10/27 Brendan: Terrorist metaphors run rampant

Wanted: a moratorium on comparisons between domestic politics and terrorism.

Even as a serious international debate continues on the proper definition of terrorism, American political discourse continues to be plagued by insipid and inflammatory comparisons of domestic political figures and groups to terrorists. These comparisons take advantage of the tremendous emotional associations that "terrorism" and related terms now carry in order to discredit the positions and policies of opponents.

For example, David Talbot's recent Salon.com column attacking Andrew Sullivan was titled "Andrew Sullivan's Jihad". Sullivan's response on his website threw back these charges under the title - guess what? - "Talbot's Jihad".

A far more extreme example, however, comes in a National Review Online column by Ron Unz, the leader of the anti-bilingual education movement. Unz discusses a recent debate on a measure to dismantle bilingual education programs in Massachusetts, beginning with this cheap shot: "While most Americans have been transfixed by the terrorist attacks," he writes, "a few in our society fear an even greater horror" - ending bilingual education. Calling himself "[the] personal Bin Laden" of supporters of bilingual education, Unz sets himself up as a martyr facing disproportionate hatred and continues his insinuation that his opponents believe eliminating bilingual education is "an even greater horror" than terrorism.

The kicker, however, comes in the final paragraph, which directly compares supporters of bilingual education to terrorists (emphasis mine):

A few weeks ago, Americans witnessed the enormous devastation that a small handful of fanatically committed individuals can wreak upon society. Perhaps it is now time for ordinary Americans to be willing to take a stand against those similarly tiny groups of educational terrorists in our midst, whose disastrous policies are enforced upon us not by bombs or even by knives, but simply by their high-pitched voices. Americans must remain silent no longer.

As tragic as Unz may believe bilingual education has been for immigrant children, there are simply no legitimate grounds for calling well-intentioned opponents "educational terrorists". If their polices were actually "enforced upon us ... by their high-pitched voices", as he claims, Unz would not have won his Proposition 227 campaign in California.

Once again, this sort of rhetoric does not clarify - it obscures and inflames. Whatever the faults of one's domestic political opponents, they surely don’t compare to the crimes of the Al Qaeda terrorists who murdered so many people on September 11.

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

Related links:
-The "censorship canard"? (Brendan Nyhan, 10/24)

10/27/2001 06:50:29 PM EST |

10/25 Bryan: Malkin's frontal assault on anti-war dissent

In her latest column, Michelle Malkin throws together nearly all of the pro-war jargon bandied about since September 11 into an irrational, emotional tirade directed at everyone opposed to the current war.

Ostensibly, Malkin's column argues that terrorists should be executed without jury trials, as six Nazi spies were during World War II. Yet in place of a rational argument, Malkin substitutes a series of loaded phrases. "To the delight of American doves," Malkin tells us, "then-President Clinton didn't respond [to the embassy bombings] by declaring war on terrorism. He had other things on has scandal-addled mind." Malkin doesn't bother with examples of these "doves" or their "delight", which would only get in the way of her attack on pacifists.

Malkin continues with some even nastier invective: "Two [of the terrorists] has faced the death penalty, but were spared by a minority-dominated jury that swallowed the race-baiting of traitorous defense witness Ramsey Clark . . ." [emphasis mine] Branding a witness "traitorous" because of his opinions about the death penalty and the US legal system is some of the most serious invective hurled at an individual we've seen since September 11.

The rest of Malkin's column stays the course set in the first few paragraphs: the convicted terrorists were "aided in their publicly-funded defense by blame-America firsters and race-card opportunists," life in prison for those terrorists "is the kind of 'justice' the American apologists for terrorism seek," and an allegation Osama bin Laden would be visited in jail by "kindred congressional visitors like Barbara Lee, Cynthia McKinney and Jim McDermott."

Malkin is attempting to link those opposed to the war with opposition to the death penalty for terrorists in an effort to discredit both. Rhetorically linking a particular person or position with a unfavorable group or cause is a common tactic of the new school of political jargon. While some of those who oppose the war undoubtedly oppose the death penalty for terrorists as well, Malkin can't be bothered to make the case with evidence or examples, instead resorting to manipulative rhetoric and attempting to brand such opposition as "apolog[ism] for terrorism" and, in the case of Ramsey Clark, treason. Malkin's inflammatory attack is aimed not at contributing to public debate, but to stifling it.

Update: Alert readers have pointed out that the "traitorous" label Malkin applies to Ramsey Clark is probably intended at least partly as a comment on Clark's career defending those accused of international human rights abuses, generally by blaming developed countries for somehow fostering the abuses (for more on Clark, see this article). Nonetheless, Malkin's use of "traitorous" to describe Clark is inflammatory at best, and her use of such accusations to discredit anti-war criticism by association is even worse.

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

Related links:
-Coulter goes even farther off the deep end (Brendan Nyhan, 10/18)
-Andrew Sullivan's "fifth column" rhetoric (Brendan Nyhan, 9/20)

10/25/2001 06:32:53 PM EST |

10/24 Ben: Lowey and Armey invoke higher values to avoid debate

With new concerns about national security, a failing economy, and a war in Afghanistan, there are a lot of important issues for Congress to debate. Unfortunately, some congressional leaders' rhetoric indicates a disturbing trend of attempting to rush through legislation related to the events of September 11 by framing legitimate opposition as unworthy of debate.

On the Democratic side, a recent offender has been Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a Washington Post article on Sunday, she responded to Republican Rep. Tom Delay’s opposition to federalizing airport security with these claims:

To have Tom DeLay delay an airport security bill is immoral, is wrong, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's a grave error. People want us to take action and they want us to do it now.

Lowey may be right that the public wants improved airport security. But there are surely plenty of Americans who oppose federalizing the system. Calling such a position "immoral" is a clear attempt to delegimitize opposition to her position without actually addressing its merits.

Similarly disturbing, although not as aggressive, were comments by House Majority Leader Dick Armey during a debate today about the economic stimulus package, which eventually passed. Like Lowey, Armey utilized broad, value-laden rhetoric to dismiss his opponents' position (NPR clip, requires Real Player):

Put aside your partisan efforts, your parochial interests, and focus on the well being of this great nation.

Framing concerns that the stimulus package has too many tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy as "partisan efforts" and "parochial interests," is, of course, a crude attempt to make them untenable. It is another example of a politician trying to avoid rational debate by appealing to indisputable values. Nobody, after all, is explicitly against morality or America’s well being.

This may be a time of national unity, but real differences still exist on issues of policy. Politicians who invoke terms like "immoral" and "parochial interests" are effectively attempting to cut off the healthy debate that makes American democracy work. As tempting as it may be to invoke higher values at this time of crisis, it is important not to use them to avoid the crucial value of rational debate.

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

Related links:
-Criticizing American Policy: Picking and Choosing What is Legitimate (Bryan Keefer, 10/01)
-Is Rational Discourse Another Casualty of Tuesday's Attacks? (Ben Fritz, 9/17)

10/24/2001 10:56:43 PM EST |

10/24 Brendan: The "censorship canard"?

The ongoing spat between conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan and Salon editor David Talbot does a disservice to serious arguments about democratic debate in wartime.

In response to criticism from Sullivan on his website, Talbot pummels the former New Republic editor in a column rife with ad hominem attacks. These include a vicious nativist slam at Sullivan as "an arrogant and self-important Brit" and a reference to the testosterone replacement therapy Sullivan is receiving as part of his HIV treatment.

This is a shame, because Talbot discredits his serious point concerning the effect of aggressive rhetoric on political debate during wartime. He states that Sullivan's rhetoric "turns American politics into a free-fire zone where any deviation from his view of the national program is immediately leveled" with loaded attacks on "appeasement" and a "fifth column". From there, Talbot goes on to warn that journalists (including Sullivan) must be "particularly vigilant" of government censorship.

Sullivan's response on his website labels this the "censorship canard" and argues that "[this] debate has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship - and the charge is a blatant attempt to change the subject". "[T]here is no chance of actual government censorship in this war" and he has "no ability or desire to censor anyone". Then, in a dig at some over-the-top rhetoric about dissent from columnist Robert Scheer, Sullivan further claims "the far left's inane cries of censorship" actually represent a desire for "immunity from sharp and pointed criticism". These views echo those expressed in a recent New Republic Online piece by Sacha Zimmerman and in a recent syndicated column by Thomas Sowell, among others.

So, who's right? On the one hand, it is true that people, often on the left, have sought to defend those under criticism like "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher by citing "censorship" and "free speech", often more as code words than actual allegations of government censorship or direct threats to free expression. Scheer's comparison of dissent in the Soviet Union with the situation in the US today falls into this category.

At the same time, though, Sullivan is trying to shift the debate away from a serious charge made by Talbot that we have frequently raised here at Spinsanity - aggressive rhetoric and ad hominem attacks in times of crisis often create cascades of political pressure that shut down rational debate. Is this direct government censorship? No, but it is of major democratic concern - regardless of whether the government is threatening the First Amendment, a climate of aggressive, irrational debate is damaging to American democracy and can stifle speech. In addition, while censorship of opinion journalism seems unlikely in the current conflict, it is historically true that popular pressure against dissenters has often preceded more direct government action (consider the pressure on academic institutions to discipline professors who have made controversial statements about the war).

In the end, the strength of our democratic discourse is measured in terms greater than a simple lack of government censorship. We need a robust conception of tough, serious and fair political debate. Just because we still have free speech does not mean commentators are absolved from responsibility for the effects of their statements.

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

Related links:
-Sullivan twists Chomsky's words (Bryan Keefer, 10/17)
-"Apparently," Sowell likes twisting words (Brendan Nyhan, 10/11)
-Andrew Sullivan’s "Fifth Column" rhetoric (Brendan Nyhan, 9/20)
-Is Rational Discourse Another Casualty of Tuesday's Attacks? (Ben Fritz, 9/17)
-Complex issue, simple spin - Sullivan on welfare reform (Ben Fritz, 8/14)
-Sullivan slammed unfairly (Brendan Nyhan, 6/19)
-Sullivan says deceive the public (Brendan Nyhan, 5/7)

10/24/2001 11:11:33 AM EST |

10/22 Bryan: Smearing those "lazy" blue states

In Sunday's Washington Times, Marian Kester Coombs becomes the latest pundit to make broad and vicious accusations about states based on their presidential votes in last November's election.

In a rambling column arguing that the work ethic of Americans has declined, Coombs takes the occasion to stereotype Democratic-leaning areas:

Gradually the horror of manual labor seems to have merged into a horror of all labor. The great divide between red [areas which voted for Bush] and blue [areas carried by Gore] on that famous electoral map of America is essentially between those who do and know how to do things, who welcome and honor work, and those who don't, can't or won't. The blue regions regard the red with much the same mix of dread and dependency as the Eloi felt toward the Morlocks in The Time Machine.

Election 2000 proved there are already more blue parasites in this country than red providers - a lot of the former were too lazy to even get off their duffs and vote, despite legions of Democratic enablers.

Coombs has taken a complex regional and cultural dynamic and turned it into a cheap attack on "blue" areas. Coombs is not the first to make such generalizations - Mike Barnicle and Paul Begala have both made ill-advised comments in the same vein - but her absurd generalizations about half of the country's population take the spin to a new level. Her attack is an attempt to drive a wedge between Democrats and the middle class based on irrational appeals to stereotypes of liberals. Coombs's tirade plays on (and reinforces) the red/blue state generalization, creating a new, explicit dichotomy between lazy, urban, upper-class "parasites" who voted for Gore and the "red providers" who voted for Bush.

The jargon of red and blue states, so popular after last November's election, is experiencing a comeback just in time for this year's political season. Coombs, like others before her, uses geography to combine a set of regional, cultural and class stereotypes into a partisan punchline. The 2000 election was many things, but proof of this crass jargon was not one of them.

Clarification: The allusion above to the ill-advised comments of Paul Begala and Mike Barnicle should have made an important distinction between the two. Barnicle's comments, which painted the red vs. blue divide as "family values vs. a sense of entitlement" among other things, were intentionally manipulative and provocative. Begala's comments, made in response to Barnicle's, were intended to point out the fallacies of Barnicle's arguments by using hyperbole (albeit, I believe, in an ill-advised way). Begala's comments were subsequently taken completely out of context by Jeff Jacoby, among others, to assert Begala actually intended to say negative things about states which voted for Bush. I apologize for the confusion. For more on this controversy, see this piece by Nick Confessore in the American Prospect Online.

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

10/22/2001 06:28:04 PM 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