Anyway, I'm glad that Sullivan finally called out Yglesias for his strained justification of Alan Grayson's vicious ad hominem against Republicans on the floor of Congress.
Yglesias's defense amounts to: "'So what?' Republicans engage in this kind of abusive rhetoric all the time. That's the real issue."
This seems to be the same moral logic that I used in grade school, when I tried to convince my mother she should overlook my cookie-stealing habit because what I had done was relatively less offensive than some of the things my friends had done.
They were the real problem children, after all . . . .
Update: There is another aspect of this controversy that's been bothering me. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Grayson called congressional Republicans "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals."
Grayson said:
What I mean is they [Republicans] have got no plan. It's been 24 hours since I said that. Where is the Republican plan? We're all waiting to see something that will take care of the pre-existing conditions, to take care of the 40 million Americans who have no coverage at all.
I've been hearing a lot lately that health care reform has been stalled by Republican "obstructionists." But are Democrats really waiting for the Republican plan, or is Grayson just posturing?
Right now, there are three bills floating around in committee: the House tri-committee bill, the Senate Finance Committee bill, and the Senate HELP Committee bill.
One major sticking point here is the public option, but there are many other points of contention (Ezra Klein offers a good summary of the main disagreements here). In the Senate, the Finance Committee bill (the "Baucus Plan") does not include a public option, while the HELP Committee bill does.
It's true that the virtually all Republicans (with the possible exception of Olympia Snowe) have refused to support either of the bills in the Senate, but the House Blue Dog Coalition is also largely opposed to a public option. More importantly, Blue Dogs seem to strongly favor the deficit-neutral Baucus Plan. The Democratic leadership, on the other hand, seems to be leaning toward the HELP Committee bill.
If the Democrats could unite on a single plan -- and perhaps convince Snowe to come on board -- they could easily pass health care reform. The problem is that they can't.
It's not Republican "obstructionists" who are holding up health care reform at this point. Most Democrats have already abandoned all hope for a bipartisan compromise.
The central conflict is now within the Democratic party.
11 comments:
Yglesias's defense amounts to: "'So what?' Republicans engage in this kind of abusive rhetoric all the time. That's the real issue."
I'm of two minds about this. First, there is the fact that the Republicans are demanding Grayson apologize on the floor of the House for his comments - and there is a certain "Don't dish it out if you can't take it" part in politics.
And there is a need for Democrats not to just roll over and take this crap - and meekly saying, "No, there is no such thing as Death Panels" isn't getting it done. There is a multitude of reasons John Kerry did so poorly, but one of them is his tempid response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.
But the real issue isn't that Republicans engage in this kind of talk all the time - it's that being a Birther or a Deather or a Graysoner is what gets you your 15 minutes of fame, so why go the reasoned route when you can call someone a Killer of the Sick (or Old) and just get on with running around on the talk shows?
Yeah, I agree.
I think that President Obama has (for the most part) managed to strike the right balance here. He's a powerful advocate, but he usually doesn't question the good faith of his opponents -- even if they refuse to extend him the same courtesy.
Congressional Democrats should follow his example. Republicans should do the same.
he usually doesn't question the good faith of his opponents -- even if they refuse to extend him the same courtesy.
Congressional Democrats should follow his example. Republicans should do the same.
I don't entirely disagree, but I don't agree either.
If Michele Bachmann is saying something about "Sex Clinics" inside high schools or if Joe Wilson is yelling out "You lie", or if Grassley is going home to his town hall meetings and saying fearing Death Panels is a good thing to do or hell, even Grayson telling people Republicans want them to die quickly, then I think those moments need to be called out as operating in bad faith. Not the person always and forever, not the party they belong to, but that tactic and that moment. Treat the person as if they're coming to the conversation in good faith as a general rule, but call out the bull they sporatically dish out as the crap that it is.
Because Obama has a few things going for him most members of Congress don't. He's persuasive, he's an excellent public speaker, and he just has an aura of charm about him. For the most part, people want to believe him. Most members of Congress don't have the recognition, aren't trusted, and aren't that persuasive.
If Michele Bachmann is saying something about "Sex Clinics" inside high schools or if Joe Wilson is yelling out "You lie", or if Grassley is going home to his town hall meetings and saying fearing Death Panels is a good thing to do or hell, even Grayson telling people Republicans want them to die quickly, then I think those moments need to be called out as operating in bad faith. Not the person always and forever, not the party they belong to, but that tactic and that moment. Treat the person as if they're coming to the conversation in good faith as a general rule, but call out the bull they sporadically dish out as the crap that it is.
Yeah, again I agree.
I hate to employ such a subjective standard, but I think a lot of this just comes down to tone. To me, suggesting that Republicans want millions of Americans to die is just crossing a line. But, sure, you're right that you need to point out when your opponents actually are acting in bad faith.
In general, I agree with you. We should try to give people the benefit of the doubt -- and avoid ad hominem attacks as much as possible -- but that doesn't mean we can't call out our opponents when they're fear-mongering or spewing lies.
Re: Your update
Now, I agree with the fact that the entire debate is occurring within the Democratic Party right now, and the Republicans are pretty much off to one side muttering to themselves.
But I have a disagreement with this:
But are Democrats really waiting for the Republican plan, or is Grayson just posturing?
Hey, buddy, might I remind you that a problem you've highlighted about Michael Moore is that he highlights problems but offers no solutions?
I'm sure the Democrats don't really have a burning desire for the Republicans to come out with a full on Republican Health Care Plan, except for there to be something on the other side other than tearing into the Democrat's plan(s). And making up stuff about killing Grandma (and why is it always Grandma?).
In the words of Anton Ego:
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
The Democrats, more than wanting another plan to debate, probably want Republicans to have something out there Republicans have created themselves - so they too can be critiqued on their "average piece of junk" instead of merely playing at being Ego.
Plus, it never hurts to remind the public that the opposing party is only "against" things and not "for" anything.
Well, Republicans have suggested alternative plans.
Tom Coburn and Richard Burr outlined the Patients' Choice Act. House Republicans summarized their plan back in June.
But, of course, these plans don't achieve the priorities that many congressional Democrats are interested in achieving.
Grayson seems to be arguing, "The Republicans have no plan to address the 'problem' as I'm framing it; therefore, they have no plan. They are merely obstructionists."
BTW, I absolutely agree that many Republicans are acting in bad faith with the 'nanny-killing' allusions.
It's just that Grayson is doing the same thing. If Democrats are going to condemn Republicans, they need to reject Grayson's tactics, too.
If Democrats are going to condemn Republicans, they need to reject Grayson's tactics, too.
Here's my question:
Which Democrats are actually condemning actual Republicans? Unlike the Republicans calling for Grayson's apology on the floor of the House, the Democrats in seats of power seem to be content to just let many of the comments - and most of the Republicans - just slide. They haven't demanded anyone apologize for blatantly outrageous statements. They seem to just shrug and go, "Whatevs".
I'd be thrilled if Democrats would go, "So not cool, dudes". But as far as I can tell, most of them haven't made any real attempts to yet. Partially because, I'm sure, they're afraid they're going to be called whiny or weak or thin-skinned or liars or what-have-you by the Republicans if they do make that complaint.
That's not to say I think everyone should be pulling a Grayson. Just that I don't see a thick air of hypocrisy hovering over the Dems on this one. Repubs? Yes.
I think that's just manifestly false.
There has been quite a bit of Democratic push-back. (See here and here.)
There has been quite a bit of Democratic push-back. (See here and here.)
See, I don't see that as "quite a bit" of Democratic push-back, or exactly what I'm talking about either. Saying the Republicans have voted 59 times against Medicare in its history isn't saying much about the Republicans now. It isn't calling out those specific Repubs making the false claims here.
Saying, "What that person right there said is untrue" is different than saying, "What you've heard about healthcare reform is untrue". The second, and what the Dems have been doing, is addressing the situation like a natural phenomenon without a human element.
The DNC is calling out specific Republicans who are making false claims.
And I think the Democrats have very much tried to humanize the debate over health care. That's something that President Obama did very overtly in his NTY op-ed. Obama has related dozens of health care 'horror stories' over the past several months. (In fact, one of them turned out to be a bit controversial.)
Obama has also created a health care story bank. The DNC has helped to collect hundreds of personal stories about the American health care system.
Post a Comment