Reason v. "Reasonableness"

I, and a number of others who take a hard line against compromise with the extremist Republican Party, come in for a fair bit of abuse from self-proclaimed "moderates" and "centrists" who tell us we need to be more moderate, more civil, move toward the extremist Republican viewpoints, be less partisan, less strident, more "reasonable".  After all, we're told, Americans would like their politics to be the province of reason, without nasty partisan fights.  Let's assume that's true for now (though I would argue that at least on the Republican side, all the evidence points to a voter base which loves the vicious smear and doesn't care a whit about facts).

I've explained more than once that it's useless to be civil and compromise when the other side has no interest in doing either, except for the purposes of destroying you.  But apparently, it's time to explain that again.  So, with apologies to Eddie Izzard, here's a little vignette to explain the difference between reason and "reasonableness".

Let us imagine that the choice put to the American People is "Death or Cake".

Republicans:  DEATH!

Democrats:  What?  Are you insane? Cake.

Centrists:  Look, here Democrats, you need to back off of this shrill cake position and be reasonable.  Compromise a bit.  How about a cookie and a maiming?

Democrats:  What?  How about just a cookie, no maiming?

Centrists:  Now, Dems, be reasonable.  You have to meet the Republicans half-way.  They want death.  Seems to me that a little maiming isn't too much to ask.

Democrats:  Wha?  But death is insane.  A cookie and a maiming is still insane.  That's not much of a compromise.  Why don't you ask the Republicans to ask for something that's not insane?

Centrists:  Well, they did win the last presidential election by around 3% of the popular vote.  That's clearly a mandate. You need to go their way.  Do you want to be in the minority forever?  Be reasonable.  Maybe just a little maiming, like losing a foot or a couple fingers on your off hand?

Democrats:  I really think just cake is the way to go.  Maybe pie.  Or some kind of food.  But no death or maiming.  I don't care if that's the Republican position.  It's really insane.

Centrists:  Well, you're going to lose my vote.  I can't understand why you're so unreasonable that you won't accept some maiming.

Reason.  "Reasonableness".  They're different.  If the Republican Party ever returns from its extremism, I might be more inclined to compromise with them.  But I think we should all know the answer when choosing between death and cake.

Comments

[eRobin]

Bravo. The choices really are that stark. I was thinking about the chasm between reason and the Republicans today in the aftermath of finishing the NYT Magazine story on the Constitution in Exile people. What a bunch of twisted thinkers they are. I was marveling (to myself because I was alone) along the lines that you have so perfectly described. THANKS.

And now I'm hungry.

[paperwight]

Well, here, have some Death...

By Chocolate.

[eRobin]

So I can have my Death and eat it too?? The GOP used to have that arrangement with the DLC.

[G. D. Frogsdong]

And I say we not only do not compromise, but don't let them do anything but don't fight some of their extremist ways, just call them on it. Case in point: Bolton. I say, confirm Bolton but let state that you think he'll do an awful job and make a mess of everything. When he does, and you know that nutter will screw up in the international arena, which means the MSM can't hide it because it will be in all the news other countries, it's just that much more screw-up for the radical Republicans. I'm aiming for the mid-terms, and I want all the Republican radical scre-ups we can afford to have right out there in public where everyone can see them. Don't give them SS and don't compromise on SS. And don't give away the filibuster either. After that, take it on a case by case basis. But they can have Bolton. That would be good for us.

[rorschach]

Well said. Clearly, you are an executive tranvestite.

[Barry Freed]

"Let us eat cake" never sounded so shrill.

[donzelion]

Most Pythonesque treatment I've heard on the subject. Bravo!

[RTPTroll]

[RTPTroll who failed to read the comment policy.]

[DavidByron]

Is the original Izzard reference "Death or Plumbing"?

[paperwight]

Nope. "Death or Cake" in the context of "What if the Anglican Church had run the Inquisition?"

[A. J. Luxton]

(I am random person who got here via Making Light and will probably only comment this once.)

People generally live in the past, and that explains the "centrist/moderate" viewpoint better than anything else I can think of.

Several of the views I hold are traditionally conservative -- small government over big, a few things like that. Because I've been admonished for them by the occasional liberal, I have this vague framework in my head of what a Republican is *supposed* to be like, and what they're *supposed* to support... and if they were actually like that, I think centrism might be reasonable. (I'd still be left of it, but there's a good distance between finding an ideology disagreeable, and the ideology making no effing sense at all, barmy, bat-guano.)

Living in the past, I tell you.

I can't figure out what Bush & co. want, except destruction. That's no moon, it's a space station.

[Bill Trimmer]

I agree that the Republican Party has gone stark raving whacko, although I still think it started with Nixon in 1972. Every day seems to make the RNC and the White House crew that much more certain that they can remake the world in their image simply by wishing hard enough, and Lord knows that the PNAC group understands that carrying out their master plan for global domination means relieving the American people of the burden of pesky democracy they obviously don't want, anyway. Since they've already discussed suspending elections (Newsweek reported this in 2004), what are we going to do when they do stop elections, "for the good of the nation?"

[Steve]

From McCain, today:

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

[LNM]

"We're running out of cake over here..."