Two Americas
Lately, the hot thing to do among the conservatives/libertarians I know is to lament the state of political discourse in our country today. My friend Eddie does a pretty good job of describing why I've found it so frustrating to listen to or read conservative commentary lately.
To the extent that there has less cooperation across the aisle under the Bushies, this is, in my opinion, a direct result of this White House's attempts to frame nearly every political issue as a struggle of good versus evil, where their agenda is "good" and anything that gets in its way is "evil." And, time and time again, when people -- like, among others, Paul O'Neill, or Dick Clarke, or Joe Wilson -- have stood up and tried to reintroduce facts or reasoned argument into the debate, this Administration and their allies have responded, by and large, not with facts or arguments of their own, but rather by impugning their motives and by exacting political retribution on them for speaking out.
Apparently, there are people out there who find this kind of moral reductionism clarity appealing, but it's a bit rich for these same people to bemoan the lack of civility in politics today.
Anyway, on another note, I've been reading more and more stuff in the papers saying that Kerry's going to pick Gephardt for Veep over Edwards. Boo, I say. These two pieces in the American Prospect [#1, #2] make a pretty convincing case for why this would be a mistake.
4 Comments:
Although you never explicitly say so, I have a feeling this is a response to my post on Anna's blog. As such, I've got a few comments:
-As I wrote over there, I agree that Bush frequently misapplies the terms "good" and "evil". I also agree that these terms aren't even applicable to most political issues, like, say, interest rates. My point was simply that I admire people who don't view language like this as "off the table". (Cf. Susan Sontag) And remember that the original attacks on GWB's uses of good and evil didn't have anything to do with homeland security, No Child Left Behind, etc. They had to do with terrorism, and the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan. I'm glad there are people who are willing to stand up and denounce these things in the strongest possible language. George Bush, whatever his other faults, was willing to.
-Impugning motives? Does "no blood for oil" ring a bell? I could give you plenty of other examples, but suffice it to say, I don't think impugning motives started with GWB.
-A bit rich for me for me to bemoan the lack of civility? Why? I'm civil. I don't impugn motives or exact political retribution, and I don't think I'm contributing to the lack of civility by posting to a blog about how I admire ONE feature, as demonstrated in SOME contexts, of a guy I'm not even going to vote for.
-I think the main reason for declining civility is that, during times of high political strife, activist and partisan elements of all sides tend to dominate the discussion. Since these kinds of people are more interested in winning than in critical self-reflection, you get less civility than you'd have during times of normal politics.
-But this is all, strictly speaking, beside the point anyway. My post at Anna's blog addressed the question of why pro-Bush people are reluctant to speak up. The whole "declining civility" was part of that explanation. That this decline is, in your opinion, the fault of pro-Bush people doesn't disparage its force as an explanation.
Oh, that was me. (Damn confusing Blogger!)
-ACSepielli
This was not about you.
As for impugning motives, "no blood for oil" is, I'm afraid, not a particularly good example of an unwarranted attack. "No blood for oil," as I interpret it, is really shorthand for two (or three) possible critiques of the war, neither of which compare to the cynical smear campaigns that this Administration has so often employed against its political opponents.
The first interpretation is more or less a critique -- internal or external -- of the realist case for war. The internal critique might be that even within a realist paradigm, Iraq's oil simply isn't worth the war's cost in blood and treasure. The external critique might be that the very idea of prosecuting wars in the pursuit of our naked national interests is repugnant.
But I suspect you're more exercised about the second interpretation, namely that this Administration went to war primarily to help its friends in the oil and defense contracting industries. Frankly, I don't think that it's unduly harsh to accuse this administration of crony capitalism, especially when it comes to its oilmen buddies, given the fiasco that is our energy policy.
Strictly speaking, what I find offensive is not simply that the Bushies choose to question their opponents' motives as that they seem to rely on these arguments (1) where they bear little to no relevance to the substance of the controversy; and (2) without any apparent interest in engaging the issue on the merits.
Hmmm...there goes my hypothesis that the world revolves around me. ;-)
As for the "no blood for oil" thing: That may be a fair criticism of the Bush administration's motives, but I don't think statements like that reflect a sincere effort to get George Bush to change his mind. (If they do, people have a lot to learn about human psychology.) Rather, I think such criticisms are directed towards regular, pro-war Americans. As such, they're pretty unfounded. I haven't seen polls on this, and I doubt that there's a way to accurately poll for this, but I suspect that very, very few pro-war citizens are motivated by oil.
But you're probably right; there are better examples out there of illegitimate motive-attacking.
-ACSepielli
Post a Comment
<< Home