False Political Balance
Debra Saunders, David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are three conservatives that make well argued cases. Often, I agree with them. This does not make "conservatism" as valid as "liberalism". These two points of view rarely have equal validity, and sometimes neither is right. So, today, I take issue with Debra Saunders.
In the Chronicle this morning, Saunders writes, "I love the Van Jones brouhaha." Her argument seems to be that Jones is a nutty lefty, really not much different from those nutty right-wingers. To her credit, "nutty town hallers" and birthers annoy her, so stupid people making Weekly World News type claims, get no support from Debra Saunders, as is fitting.
In 2004, Van Jones (who resigned from the Obama administration before most people ever heard of him) signed a petition that suggested that people in the Bush administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." Is this a wacky Weekly World News proclamation? No, not really. Cheney, Rumsfeld and all of the prominent neo-cons pushed for an Iraq War during the Clinton Administration, and most used 9/11 to justify the Iraq War. A book by Peter Dale Scott examines the theory in detail. While not concluding one way or another, certainly similar things have happened in American history. For example, the Johnson administration used a Gulf of Tonkin non-event to justify the Viet Nam escalation. It is often claimed that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. What did the Bush administration do once it was learned that "bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States?" [Previous blog entry re: Peter Dale Scott].
Does history suggest a tie between Second Amendment fundamentalism and America's health care? Have past presidents not met the constitutional requirements? Debra Saunders rightly concludes birthers and "town hallers" are flakes. (Evidence indicates they are corporately sponsored flakes.) In contrast, the case made by Peter Dale Scott has historical precedent.
The Bush era was a really bad time in American history. For example, torture is a war crime. If I am a public relations person for the Republican party, I play on the cognitive dissonance of "the greatest country in the world" being involved in war crimes. I stand up and sing the national anthem and "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" and that Lee Greenwood song, and after that, how can we imagine our country involved in evil activities?
The second public relations strategy would be to build false equivalencies. People who bring guns to presidential public meetings are the same as controversial historians, and just as patriotic as those who opposed and saw through contrived rationalizations for a stupid war. Nice try, Debra Saunders. And, to those who say the Republican National Committee is incompetent, I say no. In the zero sum game that they feel they are playing, their best strategy is to invent equivalencies to convince us that one side has to be just as bad as the other.
But, let's move past old fights. The Afghanistan War needs to end. The unemployment rate needs to come down. Infant mortality in the US needs to get reduced. These are things that we can agree on whether we are numbers people or letters people-- the "Phantom Tollboth" seems like a timely reference. And, on the trivial matters, we can agree to disagree.
People interested in working toward the common purpose have to be really annoyed at the focus of the discussion.
In the Chronicle this morning, Saunders writes, "I love the Van Jones brouhaha." Her argument seems to be that Jones is a nutty lefty, really not much different from those nutty right-wingers. To her credit, "nutty town hallers" and birthers annoy her, so stupid people making Weekly World News type claims, get no support from Debra Saunders, as is fitting.
In 2004, Van Jones (who resigned from the Obama administration before most people ever heard of him) signed a petition that suggested that people in the Bush administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." Is this a wacky Weekly World News proclamation? No, not really. Cheney, Rumsfeld and all of the prominent neo-cons pushed for an Iraq War during the Clinton Administration, and most used 9/11 to justify the Iraq War. A book by Peter Dale Scott examines the theory in detail. While not concluding one way or another, certainly similar things have happened in American history. For example, the Johnson administration used a Gulf of Tonkin non-event to justify the Viet Nam escalation. It is often claimed that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. What did the Bush administration do once it was learned that "bin Laden is determined to strike in the United States?" [Previous blog entry re: Peter Dale Scott].
Does history suggest a tie between Second Amendment fundamentalism and America's health care? Have past presidents not met the constitutional requirements? Debra Saunders rightly concludes birthers and "town hallers" are flakes. (Evidence indicates they are corporately sponsored flakes.) In contrast, the case made by Peter Dale Scott has historical precedent.
The Bush era was a really bad time in American history. For example, torture is a war crime. If I am a public relations person for the Republican party, I play on the cognitive dissonance of "the greatest country in the world" being involved in war crimes. I stand up and sing the national anthem and "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" and that Lee Greenwood song, and after that, how can we imagine our country involved in evil activities?
The second public relations strategy would be to build false equivalencies. People who bring guns to presidential public meetings are the same as controversial historians, and just as patriotic as those who opposed and saw through contrived rationalizations for a stupid war. Nice try, Debra Saunders. And, to those who say the Republican National Committee is incompetent, I say no. In the zero sum game that they feel they are playing, their best strategy is to invent equivalencies to convince us that one side has to be just as bad as the other.
But, let's move past old fights. The Afghanistan War needs to end. The unemployment rate needs to come down. Infant mortality in the US needs to get reduced. These are things that we can agree on whether we are numbers people or letters people-- the "Phantom Tollboth" seems like a timely reference. And, on the trivial matters, we can agree to disagree.
People interested in working toward the common purpose have to be really annoyed at the focus of the discussion.
Labels: Don't Vote 2012
posted by David Rasmussen at 10:03 AM
<< Home