A recent commenter on a post here on Worldview claimed that I had “woefully mischaracterized” the ongoing debate over warrantless wiretapping at A Host of Contributing Factors, going so far as to claim his disappointment over that supposed mischaracterization.
While I grant that my original statement in question did not say exactly what I intended to say–yes, that is a mischaracterization, after a fashion–the inaccuracy was neither woeful nor malicious.
What is interesting to me, however, is that the mischaracterization of my own positions, both by the claim of facts where opinion reigns and by the selective editorial presentation of my own words, is ignored. A troubling aspect of this mischaracterization is that those mischaracterizing make high claims to objectivity on Contributing Factor that I think am defeated by their editorial choices here.
Specific to this aspect of mischaracterization is a flaw that I think has undermined the entire Contributing Factor debate and the comments made here, which I am just as guilty of as anyone is. Reasoned debate consists, by necessity, of statements made, questions asked, and responses delivered. What has happened here and at Contributing Factor is that the “debate” has taken the form of reaction to points of disagreement, real and perceived, that rarely seek information or clarification.
Therein lies the real woe and disappointment. I do now and have always sought agreement by reasoned debate and logical consensus. My characterization of the debate at Contributing Factors was inaccurate and unintentional, especially given the greater point of the post in question. I did not say what I meant to say in the way I meant to say it. My statement was not meant to cast aspersion, but to once again state that I seek what I have always sought.
Yet, no one bothered to ask what I meant when they believed I was mischaracterizing the debate at Contributing Factor. No one gave me the chance to clarify or correct. Instead, someone assumed what I meant and then mischaracterized my own positions and statements in a way they I never intended or stated them.
Worse, in my own opinion, is how my own response to defend my own positions against mischaracterization was itself assaulted, again by misrepresenting my own words. The result of this entire process is the failure of debate and the impossibility of the very consensus I seek to pursue.
Even with all of these things being true, two things remain: I take none of this personally and I intend to press forward. I also refuse to allow my statements to be misrepresented anywhere I write or to allow anyone to represent as fact their own opinions. Perhaps these last two things also serve to derail reasoned debate, but they are my conceits and I will not abandon them.
What remains, then, is for highly intelligent, informed people capable of deep reason to restrain themselves from reaction and constrain themselves to debate. This can only be done if two things become true: First, the confusion between opinion (conclusion) and fact has to end. Second, disagreement must take the form of debate not indictment. Without these changes, debate is not possible and woeful mischaracterization will go on.
That was a doozy! You make a good point.
Thanks!
Dennis, in the spirit of your post, which I believe in principle hits the mark about reasoned debate, let me both seek to clarify my own comments and provide you with an opportunity to clarify your own.
In this post you write, “What is interesting to me, however, is that the mischaracterization of my own positions, both by the claim of facts where opinion reigns and by the selective editorial presentation of my own words, is ignored.”
Am I correct that you see me as the guilty party in this instance? If so (or even if not), could you provide your readers here with the specific comments which mischaracterize your positions?
For my part, I do not believe it is possible to ignore something that does not exist, and as yet, I do not believe your charge to be based in fact.
In the thread to which this post refers, I have already explained much of why I believe I did not mischaracterize your positions. As I said there, I was merely characterizing my own view by way of contextualizing for your readers why I had asked you to turn your argumentative powers in another direction.
There is, however, one possible mischaracterization. On fourth reading of my comments, I find this statement from me where I refer to “flaws in our intelligence strategy he has claimed make warrantless surveillance a necessary evil.” Perhaps it is this statement that you are referring to as a mischaracterization.
If it is, I apologize openly. In our rather winding debate at Contributing Factors, I thought I recalled you making a statement that you would prefer that we had more robust intelligence assets that would obviate the need for warrantless surveillance, but in their absence, warrantless surveillance was needed. Obviously that’s not a direct quote, but that was the gist of what I recall you saying.
There are many reasons why that recollection might have lead to my unintentional mischaracterization of your position: I may be dreaming it; I may have mis-recalled it; you may not have been clear in your intended point; it may have been an isolated response to an isolated point and therefore not representative of your overall position etc.
In any event, that is the only place where I can see where I might have done as you have charged. Otherwise, I have not presented as fact anything that I did not believe to be fact. I have presented my own views with faith in their rightness, as have you, but I do not believe I have asserted more for those views than is their due.
In fact, it is because I so wholely believe the substance of your most recent post to be self-evident and because I have confidence that you and your readers can determine when I am presenting a fact and when I am presenting my own reasoned opinion, that I don’t preface every statement of mine with “in my opinion” or “I believe.”
Ethics being a subjective matter, I am confident that when I write that the government’s actions are “ethically unsound” it is clear that this is my opinion. It may not be a fact, but it is a fact that it is my opinion. When I say, “Defense of these actions diminishes Dennis and our nation’s principles,” I think it is pretty clear that I am expressing an opinion. For some, it will be considered fact — your views will be diminished in some people’s minds because of your defense. For others, it will be a mark of your wisdom and insight. I don’t think we as writers have to explain this to our readers. Those readers who need it explained are unlikely to be interested in our debate and would probably enjoy retiring to some lighter reading.
In any event, I look forward to your clarifications.
My specific problem with your previous comment, David, is the characterization that I am justifying an illegal act. This statement implies, at the very least, that I have concluded that warrantless wiretapping is illegal and have gone on to attempt to justify it for other, less genuine reasons. I have not before nor do I now conclude that warrantless wiretapping in the context of the discussion at Contributing Factor is illegal, therefore my actions are the defense of legality, not the justification of illegality.
Hence my reaction in the previous post and this one.
Now, while I do not believe that warrantless wiretapping in the described context is illegal, I do believe it is a problematic technique with limited sustainability that should be replaced by better and more sustainable techniques. This belief still does not conclude that the original technique is illegal but flawed.
As to the rest of your reply, my point in writing this post and others like it is that I take claims to define my positions as other than what they are seriously. These sometimes subtle redefinitions of key points, like the implied claim that I support illegality on the part of my government, cast the rest of my positions in a light that is untrue and that I cannot accept.
At the same time, what I want to do is allow my readers, especially on this weblog, to come to such conclusions on their own. That is why I am sometimes intentionally vague about my statements, because it is my goal for people to read what has been said and come to their own conclusions, even if they disagree with my contentions.
Finally, I did not call specific people out because this post was not necessarily targeted at one person or specific people. In addition to addressing what I believe to be a mischaracterization of my position in a specific instance, I also hope to address the idea of mischaracterizing peoples’ positions in general.
As an aside, I hope that I have also clearly addressed my unintentional mischaracterization of the debate at Contributing Factor in the post above. The source cause of this entire conversation was an inaccurate statement of my own, and I want to be sure I have clarified that position.
Denny, I’m satisfied with your mea culpa about mischaracterizing the conversation on Contributiing Factors. I’m less satisfied with your continued opinion that your own remarks have been mischaracterized.
I believe the quote of mine in question is “He has been asked repeatedly to stop defending the administration’s attempts to justify illegal actions.” This is just a fact. Specifically, I have asked you twice (at least) to stop doing this. However, it is my contention that the actions are illegal, not yours. Your defense of the administration’s actions — you have made a defense of their actions or at least tried to explain them, haven’t you? — is to my way of thinking, then, a defense of illegal actions. Nowhere do I say you think they are illegal nor was it my intent to imply that you do. Furthermore, I don’t think your readers, here or elsewhere, would interpret my comments in that light. (Only they can say for sure.)
I’m all for you making clear your own point of view. I completely understand your aversion to having your statements mischaracterized or misquoted, since as you’ve admitted, I’ve suffered from that at your own hands, unintentionally or not. I defend your right and desire to defend yourself against such mischaracterizations. I wouldn’t (and won’t) let them stand either.
However, you are currently claiming a grievance where none is warranted. While I can kind-of-sort-of see how you took my comment the way you did, I think that you have to kind of want it to be there to see it (I don’t mean you literally want it to be there.) Further, I think my comments are of a different nature than your own. When you said, “I have been asked . . . why I do not spend more time trying to articulate positions everyone can agree with instead of defending positions they cannot,” you were actually making a factual mistatement. No one, that I recall, was asking you to be more agreeable. In fact, again if I recall, it was you who urged the rest of us to look for areas of consensus. Again, this is a different kind of statement than me saying you have been asked to stop defending the administration’s illegal actions — that is PRECISELY what I meant when I asked it of you.
I fear I’m starting to try to be more clear by writing LOUDER. 🙂
Do you understand what I’m saying? And, if so, do you agree or disagree that there is a distinction with a difference in our comments?
David, for me the issue has always been the question of legality. Whether or not I think warrantless wiretapping is a legitimate technique or not, the legality of it is very important. If it was clearly illegal, I would not support it, even if I agreed with it. That is why I keyed in on the statement I cited and why I reacted the way I did to how your statement was phrased. Defending legality was and is the whole context of my position, and I want to be clear that I believe the technique in question is legal. That is why I think my position has been mischaracterized.
Again, I also agree that none of this would be even in question if I had not phrased my original statement the way that I did. That’s the risk of weblog writing, especially since I’m my only editor.
Okay. Well, I’m still not sure that you understand that I didn’t mischaracterize your position, but perhaps it’s just that you disagree that I didn’t, so I’ll leave it to others to make up their own minds.
I would like to see us rekindle the discussion at Contributing Factors of warrantless surveillance along the lines you have just laid out, to wit: is it legal? Honestly, if I understand your position on it, I think you have a case. I’m not sure it is resolveable because I think we’ll end up with a lot of opinion-based interpretation of the law (especially since neither one of us are lawyers), but I think done properly (an ongoing challenge for us, I know) it could be very interesting to other readers.
David, I agree that the legality of warrantless wiretapping is worthy of continued disussion on Contributing Factor, though I also agree that any such discussion has flaws. It’s one still worth having, though.
Good work here, lads.
If only the discussions without flaws were worth having, I daresay there’s wouldn’t be many discussions. Not very many interesting ones, at any rate.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming at AHOCF…