Exalting Curiosity

Harry Dreyfuss said of his father "When asked if his being there suggested he supported Cruz, he responded, “It suggests that I’m interested in what he has to say… It’s the politics of my country, so I’m interested.”

That is what I would call a "politician's answer". As I said, I wonder if, in the interests of acquainting himself more fully with the politics of his country, he has attended rallies held by other candidates representing different parts of the political spectrum.

As I said, I believe the best way to find out whether a candidate can support his views and back up his proposals is to see how he/she responds to the challenge of a debate or a rigorous interview. A rally, where the candidate is surrounded by cheering supporters who do not pose awkward questions, doesn't strike me as the best way to find out whether a candidate's political opinions are honestly held, desirable or achievable.

I think I understand you now. No, I don't think I said the same as what eloethan said. Not quite. There was a subtle difference and I was careful not to use the "putting words in mouths" device which I think is what this sentence is doing: He is, of course, perfectly entitled to support whoever he wants - but it would be a little dishonest to deny his support if that were the case since there is no mention of his denying anything.

My interpretation of what eloethan said was not the same as that, dj. I'll go and read her post again.

Yes, his dad has. It's in the article.

That's what Eloethan said, isn't it?
Richard Dreyfuss could have read around the ideas to argue with them; attending a rally is different.
I do not understand why Harry used the word tragic. It's not tragic. Has his dad justified his appearance at the rally?

This is what Harry Dreyfus says about the tendency to judge from appearances: "It is not shocking that people mistake curiosity with support, but it is pathetic and it is tragic."

I doubt he'd have been so emphatic in his defence of his father's curiosity if he thought his father actually supported Cruz's try for the presidency.

I find it hard to actually listen to people spouting ideas I find abhorrent but I often read around such ideas, just to make sure I understand them and, should I wish to argue against them, that I can do so. Harry Dreyfus said that too.

I think there's a difference between reading articles/listening to the views of a person on whom you either have not formed an opinion or whose views you generally disagree with, and actually attending a political rally.

The fact that Richard Dreyfuss went to a Ted Cruz rally may simply illustrate an interest in seeing how all the political candidates campaign. If that were the case, then presumably he has attended rallies for other candidates. Generally, though, I think it would be unusual for a person to attend a rally for someone who they do not support or envisage supporting. He is, of course, perfectly entitled to support whoever he wants - but it would be a little dishonest to deny his support if that were the case.

Most people attend rallies because they support, or are minded to support, the person who is speaking. They have usually reached a fairly favourable opinion as to his or her policies by that time. A rally doesn't really provide a great deal of information - its primary purpose is to forge a sense of unity amongst supporters/potential supporters - along with attracting media coverage. A better way to assess whether you agree with someone's views and proposals is to see them being questioned by or debating with someone actively opposed to what they stand for.

From what I have read and heard, there are many US commentators who don't believe Cruz is "Trump lite". The fact that he appears more controlled and conventional in appearance than Trump does not discount the fact that his beliefs aren't so different from Trump's:

He is an evangelist who does not believe in evolution;
He does not believe in the constitutional separation between church and state;
He has very strong support from the National Rifle Association in recognition of his absolute opposition to gun controls;
He wants to get rid of same sex marriage;
He opposes abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood;
He favours the death penalty;
He backs confrontational foreign policy;
He continues to strongly oppose Obamacare and has vowed to get it repealed;
He wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Tax Service

obieone My parents went to a Nazi rally where Adolf Hitler spoke at length shortly before the outbreak of war when they were holidaying in various European countries, including Germany, Austria and Hungary. In my mother's diary she recorded that she found the event surprisingly exciting at the time but the following day was unable to recall much of what had been said. Both my parents were curious and interested in finding about the political upheavals of the time but neither of them was a Nazi sympathiser.

With hindsight one wonders what on earth possessed them to tour Europe at such a time.

I didn't notice who said it or why, wilmak . Mine was a general comment aimed at anyone reading the thread.

bags I made the comment about Cruz being Trump Lite in response to jing saying she didn't know much about Cruz.

petra yes, my comment was directed to you. Rochdale Council was clearly at fault, but the police and Crown Prosecution Service were also heavily criticised. I'm not as sure as you that this indicates a left wing bias and still don't think this is about left or right wing.

If you don't listen with at least half an ear, you won't know what to say against them if someone else seems to be impressed by them. Listen with a sceptical mind and an unconvinced expression.

Literal "tarring and feathering" is barbaric. So is virtual tarring and feathering. It is driven by gang or tribe mentality. It is lite on actual thinking. And it is thoroughly and unjustifiably judgmental. Bugger natural. The more we argue against such tribalism the less it will be regarded as something we just have to put up with on the grounds that it's 'natural'.

Mob lynching is 'natural'. It is also intolerable in a civilised society.

I'm seeing comments saying that Cruz is "Trump lite". Yes. We know that. Dreyfus the dad and Dreyfus the son know that. That's not the point. Just listening to someone is not evidence that you belong to the same gang or clique or political persuasion.

obie, your post at 11:27:39. I agree about what you mean by natural. Thanks for the further explanation. But my view, as perhaps that of Harry Dreyfus, is that there is all the more reason to educate people about what they are doing and explain why it is wrong to jump to conclusions about someone based on a bit of circumstantial evidence and nothing else. It's about justice in the end. We humans might even improve if we pay attention to such 'education', just as we have improved our ideas in other areas where, previously, the "it's only natural" card was played.

WilmaknicKersFit. I assume that question was to me?
Off the top of my head, Rochdale council is a prime example.

I'm reading the comments since I went offline this morning bit by bit.

I've got to the comment by terribull about it only being 6% of priests who are child abusers. ONLY!? I'd be very surprised to discover that the percentage of child abusers in the general population was anything like that high. I think 6% is shocking.

To go right back to the op and "Exalting Curiosity", it rather reminds me of fire.
Great to a certain extent, it gives you warmth. But too close and too often, and a person can get burnt.

You can get tarred by the same brush as those you continually meet with.

Now that's a sweeping statement if I've ever heard one. Care to give examples?

WilmaknicKersFit. "don't understand why you think this is mainly down to the left"
Because it's mainly the left who make excuses for these peoples behaviour.

Terribull I agree there's attempts to shut down the debate, but don't understand why you think this is mainly down to the left. It's not that long ago when Jeremy Corbyn was being slated for some of the extremists he invited to debate difficult issues. I don't see it as being predominantly left or right wing driven. Not at all.
I'm going out now and will watch the rest of the Rubin/Robinson interview later.

I hadn't listened to the Dave Rubin link when I made my post, I have now, be warned it's long I got through a whole big pile of outstanding ironing at the same time. Tommy Robinson was someone who I dismissed as a bigot, I didn't know too much about him other than he was involved in with the EDL, but much of what he said was in line with my post which is no doubt why POGS thought I had heard the interview.

I think however he deserves a platform on this and I am very much at one with you POGS and the thrust of the Tommy Robinson interview in that he is of the opinion that we have a consensus these days, largely by the left, look what's happening in our universities, of shutting down debate. I wonder sometimes whether those who cannot discuss issues like the more extreme aspects of Islam would be happier living in a totalitarian society.

That bags

I have read your first link and watched in it's entirety your second. It does take some time to view but worth while. Infact TerriBull I read your post and I thought you had watched it too. You will see what I mean if you eventually get around to viewing ..

I am sticking with the two links you provided and keeping my comment relative to your OP. I take your point 100% and I don't think there has been a thread/links that actually summed up so much of what I feel about the 'many' various subjects both links raise. This will be yet another thread that will undoubtedly see a division but I am so glad I took the time to view both of your links.

I especially thought the words of Dave Rubin prior to the interview with Tommy Robinson quite possibly summed up every thought , belief I hold and have tried to say in my posts over the years but failed miserably to get over at times. I listened intently and could not find any untruths in what was written nor said to be honest . It is certainly an interview you have to watch without any prejudice and an open mind.

I have a sneaking suspicion the points raised in both links will be challenged in a fashion that was spoken of in your links and if that does happen, depends who has the time to watch your 2nd link in it's entirety, I will sit back and see the irony of it all.

trisher I think you're spot on. Nobody challenges the speaker, Cruz is speaking to the choir. Everybody cheers because they're all believers and it like a human need kicks in to belong in the herd, not stand alone and be vulnerable.

I agree Harry Dreyfus has more than one reason to write the article and one of them is to be better known for his writing, but I do think it matters that a well known actor like his father was seen attending the Cruz event.

Like it or not Richard Dreyfus will be perceived as making a statement by attending the event. He will be labelled because of it. Now he might not care about this, but it will still happen and the only way he can change this is by being seen to attend events by all the candidates. That's life at this time. A less wealthy successful actor is unlikely to copy Dreyfus because it would probably ruin his career. Dreyfus probably doesn't care about his work prospects at his age. Some people will be influenced by his attendance at the event and some will be angry at Dreyfus being seen to give credence to Cruz's campaign. This bothers me.

I watched the start of the Dave Rubin and Tommy Robinson interview and agree with what Rubin said. My problem with giving Robinson air time is, like many political activists he speaks a lot of half truths that make his position more plausible. People might listen to him and agree with some of what he has to say and think he's OK and talks a lot of sense. Their perception can be changed, but they take him at face value without digging deeper and that's my problem with giving him air time.

However, I realise I am tying myself in knots over this because I think I believe in free speech (and that it comes with responsibility and consequences), yet I don't want people like Robinson, Cruz or Trump to gain respectability. Colour me confused.

I think possibly one of the reasons people are unable to attend political meetings just to listen these days is because heckling is no longer part of the political arena. If you are sitting in the audience your views must be similar to the politicians, fear of hecklers means that anyone with really opposing views will be sifted out before the meeting. I was watching film of some meetings in the 1960s and the heckling was great. Mind you the politicians were often great at replying as well. Something we have lost as politicians spend their time asking spin doctors what they should say rather than what they believe.