9/28 Ben: Hoagland uses rescue workers as a rhetorical shield

Most people would agree that it's hard to argue with heroes. And very few of us would want to argue with those who are working to find victims of the the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Of course, that's probably not something many have considered, as not many of these people have expressed their views through newspaper op-ed columns. That's why a piece in today's Washington Post may come as a surprise to many, as columnist Jim Hoagland purports to express the views and "anger" of all of those working to find and comfort victims of the World Trade Center attack.

Of course, Hoagland has not actually polled all of these people. He is merely using a rhetorical trick to make his argument powerful and seemingly beyond dispute. Hoagland, apparently, is concerned that the government is more interested in building an international coalition against terrorists than in taking action against terrorists, and says so through the World Trade Center victims:

President Bush and his aides deny that the United States seeks vengeance. Politicians have to say that kind of thing when they are assembling "broad-based" coalitions abroad.

But the police officers, the firefighters, the iron workers and others at Ground Zero have earned more than diplomatic footwork or other forms of temporizing. They will wait, but they will not wait for very long if their anger seems to go unrequited.

Hoagland's rhetorical tricks are particularly evident in the first sentence of the second paragraph here (the final paragraph in the article). First, he brings up the noble professions of some of the rescuers, to maximize reader sympathy. Then, he frames anti-terrorism coalition building as "diplomatic footwork or other forms of temporizing," making such efforts seem like pointless delaying tactics rather than efforts to effectively fight terrorism.

If Hoagland wants to argue for swift vengeance, he should have the courage to say so in his own voice. Supposing he knows the emotions of rescue workers is a cheap, irrational trick to avoid honest debate.

Correction: After it was correctly pointed out to me that Hoagland was discussing rescue workers and not innocent victims, this article was revised. Its main point still stands. Nevertheless, I apologize for the error.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Suppressing Dissent at Home, Fighting for Freedom Abroad?(Brendan Nyhan, 9/24)
-Mark Steyn casts rhetoric at any who dare oppose war (Ben Fritz, 9/18)

9/28/2001 10:45:21 AM EST |

9/27 Bryan: If you're not with Michael Kelly, you're pro-terrorist

In his latest column, Michael Kelly indulges in some viciously illogical reasoning in order to claim that pacifists opposing military action are "on the side of the murderers" of September 11.

Kelly's argument is as follows:

In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain's pacifists: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' " . . .

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Examined closely, Kelly's argument rests on a pair of arguable assumptions. First, he claims that terrorist groups do not want America to retaliate – certainly a debatable point given that Kelly can't peer inside the terrorists' heads. The assumption, however, allows him to line up pacifists on the same side as terrorists by claiming (falsely) that it is certain that they want the same thing.

Next, Kelly claims that the terrorists will attack again "if America does not fight." Of course, the terrorists may well attack again even if America does go to war. Yet these two assumptions allow Kelly to claim that pacifists "are on the side of future mass murders of Americans," despite the fact that pacifists, being opposed to violence, certainly do not condone or endorse the horrible acts of September 11.

In fact, Kelly's piece is remarkably similar to Andrew Sullivan's commentary of last week, including a nearly identical quote from George Orwell. Both are examples of a flawed logic which concludes that because a belief or group does not postively endorse a given plan or outcome, it must therefore support the opposite of that plan/outcome. In both cases it is used as an irrational tactic to repress dissent.

While arguing that pacificism will not achieve the desired ends of eliminating terrorism is perfectly legitimate, claiming, as Kelly does, that one's opponents "believe that it is better to allow more Americans . . . to be murdered than to capture or kill the murders" and concluding that "the pacifists' position . . . is evil" is unfair. Quashing dissent with faulty reasoning and rhetorical bluster is bad enough during peacetime; it is downright dangerous in wartime.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Suppressing Dissent At Home, Fighting for Freedom Abroad? (Brendan Nyhan, 9/24)
-Andrew Sullivan's "fifth column" rhetoric (Brendan Nyhan, 9/20)
-Is Rational Discourse Another Casualty of Tuesday's Attacks? (Ben Fritz, 9/17)

9/26/2001 08:20:50 PM EST |

9/26 Ben: Posner suggests Bush's current performance proves past victory

For some pundits, it's just too irresistible to take widely accepted truths about America’s current crisis and use them as "evidence" for other, irrelevant arguments, regardless of whether or not logic connects the two. Such is the case with Gerald Posner's piece in OpinionJournal.com yesterday, in which he slyly suggests that Bush’s current performance justifies his controversial victory in last year's election.

Posner begins by noting that he supported former Vice-President Gore in aftermath of the 2000 election, but discounts the legal arguments of those who believe Gore was the rightful victor. "Of course, I did not know whether the election had gone for Mr. Gore or George W. Bush," he states. "As a partisan, I did not care." Posner's use of the term "of course," suggests that nobody believed they knew whether the law clearly showed victory for either candidate and that any such support could only have been motivated by partisan purposes.

Of course, (if you’ll excuse that term), many supporters of both candidates surely were motivated by partisanship. However, there were real legal arguments in the recount controversy, not just partisan preferences.

After asserting that partisanship is all that was at stake, Posner outlines what he sees as President Bush's excellent performance, and states, "Well, I was vocal last year in stating my firm belief that the wrong man was elected president. Now I am compelled to admit I was mistaken."

Whether the wrong man won the 2000 presidential election is not a matter that can be decided by current events,. It may be that Bush is performing better than Posner, or some other Democrats, may have expected. That, however, does not make his controversial victory any more or less legitimate. If Posner simply means to state that he supported the wrong candidate, so be it. The recount controversy, however, should be left out of it.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Dionne gloats on military ballots (Ben Fritz, 7/18)
-Intent in the Florida mess (Brendan Nyhan, 6/14)
-Election 2000 debate re-ignites (Ben Fritz, 6/6)
-Recount Reconsiderations (Ben Fritz, 4/17)

9/26/2001 12:13:40 AM EST |

9/25 Brendan: Limbaugh hypocrisy and ethnic slurs

While conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been relatively restrained since the terrorist attacks of September 11, he indulged in hypocritical ethnic cheap shots at some disfavored Democrats last Wednesday:

…[W]e [the US] are the giants of public relations, we are the giants of spin – and so, I have a question. I have yet to see Abdullah Begala, I have yet to see Mustafa Stephanopoulos, I have yet to see Sahib Carville. You even remember how we turned Ken Starr into a walking, breathing, daily devil? Can't we at least do that for a real devil? Can't we at least do that for Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden or some of these people who are – the Taliban? … We have no trouble coming up with campaigns to destroy the lives of decent American citizens, but when it comes to the genuine enemies of America, we seem to have a little less than resolve...

Begala and Carville have publicly stated their support for President Bush since the attacks, in fact, while Stephanopoulos is now a commentator for ABC and thus has not made such a statement. It is unclear why it is incumbent upon the three of them in particular to attack Bin Laden. Stephanopoulos has commented on Bin Laden on ABC - presumably not favorably - while the opinions of domestic political operatives like Begala and Carville are not particularly newsworthy right now. Nonetheless, Limbaugh attaches Middle Eastern names to the three in an attempt to irrationally associate them with Bin Laden. This is both a groundless smear and an offensive ethnic cheap shot.

Also, in case Limbaugh's forgotten, here's what he said about Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle less than two months ago: "Is Tom Daschle simply another way to portray a devil?" While Carville and Begala attacked Starr harshly, they never actually compared him to the devil.

Limbaugh's irrational rhetoric and ethnic slurs are bad enough, but now he can't even keep his own demonization straight.

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Limbaugh’s Daschle "devil" analogy (Brendan Nyhan, 7/21)

9/25/2001 10:42:41 AM EST |

9/24 column: Suppressing Dissent At Home, Fighting for Freedom Abroad?

By Brendan Nyhan

As the United States embarks on a campaign against international terrorism abroad, it is important that we carefully consider what such a conflict could mean for our freedoms here at home. Wars often give rise to conditions of secrecy and suppression of dissent that are antithetical to democracy. While secrecy in particular is necessary to a certain extent, it is crucially important that we do not let democratic debate be silenced, as some commentary has implicitly encouraged and even, in one case, directly advocated.

9/24/2001 06:09:06 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS