course, in this era the game is often played to score political points with little regard to the possible contradictions involved, because you can generate heat for your base and motivate them to work harder. However, that heat will not produce the light that is required to persuade the undecided.
Do you know of any recent examples of No Safe Harbor? Add them to the comments…
2 comments so far
Leave a reply
Not only will that heat not produce the light that is required to persuade the undecided, but it also does nothing positive — and often something negative — on the path toward (here we go already…) a better discourse.
When people advocate — or politicians act upon — these situations in which there’s no safe harbor, we often (always?) find ourselves, as the attentive observers, in a situation in which it’s difficult to say anything but “More typical political bullshit…” and almost *feel* our cynicism level rising.
Mike, there are many levels of “sin” when it comes to violation of the Safe Harbor fallacy.
There are those who unknowingly sin, who simply haven’t asked the question “what answer or action would have placated me?”
There are those who commit the sin of Omission, failing to hold their own candidate accountable to the same line of reasoning.
There are those who commit the sin of Commission, willingly flinging accusations knowing in their hearts there is no circumstance under which they would not.
The burden on US now, being aware of the Safe Harbor fallacy, is the we now cannot seek contrition for the unknowing violation. It’s called being a grown-up.