"Traitor" versus "Homophobic" (Etc.)
Politics
| December 24, 2006
| Tim
In one of our strange diversions (from talking about a serial murderer,) Ryan and I ended up debating (in my view) whether or not "the left" uses attacks on motivation and character as much as, and/or in the same way as "the right".
My thesis is that leftists often employ a barrage of ad hominem insults which impute bad motives ("sexist", "racist", "homophobic", "xenophobic", "heterosexist", "bigoted", "hateful", "greedy") and drop into psychologizing as a defense against debating the meat of conservative positions.
I readily admit conservatives sometimes do this as well, but assert that it happens far, far less often than the other way around.
As a counterexample, Ryan suggests the charge of "traitor":
I've wandered around conservative forums for a while. A fairly common charge seems to be 'traitor' for those who don't agree with conservative foreign policy and occasionally that a particular left-leaning commentator should be shot. That would seem to be a demonization of those who disagree with conservative politics, no?
Yet, while certainly unflattering, the word "traitor" does not describe an inner motivation. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg delivered the plans for the atomic bomb into the hands of Joseph Stalin. They were certainly guilty of treason, and were certainly traitors, but I suspect their inner motives were "good": undoubtedly, they believed that Communism was a superior system to capitalism.
Likewise, one might reasonably argue that CNN was guilty of "treason" for showing "enemy propaganda" sniper videos. But that's not saying CNN had bad motives -- undoubtedly they are deeply assured they are serving the Greater Good of Humanity. But even if we grant a good inner motivation, it doesn't mean it's unfair to characterize their actions as harmful to US interests, or, more specifically, the safety of US troops and morale of their families.
And neither of these examples (perhaps someone can suggest another) show a conservative who is using the term "treason" to avoid debating some liberal argument -- my thesis. It's simply a characterization -- right or wrong -- of the perceived impact of the policy.
But that's not true with a word like "homophobic", which can only be meant to attack an opponent's motivations or mental health: Bob is opposed to gay marriage, therefore Bob must particularly hate or fear people who have same-sex attractions. (It cannot possibly be that Bob simply thinks "gay marriage" cause society more harm than good.)
So there's no symmetry between a charge of "treason" -- which can only refer to behavior, not motivations -- and "homophobic" -- which imputes a psychological abnormality to its target.
"Unpatriotic"
So, in the interest of giving this argument another chance, I thought we'd examine the term "unpatriotic" instead -- a term which can refer to an outcome, but probably is more likely to address a motivation.
In an attempt to figure out how the word is being used, and by whom, I did a bit of Google diving, typing in the word "unpatriotic" and noting the first twenty results. Ignoring duplicate articles, and putting things in more than one category when they apply, we have:
* Conservatives accusing anti-war conservatives of being "unpatriotic": 1, 2
* Conservatives calling liberals unpatriotic: 1, 2
* Liberals alleging they've been called "unpatriotic": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
* Liberals calling conservatives "unpatriotic": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
* Other: 1, 2, 3, 4
Perhaps I'd get radically different results if I dug deeper, or tried measuring comments on DailyKos versus FreeRepublic -- but it would appear, based on this sample, that conservatives are no more likely to call liberals "unpatriotic" than they would apply the term to another conservative.
Conversely, liberals seem obsessed with the charge, apparently fretting endlessly that someone might think or imply they're "unpatriotic". But, even more amusingly, they appear to accuse conservatives of unpatriotism about three times as often as the other way around.
This matches my observations: I've noticed, for example, that the press seemed to want to characterize Bush of impugning the patriotism of his critics -- something he's never done, to my knowledge. But the press seemed to dearly wish he had -- perhaps as a comfortable straw man.
TimesWatch, for example, noted this phenomenon even years ago:
The idea that Bush & Co. go around questioning the patriotism of anti-war critics has been put forward by [New York] Times editorial writers, columnists and reporters, but the paper has yet to back up those claims with actual quotes from Republicans. Times Watch would go so far as to suggest the allegation is "unsubstantiated."
Indeed, in a recent speech, I noted Bush had to carefully point out that he wasn't saying his critics were unpatriotic, just that he believed they were wrong. But I would guess that, to certain ears, those two positions are indistinguishable.
I'll agree with the argument that the hard revolutionary left (those advocating revolution) does this more often than, say, liberals or conservatives. And I'll conceed that the softer left (liberals) do it in greater proportion compared to conservatives than I expected prior to this discussion.
For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg delivered the plans for the atomic bomb into the hands of Joseph Stalin. They were certainly guilty of treason, and were certainly traitors
I agree. Their intent was clearly to betray the United States, or at least knowingly cause it harm. To say that their motivation was to harm the US, or at least to deliberately act contrary to its interests, is not a huge stretch.
But that's not saying CNN had bad motives -- undoubtedly they are deeply assured they are serving the Greater Good of Humanity
To call CNN trecherous is most likely an inference that they had anti-US motives, not anti-human motives. At least it assumes that a particular video they provide has negligible value to America. (Note; I haven't seen the sniper videos)
The assumption is often made that those people who disagree with conservative foreign policy are attacking "the United States" rather than the particular policy they oppose. There is a difference between attacking a policy and attacking the person advocating the policy, as you mentioned earlier. Those opposed to Bush's policies are against the particular policy, not "anti-American."
Let me put it another way. Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Is the soldier who accidentally killed him automatically a traitor?
Bush's actions resulted in the death and discomfort of many servicemen. Does that fact automatically make Bush a traitor?
Or is some greater burden required to prove the charge of treason in each of these cases?
People disagreed with some of Clinton's policies. Does that make them traitors?
Personally, I'd say 'no' in each case.
So far as I can tell, the charges of 'treason' seems to stem from Ann Coulter's recent book, and most people who make the charge seem to have read the book. The charge might possibly be seen as a coded refernce to the book (which I haven't read yet) though it comes across as an ad hominem to those out of the loop.
MATTHEWS: Well, should they be prosecuted? Should anybody in the party be prosecuted either today, or should have been prosecuted in the past? I mean, it’s a criminal charge of treason. Should anybody be charged with it?
COULTER: I wish it were that easy a problem, but that trivializes the point...
MATTHEWS: No, it’s a crime.
...
COULTER: ... of my book, which is not that there are just a few dozen traitors out there. It is that the entire party cannot root for America.
The National Radical
a comment made to someone who was not muslim in any way obvious to me;
BTW-You can spare us all from having to read your false "concern for our servicemen and
women". And don't worry, we won't "question your patriotism" either. We know whose side you are
on. It is a decision you made freely and one day will die for. Too bad for you Allah won't have
72 virgins waiting for you.
Anyway...
CNN- are you going to show Joshua's death, too?
You know they would. Knowing them they would run a 5 part series on it along with a "townhall"
kind of thing complete with a hand picked audience full of LLL ghouls and idiots like xanthippas.
Anything they can do that they think would be helpful to their Islamofascist allies.link
Or this site link
I also found mostly liberal/Democratic responses to the 'traitor' charge in my search.
Regarding whether Republicans have insulted Democrats' patriotism, in addtion to Ann Coulter's "Treason" book there's;
Referring to the Senate stalemate over the homeland security bill, Bush said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." (back in 2002)
link
Otherwise, the Bush administration seems to have made an effort to refrain from the tactics criticised here (so far as I'm aware). The administration's response to such tactics by their various supporters is debatable, but they have taken this official stance for themselves;
No one should ever question the patriotism of somebody who -- let me just start over. I don't question the patriotism of somebody who doesn't agree with me. I just don't.
link
However that just applies to the president and not the Republican party. (And it obviously doesn't apply to party supporters like Coulter, a fact which the president's false start seemed to implicitly acknowledge.)
"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."
link
Incidentally, Free Republic has a policy of banning posters who make personal attacks. I'm not sure how consistently the policy is enforced. I've seen one or two anti-John Kerry comments. The policy may speak to the standards and values of the FR editors, however it may also interfere with FR as a reliable picture of its posters.
Happy Holidays, Ryan!
Best wishes to you and your loved ones, and here's hoping you get rest and rejuvenation over this holiday season.
Okay. Now for the parts where we see things differently...
I'll agree with the argument that the hard revolutionary left (those advocating revolution) does this more often than, say, liberals or conservatives...
"Revolutionary left"? Who is that?
The liberal charges of "unpatriotic" I've cited above come from Paul Krugman (a New York Times columnist), a self-described patriotic Democrat, the wife of Senator John Kerry, a popular author on Democratic Underground, and an article from the Chicago Tribune.
Are these "revolutionaries"? I guess I could see the view, but if you're seriously advocating that, it would put you far to the right of even me. To me, it looks like the people I'm citing are run-of-the-mill Democrats. (And yes, they generally want to change things, but isn't that what "progressive" is supposed to mean?)
But you've conceded the point (I admire that about you, Ryan, and I mean it sincerely), so I don't mean to kick this particular horse any more.
To say that their motivation was to harm the US, or at least to deliberately act contrary to its interests, is not a huge stretch...
I think, trying to put myself in their shoes (and synthesizing the statements I hear from my political opponents), I'd suspect they felt that they loved their country.
There were many people who thought that the world would be a better place if only Stalin also had the bomb, and not just Truman. We see this today in many people who oppose the US not so much because they hate the US but because they want to balance things out.
Likewise, I suspect that the Rosenbergs, like so many CPUSA members and fellow travellers, simply felt the United States would be a better country if it were more like Russia.
We see something similar in the main stream of the Democratic party today: "Liberals" tend to embrace what I'd call "European" values -- socialized healthcare (Sweden, formerly), support for gay marriage or civil unions (Norway, Netherlands), increased secularization (France), getting less "uppity" about pornography (Denmark), younger age of consent (Scandanavia), legalizing drugs (Amsterdam), etc.
They don't feel they're being "unpatriotic" by doing so, even though a conservative like me sees these as non-Constitutional values. They just want a USA fashioned more in the image of secular Europe, just as so many American communists undoubtedly wanted a USA fashioned more in their image of the USSR.
I'm not saying Europe is like Stalin, just that an analogy can be made: Just as some Democrats embrace European values and still feel patriotic (as they're doing it for their best intentions for their country) so also it undoubtedly was with many communists, before communism was largely discredited. My own grandfather, though not a communist, moved to Milwaukee specificially because he was interested in socialism, and there were many socialist groups there.
To call CNN trecherous is most likely an inference that they had anti-US motives, not anti-human motives...
The hypothetical accusation I dealt with was "treason", not "treachery". Treason is generally used for one who cooperates with an enemy (a reasonable charge, given that's actually what occurred) or undermines the government -- whereas "treachery" carries connotations of deliberate ill will and intentional betrayal.
Though you appear to use them interchangably, I would guess you'll find CNN is more often accused of "treason", and "treachery" -- not so much. In a moment, I'll explain why this nuance is very important, and why it's also important that I notice it, whereas you don't seem to...
The assumption is often made...
As Reagan would say: "There you go again..." :-)
Ryan, here you are doing precisely what I say my critics frequently do: Speaking as though know the exact motivations (negatively) which underlying some particular debate, without seriously examining the substance of the charge.
... made that those people who disagree with conservative foreign policy are attacking "the United States"
Where is this assumption being made?
I have just suggested, for example, that CNN aired the sniper videos not to "attack the United States", but because they wanted to undermine the Bush administration.
If you're going to be imputing bad motives to most conservatives, like this, you should provide some confirming documentation.
Let me put it another way. Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Is the soldier who accidentally killed him automatically a traitor?
I don't know why you're arguing this point with me, as my previous comment was devoted to making the very point you seem to think I have missed here.
Yes, I understand that people can do bad things with good motives. That's why I have implied both the Rosenburgs and CNN have done harmful things undoubtedly with the Greater Good in mind.
It would seem you are substituting "attacks the US", which implies bad motives, for "harms the US" (a standard conservative complaint) which does not.
Your error here is meaningful...
So far as I can tell, the charges of 'treason' seems to stem from Ann Coulter's recent book...
Yes, of course Ann accused the left of "treason." (Even so, Ann's style of rhetoric is, I would argue, not typical of the right. She is often the zenith of hyperbole, not another random example among so many.)
But you're still begging the question, as I've maintained over and over, to you, that conservatives who charge an action is "treasonous" are not necessarily (or even usually) attempting to say they know the motives of the one hurting our country.
You still cannot differentate between "People X do Y which is harmful" and "People X have bad motives..."
Look at two examples you give:
Coulter: [My point] is that the entire [Democratic] party cannot root for America.
Bush: "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."
First, neither of these, at the core, are actually accusations of treason. Yes, of course, Ann put "Treason" on the front of her book (just as she put "Godless" on a book in which she admitted she didn't really mean that all Democrats are atheists). The core accusation here is that "Democrats don't root for America."
Now perhaps this is true, or perhaps this is false, BUT: you see it as a charge of having bad inner motivations, whereas I don't see it as being about motives at all.
(It's odd: you imply there's really no difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" and yet you show that I, a conservative, see things in a different way than you do. So at least you and I, as a "non-" or "less-conservative" and a "conservative" see things completely differently.)
First, I'd maintain the charge is generally true. Here's, for example, how a Democrat I cited above defines "patriotism":
So that we're all on the same page, let's pretend this is an elementary school and get some definitions out there (my italics added):
Patriotism
Love for or devotion to one's country
Nationalism
Loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Seems to me like most people would be able to grasp the difference – that being patriotic means loving America, while being nationalistic places America, which can do no wrong, above other nations. The former is good. It's healthy. It promotes pride in one's nation. The latter, however, is not good. It's very unhealthy. It promotes arrogance to the point of hostility.
The above contains some straw man accusations, of course (e.g. that conservatives feel America never makes any mistakes). But the core point is that the author believes "patriotism" is simply to love one's country, not to "exalt it above... others" or promote its interests "as opposed to that of other nations." It's a definition which (perhaps even subconsciously) places "loyalty" in the "bad" and "unhealthy" department.
I'm not saying this to demonize: I'm just trying to clarify. I want to state again, because you might not believe it, that I think this author is a relatively good person and has good motives.
But this is the liberal conception of patriotism, Ryan, and it is the one you also seem to operatively use (see next para). It means that you love America, but not more than other countries, and not necessarily in preference or opposition to their desires and goals.
So when a liberal hears a charge of "unpatriotic", he or she hears it as meaning: "They're saying I don't love my country!" They hear it as an accusation of having bad motivations (remember: patriotism = love), because this is, frankly, characteristic of how liberals tend to analyse things, with more focus on feelings.
Conversely, we see another definition of patriotism, even from the likes of Ann Coulter: it is that of "rooting for" America. The picture here is of a competition where one side wins, and one side loses, where there are conflicting interests to be taken, and where the American ideal should be elevated over competitors.
So when that somewhat-rare conservative says "they're not very patriotic", or (more commonly) implies something undermines America's interests -- they mean that liberals don't generally cheer for the "American" ideal or for "American" interests to win out over others. It's not about love or a feeling. It's about an outcome and a stance, or every player doing their part to win -- feelings or private inner thoughts be damned. It's: "Why can't they just root for our side for a change?" It's a focus first on behavior and outcome (why didn't that player do X?) rather than psychologizing.
But liberals have trouble understanding this, in my experience, because they tend to project their own modus operandi into the conservative. If they think it sounds to them like X, then of course the conservative must operate and have meant it the same way. No, generally, we don't. We are different. The conservative speaks one language, the liberal hears another.
There are real differences here, Ryan, even in what words as apparently simple as "patriotic" or "freedom" mean, and how they're used.
Note I haven't defended the "conservative" view of patriotism here. I'll be glad to do that at some point, but for the moment, I just want you to understand and ponder the differences between the two views and definitions.
Frankly, this is the actions of a traitor or a sellout. He deserves to be ridiculed, excoriated and frog-marched off Capitol Hill, then remanded to jail. No bail. Doesn’t this idiot know the type of damage this inflicts on the Marines? Or is it that he’s so intoxicated with the thought of becoming the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that he’ll say anything?
http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=3091
This poster paints an essentially false dichotomy. The poster calls Murtha's claims "lies" but avoids addressing whether they're actually true and, if true, whether Murtha might have some motive other than stupidity, betrayal or self interest in exposing them. In other words, the charge of trechery is used to avoid addressing Murtha's claims.
Happy holidays! P.S. I wasn't ignoring your posting. I'd had my last post written last night and hit send this morning without seeing you'd posted again.
Hi Ryan!
Thanks for the clarification.
I'll respond to your second post later; for the moment, I don't want to distract from the point that is out there already.
"Revolutionary left"? Who is that?
Brownmiller, Simone de Deauvoir, Marx, Lenin, Mao, various communists and those directly influenced by them. And probably one or two of the Women's Studies majors I knew in college.
In other words, those who explicitly want (or wanted) to overthrow the current system rather than "fix" it, and whose political arguments therefore tend to condemn society outright rather than focus on specific problems to be corrected.
To give an example; Brownmiller claimed that "all men rape and all women are raped." While she worked to support her assertion, citing the (then current) lack of marital rape laws, the way that men benefitted as a class from women who were afraid to go out at night or needed protection, the tendency for police to 'blame the victim' or not prosecute rape cases, and so on,
she was a self described communist. As such, her ideology demanded wholesale revolution, rather than an attempt to 'fix' specific problems within a capitalist framework or remedy any specific injustice.
Bush: "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."
you see it as a charge of having bad inner
motivations
I see the quote as Bush claiming to know his opponents motivations in opposing a particular piece of legislation. You don't?
Bush claiming that a polititian "isn't interested in the security of the American People" sounds similar to saying "Reagan wasn't interested in the plight of the poor." The same kind of assumption is made in both cases. Bush is not saying "opposing this legislation will be bad for national security." He's saying that the bill's opponents are not motivated to promote national security.
It would seem you are substituting "attacks the US", which implies bad motives, for "harms the US" (a standard conservative complaint) which does not.
I'll correct myself. I gave at least one example where CNN's actions which harm the US (incidentally) were interpreted as being "helpful to their Islamofascist allies." The leap is made from "this action aids our enemies" to "this action was made in order to aid our enemies."
First, neither of these, at the core, are actually accusations of treason. Yes, of course, Ann put "Treason" on the front of her book (just as she put "Godless" on a book in which she admitted she didn't really mean that all Democrats are atheists And Jimmy Carter entitled his book "Palestine: Peace
Not Apartheid" though he didn't really make a case for apartheid in the book (as I understand it.) And Bush repeatedly mentioned the 9-11 terrorists and Saddam in the same breath, to the point that a majority of Americans thought that Saddam was behind 9-11. link
Sure, it's all plausibly deniable, but to insult with the large print and retract with the small seems to me a particularly devious strategy. Is the title not an important part of the book?
If someone said that a group of people "didn't care about national security," based upon their actions then yes, I'd interpret that as a de facto charge of being unpatriotic and possibly outright treason. Our elected officials have a duty to concern themselves with the defense of the nation.
Rove's quote; Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
You addressed this earlier, saying; Rove here says that Durbin's actions will harm people. Then, after having made a case for that goes on to suggest that he perhaps doesn't care that much about troops.
And it may be that Rove is not a true conservative, but you seemed to defend his statement so I assume we're not throwing it out.
Rove doesn't make much of a case for his claim. It's more of an assertion. Second, this is one more case of people conservatives put in power "avoiding the meat of their opponents arguments" as you said. If we give this statement the okay, we would have to give the okay to quite a few others. In a blog article entitled "Bush hates the poor" (the first thing handy) the author Sara writes Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new U.S. Agriculture Department report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table. About 300,000 Americans would lose benefits due to tighter eligibility rules for food stamps.
link
This is a terrible proof that "Bush hates the poor", of course. Motivations can't be inferred from the information given. But if Rove's argument passes the test then that argument would as well since it asserts harm and backs it up with some evidence, then uses that to infer motivations. Though perhaps it would have been better if they'd left the matter open as Rove did and said "No more needs to be said about Bush's motivations" or some similar ploy.
So when a liberal hears a charge of "unpatriotic",he or she hears it as meaning: "They're saying I don't love my country!" They hear it as an accusation of having bad motivations
From dictionary.com (the official online dictionary of liberals everywhere)
1 result for: unpatriotic
adjective
showing lack of love for your country
href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unpatriotic">link
But this is the liberal conception of patriotism,
Ryan, and it is the one you also seem to operatively
use (see next para). It means that you love America, but
not more than other countries,
Why "not more than other countries?"
Since my patriotism is now explicitly the focus, I'd divide it into two catagories;
1. My duty towards America
2. My feelings about America.
I realize I have a covenant relationship with America, where there are certain duties owed to it because I live here. Paying taxes, supporting those who serve, promoting the general welfare rather than my own self interest, and taking care of my neighibors in a crisis. Some of these duties are implied, and some are enforced by law. If I served the government in a particular function, I would take on extra obligations.
Regarding my feelings, America is my home. I think that it's objectively better than
other countries in some areas. There's less corruption than many places, such as China. There's less pollution and better environmental regulations than third world countries. I'm slightly biased towards America, since I'm interested in American security. I want the US to have nuclear bombs but I don't want Iran to have them, for instance. And I can think of no fair standard to justify that stance. But as much as possible I want problems to be solved by diplomacy and fair standards rather than sheer force. Sometimes that isn't possible, but it's a good goal. I believe that attempts to dominate via millitary force are often counterproductive and I don't want America to get what's best for America "by any means possible." There are limits.
Ryan: I'll agree with the argument that the hard revolutionary left (those advocating revolution) does this [impuging bad motives, premuably -Tim] more often than, say, liberals or conservatives...
Tim: "Revolutionary left"? Who is that?
Ryan: Brownmiller, Simone de Deauvoir, Marx, Lenin, Mao...
Perhaps, but I'm not quoting Marx, Lenin or Mao to make this point. See above: I'm quoting mainstream Democrats.
I see the quote as Bush claiming to know his opponents motivations in opposing a particular piece of legislation. You don't?
He's attacking their priorties. And he's not doing it as a way of avoiding some grand point they're making or evidence they're presenting.
As I've said, there's a vast difference between observing someone's behavior or listening to their argument, and characterizing it as harmful based on effect, and using ad hominem argument as a way of avoiding evidence or debate.
Yes, in this case, Bush is saying they have bad priorities, or priorities he disagrees with: they're just more interested in "special interests" than national security, in his view.
First, we must debate whether the charge is true or even at least plausible. Then we can decide whether Bush's statement possibly reflected or merely avoided Democratic arguments and actions.
In this case, Democrats were saying they would block any bill which didn't ensure all new Federal employees were union members (unions are a major supporter of their party). This was also a stance union leaders were demanding at that time.
Unions are, last I checked, a special interest group. And yes, it was clear the Democrats were blocking the bill for precisely that reason: they even said that was their sticking point.
So there's no symmetry here, Ryan: This isn't a case where Bush was falsely alleging some sort of bad motive/action/priority -- listening to special interests -- rather than hear their stunning arguments. He's simply saying (a) that they're holding up a bill he believes is important to national security (which was true), and (b) that they were doing it at the bequest of special interest groups (which was also true).
Sorry if it makes them look bad. But that happens sometimes in politics. It's not the same thing as using name-calling as a way of avoiding debate.
As I said before, there's a difference between giving an analysis of the evidence which might make someone look bad, and using allegations of badness as a way of not analysing the evidence. The former is good and legitimate debate; the latter is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Regarding whether Republicans have insulted Democrats' patriotism...
Yet again, your analysis is focused on Democrats feelings. Good heavens, Ryan, I insult Democrats every time I attempt to show some stance or priority of theirs is incorrect or harmful.
"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."
You seem to continue to demonstrate my point -- that Republicans are more interested in results and actions ("they do not want to take on the terrorists and defeat them") rather than guesses about inner feelings.
Here, Boehner is not saying he knows why they act this way: whether it's bad motives, or a different defintion what's good for America, or what. Boehner is simply saying they don't seem to want to fight and defeat terrorists. He's floored by that, and can't understand it.
If I had to analyse our difference here, it seem that you see all statements of having different or harmful values or priorties as ad hominem attacks on the character of the person in question. I just don't. Especially not in cases when the alleged difference in action or priority actually seems correct.
There's a huge difference between effective debate and reflexively using the ad hominem fallacy as a thought-stopper.
(Continued)
Two for one:
Bush claiming that a polititian "isn't interested in the security of the American People" sounds similar to saying "Reagan wasn't interested in the plight of the poor."
[Regarding Republicans cutting food stamps:] This is a terrible proof that "Bush hates the poor", of course. Motivations can't be inferred from the information given. But if Rove's argument passes the test then that argument would as well since it asserts harm and backs it up with some evidence, then uses that to infer motivations.
No, there's no symmetry there at all.
Concerning the first quote: when did Democrats argue that US security would be improved only if all TSA workers and airport screeners were required to be Democratic-party-contributing union members? I don't remember it. Do you know of such an argument being made? I don't. And I'm not sure I could have seen it as plausable even if it had been made. (Example: do you believe union labor is more efficient? Right: neither do I.)
And the second: Look, for years, conservatives like myself have been arguing for ages that welfare hurts the poor. It's also increases the size of government and fiscal overspending, which we say is a bad thing. That argument not only goes unanswered, it goes unacknowledged. Instead of saying: "We have different priorities", the allegations is "hate" or "greed."
But somehow, neither the reporter nor blogger found time to consider the Republicans' own stated motivations (as Rove does, below) -- nor gauge whether they're right, effective, or even just plausable yet mistaken. The page opens up with a charge of "hatred" as being the motivation.
For contrast, let me go back to the Rove argument, you cited, since you seem to see this as an example of using an a priori accusation of bad motives to avoid debate:
MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?
Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. [1]
Here, Rove tries to engage the authentic arguments of his opponents: That we should understand our enemies, that our nationalism and our militarism is dangerous.
And, yes, he spins it to his favor (we would expect otherwise?), but he is not disingenuously attributing to liberals stances they have not taken. Then he uses Durbin's words to confirm these differences: that liberals tend to see Gitmo as an atrocity, not national security.
So that's the "motive" he's talking about: they're motivated, he contends, by a desire to listen to and understand our enemies, and by a vision of an America whose militarism harms the world.
And indeed, for a sizeable portion of the left, I'd have trouble saying he's wrong. Would you?
So how is that like attributing Republicans cutting welfare to "hate", rather than their own stated beliefs that socialism is harmful, and that we need to cut spending? Rove shames his opponents by quoting them. The blogger shames hers by omitting their own stated concerns and motivations and substituting different ones.
I'm sorry, Ryan, I just don't see it.
I'll talk about patriotism another time.
Finally, concerning this quote:
Frankly, this is the actions of a traitor or a sellout. He deserves to be ridiculed, excoriated and frog-marched off Capitol Hill, then remanded to jail. No bail. Doesn’t this idiot know the type of damage this inflicts on the Marines? Or is it that he’s so intoxicated with the thought of becoming the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee that he’ll say anything?
You alleged:
This poster paints an essentially false dichotomy. The poster calls Murtha's claims "lies" but avoids addressing whether they're actually true and, if true, whether Murtha might have some motive other than stupidity, betrayal or self interest in exposing them. In other words, the charge of trechery is used to avoid addressing Murtha's claims.
First, I don't even need to defend a random blogger: my allegation isn't that what you allege never happens among conservatives, just that its far, far more prevalent among the left.
That said, I disagree in this case, anyway. You wrote "The poster calls Murtha's claims "lies" but avoids addressing whether they're actually true..." Yet your statement is utterly false, from what I can see.
To the contrary, he clearly indicated he had weighed Murtha's allegations (made stateside) against the response from the Marines (in Iraq):
The Marine Response: “I do not know where Rep. Murtha is obtaining is information,” said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Central Command in Tampa, Fla. “Thoroughness will drive the investigation.”
Translation of Col. Gibson’s statement: “I don’t know where Murtha cane [sic] up with this BS but it won’t cut it around here. We’ll do the investigation right.”
Since Murtha himself has never offered an explanation of where he got these allegations, and they conflicted with everything the military was saying about the case, it is not unreasonable to suspect he was simply making them up, or even basing them on a wish to believe the worst about the military. (And if Murtha did have solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and was hiding it, then he himself is guilty of hindering the prosecution of a serious crime.)
So you can't fault this blogger for allegedly 'avoiding the evidence' when Murtha himself offered none, and all the rest went the other way! Contrary to your assertion, this blogger didn't merely address Murtha's allegation, he provided an effective argument which seemed to refute them.
Let's compare this to, say, Bush's conviction Iraq had WMD. Within the last several years (even back into the Clinton administration), dozens of foreign intelligence agencies took the same view. Tenant (a Clinton appointee) assured Bush the argument was "a slamdunk."
So it's easy to see where Bush got the idea; we don't have to resort to alleging he "lied", as the left does. I don't see that we have the same option here, with Murtha. He's either lying or hiding evidence. Either he knows he has solid evidence of wrongdoing, and is hiding it, or he knows he doesn't, and is making it up. (It's a similar situation, structurally, to Kerry's claim that he secretly met with foreign leaders.)
I hate wasting my time making someone read their own source material to point out it refutes their contentions.
And it's not a "false dictomy". It's simply an opinion. (Tip off: You were reading a blog.)
"I hate parsnips!" "That's a false dichtomy! Perhaps you really like parsnips but were confused about what you ate! Or perhaps your tastes have changed! Or perhaps there are parsnips you've never tried, which you'd really like!" "Uh, I just offered my view of the most reasonable answer. I didn't mean to imply there were only two possible options."
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Evolutionary Semantic Dissonance |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Who Hates Menorahs? »
|
I'll agree with the argument that the hard revolutionary left (those advocating revolution) does this more often than, say, liberals or conservatives. And I'll conceed that the softer left (liberals) do it in greater proportion compared to conservatives than I expected prior to this discussion.
For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg delivered the plans for the atomic bomb into the hands of Joseph Stalin. They were certainly guilty of treason, and were certainly traitors
I agree. Their intent was clearly to betray the United States, or at least knowingly cause it harm. To say that their motivation was to harm the US, or at least to deliberately act contrary to its interests, is not a huge stretch.
But that's not saying CNN had bad motives -- undoubtedly they are deeply assured they are serving the Greater Good of Humanity
To call CNN trecherous is most likely an inference that they had anti-US motives, not anti-human motives. At least it assumes that a particular video they provide has negligible value to America. (Note; I haven't seen the sniper videos)
The assumption is often made that those people who disagree with conservative foreign policy are attacking "the United States" rather than the particular policy they oppose. There is a difference between attacking a policy and attacking the person advocating the policy, as you mentioned earlier. Those opposed to Bush's policies are against the particular policy, not "anti-American."
Let me put it another way. Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Is the soldier who accidentally killed him automatically a traitor?
Bush's actions resulted in the death and discomfort of many servicemen. Does that fact automatically make Bush a traitor?
Or is some greater burden required to prove the charge of treason in each of these cases?
People disagreed with some of Clinton's policies. Does that make them traitors?
Personally, I'd say 'no' in each case.
So far as I can tell, the charges of 'treason' seems to stem from Ann Coulter's recent book, and most people who make the charge seem to have read the book. The charge might possibly be seen as a coded refernce to the book (which I haven't read yet) though it comes across as an ad hominem to those out of the loop.
I also found mostly liberal/Democratic responses to the 'traitor' charge in my search.
Regarding whether Republicans have insulted Democrats' patriotism, in addtion to Ann Coulter's "Treason" book there's;
Otherwise, the Bush administration seems to have made an effort to refrain from the tactics criticised here (so far as I'm aware). The administration's response to such tactics by their various supporters is debatable, but they have taken this official stance for themselves;
However that just applies to the president and not the Republican party. (And it obviously doesn't apply to party supporters like Coulter, a fact which the president's false start seemed to implicitly acknowledge.)
Incidentally, Free Republic has a policy of banning posters who make personal attacks. I'm not sure how consistently the policy is enforced. I've seen one or two anti-John Kerry comments. The policy may speak to the standards and values of the FR editors, however it may also interfere with FR as a reliable picture of its posters.
Posted by: Ryan on December 25, 2006 03:48 AM