{"id":59,"date":"2004-10-03T18:04:32","date_gmt":"2004-10-03T22:04:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=59"},"modified":"2005-02-12T18:29:05","modified_gmt":"2005-02-12T22:29:05","slug":"contrast-then-compare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=59","title":{"rendered":"Contrast then compare"},"content":{"rendered":"

It may come as no surprise to some readers that Saturday\u2019s *New York Times* presents another of David Brooks\u2019<\/a> dichotomous observation pieces. This time, however, Brooks attempts to inject his usual trope with a healthy dose of balance; he expresses a hope (\u201cin weak moments\u201d) that the opposition neutralize itself in the proper combination of two complementary sorts of minds: Kerry\u2019s (\u201crationalistic\u201d) and Bush\u2019s (\u201ccreedal or ethical\u201d). <\/p>\n

If we are really talking about balance, then the two sorts of mind must be compatible, not mutually exclusive. If we are talking about exclusive opposition, then the opposite is the case, that is, the one type of mind cannot have the characteristics of the other. A false dichotomy results when one treats the compatible as an instance of the incompatible. Strictly speaking, that\u2019s not what we have here, since Brooks professes the false hope that the two might on some twin earth exist together on the same ticket. And if they can exist together on the same ticket somewhere, then they can exist on it here.<\/p>\n

Instead of the false dichotomy, we have an interesting variation on that theme. To force the contrast between the two, Brooks compares their positions regarding different issues and their answers to different questions in the debate. Take the following for instance:<\/p>\n

When John Kerry was asked how<\/em> he would prevent another attack like 9\/11, he reeled off a list of nine concrete policy areas, ranging from intelligence reform to training Iraqi troops, but his answer had no thematic summation. If you glance down a transcript of the debate and you see one set of answers that talks about “logistical capacity” or “a plan that I’ve laid out in four points,” or “a long list” of proposals or “a strict series of things” that need to be done, you know that’s Kerry speaking. [emphasis added] <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The question, as it is reported by Brooks, concerns the *how*, or the *means* of preventing another attack. That is a process question. And Kerry has answered it by referring to concrete and specific matters of process. One might even assert that these concrete proposals constitute the *thematic summation* of Kerry\u2019s answer. Now this gets compared in the following way with Bush:<\/p>\n

If, on the other hand, you see an answer that says, “When we give our word, we will keep our word,” you know that is Bush. When you see someone talking about crying with a war widow, you know that’s Bush.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This makes Bush look like an idiot. For if the issue for Kerry is how he responds to questions of process, then we should expect\u2013since a comparison is being made\u2013Brooks to present us with Bush\u2019s answer to the *same* question, or at least the same type of question. It\u2019s rather like comparing the dinner and dessert choices of two diners\u2013Kerry likes steak for dinner, but Bush likes apple pie for dessert. The reader is left to wonder what Bush likes for dinner and what Kerry likes for dessert.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It may come as no surprise to some readers that Saturday\u2019s *New York Times* presents another of David Brooks\u2019 dichotomous observation pieces. This time, however, Brooks attempts to inject his usual trope with a healthy dose of balance; he expresses a hope (\u201cin weak moments\u201d) that the opposition neutralize itself in the proper combination of … Continue reading Contrast then compare<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,9,2,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brooks","category-false-dichotomy","category-op-ed-writers","category-plain-bad-arguments"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=59"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=59"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=59"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=59"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}