Ad Hominem and Stir
Saddled as they are with a great many aberrant and discredited ideas, Republicans have developed a neat way around this seemingly sticky problem, one that plays into the shallow and narrative-driven way the media covers the news; ad hominem attacks in place of engaging critics’ ideas. The dumber, meaner, and more disastrous the idea, the more the naysayers must not only be silenced, but made an example of to prevent such impertinent backtalk cropping up elsewhere. An evergreen strategy beloved by authoritarians ever since Nixon ordered FBI investigations and frivolous prosecutions against his “enemies,” it really grew into, if you’ll pardon the pun, a giant and foul-smelling Turd Blossom in the Bush era, and this poisonous flower is really all the dwindling right has left as a weapon, a fact which is proving as unpleasant for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as it was for Bill Ayers.
This reliance on destroying critics rather than their ideas was firmly in place as early as the 2000 campaign, where relentlessly branding Gore as a liar inoculated Bush from everything Gore said about him, and rather too easily threw the ever-credulous press corps off the scent of Bush’s own flagrant, repeated lies. Helen Thomas was probably their first target once in office; all of a sudden, the White House’s most venerated reporter was “the crazy aunt in the attic,” and moved to the back of the room, something which quite evidently transformed the behavior, nearly overnight, of her colleagues there. When Joe Wilson’s inconvenient truths about the Iraqi weapons, or lack thereof, threatened Freedom’s March, his sterling career and impeccable credentials left them lobbing bricks at his wife. ”Fair game,” in the infamous words of the infamous Karl Rove.
The anti-Michael Moore barrage that began even before Fahrenheit 911 was released was so well-executed and over the top, calling him everything from “Hollywood,” “disingenuous,” to the somewhat more lame, “fat,” that a few years later the Health Care industry found that the heavy spade work was mostly done already, and easily could be reprised to prevent Sicko from having any immediate impact on the health care debate at the time. Never mind that nothing in either movie was ever proven wrong, those actually in the wrong, and rightly being skewered for it, were able to turn off enough Americans to dismiss Moore’s critiques and get away with their shenanigans yet again. The Republican party, mired in the quicksand of their many failures, ceased to be a political movement and instead became a 24/7 smear machine.
As catastrophe piled upon catastrophe, Republicans became a Greek chorus of faux outrage. No target too big or too small…. MoveOn. Jimmy Carter. Al Gore. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. Al Franken. Graeme Foster, a 12 year old kid whose uppity praise for S-chip got his family stalked by Michelle Malkin and others. It seems kind of crazy until you think about it. Republicans had not one legitimate argument against any of these critics. Not one. The critics were completely right, and obviously very brave to speak up. The Republicans were completely wrong, and just cowardly and vindictive enough to go after wives, children, and any other thing their lizard brains could concoct, while the facts got lost as usual in a fetid pile of “he said, she said.”
Being on Nixon’s enemies list became a badge of honor during Watergate, and those left off felt left out. Especially those in the media. Unfortunately that’s no longer true today; the smears are repeated, the truth is buried, and the Cassandras remain marginalized, while the liars and mudslingers await another TV appearance with the same ninnies who believed them the first time. More of the same is being dragged forth by the tattered remains of yesteryear’s world-beaters today in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings; with the curious spectacle of stalwarts of the old Confederacy talking about racism… hers. I think that might be an ad hominem too far. But you never know. It’s worked before.
I just wanted to add one observation. I agree with you that the faux outrage provided by Republicans at folks like Moore is largely fabricated and baseless. That doesn’t mean that members of the Democratic establishment don’t provide ample fodder. I remember losing faith in Moore when I realized that a reaction shot of Moore from Heston’s point of view couldn’t have possibly have occured unless there was a camera person behind Heston. Which of course was impossible because Heston didn’t allow Moore in the house. How am I supposed to take this guy seriously now? What’s he staging? How truthful is he being, and how much is he sacrificing for his narrative?
Well, I only go as far saying that the facts presented, particularly those that offended the Bush Machine, failed to produce any retractions. (much less libel suits…) All these people do in life is compel retractions, and they weren’t able to in Moore’s case. As for the Heston scene, I thought it was the crappiest part of an otherwise great movie, and if it had been staged, I can’t imagine why Heston would have allowed it. Many of the core assertions in both Fahrenheit and Sicko were quite controversial at the time, but nonetheless repeatedly proven correct in the years since.
One staged scene in some other movie doesn’t change that, any more than Gore’s innocent puffery about the Internet and Love Canal made him wrong on other issues, or even those.
Compare the Hollywood entertainer Moore with the serious journalists Brian Williams or David Broder, and see where the statements hold up better over time.
I wished a real journalist or book author would do an in-depth investigation of the Repug MM (Message-Mantra) operation. They have a sophisticated system that works extremely well from their standpoint, both to develop and coordinate at the highest levels the message to be disseminated and the rapid means to do so.
Just like an oligarchy or dictatorship has decided advantages over a democracy in making decisions and taking actions, the Repugs and neocons do also. These Strict Father followers are not like LI (Liberal Independent) practitioners who will vigorously debate any issue no matter who is trying to make it and how urgent the issue. It is a distinct disadvantage in the world of political framing.
I imagine you’ve already read David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right, ” and “The Republican Noise Machine.” Both examine this process pretty well. Robert Greenwald’s documentary, “Outfoxed” is a worthy contender as well. A lot of this stuff draws from your last post about Lakoff, but I can’t help continuing to riff off it, because in our pathetic media environment, words matter more than their meanings.
But where you were dealing with selling, I was focusing on the smearing, which when done right, can make the selling unnecessary. Both tactics appeal to emotion rather than reason, but I think that smearing is worse because real people are directly harmed for abstract political goals, and the conversation is shut down, to boot.
I agree. Smearing is an integral part of the Noise Machine because that is often necessary to distort or ignore the truth and it does work well with blind followers who are very insecure and can only listen to what they want to hear. It is very scary for them to even consider that their thinking and hatred could be wrong. That would mean having to blame themselves for something instead of others. The Mantra deciders and deliverers have exactly the same problem as the followers.
I recommend a listen to “Razzle Dazzle,” from Kander and Ebb’s “Chicago.”
“How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Long as you keep them way off balance, how can they spot, you’ve got no talents. Razzle Dazzle ‘em, and they’ll beg you for more.”
Or, as Kare Finley put it, “When you’re having an argument, and it isn’t going your way, it’s time to bring out the threats.”
Art imitates and illustrates, life.
Speaking of the truth and values and smearing. The Repugs can say vile things that cause people to suffer and die, yet even on cable, during the day, the TV hosts worry more about a common slang expression, blow job. I watched this live and the words didn’t phase me until the TV hosts were so shocked by the words. Damn I wished Hag, they could have at least a modicum of an idea where their priorities should lie when the topic they asked Marcy Wheeler to discuss was so important. Here’s the video.
Joe Lockhart Wanted to Say Blow Job
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/13/joe-lockhart-wanted-to-say-blow-job/
The news over the week-end and on Monday about Cheney’s “orders” to the CIA cannot be smeared away.
This vice president, either on his own or with the blessing of the president, seems to have exceeded, by a wide margin, his authority under the Constitution.
Massaging won’t do either.
This is what was meant, apparently, when some former Bush official (maybe an “Old Blue” linebacker) a while back talked about running right up to the line and getting “chalk on the cleats,” naturally a tried and true sports metaphor, designed to impress the rubes and jocks who love such heroic chatter, and “push the envelope” rhetoric.
Cheney appears to have operated well outside his statutory powers,for a long time, and on a number of issues (including energy policy).
What’s to be done about it?
I don’t know, Dirigo, that’s the kind of backward-looking that might render you nary but a liberal score-settler. Kidding aside, Ed Schultz is all over this, and it will be all over MSNBC, so there’s at least a fighting chance that it won’t be buried under Broderian wallpaper. A slim chance, but better than we’re used to.
Yeah, well, to borrow a line from the dearly departed, and beloved, Bill Buckley (who, before he kicked the bucket, went on record opposing the Iraq War): I want to stand “athwart history and say ‘Stop’!”
In this situation, with Cheney, this appeal relates to official actions and behavior outside the Constitution of the United States.
Stop this bullshit; get right with de’ law!
Let’s apply that mantra from the great white father conservative to the apparently egregious law-breaking of the former veep.
What say you?
Guardedly optimistic, if only because that ol’ hag (minus the cocktail…) Di Fi actually made some positive noises, which may or may not have been gas, Dick Durbin emerged from his corner all these years after being a fauxtrage victim himself, and once those two wet noodles start getting al dente, pretty much anything could happen. But then, I remember the lesson of Charlie Brown and the football. Hope is for dopes, but that was before we had Ed, Rachel, and Keith opening the windows to let out the TV stench.
If any justice is ever done, I have more faith in the UK, and the International courts, than here, but I’ve been disappointed so often.
Ay, there’s the rub.
These pure and most modern Americans will do anything – anything! – to avoid being lectured to (never mind being hauled before the ICC) by “old Europe.”
Can’t have that …
Well, I’m making Ma Po To Fu tomorrow, and washing it down with a cold Tsing Tao or two. (Now that Sichuan peppercorns are legal again in America, the sky’s the limit.)
I could give a rat’s ass about Cheney, his evil intentions and his leaky pump — at least for an hour or two. Someone commenting at UT years ago, when Glenn was just joining the ranks of the shrill, made the point that no matter how deep the evildoers in Washington buried their atrocities, someone would eventually unearth them — all of them. Most of the other commenters responded with yeah, but….
They had a point. Justice delayed is justice denied, and all that. And yet, even though the balancing of historical accounts can’t always punish the guilty, and certainly can’t resurrect the victims, it does help restore the moral balance, and give us a shot at doing better in the future.
Ad Hominem is part of American Politics. I hope you don’t think that Republican appointees somehow escaped the smear attacks from those who help different world-views? I could google up a few quotes from the 80s for you if you have forgotten them.
I’ll go even further. There are few, if any, commentators at Unclaimed Territory that do not engage in ad hominem all the time. In fact, Sowell’s ideas on the conflict of visions held by the two sides almost guarantees that the people holding the “unconstrained vision” will always weigh a man’s “motivation” more heavily than his words and thus mandate that one on that side seek to win debate by disparaging the motivation of the opponent.
Lee Atwater taught the Republicans to use the same methods that the Democrats had used for generations. He was an ugly little man, and the tactics on both sides are ugly.
Recently, those who see “man-made global warming” for the junk science scam it is were called traitors to the human race. We are always called “deniers” to somehow try to associate us with one side of the “Holocaust debate”. What does climate have to do with WWII?
I don’t think the two sides in the USA should be forced to live under the same government. I think there should be 50 or more experiments and people should be free to move to where the experiment suits them best. (I know, dreaming again)
And finally, the SC nominee will be confirmed easily. I do hedge my bet a tad: if there is video of her torturing children and then eating them she might well not make it. Other than that, she is a lock.
Thanks for reminding me of the corollary to ad hominem, fainting and pearl clutching at the same tactics, while misunderstanding them completely. Paul Krugman used the term “traitor” because he could see what nearly all scientists, and most people in the world see: that certain bought-off politicians are gambling with the planet’s future while they enjoy oil and coal money today. I suppose similar “ad hominems” were directed at Reagan appointees, since nearly all of them were crooks, and not a few were nuts. His secretary of the Interior, James Watt, said that preserving the earth was unnecessary, because “Jesus is coming.” In all of these cases, people are being attacked for their policies, not being personally discredited to make examples of them.
It’s a key difference.
That was a good demonstration of the tactic. You meant to demo it right?
A few things.
I am not expecting a fellow to come back in the air and end the world. I don’t care much what a government official said in the 80s concerning the environment. (Republican or Democrat)
I have studied the climate debate since the early 70s when we were looking at when another ice age may be due. The current hysterical fraud that is mascaraing as science does not pass the laugh test. Surely you will not claim it is all a conspiracy by the big bad oil companies to question the preposterous idea that carbon is going to fry us all.
Anyway, I’ll not bother you with all the details since you and rpm are both priests of the religion. But I will ask you to read this one article from the Spectator of England and tell me what is there you do not believe. (or not if you don’t want to)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
This is not the best article in the world, just one I was reading today. I could also mention the 4,000 or so scientists who signed a petition to the president who are also “denialists”. (evil bastards we are)
Not evil, just bamboozled. Honestly, global warming is a conspiracy of lefties to get research grants? On the one side, you have those whose profits depend on carbon emissions, and the scientists they’ve purchased. On the other, you have people concerned about the future of the planet, at no obvious gain to themselves. Follow the money, Heru. It’s not difficult.
I was investigating the issue long before the hysteria rose to this level. There are a few who did it for grants, money for their specialty, and to “save the world”. Most just go with the “consensus” because that is how one gets along in modern science.
Most of the public will not look at the facts. I offered rmp a picture to look at showing a American station in the middle of a parking lot with heat exchangers blowing on it. He would not look. I hope you find time to read the one news story. The guy is an interesting Aussie if nothing else.
But, riddle me this; which are more important to monitor, ground stations on a planet covered 70% in ocean (not to mention inaccessible area on land), or satellites that give complete coverage and accuracy? Which time frame is more important to consider, the last 150 years or thousands upon thousands of years? Why does carbon buildup (as shown in ice drillings) always follow the warming trend and not lead it?
One more riddle. Why do they call that period of about a thousand years ago the “little climate optimum” since the average global temperature was so much warmer that it is today?
Thanks for the article, as it illustrates all of my point. First of all, this charlatan comes from “mining geology,” roughly analogous to the “forestry” scientists out here that told us clear-cutting was God’s way; fish, birds, critters, and water quality be damned. Second, he glories in the Republican Crash we’re undergoing… stealing all the money always makes ordinary people less uppity, that’s why they continue to do it. Then, he engages in the sort of anti-liberal stereotyping that got Bush (barely) reelected in 2004. Page after annoying page of fact-free propaganda; you insult my intelligence by presenting such piffle as evidence.
What little “evidence” that might potentially hold (rising) water; i.e., that plant growth follows warming periods, is so obvious and dumb as to not be worthy of consideration. Have you heard of growing seasons? Have you ever been in a greenhouse in the middle of the summer?
Popularity of the book as evidence of its accuracy? I point you to FOX ratings to straighten that out.
There’s nothing like a stirring ad homenim to get the ol’ blood pumping. Sadly, as you point out, it does just serve to move the discussion away from substance and into the realm of the absurd.
Case in point: The Clownhall person’s next line, after Marcy posed the question of why it was okay to spend five years investigating Clinton’s blowjob but we can’t investigate torture or off-the-books CIA hit squads, was to say that Holder becomes Alberto Gonzales the second he appoints a special prosecutor. Could someone please explain the logic of that one? After all these years, Clownhall really can’t tell the difference between a political prosecution and the enforcement of the law?
It’s their business not to know the difference. One of my famous Hag theories is that the Clinton impeachment was meant, primarily, to forever tar the process with the label of “partisan witch hunt,” clearing the way for future executive overreach when Republicans gained the White House.
It worked, unfortunately.
I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. Considering what’s happened to the Republican Party since, though, I think it may be too early to conclude that it worked. It’d be nice to have all their heads on a plate, or perhaps on the wall of the CHNN trophy room (I wouldn’t want them in the lounge — I like to sip my martini in peace.) but failing that, having the waters close over them will do.
And no, dearly beloved, I don’t think they’re coming back. What’s coming back is Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke at home, and Imperial Realpolitik abroad. Worse, perhaps, if less stylistically offensive.
That seems to be it, doesn’t it. They don’t seem amoral, venal, and crazy, but they still are, albeit to a lesser degree.
Strange… but Hope has demolished hope. We voted for It. And now we’re all out of it.
Damn that Pandora…
Change we can believe in, Dear.
Ad hominem…I have a new post up, very wise Latino that I am. Okay, only half as wise…
Oh, goody. I’ll be right over, not-so-wise Irish/French/English whitey that I am. Maybe I’ll learn something….
The reason critics (ranging from the evil genius type to the indolent lickspittle) use ad hominem attacks, especially now in the age of the internets and 24-hour news, is because negative publicity has a great success rate! (I know. I’m a genius.) The main reason this strategy *didn’t* work against Obama was because Obama’s staff was way out in front of the republican noise machine on the Web, in social networking, in organizing, and in getting the message out. Plus, Obama’s personal charisma was far greater than either Al Gore’s or even Clinton’s.
If only Obama were using that same network to promote the issues we care about (besides the economy and global warming) such as upholding the rule of law, prosecuting war crimes, transparency and disclosure of thus far unexplained events. If he used the gazillion people on his email list and made a few good speeches (as Pres, not Candidate) about those issues, he’d garner a lot more support.
I don’t know why he’s not doing it. I have theories, but no sure facts yet.
I would also argue that Nixon didn’t perfect this strategy, it was very effective in the early 20th century when called “yellow journalism” and “muckracking.” People’s lives and careers were destroyed by outright lies ever since probably stonecutters cut it on stone.
Yes, McCarthy was a great example of this, and it isn’t new. But I think its use by the powerful against those less powerful has really flourished, and the credulity of the media and their corrupt relationship with government is fairly unprecedented.
I would also add that ad hominem did work against Obama, leavened only by the extreme unpopularity of Bush. Had it not been for Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and on and on, it would have been a 70-30 blowout, making Johnson’s ’64 victory look like a squeaker.
Yes, I was noticing this myself. Its very informative to look at CNN today. They have a round table dug in for the duration of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing. Since they find all of this non-mediated first person thing boring, and without opportunity to revel in their status as “experts”, the Wolf and his fold keep bringing it back to the panel, interrupting Sotomayor sometimes in mid-thought.
That would be fine if they were adding some substantive perspective to the whole affair…but they spent nearly half an hour back and forthing about the Wise Latina thing…AND NEVER ONCE DID SOMEONE TAKE THE THREE MINUTES NECESSARY TO READ A SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THAT SPEECH TRANSCRIPT. It seemed to never have occured to them to put in context. Instead, they argued whether or not she had apologized enough for the remark.
As someone else above noted, ad hominem works because the media make it work. And they make it work because otherwise they would risk alienating their audience by asking them to think! Its much harder to undertand three paragraphs of text than it is to focus on one sentence and divine an entire world of meaning therein.
Jesus Christ! You;d think I was on Glenn’s blog going on like this…
You’re always welcome to go on, Omooex, and I recommend it. You won’t end up on the bottom of a Zionist/Confederate pig pile around here, at least. You’ve obviously seen my same point; we actually pay people (too much) to explain things to us that they know less about than we do. Always, always, such inanity is justified because these cretins are convinced that “Real Americans” are as illiterate and stupid as they are. They have no evidence to the contrary, after all. How many real Americans do they actually know? None. They don’t stand around waiting for the bus, bank teller, or grocery clerk, and accidentally TALK to a normal person… their lives are lived behind dark glass, where the evidently stupid world is on the other side.
I always thought of you, Hag, and Derbig too, as the Soviet humorists of UT. Some of the best, and most humane humor in the world comes from people told day in and day out that black is white, while a guy with a cudgel stands behind them, making sure that they cheer at the right moments.
Turn off the TV, folks, I implore you. It’s not as though you’ll miss anything important.
I’d probably throw in Pedinska, Arne, and occasionally PDA, as similarly inclined… cracking wise instead of cracking up. I stopped watching TV in 1979, when I discovered drugs, sex, and rock & roll, not necessarily in that order, and in order to keep up my GPA and work at various grueling jobs, something had to go. TV was an easy choice, considering.
The greatest televised drama of a national legislative hearing remains, for me, the House Watergate hearings on Nixon.
Nothing has beaten that, not by a mile, except perhaps – in the comedy category – the Thomas hearings, especially the exchanges between the late, great Senator Howell Heflin, Democrat of Alabama, and Clarence Thomas.
If you’re dedicated to getting to know the mind of an important witness before a congressional committee – in the moment – radio is still the way to go. There’s virtually no talkovers and cutaways for anchor “chit chat” while questioners and witnesses are actually working. Or C-span.
The reference here to the CNN wolfers prattling on about the “wise Latina” crap, without providing context, is par for the course, underscoring the reason not to watch network coverage of events like the Sotomayor hearing.
Actually, she had a decent exchange this afternoon with Dick Durbin, in what was, admittedly, a “friendly” colloquy on some of her history as a New York judge.
But network anchors couldn’t take the time to explain to their audiences what a colloquy is, because that would require shutting up and letting the speakers speak, and thereby allow the audience to actually watch – and hear – two decent lawyers think out loud. Not something you see everyday, and sometimes it can be very interesting, when observed without interruption.
They were too busy “filtering.”
The Watergate hearings were exceptional, exciting theater. We challenged a president and won. The number of quality congress critters was higher then than now. We get far too many ad hominem attacks now because of gerrymandering. There’s a bill in congress to have standardized districts throughout the country which could bring about more civilized discussion and compromise.
On hope, I will never give up hope that we can fix some of our broken systems and build a better world for our grandchildren. Despair is OK as long as it is used for motivation to bring change not failure.
Heru-ur wants to believe his scientists on global warming and I choose to believe mine. See the latest report below. If I am wrong, the world survives. If he is wrong, the world doesn’t. Which side do you want to bet on? Even if I am wrong, we will need new sources of energy and the world will be much better off with less dependence on foreign oil.
The planet’s future: Climate change ‘will cause civilisation to collapse’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-planets-future-climate-change-will-cause-civilisation-to-collapse-1742759.html
I love this quote from the report:
“But the authors suggest the threats could also provide the potential for a positive future for all. “The good news is that the global financial crisis and climate change planning may be helping humanity to move from its often selfish, self-centered adolescence to a more globally responsible adulthood… Many perceive the current economic disaster as an opportunity to invest in the next generation of greener technologies, to rethink economic and development assumptions, and to put the world on course for a better future.”
You’re always good for a dose of optimism, RMP…
New post up, a bit on the angry side. I’d better pour myself something.
Either way, I think the planet will survive… but what kind of life forms will?
What I don’t think the report I linked covers and what will be a major part of deciding our future, is the amazing and challenging advances in medicine and science. Humans will live far longer which could mean wealth buys long life coupled with we have far too many humans on our planet. That could make a much meaner, not kinder world.
Just look at this story to see the marvel science has and will produce in the near future:
First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/9318