Faux Debate
Following up on my recent post, over the last few decades the political discourse in this country has been poisoned by (to put it politely) intentional disingenuousness. The problem has often been cast by conservatives as arising from the fact that they care about ideas, and liberals do not. But liberals do care about ideas ... my God, they often seem to be constructs composed of grand ideas and visions rather than bones and sinews ... they just don't care to resolve difference through honest debate. Instead, they want raw political power that will enable them to impose their visions on society without debate.
The confusion comes in because in a culture such as ours, deeply rooted in republican governance, no one can gain any significant political power without at least the appearance of a willingness to debate. Thus, Democrats have perfected the faux debate posture, in which they seem to be striving for an honest resolution of a public issue when in fact they seek only to defeat their opponents.
Here's a current example. In the last few decades, the judicial and political philosophy of the Justices on the Supreme Court has become an increasingly important (some say critical) issue in American politics. Senator Harry Reid recently entered some faux debate points into this ongoing public conversation. He said on Friday (h/t K-Lo on The Corner), "We got into a little jam with [Chief Justice John] Roberts. Roberts didn't tell us the truth [in his confirmation hearings]." Um, Senator, is that "didn't tell the truth" as in, John Roberts lied during his confirmation hearings? Isn't lying to Congress like, er, you know, a crime?
Strong words, indeed, from Senator Reid, and in a normal debate you would expect him to follow it up with equally strong demands for a perjury investigation. But Senator Reid was not debating anybody, much less John Roberts, who was perfectly forthright about his judicial philosophy and how he intended to decide future cases. The Senator was simply engaging in hyperbole that looks like an honest debate point, in order to paint his opposition as right wing ideologues and himself as a reasonable centrist. Thus, he calls John Roberts a perjurer, and concludes from this that we need to appoint more moderate (aka liberal) justices in the future. In common parlance, Senator Reid is engaging in "spin," pure and simple, not honest debate.
Republicans fall into this Democrat trap all the time, and usually respond with hurried "think tank" activity, position papers, and detailed point by point refutations. They always think they are in a real debate, and as a result come off like pocket-protected policy wonks who protest too much. They need to realize that there are no facts or logic that will do anything to change a Democrats mind, because Democrats are not seeking honest understanding with Republicans in the first place.
Here's another example, from 2006.
Continue .....
In the infamous Page Scandal, Representative Thomas Foley (FL) was found to have sent sexually suggestive emails to Congressional pages. Then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi insisted that the real issue was not Rep. Foley's actions, but the failure of Republican leadership. She demanded an investigation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert's handling of the affair, charging complicity in and/or cover up of Mr. Foley's activities. Her implicit demand was for Representative Hastert to resign as Speaker of the House.
With elections looming, Republicans panicked. They too began calling for Mr. Hastert's resignation because of his inept handling of the Foley affair after the story had broken. And they were correct, but in calling for Rep. Hastert's resignation his critics were as inept as the Speaker.
Ms. Pelosi's charges were never real claims that Speaker Hastert was complicit in Foley's activities. They were media talking points, spin, hyperbole intended to gain political traction for Democrats in the coming mid-term elections. Speaker Hastert's response should have been immediate, unapologetic and unambiguous, something like, "I and other Republicans in leadership positions have acted forcefully and unambiguously to the actions of Rep. Foley, with a resoluteness towards this and other kinds of wrongful behavior by public servants that has always been conspicuously absent from prior Democrat Party leadership. Therefore, I will not submit the dignity of my office or my person to the baseless and hypocritical demands of Rep. Pelosi, who says one thing today in Washington but goes home to San Francisco to march in a parade with a well-known supporter of The North American Man/Boy Love Association. My constituents in Illinois made me their Representative in Congress, and my colleagues voted me Speaker of this august body. As such, I will answer to my constituents and my colleagues, but not to the brazen hypocrisy of Rep. Pelosi."
In true Democrat fashion this statement should then have been distributed as a talking point to every Republican within sight of a media outlet, and trumpeted loudly, longly and over, and over, and over, and over ... until Democrats decided to go on to their next faux debate point.
That's how you debate with a liberal Democrat.
Continue reading remainder of Post (if any) or read full Post with Comments by clicking here.
Posts
