Dr. Forbush Thinks

I would like to submit for your consideration the following statement - The Democrats have been too nice in their rhetoric up until today.

During the 2004 election campaign the single most damaging group were the Swiftboaters, who hijacked John Kerry’s reputation. They were able to persuade enough voters in Ohio to vote against John Kerry and thus putting George W Bush into the White House for a second term. The Swiftboaters took lies and spread them around enough that enough gullible people actually bought the lies and voted for the guy that they believed to be more honest and trustworthy. It was like watching the OJ Simpson trial again - pathetic.

But, at least up until today I felt that I could be proud to support the opposition to this evil administration. At least I felt that truth was being used to fend off the created misinformation intended to spread fear. Yesterday, however, a group associated with the left, MoveOn.org, has pushed the rhetoric to equal the Swiftboaters of the 2004 campaign. They published a simple name calling advertisement in the New York Times. They said, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.”

The question is not whether name-calling is allowed or not allowed. Obviously in the free society that we live in we all have the right to free speech. The question is not whether this advertisement will influence people. It obviously will bolster those who are against the war in Iraq. And, it will persuade a few of the people who might be questioning the war. But, like with the Swiftboaters who used name-calling against John Kerry it won’t change the minds of those who have already made up their minds. Like the Swiftboaters ads, this ad does not only questions General Petraeus’ patriotism, but by extension it is meant to challenge supporters of his policy to question their own.

So, was this a good idea?

An action is only a good idea if it achieves its goal. So, in order to understand whether the New York Times ad was a good idea it is important to understand what its goal was. So, what was the goal of this advertisement?

I am personally unsure of what the purpose of this ad was. I am only certain to understand what the goal was not. The goal of the ad was not to influence the members of congress to change their votes. Although many who don’t follow politics very closely may be affected by attacks on their patriotism members of congress are generally above questioning their own patriotism. They are much too certain about their own patriotism and much of everything else they do to be influenced in this way. No, this ad is aimed at someone who is uncertain about whether they should support the war mainly because they don’t spend enough time studying the information about the war. The target of this ad could only be meant for someone who is sophisticated enough to know who General Petraeus is, but not sophisticated enough to have made a decision about the war in Iraq. Does this person really exist? I am guessing that the goal of the ad must be to influence this hypothetical person to jump on the anti-war band wagon. So, I am guessing that the ad was not a good idea, because the target of this ad does not exist.

However, let us assume that the ad has another goal; it does not have the obvious goal of this obvious ad. Perhaps the goal was simply to bolster the base of anti-war activists by producing a symbol to rally the troops around. This actually makes some sense, because the anti-war group has been feeling dejected as of late. They have managed to pull some levers of power to influence a majority of congress to vote against the war. But, they have been exacerbated by the inability to climb over the President’s veto power. This advertisement being put out their for all to see must strike a chord among those who have put out such a large effort only to be rebuked at the gates. If this was the goal, then it surely has achieved a bit of success among the most extreme anti-war members.

But, if this was truly the goal of the ad, did it provide the rally point without damaging the cause? Because, the overall goal of the cause has higher priority than the goal of the ad itself. There are people who have worked hard to rally the people, that actually respect the military. These are generally people who have served in the military and they respect the work that the military does when it has guidance from a sane Commander-In-Chief. These people are serious and they don’t like name-calling directed toward the people that they respect. This group may become lukewarm to the type of ad taken out in the New York Times yesterday, if they respect generals like General Petraeus. And, this is why every congressman who supports the war and spoke during the hearings yesterday pointed out the ad in the New York Times. They wanted to win back some of these people.

There used to be a time when maturity was a respected attribute. People had an idea of what a mature person would do in a particular situation. This ideal of maturity was used to constrain and control people, because a large majority of society tried to “act” mature. This meant that people followed protocol, had manners and behaved in expected ways. Name-calling was considered immature behavior, and shunned. In an effort to reform society many accepted behaviors were questioned and often changed for the better. The strange turn about over the last few years was that the Conservative Right had embraced name-calling in its effort to appeal to those who spent less time following the details of everyday politics. Name-calling worked as a rally cry to swell the ranks of conservatives, giving votes to many. Often, like the case of the Swiftboaters who attacked John Kerry, the name-calling didn’t seem to deserve a response. It was ironic that the conservatives that raised the war banner to fight against the fall of civil society pulled down the last pillar of civil discourse to fight its battle. But, now the left has abandoned civil order as well.

The main question becomes - Is it too late reestablish civil discussion and debate?

If we all resort to name-calling, everyone stops listening to each other. Arguments become pointless. And, progress can not be made. If the Left follows the lead of the right and follows the example of MoveOn.org to call those we disagree with names, then progress will not be made. Let us not lower the playing field to the level of the right in an attempt to level the playing field.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection