Who cares what Nancy Grace thinks of the budget ceiling debate?
Arguing from the facts, Opinionator, NYT (paywall).
Using recent debate over raising the Federal Government’s debt limit as an example, Gary Gutting has attempted to illustrate the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning but, to my way of thinking, has made a needlessly complex argument whose example positions are really only talking past one another. Each has a series of factually correct issues they wish to address, but rather than acknowledge their opponents’ arguments, they merely introduce new arguments, moving the goal posts and leaving neither any basis for compromise much less an opportunity to create consensus.
It also reveals some of the complexity of the issue and reveals its nature not as a principled debate about a contentious issue, but rather shabby political theater.
I would put low odds on anything less than a zero hour “deal” the specifics of which are meaningless by the most charitable estimate, as thus far, no one has provided a coherent or workable compromise. What strikes me as more salient is the likelihood that this tactic foreshadows the shape of things to come — like the filibuster, future votes over the debt ceiling are liable to play out with the same, reckless disregard for the country’s continued solvency. Ergo, in the interest of a long-term solution, even though the short and mid term consequences would be brutal, we’d actually come out ahead in the instance that the shut-down occur, regardless.
Then, perhaps, when the dust clears, we’d be able to have a serious debate regarding this policy that did not selectively omit facts in the interest of at last, arriving at a consensus about how to pay down the deficit without pissing off AARP. Not that I intend to hold my breath while I wait for this to happen.