Subject: Respecting different points of view
Author: Wayne Miller
Date:   2/3/2012 2:54 am EDT
A lot of good stuff in the book, but I think you give short shrift to the legitimacy of varying perspectives when you attack "docuganda" and the convenient beliefs that "everyone knows" but are simply wrong. E.g., you write: "Most people on the liberal left KNOW that President Reagan's tax cuts didn't increase revenue to the government. (They did.)" The fact is that very smart people disagree on that, in good faith. Once you count for inflation and population growth, revenue grew about 19% under Reagan when taxes were cut a lot, but it grew 24% the previous 8 years (when taxes were cut slightly), 41% under Clinton (when taxes were raised), and basically none under Bush II (when taxes were cut again). So it seems a bit silly to say that one can't reasonably oppose the idea that Reagan's tax cuts caused a revenue increase. Indeed one might be more reasonably saying just the opposite. My point is that the berth for legitimate points of view is wider than you let on. Consequently, readers who believe they have to hew too closely to your ideas of legitimate truth-telling should relax a little. They should pursue truth in good faith, yes, but in a complicated world, there are a lot of valid ways to frame it.
Reply To This Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Respecting different points of view  new  
Wayne Miller 2/3/2012 2:54 am EDT
 RE: Respecting different points of view   new  
Robert 8/12/2012 1:18 am EDT
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 91 - 59? *  
* indicates required field