Dogbert Politics

Wednesday, March 01, 2006
I believe that all people favor what they think is in their best interest and then rationalize it with absurd philosophical arguments. Or worse, they join a “team” and agree with whatever the leader tells them.

Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog.


David Thomson said...

“I believe that all people favor what they think is in their best interest and then rationalize it with absurd philosophical arguments.”

This may often be the case. It may even be the general rule. But this is not true for everyone. There are some who have acquired the virtues necessary to approach matters in an objective and dispassionate manner.

Richard Lawrence Cohen said...

I have yet to meet, or read, the person David Thomson describes.

Knucklehead said...

An interesting little political romp by Dogbert. A lot of generalized "truth" in there but it misses some big points. Being "for" or "against" anything doesn't matter much unless one votes. His "in my own interests" party doesn't win elections so it isn't a political party with any viability.

Which is why some of us pick "teams" or, as I prefer to view it, "sides". Heh, I'm just one of the masses in the stands trying to do what little I can to make it more likely that my team will win. If it were my universe to command I wouldn't have picked that particular center-fielder but it isn't my universe - its just my team. The idea that those who join a political party, a team, and then get in line and march along in perfect goose-step time with all the other members of the team is a pretty shallow one (useful for humor purposes). The perfectness of fit for a particular team is not relevant.

I have a buddy who sat out the last election because he doesn't like Bush. He's a "conservative" and would never vote for the Dems anymore than I would, but he doesn't like Bush one little bit. He sometimes asks me, when some hissey fit has hit the media, "What do you think of your man, Bush, now?". There are times when I'll take the trouble to articulate why I agree or disagree or whatever, but ultimately the completely sufficient answer is, "The alternatives in the last two presidential elections were Gore and Kerry." Enough said as far as I'm concerned.

But back to the issue of just picking whatever seems to benefit one most as our "position" on an issue. Clearly that isn't an absolute truth even among those who vote. Does "gun ownership" really touch the lives, in any sense whatsoever, of anything approaching a majority of the people who are against it? We often pick our stands on things which have zero impact on our personal lives.

It was an amusing blog post though. I'd put it on a level with a typical Dave Barry column. Sometimes he really nails something and makes me LOL. Usually he's entertaining, but not to any belly-shaking degree. That said, his "Fathers and child-birth" article was incredibly timely for me. I still laugh thinking about that one. And his "bag of hope" article about airline luggage happened to come out at just the right moment for me.

What were we talking about?

RogerA said...

I always enjoy the Dilbert cartoon strip--I am told he gets many of his ideas from people who email starting with "Scott, you arent going to believe this.."

I used to use Dilbert as a text in my administrative theory classes--makes the points better than most academics.

Seneca the Younger said...

I generally tell people my sole ambition as a software engineering manager is to do nothing that would put me into a Dilbert strip.