Obama and Ayers: No Significant Connection
And
The Wingnuts Undermine Their Own Position
I've had what I'd call reasonably significant worries about the Ayers business. It's the kind of association that would concern me if it were significant. This NYT piece, however, if accurate, shows pretty clearly that the association is insignificant.
I didn't really recognize that many people are up in arms about the Ayers link (allegedly) because they believe that Obama is a stealth radical. This is a groundless worry--and I doubt that many people are actually worried about it. My guess is that it's largely a political tactic. If you read the Obama's books and listen to what he says, it is obvious that he is no radical.
Thing is, I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasonable criticisms of Obama. But what's going on now is similar to what went on with Clinton--the insane and easily debunked criticisms are coming so hot and heavy from the right that (a) I am inclined to take any criticism originating from that quarter less seriously, and (b) sheer annoyance with the dishonesty and irrationality of the right is making me more inclined to defend Obama.
Given the appalling spectacle of the the wingnuts frothing at their collective mouth, spewing forth every slander that comes to mind, I guess reasonable people can't be blamed for more-or-less tuning them out. It's an embarrassment to the GOP, an embarrassment to conservatives, an embarrassement to America, an embarrassment to democracy, and an embarrassment to humanity. It's a bit like watching a formerly dignified colleague throw a cursing, screaming temper tantrum over losing a game of chess or something. It makes you want to look away and forget what you've seen.
As I've noted before, I usually try to read stuff from both sides in an effort to maintain my objectivity. But these days I'm more objective if I don't read stuff on the right. It's just so loathsome and irrational that it drives me farther in the direction I'm already inclined to go.
And
The Wingnuts Undermine Their Own Position
I've had what I'd call reasonably significant worries about the Ayers business. It's the kind of association that would concern me if it were significant. This NYT piece, however, if accurate, shows pretty clearly that the association is insignificant.
I didn't really recognize that many people are up in arms about the Ayers link (allegedly) because they believe that Obama is a stealth radical. This is a groundless worry--and I doubt that many people are actually worried about it. My guess is that it's largely a political tactic. If you read the Obama's books and listen to what he says, it is obvious that he is no radical.
Thing is, I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasonable criticisms of Obama. But what's going on now is similar to what went on with Clinton--the insane and easily debunked criticisms are coming so hot and heavy from the right that (a) I am inclined to take any criticism originating from that quarter less seriously, and (b) sheer annoyance with the dishonesty and irrationality of the right is making me more inclined to defend Obama.
Given the appalling spectacle of the the wingnuts frothing at their collective mouth, spewing forth every slander that comes to mind, I guess reasonable people can't be blamed for more-or-less tuning them out. It's an embarrassment to the GOP, an embarrassment to conservatives, an embarrassement to America, an embarrassment to democracy, and an embarrassment to humanity. It's a bit like watching a formerly dignified colleague throw a cursing, screaming temper tantrum over losing a game of chess or something. It makes you want to look away and forget what you've seen.
As I've noted before, I usually try to read stuff from both sides in an effort to maintain my objectivity. But these days I'm more objective if I don't read stuff on the right. It's just so loathsome and irrational that it drives me farther in the direction I'm already inclined to go.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:10 PM
4 Comments:
WS writes:
[T]he insane and easily debunked criticisms are coming so hot and heavy from the right that (a) I am inclined to take any criticism originating from that quarter less seriously,
This is, IMHO, exactly the right response. Those who put forth "insane and easily debunked criticisms" are not acting in good faith. It is rational, then, to presume that they are speaking in bad faith until proven otherwise. By abusing our ears, they loose the presumption that they might be correct.
The alternative simply encourages them to do more of the same, poisoning communications for all.
That would be fine if this were merely a debate between two parties. Of course, though, political communication is always going to have an audience beyond who you're talking to.
I suspect there are a lot of voters this election who were not really paying attention back during the primaries when these questions about Ayers were raised the first time. Or have read his books, or have listened to every single one of his speeches. (Not that listening to speeches always helps: remember when W. Bush was going to "change the tone"?)
Anyways, to these voters who are just tuning in, and even perhaps trying to do their best to fulfill their election year duties, the conversation may appear something like this:
A major party candidate during the war on terror has some connection to an apparent domestic terrorist. Liberals appear, on the whole, unconcerned about the whole thing, while conservative columnists (e.g., at the Corner) are the only ones trying to actually make clear the position (the Corner actually mentions the NYT article as not being good reporting).
Of course, as it turns out, many Obama supporters are unconcerned with the Ayers thing because they've had ample time to figure out that the contacts are most likely minimal and unreflective of Obama. But to Joe-Blow October, it may just seem like 'liberals' "just don't care" (to quote Anon) about a really potentially distressing fact about their party's candidate.
In sum, I think that it is important not to close off communications with irritating political pundits, because in doing so, you're closing off communications with their audiences. Which is one of the reason why mud-slinging can be so harmful: even if your target deserves it, it may be perceived differently by those who listen to your target.
(Also, it's important not to defend Obama against the attacks by trying to justify Ayers.)
But, I may be biased because I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh - and would have exactly the above described reaction when people would dismiss him as a "Big, Fat Idiot." If he was such an idiot, I would think to myself, why won't anyone respond to him?
(BTW, Jim, I am hoping to get to responding to your abortion post sometime before the end of the week...I'm just worried that it's so far back now that no one will notice when I finally get around to it!)
Spencer,
On topic -- you are quite correct that this is not a 2-way, but an N-way conversation. However, one need not take hacks seriously to respond to them. I advocate responses along the line of:
"Oh, it's insert name of hack! God, what a hack -- looks like s/he's doing it again! It would be funny if it wasn't so sad."
Is it marginalizing the hacks? Yes, by design. If they have a history of raising crap objections, then every time they speak, presume it is crap. Let them then have to work to correct the presumption. This reduces the utility (to them) of spewing crap.
If this could become the standard in public debate, it would discourage the behavior.
Off topic -- I'd be delighted to see your reply when it is ready. (As you probably noticed, my hope was to introduce into the discussion the social and political context of the debate, as well as introducing the affect of law on the lives of our people.)
If all else fails, drop an email to me at jimbales at hotmail dot com when it is up.
Best,
Jim
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home