I tried to avoid this. However, while writing my last piece, I saw a draft in progress by Harrogate and it needed a response.
Recently, because of Harrogate's love of all things Talk Left, I started to read the web site. To be kind about the site, I think that the arguments are not well developed; the comments, worse. The arguments and the comments remind me of Richard Hofstadter's article "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" as everything that Obama does is a threat to the Clintons, progressive ideas in America, and the Democratic Party. Further, the media is complicit in this campaign. But I digress..
The three most striking features of the arguments and the comments on Talk Left are that they (1) rely on conspiracy or a paranoid style, (2) provide insufficient evidence, and (3) demand Ideological Purity.
(1) The Nature of the Conspiracy: Since Obama's victory in Iowa, one of the Most cited claims against Obama is that he is the "Media's darling." (It is interesting to note how "Media" is the
vague term normally used by the Right, especially on Fox News and the National Review, to attack the liberal media. I mean, no media ever supports Hillary, and certainly not The New York Times and the countless other papers when they endorsed her. But again, I digress.)
Yet, the claim that the media favors Obama and not Clinton presents itself as a conspiracy in the compaign. Hillary is the force of good; however, the media favors Obama and threatens the democratic process of people choosing their leaders. The positive media coverage, according to the Clinton advocates, means that more people like Obama. While you can bring forth the Marxist claim of false consciousness or the Platonic view of "Truth," let's examine the characterization of persuasion in this claim.
Talk Left's claim of "Media Darling" relies on the "Hypodermic Needle" model of persuasion, which has been discredited long ago. Media messages do not cause people to accept views. The communication research suggests an agenda setting function of the press, where the press does not tell people how to think but what to think about. While the media may show Obama in a positive way, making people think that they should reconsider who they should vote for, positive coverage of Obama does not mean that he is gaining votes.
Further, it contains a very low characterization of the American citizen and hostility toward those that favor Obama-- you are a dupe of the media if you support him. Of Course, if this were the case, then how did the wise Clinton supporters break the chains and escape the cave to see the "truth" about the candidates? The logical implications of Talk Left's position is that almost everyone who watches the news would favor Obama; yet, since the site is full of Clinton supporters, we can see this argument does not stand.
Second, maybe the claims on Talk Left do not stand tests of evidence that high school students ought to learn. Further, this line of argument rests of a dangerous "Either/ Or" fallacy.
For example, one claim by "Big Tent Democrat," who ironically seems to demand ideological purity for the progressive cause within the Democratic Party, relies on this claim as evidence: [Citing Paul Krugman] "By my count, 3 of my last 10 columns have criticized Barack Obama."
Well, let's examine the claim: Here is Paul Krugman's archive. Four of his last Five articles, "Clinton, Obama, Insurance," "The Edwards Effect," "Lessons of 1992," and "Debunking the Reagan Myth," criticize Barack Obama and contain Hillary Clinton Talking Points. Since January 21st, 80% of his articles attack Obama. And if this piece of evidence does not stand to the tests of evidence (reliability, bias), it is safe to say that the other pieces of evidence do not either.
By closely examining this claim, we see a dangerous "Either/Or" Fallacy as well as no criterion to judge whether or not a candidate receives criticism in the press. The count on Maureen Dowd may be correct if you think that every positive comment on Obama is a negative comment for Hillary, which is oddly similar to the way in which Conservatives state that the Equal Time Provision will censor them. The same may be true with Frank Rich. Though he is more openly against Hillary, there is a "you are either with us or against us" nature to these claims. You are either for Hillary or think she is evil. If you like Obama, you think Hillary is evil, right talk left?
Also, Harrogate finds rich the idea that Dowd and Rich attack Hillary on personal grounds; Krugman on policy. First, does Harrogate remember that Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are connected? For example, an attack on health care means that Obama is political naive and does not remember the past. It also means he is inexperienced and knows little. As Krugman attacks Obama on supporting Reagan, he suggests the same. While Krugman may implicitly attack Obama's character, he still attacks his character. Second, claims against character are perfectly reasonable when they are important. I am sure Harrogate would attack Bush for incompetence, would he not, which is an attack on character. When the candidates have very similar positions, then attacks on character, especially POLITICAL JUDGMENT, becomes necessary. This of course, refers to Iraq, where Obama had sense to speak out against it while Hillary supported the Draconian measures of the Bush Administration. To argue that we should exclude character is to attempt to avoid making Hillary's poor judgment important to the election.
Finally, the writers and comments rest on the idea of ideological purity. In the second portion of Harrogate's post, there is a video clip of Michelle Obama. In response of whether or not Michelle Obama would actively campaign for Hillary Clinton, Obama stated, "I would have to think about it. I would have to think about policies, who are pro-cho..... [THERE IS A BREAK IN THE CLIP HERE], her tone."
In response, Big Tent Democrat wrote:This is what we do NOT need. Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.
First, there is an obvious break in the tape. It goes from "Pro-Cho..." to "Her Tone." It is interesting to note that it sounds like Michelle Obama is stating Pro-Choice, but that portioned is edited. I mean, it is not as is the Clinton campaign has tried to argue that an Obama administration would not look after the rights of women. Oh wait. The Clinton campaign has distorted Obama's record here. And here. Okay. we get it. Only Hillary can speak for women; no one else.
Second, this quote chastises Michelle Obama for not adhering to Party Line. Michelle Obama must "straighten out" her position? The Clinton campaign attacks her husband for using drugs and suggesting, because he is black, that he may have been a drug dealer, but no matter. It does not matter that blacks should have a voice in the party; Jessie Jackson won South Carolina. Blacks, and gays, need to follow party line (but don't question DOMA). Michelle Obama must follow party line. It does not matter what your interests are; it only matters what the interests of the Clintons, I mean the Democrats, are. How different is this comment from Sean Hannity's, Mark Levin's, or Rush Limbaugh's attacks on McCain as to whether or not McCain is a conservative. "When you look into the abyss..." But I digress....
Third, and finally, Big Tent Dem. wrote: "imagine if Bill Clinton did this." While this implies the media conspiracy, it also makes me wonder. Imagine if Bill Clinton swallowed his pride and advocated for Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. Oh wait, that would threaten the Clinton Legacy in 2000 and Hillary's rise to power in 2008. When the party needed Bill Clinton to avoid President Bush, Clinton was no where to be found. But, now Big Tent Democrat expects every Democrat to get in line with Clinton?
9 comments:
Some quibbles.
That Barack Obama is a media darling, and that Hillary Clinton has been a target is not the invention of TalkLeft nor of Harrogate. It is a fact. You are right that this doesn't mean people will vote for him. But he's gettting a hell of a lot of love, and Hillary Clinton is getting the same old, utterly baseless, '98 hate.
You speak of Ethos: but the attacks on Hillary Clinton forward a false ethos. They can scream over and over again, she's cutthroat, she's shrill, she's conniving, she'd walk over corpses to get what she wants. And they do say it a lot. But this makes it no more actually true. It is unfortunate that you will not summon the wherewithal to concede this simple point.
While Talk Left did not invent the point, they still rely on it all day long and it is quite the boring trope.
I think that the way in which the used race to make Obama the "Black Candidate" so don't vote for him is a way in which the Clintons will divide the party in the primary to get the nomination. The same applies to the "toleration" of the Democratic party and the Muslim emails sent in Iowa. Talk about inventing claims on character.
I think that the way former President Clinton relied on support from the GLBT Community and then signed DOMA is significant.
Also, a political realism, which you seem to support (as opposed to Obama's pragmatism, or as you would say, his idealism, aka Unity Schtick) relies on the idea that political is a dirty business and only the strong survive; hence, there is a need for ideological purity. Under this view, the criticisms of Dowd on Clinton's cold character would be desirable, would they not?
Also, that is a helluva point about Hillary Clinton's Iraq vote. Now we're talking. She made a very bad political judgment there, and Obama nailed her for it at the debate. See how much better that is than the Dick Morris approach, which has largely defined the likes of Rich, Dowd, MSNBC, etc.?
Also, a good point with respect to Bill Clinton failing to step to the plate on Gore's behalf for the 2000 election. Although the claim that this was calculated to set things up for his wife is more Dick Morris nonsense, and Harrogate suspects you know this. Indeed, the buzz among gossips like Robert Novack and Maureen Dowd was that Gore didn't want either Clinton anywhere near his campaign.
You know, because Loserman was so much more palatable of an allegiance.
As for Kerry, no power on Earth could have helped him, so inept was his campaign. Allowing himself to be photographed windsurfing, for God's sake?
And Kerry's failure to swing back at the SwiftLiars reminded Harrogate of Dukakis freezing on camera when asked, how would you feel if your wife were raped and murdered.
Finally, Michelle Obama's comment was terrible and a huge gaffe to boot, regardless of editing. She should retract. How zealously Obama one must be, not to be willing to admit this.
I think the idea that Dowd attacks on personal grounds and not policy is a bit simplistic. One of Dowd's theses is that the Clinton's have no firm political philosophy, only a desire for power. As such, she analyzes the means they use to achieve their ends, much of which is personality driven.
The differences between Hillary and Obama are fairly minor, the biggest being on the war and health care, but even then they aren't really that far apart. Nobody is switching from Barack to Hillary because Krugman says her insurance plan covers more of the working poor.
What's left is personality. And that is where Obama is destroying Hillary. That makes it a valid reference for analysis.
I fault Bill for 2004 more than 2000. Though the Dems felt he was a saint, he was not going to get voters to cross lines on the heels of Monica. Politically, he did not have the capital in 2000. But he did in 2004. And, it is there that he left the party waiting, giving Kerry the advice to attacks gays to help in Red States. Classy. If Bush and Chenney were the grave evil that the Dems believed, then Clinton should have done everything for his party in 2004 to prevent the Bush admin from destroying the country. But, he didn't because of Kerry's weaknesses and...2008.
Sorry, I fail to see how Michelle's Obama comments were terrible. She did not say that, categorically, she would not support Clinton. (I have done this, but Michelle Obama did not). Her claim is that she would need to think about it. If you object to this, why? Because she is being honest? Because she may not like Hillary? Since when is it necessary for every Democrat to support the party leader?
For the past eight years, Democrats have attacked Republicans on these grounds. Yet, at first chance, Democratic supporters pull the same argument.
Think about it. Talk Left is calling for the Dems to support policies that represent progressive ideas. It seems there can be no compromise on that point. However, think about it. Unless "progressives" of Democrats achieve overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, then this political style will not lead to many political victories, ensuring electoral defeat in 2010 and 2012.
As yourself, what legislative accomplishments did the Bush Administration accomplish appealing strictly to the base?
There is all the rhetorical difference in the world between you, an anonymous blogger, saying you would not support Hillary Clinton should she get the nomination, and Michelle Obama even suggesting that possibility at this point.
"it is there that he left the party waiting, giving Kerry the advice to attacks gays to help in Red States. Classy." What??? This wouldn't happen to be an unsubstantiated smear would it.
Well, Ann Coulter claims she is going to get Hillary's vote after McCain wins so she will count out M. Obama's vote. :)
Grr. Not get her vote. You know what I mean.
Harrogate. Go back and read the coverage of the 2004 election. Clinton advised Kerry to support amendments to state constitutions to prevent same-sex marriage, i.e. attack gays and get votes.
This is the point: attacks the GLBT community, attack blacks, use smears against Obama for Reagan and being a Muslim. Whatever works for the Clintons is fair game. I do not think that this is A smear against the Clintons since it is the political style of realism that they rely on.
Of course, if everyone relies on the political style of realism, them it should not matter that Dowd or Rich attacks Clinton and uses "personal smears." To cry about the rules of the shows weakness, which is not allowed under political realism. (Hence, the attacks on the Unity Schtick.)
I am not trying to attack Clinton. I am simply pointing out the entailments of their premises.
Post a Comment