There’s a famous and profound conjecture in mathematics that I won’t describe to you (maybe I’ll say a few words in the comments) that people often complain is almost unfalsifiable. It’s an inequality that is supposed to be true, given certain fudge factor adjustments, but one has so much latitude with these fudge factors that it’s nearly impossible to even imagine what a counterexample might look like.
(It’s still a great conjecture, mind you, and if it was proved, it would be pretty much the most awesome thing human beings have ever accomplished, with all due respect to antibiotics and the iPhone and Exile On Main St.)
So, in that spirit, let’s start with the following political conjecture: No matter what action Republicans take, and what calamity this action causes, “ostensibly nonpartisan pundits” will blame Democrats at least as much as Republicans for the calamity.
Can any of you imagine a counterexample to this conjecture? Can you imagine Ron Fournier or Charles Lane or any of the other Broder wannabes agreeing that something was primarily the fault of Republicans? I can’t. I’m sure that they all say “I just call it like I see it so of course I might end up doing it”, but that’s not good enough. I’d like to know whether they can actually visualize circumstances under which they might do it.
I’m going to try to contact some pundits and see if I can get them to say whether or not they can imagine blaming Republicans more than Democrats for something.
Update. Ron Fournier was kind enough to answer:
— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) September 27, 2013