Steven Den Beste has another good (and long) post on why the anti-war movement was so unconvincing to the American public. It isn’t that there’s some sinister Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm) out there – it’s that the anti-war advocates didn’t know how to make an argument. As Mr. Den Beste illustrates:
Well, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s schedule a debate, and invite a lot of voters. The first speaker stands up and makes a case for one position, laying out his explanation of why the problem happened, and then saying what he thinks needs to be done to solve it, and explaining why he thinks it will help. Then he sits down.
His opponent, on the left side of the stage, stands up, grins at the audience, and pulls his pants down and moons the first speaker. He then returns his pants to their customary position and returns to his seat. End of debate.
If the audience was not partisan ahead of time, which advocate is more likely to have convinced them?
The problem all along has been that the prime tactics adopted by those who opposed war were nearly ideal for simultaneously preaching to the choir and totally alienating the unconvinced center. If the audience at this debate had been a supporter of the left guy already, he’d still win. But if they’re neutral before hand, they sure won’t be after his performance.
That’s the problem with the left today. They don’t know how to argue. A typical conversation with a leftist partisan goes something like this:
Conservative: I think that there needs to be reform of government program X because program X is not meeting its stated goals and is not going to be sustainable over the long term.
Lefty: You’re just an evil rightwinger who wants to starve children, and George Bush was selected not elected!
Exactly what does that response have to do with the original proposition? Absolutely nothing. There’s no logical connection between the premise and the response, it’s just a collection of trite slogans and attacks against the character of the questioner and their party. It doesn’t even bother addressing the substance of the argument. Yet this is the predominant debating tactic for most of the left these days. It is not a form of healthy debate, but a kind of rigid ideology that is based on simplistic slogans and regurgitated talking points.
Den Beste also point out that the anti-war crowd loves to argue that dissent is patriotic while simultaneously arguing that America deserved to be attacked at some level. It isn’t patriotic to argue that America is so fundamentally flawed that it deserves to be destroyed. It isn’t patriotic to argue that 3,000 people deserved to be cruelly murdered by Islamofascists because we didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty or the ICC. That’s not patriotism, that’s idiocy. Al-Qaeda doesn’t think like a suburban limousine liberal. He wouldn’t have called off September 11 if Americans had recycled more – yet that is the logical conclusion of the arguments of many anti-war groups.
The left is losing the battle of ideas because they’re armed with slogans rather than ideas. They don’t understand policy, they only understand the simplest of politics. They parrot phrases like "no blood for oil" and "stop racist war" even though the arguments behind such slogans are flimsy at best and often simply arguments made from prejudice.
Unfortunately, as we’re seeing with the Niger uraniam pseudo-scandal, sometimes simple politics outweigh sound policies. It is nevertheless important to continue to fight the spin from the left by using simple logic and factual evidence. The blogosphere has been brilliant at this, skewering The New York Times‘s biases before Jayson Blair, and cutting through the tired arguments of the anti-war crowd for months before the war. Of course, the same old slogans will come in reply, but their emptiness will be easy to expose.
A typical conversation with a leftist partisan goes something like this:
No it doesn’t. Strawman.
Yet this is the predominant debating tactic for most of the left these days.
Pure assertion. Strawman.
It is not a form of healthy debate, but a kind of rigid ideology that is based on simplistic slogans and regurgitated talking points.
Pot calling kettle.
Den Beste also point out that the anti-war crowd loves to argue that dissent is patriotic while simultaneously arguing that America deserved to be attacked at some level.
And has no basis to ‘point’ this out. Since it’s not accurate. Strawman.
He wouldn’t have called off September 11 if Americans had recycled more
Strawman.
yet that is the logical conclusion of the arguments of many anti-war groups.
No, that’s a strawman ad absurdam.
The left is losing the battle of ideas because they’re armed with slogans rather than ideas.
I believe that ‘the left only has slogans’ is… a slogan. At least you’ve used it enough times, without any evidence, for it to count as a slogan. So, pot calls kettle black.
They don’t understand policy, they only understand the simplest of politics.
Groundless generalisation.
Unfortunately, as we’re seeing with the Nigerian uraniam pseudo-scandal, sometimes simple politics outweigh sound policies.
Misrepresentation. Or is simple honesty now a matter of ‘simple politics’?
Of course, the same old slogans will come in reply,
There’s the ‘slogan’ slogan again, Jay. Can you not come up with an original thought?
but their emptiness will be easy to expose.
Quite.
::
So, since you’ve already got a strawman, Jay, does that mean that you get to play Dorothy? Yawn.
Squinting so that every valid counter-argument disappears from your own vision does not mean that they all vanish from existence.
Oh, and it’s Nigerien, Jay. Because the country that Iraq didn’t attempt to buy yellowcake from, in spite of Bush pronouncements suggesting otherwise, was Niger, not Nigeria. Showing ignorance of African geography doesn’t help your case here at all.
A valid point is made here. Most lefties don’t know how to argue. Political opinion has been relayed exclusively from slick right-wing mouthpieces for so long that conservatives are definitely winning the soundbyte wars. The only reason most conservatives have the ammunition to defeat their liberal opponents at the office water cooler is because they receive a steady stream of propaganda from talk radio on their commute from work to suburbia. The primary mouthpieces on the liberal side are either newspaper editorial writers, whose comments are much less transportable to conservations than Rush Limbaugh or Jason Lewis’ latest delusion zingers. Beyond that, many of the loudest liberal voices are immature college students who are not quite ready for primetime in terms of viable political arguments.
Conservatives, including yourself, are often just as guilty as liberals in muddying up debates with the lowest denominator of immature blather. I recall about a month ago when I was suggesting that preservation of small businesses that can no longer compete in the marketplace should not necessarily hold back government policy from adopting progressive solutions to problems. Your response was along the lines of “You pinko Marxist scum. Communism is dead. Move on.” Such immaturity from the right, which is extremely common among conservatives challenged with an intelligent response to their aimless and hypocritical viewpoints, is no less silly than the left’s “blood for oil” and “racist Nazi” platitudes.
Conservatives don’t employ flimsy sloganeering any less than liberals, they’re just able to get more mileage out of it. “It’s your money,” “the death tax” and “liberation forces” are three clever manipulative GOP slogans that come to mind just off the top of my head. Liberals’ biggest problem is that their viewpoints can’t be effectively condensed into neanderthal one-liners like conservative viewpoints can.
The number of people who are suggesting that “America deserved to be attacked” is so small that it’s irrelevant to the debate. You and Den Beste corrupt your argument by inferring that most people who opposed the war wanted 9-11 and the violent deaths of Americans. You had your little tantrum when I suggested the possibility that the Bush administration knew about 9-11 in advance and let it happen, displaying an artificial outrage at my words, yet you suggest something far more egregious by implying that anyone who opposes your foreign policy viewpoint is rooting for Americans to be murdered. The only people I know who said America deserved 9-11 were Religious Right zealots Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson…as “God’s punishment to gays, lesbians and the ACLU.”
Exactly, Mark. And when you next ‘debate’ politics, Jay, we’ll expect you to have Den Beste’s ‘overview’ memorized and analysed, because slogans are bad, okay? I can just see that Freeper Patrion rally right now, marching in single file:
‘2-4-6-8… The primary purpose of reform is to liberate individual Arabs. This is a humanist reform, but it isn’t a Christian reform. There will be no attempt to eradicate Islam as a religion!
‘2-4-6-8… Islamism as a political movement, and as a body of law, and as a form of government must be eliminated, leaving Islam as a religion largely untouched except to the extent that it will be forced to be tolerant!’
Yeah, it may be a bit of a mouthful, but you’ve got to stand behind the courage of your convictions, and refrain from sloganeering, no matter what the setting, right?
Still protecting, eh Ahem?
Screaming “strawman” over and over doesn’t magically change a factual argument into a strawman argument, any more than yelling “McCarthyism” turns Marxists into capitalists, or screaming “racism” makes the perpetrators of black-on-black violence turn white. And, unfortunately, leftist blogs like The Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, Shadow of the Hedgemon, et. al. constantly prove themselves the very model of what you call “strawmen.”
It’s not “McCarthyism” to call a card-carrying member of the Communist Party a Communist, and calling an argument based of documented facts a “strawman” argument doesn’t make it so.
“Celui qui ne travaille pas a, de toute évidence, choisi de ne pas travailler.
Vu sous cet angle, le chômage de la grande crise des années trente, quand une
personne sur quatre était sans emploi, a dû résulter d’un désir irrépressible de
loisirs.”
Joseph E. Stiglitz
(I believe Stiglitz was secretary general of the World Bank)
no translation provided, because I don’t have the time right now. I’m sure some of you will understand though! The others will have to wait a little
liberalism eto bolezn’ ot kotoroi nado lechit’.
No translation provided.
Little confused.
Al-Qaeda … He
I thought Al-Qaeda was an orginization run by Saddama Bin-Husein, not a person.
calling an argument based of documented facts a “strawman” argument doesn’t make it so.
Funny, then, how you don’t provide any ‘documentation’.
To make it a little clearer, Tatty:
where exactly do ‘Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, Shadow of the Hedgemon, et. al.’ argue that Osama would have ‘called off September 11 if Americans had recycled more’?
If you can find a single link making this claim, I’ll concede the point. Otherwise, it’s as clear a definition of ‘strawman’ as you can get.
Or will you just play Cowardly Lion?
My evidence is rather abundant… just take a look at the archives and the comments on this site. For the most part, a liberal comments will contain perhaps one or two actual policy arguments (frequently based on evidence that can be easily discredited) and then a pile of ad hominem attacks and recycled slogans.
As for the question of September 11, I was committing a bit of hyperbole, but it is based on the truth. I’ve heard several peace activists make the argument that al-Qaeda attacked us because we didn’t sign Kyoto and the ICC. That if we had stopped supporting Israel that al-Qaeda would not have attacked.
The truth is that al-Qaeda’s ideology is based in implementing shari’a law worldwide. They attacked the United States because we are the strongest power in opposition to that ideology. Members of al-Qaeda do not care, and are likely to be unaware of, things like Kyoto and the ICC. Even the issue of Israel was not mentioned by al-Qaeda is a reason for attack until after September 11.
The only way to negotiate our way from out of their sites is to implement shari’a, veil and imprison women, execute homosexuals and Jews, and end religious freedom and tolerance. Any other move is irrelevent to the goals of al-Qaeda, and reflects more of the projection of the left than the reality of Islamic terrorism.
…Osama would have ‘called off September 11 if Americans had recycled more’?
Maybe not that, but quite a few people have said (straight out) that SUV owners support terrorists.
Regarding those peace activists claiming we were attack for not supporting Kyoto, ICC, ect: I would imagine it is probably safe to say that they were committing a bit of hyperbole as well. If not then they are morons and you shouldn’t be encouraging them by acknowledging them.
Ahem, you can look at SDB’s original article for abundant linkage. As I recall, he actually pointed out several leftists who insisted upon such things.
Why didn’t I link to them? Because I don’t like to waste more time on blatant trolls than I feel I absolutely must.
Monkey, driving SUV’s does support and finance terrorism. The only problem with that argument is that driving a Geo Metro does as well, only to a much lesser extent. Still, it’s fair game to point out to the “patriots” waving their flags that if they’re as serious as they claim to be about weakening the terrorists who are trying to kill them, they’ll exchange their SUV’s for something that empowers the enemy slightly less.
Beyond that, the “SUV’s support terrorism” soundbytes only came to fruition after the laughable government ad campaign suggesting that drug users are financing terrorism, a position that has considerably less factual credibility than the argument of SUV’s supporting terrorism. Neither point is likely to deter egocentric Americans from changing their instant-gratification lifestyles, even among those “resigned to the necessary changes of the post September 11 world as long as it means my only contribution is putting up an American flag in my yard”
As I recall, he actually pointed out several leftists who insisted upon such things.
Funny, that, because I don’t see anything of the sort in the article. I see a couple of alternative arguments, from which Den Beste, as is typical, picks out the weaker elements and pretends that by challenging them, he’s won some great logical victory. I also see someone falling victim to his own critique, given that his ‘true test of value’ is also the sincerity with which he holds his own beliefs. What a delicious irony.
Why didn’t I link to them? Because I don’t like to waste more time on blatant trolls than I feel I absolutely must.
And yet you’re posting to Jay’s site. Strange. Funny how ‘troll’ can be a synonym for ‘bad man challenges my cosy view of the world!’
Really, people, it’s not hard to post a hyperlinks in comments. And yet no-one seems willing to enter the debate. Please find me someone who said that Osama would have ‘called off September 11 if Americans had recycled more’. Otherwise, it’s a strawman. Please find me a quote describing Bush as an ‘evil rightwinger who wants to starve children’. Otherwise it’s a strawman.
Otherwise, it’s easy to turn the argument round and say ‘the arguments behind such slogans [because they’re certainly not based upon evidence] are flimsy at best and often simply arguments made from prejudice.’
What’s funny is that Jay says that the left only responds in slogans, and then offers nothing but slogans of his own. His purported example of ‘conservative’ reasoning — ‘program X is not meeting its stated goals and is not going to be sustainable over the long term’ — sticks out like a sore thumb, because Jay doesn’t actually offer such reasoning in the post that follows: only slogans and assertions. Now, we know what Emerson said about a foolish consistency, but to fail by your own criteria of ‘conservative debate’ smacks either of hypocrisy or naivety.
In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race — you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all.
…
Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!
Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity.
Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.
Michael Moore, a couple of days after 9/11. I believe he was the first to rhetorically link 9/11 and Kyoto. Moore’s problem here is that he’s projecting. But Osama’s and Moore’s problems with the US are not entirely the same, and Osama’s probably not a left-wing Democrat.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you could point out the bits in Osama’s taped statements where he praises the Kyoto treaty, your attempt to turn exemplars into a causal syllogism might hold more water. Oh, and not putting words into Moore’s mouth, too.
An example: if a person kicks his dog, and fucks his sister; it doesn’t mean that one can blame incest on animal cruelty. They’re just two examples of how that person is an asshole. Moore uses precisely that rhetorical formulation. Indeed, Den Beste also uses that rhetorical formulation in Section I of his so-called ‘strategic overview’.
Are we to believe that Islamic terrorism arose because the Arab/Muslim world ‘make[s] little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music’? If you were to apply the same rhetorical standards to Den Beste as you do to Moore, Brian, you would be bound to assert just that.
That’s because the alleged lack of ‘cultural contribution’ (its wrongheadedness, in any case, a testament to Den Beste’s narrow worldview) is offered as an example of Islamic resentment just as Kyoto is offered by Moore as an example of resentment against Bush.
So, will you absolve both Moore and Den Beste of casuistry, or condemn them both?
Anyway, here’s Jay’s big problem:
If he admits that his characterisation of the left was mere hyperbole, then he is guilty of the charges he lays at their feet, since by resorting to such things, rather than the example he offers at the beginning of the post, he deals not in a healthy debate, but a kind of rigid ideology that is based on simplistic slogans and regurgitated talking points. Which makes him a hypocrite.
If he defends his characterisation, but can’t find a link to someone saying that ‘recycling would have stopped 9/11’, or simply refuses to offer corroborating evidence, then he cannot hope to claim to be fight[ing] the spin from the left by using simple logic and factual evidence. Instead, he will be using arguments made from prejudice. Which makes him a hypocrite.
Logic is fun, isn’t it? And so simple, too.
"Are we to believe that Islamic terrorism arose because the Arab/Muslim world ‘make[s] little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music’? If you were to apply the same rhetorical standards to Den Beste as you do to Moore, Brian, you would be bound to assert just that."
That’s misstating Den Beste’s argument. The lack of significant cultural contribution is but one symptom of the larger problem of the Arab world. The disease is the systematic failure of Arab governments to create positive conditions. Even more progressive regimes like Jordan still have a long way to go before offering their people true freedom.
Under such a set of conditions that exist in the Arab world, as well as the larger Middle East, fundamentalism and terrorism has the perfect environment to thrive. Unless those conditions are ameliorated, the war on terrorism will be nothing more than a game of "whack-a-mole". In some ways it’s similar to the "root causes" argument made by many on the left, except this time it’s acknowledging the real root causes rather than blaming America/Western civilization for all the Middle East’s problems.
As for my supposed "hypocrisy", my statement about September 11 and recycling was a bit of illustrative hyperbole. However, the overall point still stands, and I’ve documented such ridiculous statements on this blog, and others have also collected examples of the consistantly over-the-top blame-America-first rhetoric that frequently comes from the radical left.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t those who advocated an anti-war position and did so with reasoned arguments supported by defensible evidence. There were a few, but they were frequently overshadowed by the radical left.
It’s only simple because you’re doing it wrong.
Jay:
That’s misstating Den Beste’s argument.
So you agree with me that Brian was misstating Moore’s argument? Good. Glad that’s cleared up.
‘Cultural contribution’, in fact, is both tangential and wrong-headed. Iranian film-makers pick up awards around the world.
As for my supposed “hypocrisy”, my statement about September 11 and recycling was a bit of illustrative hyperbole.
Except that it matched the tenor of the entire piece: I could cite several examples of consistantly over-the-top blame-the-left-first rhetoric in this post alone. Meaning that you fail to live up to your own model of ‘conservative’ argument. Which means that my point stands.
And I’m still waiting for an actual citation. Really, it’s not hard.
That said, I’m glad that you’ve finally got around to an argument: we’re actually agreed that it’s a structural problem, and that treating the symptoms of terrorism is not enough. I think you’re overstating your case by talking of ‘real root causes’ so vehemently — Den Beste’s approach is facile, since the use of categories and subcategories can’t reduce political history to an algorithm, no matter how hard one tries — but the main disagreement is about methods.
It’s strange how many on the right, while attributing victory in the Cold War to Reagan, seem to forget the way in which the Warsaw Pact imploded. That is, revolutionary change began in those countries with closest contact to Western culture, and then spread back to the outlying, more authoritarian states including those, such as Ceaucescu’s Romania, that were given a free pass by many Western governments. So, if you’re looking for a domino effect, doesn’t it seem smarter to use that historical model and press more fiercely for reform in those governments where you have the most influence, rather than propping up corrupt regimes?
(This isn’t blaming America or Western civilization; it’s pointing out that Western political expediency towards the Middle East over the past century has underpinned an ethical inconsistency.)
Anyway, to Tatty:
It’s only simple because you’re doing it wrong.
What can I say in response to that bit of devastating reasoning? Want to point out just where I’m slipping up, or is ‘is not / is too’ your own personal idea of logic?
“Iranian film-makers pick up awards around the world.”
Iran is not an “Arab” nation. It is Persian.
And “picking up awards” is not the same as having a significant cultural impact. Most of the American cultural impact globally has come from “culture” that will never win any award.
Arabic culture has made many contributions to the world, but most came roughly 1000 years ago. Many of the contributions also came as extensions or offshoots from non-Arab populations that were steeped in Arab (Islamic) culture for a time. What this shows is that certain permutations of Islamic culture _can_ encourage innovation and freedom of thought. This encourages some of us to believe that democracy can work in Islamic cultures of some sorts.
That sort of permutation, howver, has been conspicuous in absense for at least the last century.
Iran is not an “Arab” nation. It is Persian.
That’s true, but moot, because I’m responding to Den Beste’s ‘overview’, which (erroneously) lumps in ‘Arab’ and ‘Muslim’ culture from the start:
They being ‘the nations and people in a large area which is predominately Arab and/or Islamic.’ Which includes Iran. Nice quibble, though. Perhaps you should take it up with Den Beste, since he seems to think that Sudan, Mali, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Malaysia share a common culture defined solely by religion.
And “picking up awards” is not the same as having a significant cultural impact.
I’ll be generous and not parse that as ‘I’ve never seen an Iranian film, so it means jack shit to me.’
But Iranian films are seen around the world. There are also plenty of Muslim-made Bollywood films that have a significant cultural impact, as you’ll know if you’ve ever been in an American city with a South Asian community, and they don’t win Oscars too often.
So, since you’ve already got a strawman, Jay, does that mean that you get to play Dorothy? Yawn.
Squinting so that every valid counter-argument disappears from your own vision does not mean that they all vanish from existence.
If there were valid counter-arguments there wouldn’t be a problem. The fact is there are no arguments coming from the left because the leftists are playing the part of the Wiz or an unhappy mooner.