The Politics of Insinuation
David Warren:
While it did not quite rise to a blood libel, the headline in Monday's Guardian (U. K.) did not fail for want of trying: "Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over right-wing rhetoric in U.S."They really do want conservatives to shut up. They can't stand it that their narrative is interrupted by facts inconsistent with the purported logic. I think the left owes conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular an apology for their bad conduct over the past week.
Elsewhere in the Guardian, the distance was bridged. Consider this heading (over a piece by Michael Tomasky): "In the U.S., where hate rules at the ballot box, this tragedy has been coming for a long time: The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords may lead to the temporary hibernation of right-wing rage, but it is encoded in conservative DNA."
The New York Times approach was a bit smoother: "Bloodshed puts new focus on vitriol in politics." But throughout what conservatives call the Main Stream Media, the insinuation that "the Tea Party," talk radio, and Sarah Palin, were behind the shoot-up in Arizona was dripping from every wall. Indeed, it has been a good example of vitriol in journalism, gone over the edge to batty.
The advantage of insinuations over hard arguments is that they bypass critical thought. No one can respond precisely to a charge that is utterly vague or to accusers who will envelope any reply in a poisonous fog of further insinuations. The best that can be said is that the accusations in question here were fatuous. Yet they were also entirely predictable, given the extraordinarily low standards in contemporary political debate.
...
The motive behind it is obvious: to tar political opponents. And there is no excuse for this. For every "incendiary" or "vitriolic" remark made on the right of the U.S. political spectrum, a matching remark may be found on the left. The tarring is hypocritically selective.
And it is consequential. The further intention behind these smears is to advance "hate speech" legislation for the very purpose of silencing opponents in debate.
...
Comments
Post a Comment