Making our opponents’ arguments for us
Lefties are fond of condemning the Right for our worries about Demographic Winter.
They’re fond of condemning us, but not so keen about disputing us. That’s because the facts needed to rebut our worries are few and far between.
But there are points to be made in rebuttal. I’ve never seen any such point wielded by a Lefty. So, let me call your attention to one made by an EEEEEEEEVIL Right winger, John Derbyshire. It comes from this week’s broadcast of his gloomy but hilarious podcast “Radio Derb.”
This is a favorite selling point of the immigration boosters. Japan, China, the European countries all have below-replacement birthrates, and so aging populations. Yes they do. However, since the earth must have some finite carrying capacity, the earth’s entire population will max out at some point, and all nations will face these problems. The ones who face them first will be the ones most likely to solve them. And the aging problem is temporary. Once the baby-boom bulge has worked through those older cohorts, those populations will get younger. They will in fact be getting younger while ours is getting older, coming out at the other end of the tunnel just as we’re going in to it.
There you have it folks. The problem will be temporary. No word on how bad the problem will be. But, like all problems, it will be temporary. I think that’s the best our disputants can do.
The Ruth Institute. Making effective arguments for our opponents’ points of view because our opponents are not smart enough to make them themselves.
Loading ...
Your EEEEEEEEVIL rightwinger, John Derbyshire, is forthrightly pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. I’d no idea that the Ruth Institute was so “open-minded”.
Lefty,
There is nobody on the planet with whom I agree about everything.
I do have my disagreements with John Derbyshire. He’s, for instance, non-religious. I am religious. I’m against abortion and euthanasia. Big freaking deal. The fact is he happens to be right about this issue, or, at the very least he has a compelling argument to make. That’s all that counts– good facts, good points and good arguments. I don’t care who it is that’s making them or what their other (or incorrect) views are.
I consider myself to be open minded. If you have facts or valid arguments that refute mine, I will either modify my own or switch my beliefs to yours. Just that simple.
Derbyshire in the quote above:
“They will in fact be getting younger while ours is getting older, coming out at the other end of the tunnel just as we’re going in to it.”
Only if such a country survives as a viable entity will its people (as a country) gain that particular advantage, whatever shape it might take. This is a gamble of very large proportions and consequences and a gamble that has stumbled into.
However, I’d bet agains this advantage proving to be worth its complete price. Where a civilization knocks down its pillars and crumbles from within, there is no rule that protects it while at its most vulnerable.
On Derby’s views regarding abortion, he is not nearly as scientific and reasoned as he would let on. Regarding his pro-euthanasia view, it is undeveloped, really, from a philosophical perspective. No matter, since the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia views do fit well with the view that imminent demographic (and cultural) collapse will have its upside, however tenuous.
Yeah, everybody says that sort of thing.
But I notice that when the Obama administration has gone to bat for DOMA in court, incurring a tsunami of venom from gay rights organizations and the SSM movement, and alienating many gays in general, pro-marriage organizations haven’t said anything — and certainly nothing in the president’s defense.
Lefty,
I’ll do you one better. In addition to DOMA, I think the Obama administration’s use of drones in Afghanistan is also commendable. See: http://www.johntreed.com/obamadrones.html
So, I when I say I call ‘em as I see ‘em, I mean it.
I think I effectively demonstrated that by quoting people with whom I disagree when they say something correct.
Re the open-mindedness thing, why WAS the Administration’s defense of DOMA met with such deafening silence from pro-marriage organizations? That’s something I’ve wanted to ask about. Especially since SSM advocates described the DOJ’s defense of the law in these terms:
(http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/obamas-doj-did-not-have-to-go-this-far/)
What happened?
Why was the DOMA defense met with such deafening silence? I assume it’s because the administration itself is decrying DOMA while his lawyers continue to defend it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/obama-administration-doma_n_260969.html
That and the fact that the country is headed for a financial cliff and the administration hit the throttle in an effort to get us there.