Outrage at McCain--a loser strategy. - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine
Kaus' argument (about how Democrats who cry "liar liar" are pursuing a losing strategy) makes a lot of sense.
Ever since 9/11, many liberals (especially those like the Daily Kos crowd, but older politicians will also seize on it when it suits them) have started acting as if political discourse has never involved ambiguity, exaggeration and half truths. For them to label every statement of their opponent that is not shown to be 100% "true" as an outright "lie" just makes them look immature, naive, and (at least in the case of politicians who know better), insincere. Yet it is a tactic that they are finding very hard to abandon, despite the harm it is causing to their side.
2 comments:
Difficult...
It appears you agree that the Republicans are a pack of lying bastards but that's just politics. I could accept that I suppose if they didn't wrap it with the degree of Christian hypocrisy they use.
Nonetheless,the question being raised is how to respond to the tactic of blatant deceit in politics. It does appear that telling very big lies repeatedly works in the American constituency (perhaps everywhere). A significant number of Americans do think that the war in Iraq had something to do with fighting terrorism for example, in that Iraq obviously had something to do with 9/11.
From a tactical point of view how best should such evil be attacked? I'm interested in your viewpoint!
Geoff,
It's interesting that you raise the Iraq - 9/11 issue, as in my view the Bush administration did very little to encourage the belief. (Yes, Cheney raised it as a "maybe" in an interview or two on shows that I imagine only a small proportion of those who believe Iraq was directly involved probably watched.) If the American public were so easily led by the nose by its government, then maybe we wouldn't have 36% (reported in 2006) also believing that their government had something to do with 9/11.
That the public of all nations can go off running with beliefs founded on rumour and suggestion is problematic, but it has probably gone on all through history, and its a milieu that politicians have to work within: sometimes it helps them, sometimes it doesn't.
But you need to keep a perspective on how "bad" the situation is in the US. I have often remarked here on how incredibly susceptible to rumour the middle east seems to culturally be. But one has to bear in mind that in some of those countries they have the incredible scandal of the truly evil ideas of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion turning up on popular TV. In my books, that makes Cheney's suggestion pale into insignificance, and renders the question of just when and why Palin stopped wanting the bridge trivial. It also makes me care little that there are Christian evangelists who want to encourage Jews to convert. Seems well intentioned, at least, unlike promoting the Protocol.
For those of us with an interest in reading more than one source of information, the internet is a mixed blessing. I think overall it is helpful to getting closer to "truth", but the counterargument is that it provides material to re-inforce every preconceived idea, no matter how nutty. Oh well, I can see no clear answer to that at the moment.
All politicians exaggerate and tell half truths. I was particularly taken with this story on the financial crisis yesterday:
http://tinyurl.com/4fbpl5
But when one side starts carrying on as if they never do, and starts exaggerating that everything the other side says is a "lie", it inadvertently hurts their own credibility. It's a dishonesty, or naivety, of its own kind.
What's wrong with politicians simply calling an exaggeration an exaggeration? With providing the information that the other side has left out? And doing all of this without naming the other side outright liars?
Post a Comment