Oh Lord, I Pledge, I Pledge, I Pledge
Jeff Jarvis and Megan McArdle have made pre-election "peace pledges" for how they'll behave after the election. For the record, I pledge myself to both of them, as well as this:
I pledge that I will not ascribe to the winner, or their opponents, moral or ethical deficiency without evidence. And by evidence, I mean enough that I'd be happy to put forward a case in a real court and defend myself against the most Scalia-esque bred with Torquemada version of Rule 11 followed by a subsequent British libel trial.
Ditto about the moral or ethical superiority of the opposition or party in power/out of power, whoever they may be.
I will not assume that my political opponents act out of ill will, greed, hatred, or any other Deadly Sin, but rather because they share a different but positive vision of American greatness.
I will, however, continue to state where one party or organization has performed clearly better than another in areas in which I have expertise. (Which is to say, I'm still going to say that Kerry's blog kicked Bush's blog's ass all over the map, especially technically. Whoever wins.)
Update: Professor Bainbridge links to the latter pledge with the comment, "In other words, [McArdle's] promising to not do what the Democrats spent the last four years doing."
Much as I hate to take a crack at a guy with good taste in wine, that's exactly the kind of comment the pledges are meant to prevent. Sure, some Democrats have spent the last four years frothing at the mouth. Others haven't, and that should be recognized. Indeed, it has to be recognized, or we never find our way out of this miserable cycle.








Comments
Honestly, I felt that MM's pledge was deliberately mirroring "the other side's" actions. I think the snark originated with her, not Professor B.
Posted by: GCW | November 3, 2004 12:42 PM
Concerning Paragraphs 1 & 2 of your pledge (but mostly Paragraph 1), Tony, my only problem with your evidence requirement is that there is no discovery process through which the public can obtain...hmm...relevant? information.
So, when politicians give me access to all relevant documentation regarding an issue - rather than hiding behind national security, privilege, etc. to shield that information from me - I'll reconsider basing arguments on inference, assumption or belief.
:-)
Posted by: Fool | November 3, 2004 02:07 PM
GCW:
I don't know: I didn't interpret it quite like that at all. I found McArdle's pledge to be of the form, "This is all the things that my opponent's did that annoyed me when Bush was in power. If he loses tonight, I promise not to do these things." Maybe it was snarky, but even if it was, I mean it sincerely.
vukde sgmedbkaPosted by: Anthony | November 3, 2004 03:48 PM