Because it persistently overwhelms better arguments and ideas.
I don't have time to go into all the fine details at this particular moment. But here's the crux of this problem in a nutshell.
Eugene Robinson writes this really weak criticism of Rudy Guliani's New Hampshire ad talking about rates of diagnosis for colon cancer in America and Great Britain, illustrating the relative strength of America's free market health system over the socialized system of the United Kingdom.
Guliani's Bogus Diagnosis
And the bottom line of Eugene's argument is: the British system isn't as bad as he says it is, even if it's still weaker than the U.S. system.
Do you know how often a scholarly consensus would ever develop around an argument like that? Do you know how often that kind of argument would bring some kind of final resolution to something as serious as how to handle inequities and the quality of a health care system in a liberal democracy? Do you know how many debate rounds you would win with that weak-ass argument: ZERO. And you would deserve to. Because you got nothin'. And you're trying to pretend it's something. I've seen it a million times over the course of my speech and debate and academic careers.
And the fact that it was the strongest argument you could think of is a sign that your arguments are in trouble on their merits.
David Gratzer of The Manhattan Institute, the doctor who wrote the article that support Giuliani's claim in his ad, clarifies his data in a follow-up article.
Malignant Rumor
Neither of these articles end the debate about health care in America by a long shot. There is a long and involved discussion and debate that America needs to have.
But one thing is for sure: this is what fuckin' drives me crazy about politics. That people with bad arguments are constantly trying to overwhelm people with better ideas with force rather than with better arguments and ideas. It is the essence of illiberalism and it is an affront to every basic ideal of a liberal democracy.
And that is the essence of what has been wrong with this political era.
And that will never, ever, ever be corrected with enough force. Not even if the proponents of force as a governing philosophy over rigorous thought could keep up their battle till the ends of humanity. It would still be wrong, as a matter of fact completly independent of those arguing about the facts.
That is the nature of an empirical political reality independent of ideology, party, or those arguing about that reality. The reality just is, whether we like it or not.
And no amount of force could ever change that.
