Jonah Goldberg, writing in the Washington Post, identifies 5 worn out bromides from liberals that allow them to escape arguments against their positions:
One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. We’re kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.
But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama — and the intellectuals and journalists who love them — often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the “reality-based community,” and if only their Republican opponents weren’t so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.
This has been a theme of Obama’s presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives — from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry” (an odd pronouncement, given that “bigoted” America had just elected its first black president).
In his inaugural address, he explained that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”
Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that there’s “no such thing” as shovel-ready projects — after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them — is truly focused on “what works” is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.
Goldberg is correct in that these five cliches used by liberals are designed not to engage an opponent in a dialogue, but rather to shut off debate:
1. “Diversity is strength.
2. “Violence never solved anything”
3. “The living Constitution”
4. “Social Darwinism”
5. “Better 10 guilty men go free…”
Various arguments that bring racism into the debate are designed to do exactly the same thing. However, referring to an opponent as a “racist” or his argument as “racist” is losing its pop due to overuse.
The same couldn’t be said for the others, I’m afraid. Every time we debate military action we will hear #2. Every time we get an issue like Obamacare before the court we will be exposed to #3. Every time the GOP wants to bring fiscal sanity to our finances by trying to get entitlements under control, we will hear liberals use #4.
And the reason they are allowed to get away with it — and the reason the ploy generally works — is because much of the media allows them to get away with it and ensures that it works. It may be that the internet and talk radio have given the right a voice it didn’t have before. But it is equally true that opposition voices are drowned out by the cacophony coming from the left and their allies in the media.
Whether that will ever change is a question that the ever evolving media landscape will eventually have to deal with.
On this one, they leave off the rejoinder: “…like an Oldsmobile is a head of cabbage.”
“…except achieving America’s independence from Great Britain, ending slavery in the South, stopping the Holocaust, kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait…”
Funny, they don’t seem to hold to #5 when we bring up jury nullification.
“The living Constitution”
…only is relevant is we actually, you know, comply with its provisions and limitations. Doing like Justice Sotomayor and relying on “emanations of the penumbra” to make it say anything we want just won’t cut it any more.
I don’t think rank and file liberals who vote see their political correctness as an ideology. When a liberal watches Glee, I suspect they see Ozzie and Harriet 2.0. When I watch it, I see an unwitting Orwellian science-fiction show steeped in correctness and 2 minutes of love.
Liberals don’t see their disdain of American exceptionalism as indicative of an ideology, but a refutation of racism as natural as water or air. In fact liberals are not solution-oriented, but oriented to only permitting approved of solutions. That’s why they seek to heal their broken leg by putting a splint on mine. A liberal will check your skin and gender before thinking about guilt or solutions while proclaiming such things don’t matter. Zimmerman, lacrosse players, cheekbones, immigration, and teen-bullying all speak to this.
Liberals think they thrive on fair play but they are the last bastion of institutionalized hypocrisy, political correctness and racism in America. In short, liberals are naive to the point of simple ignorance if not outright stupidity.
If their policies continue, in 50 years much of America will look like Detroit, with a heavy dose of Third World populations to live among the ruins. And liberals will simply say that happened because of racism or obstructionism or whatever else emerges from the excuse and blame-factory that is the socialist 2.0 version of the Dem Party.
Meanwhile, a distracted Tower of Babel America will be unable to fend off empire-building in Asia and Europe next go-’round. This will not turn out well, because even if libs are turned out of power, the immigration element is now so voter-fearful for a politician, the tipping point probably can’t be changed and it is this onslaught of immigrants from failed Third World polities that will change America more than any other single event. We now have a racial tri-caucus in congress if anyone’s listening and they don’t like the status quo. They want what they say others are racist for wanting, and libs embrace the double standard out of racial guilt for internment camps, slavery, and Aztecville or whatever the hell they call the Age of Copper-theft.
“2. “Violence never solved anything””
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.” – Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers, Chapter 2
I’m reading Mr. Goldberg’s “The Tyranny of Cliches”. It is very interesting. Case in point, I was at an event and talking with an acquaintance who happens to work for an organization that is constantly under attack for its politically incorrect policies. She complained about the organizations’ sticking to its dogma as the reason for having to deal with all of these attacks. After the event, when I came home, I looked dogma up in Jonah’s book. Sure enough, it was there.
It’s amazing that conservatives who believe strongly about something have a dogma. Liberals who believe strongly about the opposite do not have a dogma.
Yeah, really. Conservatives who believe in something strongly have “dogmas.” Leftists have “principles” or “integrity.” It makes me want to break something. Speaking of violence never solving anything, people were a lot more polite in duelling cultures…
Paraphrasing Heinlein because I’m too lazy today to find the exact quote, “An armed society is a polite society.”
As a [FILL IN THE BLANK] I’m deeply offended by this topic!
Not really, but Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress had a great post recently exploring how this cliched debate-ender works.
Rejoinders to this may include but need not be limited to:
I dunno. A big reason that the liberals are dissatisfied with the Constitution is that it pre-dates both the French Revolution and Marxism. It predates The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. I believe that it is the Statist who is more of an ideologue.
Well, I think Jonah is a couple of moves behind here. Forget “liberals” and talk “Obama campaign droids”.
Their basic strategy is to throw nonsense at you faster than you can refute it.
Of which the greatest nonsense is that “the economy has been creating jobs for thirty months”. No it hasn’t. It’s not a NET gain unless it’s above about 120k jobs, and after such a huge plunge, anything below 200k jobs is basically a dead-cat bounce, and that’s BEFORE we talk about the labor participation rate, much less the plunging average salary for these “jobs”.
I watched (as usual) the ABC “This Week” show, Terry Moran guest-hosting – and Moran *shocked* me with his attempts to be even-handed, I’ve had him down for a long time as hopelessly and viciously leftoid. Has he got a new girlfriend?
Anyway, the democratic representatives included Governor Martin O’Malley, E J Dionne, and Steven Rattner (ex Obamanation car-czar). Dionne and O’Malley were there just to throw up (!)nonsense memes. Governor Jindal was a conservative guest, and at one point he properly decided not to respond directly but to tell his story. Republicans need to do this FAR more aggressively – announce the accusations are rubbish, then change the subject. Jindal often forgot the first move, saying the accusations were rubbish. Eventually you go back and address them, or better yet have a lower-level surrogate do it for you, but Democratic strategy is to prevent discussion of actual issues.
So, beyond the list from Jonah, the Obama campaign depends on:
* Blame it on Bush and Republicans
* The dishonest claim that Bush lost jobs net over four years – which he did because of the 2008 crash, not to mention 9/11, not to mention the dotcom meltdown that started in 2000, but up to Jan 2008 I believe the net was at least positive.
* The dishonest claim that Obama (the Obamanation economy) has created jobs over the last 30 months – see above.
* The lie that government spending can create jobs – if it was that easy, why have ANY unemployment? I’ll tell you why, because they have to steal the money before they can use it to “create a job”, and it always costs more to collect and does more damage in the process, than ANYTHING you can do with it afterwards. So the ONLY legitimate roll for government spending is for something like defense, that must be done but has no direct return – though even defense spending does employ people and have the same kind of partial return to the economy as make-work projects.
* Which leads to the lie that Republicans are blocking progress just so things will look bleak and help defeat Obama. Republicans are blocking DAMAGE, not progress. SAY SO.
* Then the gibberish about Romney’s personal finances, etc.
* Then the gibberish from Axelneck like “most secretive candidate since Nixon”. What? Nixon was an open page, for better or worse.
* … and I had some more points, but I’ve already ranted too long and forgot them already.
Generally, NOTHING OUT OF THE MOUTH OF AXELROD OR PLOUFFE IS WORTH REFUTING, it’s all nonsense, and no high-ranking Republican should ever bother, it should be delegated to campaign aides. And I think the Romney campaign is already following this advice, and has some guys trained up for it.
But it’s really sad when intelligent guys like Rattner (or Austan Goolsbee a couple of weeks ago) have to get up there and go out and tell lies, or just shill for the likes of Axelrod, Plouffe – and Obama.
I believe the proper term is “Obamarrhoids.”
“Every time we debate military action we will hear #2.”
[Which was, “Violence never solved anything”.]
Except if this is a military action the Obama administration is engaged in.
Then, we will hear crickets.
How do they account for bin Laden then?
The SEALs didn’t really shoot him — they forced him to listen to a few Obama speeches and he bled to death through his ears.
Why do we always hear the loudest yelps about social darwinism from Ivy League graduates?
And diversity is strength as long as you don’t mean white people–who, of course, are monolithic***.
***People of Swedish heritage being exactly like Italians exactly like Irish exactly like Southern redneck extract which is identical to New England Yankee which is indistinguishable from Chicago Pole which cannot be told from a Western ranch hand who is a dead ringer for a Florida Jewish retiree.
Well, all those groups have benefited from White Skin Privilege.
You know, the privilege to actually be held accountable for your crimes and those of people long-dead who just look like you, to be responsible for paying your own way (and the way of half a dozen others), to be sneered at for thinking that other people might learn from your experience, and to be punished for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“Violence never solved anything”
No, but it can sure make the symptoms bearable…
There are many excellent reasons for NOT using violence, but the notion that it “doesn’t solve anything” is not one of them. Only violence can actually destroy a problem – solving it completely, once and for all. And only a moral simpleton could fail to see a difference between using violence to destroy the Jews and using violence to destroy the Nazis.
2. “Violence never solved anything”
But frequently can be averted merely by the presence of the capability. And it can be used to stop or prevent violence against the weak.