Liberals turn "imperialism" into ad hominem (10/9)

By Ben Fritz

In the ongoing debate over a potential war in Iraq, partisans on both sides are looking for highly charged words to use in ad hominem attacks on their opponents. As we previously showed, some war supporters have been using “appeaser” as their word of choice, misusing it to tar those who oppose an invasion.

Some liberal partisans have a favorite word for their opponents as well: imperialism. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is an appropriate term to describe President Bush’s foreign policy, but such a powerful word should be backed up with substance. Many liberals, however, are using it as a cheap ad hominem attack, hoping to dismiss all arguments for Bush’s foreign policy.

This is easy to do with such a highly charged word. According to Merriam-Webster Online, it means, "The policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and domination of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas." In most readers' minds, of course, it also brings up deeply troubling memories of European imperialism, which included the colonization and oppression of indigenous people.

Consider syndicated liberal columnist Robert Scheer, who has used the word in all three of his most recent columns. Each time, Scheer engages in a cheap debating tactic typical of many columnists – argue against your opponents’ views and then, after disproving them to your own satisfaction, take the weakness of their stated arguments as proof that they must have more sinister motives.

"Imperialist greed is what 'regime change' in Iraq and 'anticipatory self-defense' are all about, and all of the rest of the Bush administration's talk about security and democracy is a bunch of malarkey," Scheer argues in his Oct. 1 column, claiming that the real goal of Bush’s Iraq policy is to take its oil resources, but offering no positive evidence besides the connections to the oil industry of some top administration officials.

This week, Scheer found a new motive behind the alleged imperialists in the government while using the term in a similarly ad hominem manner: "The pent-up desire of frustrated wannabe imperialists among top Bush advisors to find a way to use our high-tech weaponry to micromanage the world."

Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins also picked up the term in her September 24 column, calling the recently released National Security Strategy "rank imperialism and warmongering." Without engaging any of the content of the document, she also refers to "the announced plan of this administration for world domination" and calls the plan "un-American."

Author and syndicated columnist William Greider is the third liberal to echo this term in recent weeks, accusing the Bush administration of having "imperial ambitions" and "imperial illusions."

Those who actually engage the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, as Gary Kamiya did on Salon recently (Premium subscription required), can certainly make the argument that the Bush administration’s policy is ultimately a new version of imperialism. Like "appeasement," though, the term has strong and specific historical overtones that are certain to get a rise out of readers. Those who carelessly use it to dismiss any pro-invasion arguments reveal that they are more interested in cheap shots than actually demonstrating why the word applies.

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

10/9/2002 04:15:48 PM EST |

"Un-American" and "anti-American" accusations fly over Iraq policy (10/8)

By Bryan Keefer

With a potential war in Iraq dominating headlines, a commentator and politician have leveled accusations that their opponents are "un-American" and "anti-American" (respectively) during recent TV appearances.

In an interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, conservative radio host Mike Gallagher made the inflammatory charge against liberal radio host Joe Madison. Responding to an email from a viewer named Gila suggesting that "The Bush administration is making Iraq its cause celebre and diverting attention from other issues like the economy", Gallagher claimed that "people like Joe [Madison] and Gila are rooting against the president and against this country. And listen, I say to Gila or to Joe, if you don't like what this government stands for, go over to Baghdad and be a loyal to Saddam Hussein like [Rep. Jim] McDermott is." When Madison began to respond, Gallagher claimed "You're un-American. You're un-American", "you hate America" and "You're un-American. You're either with us or with the terrorists," concluding "You're either with us or with the terrorists, Wolf. . . . Which side are you on, Joe?"

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-NC) attacked Congressman Joe Filner (D-CA) several days ago in a similar vein. On Sept. 25, Filner suggested on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" that the United States gave Iraq biological and chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Filner was probably relying on a Newsweek article of Sept. 23, 2002 which cited classified Commerce Department documents in reporting that the Reagan administration allowed Iraq to import several shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" that were known to have potential biological warfare applications.

Wilson argued with Filner, who would not retract his claim, and then launched into a series of attacks. According to Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post, Wilson blustered that "This hatred of America by some people is just outrageous. And you need to get over that", then "accused Filner of harboring 'hatred of America' four more times, of being 'hateful' three times and of being 'viscerally anti-American' once." Grove does note that Wilson sent him this apology afterward: "If I said something in the heat of the debate that was taken as critical of the congressman's patriotism or commitment to this country, I apologize."

While passions run high on both sides over how best to deal with Iraq, partisans would do better to stick to the facts rather than challenging the patriotism of their opponents.

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

10/8/2002 08:45:35 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