Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

    This issue is being discussed widely on the net at the moment. What do
    MWM readers think ?

    The Right has a License to Write Anything







    Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs



    By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

    When it comes to left and right, meaning the respective voices of sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books.

    Start with sanity, in the form of Ward Churchill, a tenured prof at the University of Colorado. Churchill is known nationally as a fiery historian and writer, particularly on Indian matters. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Churchill wrote an essay called "Some People Push Back", making the simple point, in his words, that "if U.S. foreign policy results in widespread death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned."

    That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. On the matter of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote recently, "It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad 1991 this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target."

    At this point Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January, 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was an OK target.

    Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them._ It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else." I'm glad he puts that gloss in about the targets of his characterization, thus clarifying what did read like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original paper.

    A storm has burst over Churchill's head, with protests by Governor Pataki and others at his scheduled participation on a panel at Hamilton College called "Limits of Dissent." In Colorado he's resigned his chairmanship of the department of ethnic studies, and politicians, fired up by the mad dogs on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by Lord O'Reilly of the Loofah on Fox, are howling for his eviction from his job.

    Why should Churchill apologize for anything? Is it a crime to say that chickens can come home to roost and that the way to protect American lives from terrorism is to respect international law? I don't think he should have resigned as department chair. Let them drag him out by main force.

    So much for the voice of sanity. Now for the dementia of the right. The New Republic's Tom Frank (not the Frank, please note, who just wrote a book about Kansas) describes in TNR how he recently sat in on an antiwar panel in Washington.

    Frank listened to Stan Goff, a former Delta Force soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, whose speech duly moved Frank to write that "what I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face."

    Then upon Frank's outraged ears fell the views of International Socialist Review editorial board member Sherry Wolf, who asserted that Iraqis had a "right" to rebel against occupation, prompting TNR's man to confide to his readers that "these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation."

    After Wolf quoted Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank confided to The New Republic's readers, "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."

    Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor in California and called on someone to punch the guv in the face, or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remain of Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his job in a minute.

    Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and get invited on Fox talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley call on the Washington Times editorial page for Hersh to be imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers are allowed to play.

    After savaging Churchill, the mad dogs of the right are now turning their sights on Shahid Alam, a tenured professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston. Alam, author of the excellent Poverty From the Wealth of Nations, wrote a column for the CounterPunch website in December in which he argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the attackers believing that they are fighting-as the American revolutionaries did, in the 1770s-for their freedom and dignity against foreign occupation/control of their lands. Second, he argued that these attacks were the result of the political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally.

    It was a mistake, Alam said, to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Now he has been labeled "an un-American" professor by O'Reilly and Daniel Pipes, and there's an Internet campaign to have him stripped of his faculty position. So write to all the appropriate names, defending Churchill and Alam; and if you feel like a pleasant outing to execrate Frank and The New Republic, there'll be a demonstration sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the DC chapter of the ISO and others at 5 pm on Friday, February 11, outside TNR's DC editorial offices at 1331 H Street.

    Afterword: Latest word from Colorado since this column went to press last Wednesday in the print edition of The Nation, is that the university's Inquisition team has taken time out, for a month, so that they can read everything Ward Churchill has ever written. A month? That's like saying you need only a year to read the works of Alexander Dumas, which would mean reading a couple of novels a day. This job will take those UC officials a lot longer than that. Ward is a very prolific guy and he's been at it for many years. And, yes, this is the same University of Colorado whose officials decided last year to take no firm disciplinary action after Katie Hnida and two other women charged they had been raped or assaulted by members of the UC football team, also that Coach Gary Barnett's staff had staged porno movie showings for potential team recruits, also promising them easy sex if they signed on. Once again, two sets of books. For rapists and procurers a wink and a nod;for political commentary, a full press persecution and threats of termination. Hnida told Katie Couric a few days ago that her lawyers are actively pursuing legal sanctions.

    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in Europe:
    The Whispering Swarm: Book One of the Sanctuary of the White Friars - The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction
    Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles - Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - Modem Times 2.0 - The Sunday Books - The Sundered Worlds


    Pre-order or Buy my latest titles in the USA:
    The Laughter of Carthage - Byzantium Endures - London Peculiar and Other Nonfiction - The Sunday Books - Doctor Who: The Coming of the Terraphiles
    Kizuna: Fiction for Japan - The Sundered Worlds - The Winds of Limbo - Modem Times 2.0 - Elric: Swords and Roses


  • #2
    Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    When it comes to left and right, meaning the respective voices of sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books.
    Well, to me the first sentence says it all, although I could also quote the passage about forcing George Pataki to "masturbate what remain of Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals". There is this notion in recent years to marginalize those positions that don't comport with our own, sometimes by attacking the people that stand behind that opposing position. This piece takes the stance of victim to point out this fact, but then resorts to the same tactic by marginalizing right wing opinion and libeling the people that represent that opinion.

    How does this provide a solution or further the debate? To me it does more to show the absolute failure of the left to establish a rhetoric that resonates. How many of the people that are truly on fence are going to respond positively to an attack that calls them immoral, or worse? If nothing else, our American history must show that people can't be bullied by self-righteousness. It doesn't work in religion, and it doesn't work in politics. The Democrat power base would do well to take a lesson from the Republican Party, or, if that is too abhorent to them, from Corporate America. Both institutions have done well to take their message and translate it into the voice and rhetoric of the target audience. The Democrat Party has, with one notable exception, failed to do this for almost 3 decades. Articles like this tell me that this failure is destined to continue.

    Frankly, I think this is nothing more than the latest, misguided salvo against the outspoken, visible "representatives" of the right wing. I use quotes, because anyone that is NOT involved in pushing their own, opposite agenda knows that these "representatives" represent no one but themselves. Every single one of the cases listed (and derided) have a much more substantial and tangible ECONOMIC basis rather than a political basis. That professor being forced to resign his post? I would venture that his ability to fulfill a significant part of his job (recruiting students, securing speaking engagements, forging alliances with other universities, broadening his publishing base) and thereby generating revenue for his school, was impacted if not compromised by his stand on this issue. Not suggesting it is right, simply suggesting that that platform presents challenges for his employer. The football analogy? Sad, yes, but valid, no. The structure of big-time college athletics ensures that incident, disgusting as it may be, will not impact the ability of that program to generate revenue for the school. The list of coaches that have broached (sometimes flaunted) the rules with few or no repercussions is a long one. Some Division I schools make more revenue from their athletic programs than all other revenue sources combined, and will take the steps necessary to ensure that revenue stream remains. The best way to do that is to win.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

      Sorry, double post.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

        Originally posted by Bill
        This piece takes the stance of victim to point out this fact, but then resorts to the same tactic by marginalizing right wing opinion and libeling the people that represent that opinion.
        In other words, it takes the liberties the author feels are his right, since the conservative voice takes them all the time? Is that a fair paraphrase of your statement? Is it hypocrisy of fair play?

        Originally posted by Bill
        To me it does more to show the absolute failure of the left to establish a rhetoric that resonates. How many of the people that are truly on fence are going to respond positively to an attack that calls them immoral, or worse?
        Maybe for this author it isn't about creating a rhetoric but revealing a truth many dismiss?

        Originally posted by Bill
        If nothing else, our American history must show that people can't be bullied by self-righteousness. It doesn't work in religion, and it doesn't work in politics.
        Bill, are you seriously trying to say it's the liberals who flaunt their "self-righteousness?" I know you must be being ironic.

        Originally posted by Bill
        Articles like this tell me that this failure is destined to continue... Frankly, I think this is nothing more than the latest, misguided salvo...
        Have you read Ann Coulter? Can you point out to me what is different about her bombastic writing style that is any different than the things you claim negate this article's validity? I'm a bit confused. Your very argument seems to be proving the author's point: that what is okay for the right-wing goose isn't okay for the left-wing gander. Coulter marginalizes opinions that don't meet hers all the freaking time!

        If it's just that the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly are able to hit their "target audience" by marginalizing opinions that don't meet with their own, whereas liberal authors cannot, than that speaks volumes about the target audience of the Right, doesn't it?
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

          By the way, I cannot delete the second of my posts. I will keep trying.

          Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
          In other words, it takes the liberties the author feels are his right, since the conservative voice takes them all the time? Is that a fair paraphrase of your statement? Is it hypocrisy of fair play?
          Nope; it is fair play if he didn't criticize the right for the exact same tactic he uses. Here, it is hypocrisy.

          Maybe for this author it isn't about creating a rhetoric but revealing a truth many dismiss?
          Huh? I honestly don't follow...

          Bill, are you seriously trying to say it's the liberals who flaunt their "self-righteousness?" I know you must be being ironic.
          I am not saying it is the liberals who flaunt their self-righteousness, and I am not being ironic. I am saying that it does no good to point out Ann Coulter's shortcomings as a commentator, and in the next breath talk about masturbating Arnold's steroid shriveled genitals. What is the point of even mentioning that, in jest or otherwise, other than to belittle and marginalize Arnold's political position? How is that any different than what he is accusing the right of doing? I am saying it does nothing to accuse someone (or some institution) of being complicit in the rape of a teenage girl to make a political point. Any truth he might be exposing goes out the window. Besides the fact that most intelligent people can see the difference between the two cases, do you think that is the type of approach that is going to change anybody's thinking, get them to self-reflect? This author is brow-beating his reader with self-righteousness. If he happens to be a Liberal, I can't help that, nor do I think there is any cause and effect.

          Have you read Ann Coulter? Can you point out to me what is different about her bombastic writing style that is any different than the things you claim negate this article's validity? I'm a bit confused. Your very argument seems to be proving the author's point: that what is okay for the right-wing goose isn't okay for the left-wing gander. Coulter marginalizes opinions that don't meet hers all the freaking time!
          Your faulty assumption is that I think that Coulter is right or acceptable. I dismiss her as readily as I dismiss this author. I have no use for that kind of political commentary. Any good points she may ever choose to present she has instantly undermined with her other nonsense. As for her popularity, see my last paragraph. She isn't popular (or acceptable, to put it in context) because of her POLITICS, she is acceptable for her ECONOMICS. If anything, there is an undercurrent of sour grapes in that article. Michael Moore has been "accepted" and yet he is no different than Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. Why has he been accepted? Economics. He moves product, whether he is factually correct or not, whether he is politically left or not.

          If it's just that the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly are able to hit their "target audience" by marginalizing opinions that don't meet with their own, whereas liberal authors cannot, than that speaks volumes about the target audience of the Right, doesn't it?
          Two words: Mike Moore. Neither "side" has clean hands here, and as a result both sides lose.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

            Originally posted by Bill
            Maybe for this author it isn't about creating a rhetoric but revealing a truth many dismiss?
            Huh? I honestly don't follow...
            What I mean is, why does it always have to be about 'creating a rhetoric' to get people on board. I argue my liberal side all the time; I'm never thinking about acquiring followers through rhetorical design, I'm simply stating what I feel is the truth. (This point wasn't all that profound to begin with, by the way, I'm just sick of hearing the "the Left can't establish a rhetoric" stuff.)

            So you're not into the way this article takes a Coulter-esque style. Fine. I agree with you on that. But I can't condemn the guy all that much for fighting fire with fire. It solves nothing, I suppose, but it reveals a lot.
            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

            Comment


            • #7
              In short; "Freedom of speech does not necessarily protect you from the consequences of that speech." Well said, Adlerian.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why the Right is allowed free speech but not the Left

                Originally posted by Bill
                ... That professor being forced to resign his post? I would venture that his ability to fulfill a significant part of his job (recruiting students, securing speaking engagements, forging alliances with other universities, broadening his publishing base) and thereby generating revenue for his school, was impacted if not compromised by his stand on this issue. Not suggesting it is right, simply suggesting that that platform presents challenges for his employer. ...
                I thought Churchill was an academic, 'a tenured Professor', but I see that he was simply a member of the college's Administration. I seem to remember a time when academics earned their authority as experts by studying and publishing original work. When college's and universities employed these academic experts, they were providing the students with first class tutors and the institution with cutting edge, published research. There were risks, but the institution was supposed to stand by the academics and their research, unless it was obviously very wrong, even if it was controversial.

                Now, the research comes secondary to fund raising and public relations. Which doesn't say much for the quality of academic institutions in the States, these days.

                As to the journalist's low crack about steroids and shrivelled organs, I took that to be an attempt to make explicit and burlesque, what the quoted Right Winger's quips made implicit. Rough language, but so much less unpleasant than the actual events from which the remarks were drawn.

                Let me see if I've got this right, you're free to speak, as long as you say what is expected of you? Or, lose your job and risk being attacked and pilloried. How very 'fatwah' like that seems to an outsider. Self censorship and peer pressure are obviously so much more cost effective and efficient than any State censorship in the US. Of course, the State does have help from pretty powerful forces, like Rupert Murdoch and his buttmonkeys at Fox/News International, for example.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, here's a link to what appears to have been Professor Churchill's original, post-9-11 article:

                  http://www.darknightpress.org/index....&view=9&long=1

                  I can't say I agree with all of it. The really controversial section seems to have been
                  Originally posted by Ward Churchill
                  From: Darknight Press: [Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
                  written by Ward Churchill // 9-11-2001
                  This article appeared in Pockets of Resistance #11 September 2001


                  ...

                  They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

                  There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

                  ...
                  It appears to have been written very shortly after the events of 9/11, an attempt to see events from an opposing viewpoint. Earlier in the article he refers to the deaths of 500,00 Iraqi children under 12, resulting from the bombing of Iraq in the 90's, admitted to and dismissed by Madeline Albright. Not completely successful, but more important for keeping things in perspective, attempting to understand why people could become so angry with the US that they'd even be willing to annhilate themselves, if they could get a serious crack at it, at least symbolically.

                  I believe the 'little Eichmanns' analogy was wrong, but it's also hard for Western capitalists to understand, how lifting a telephone and using a keyboard, in the quest for profit, can often cause so much grief, totally out of proportion, on the other side of the World. If Churchill's views and analogies seem extreme, then pause for a moment and consider just how much of the official line from the UK and US governments, since 9/11, has turned out to be complete nonsense and just how often the victims and events of 9/11 have been used to justify actions which later turned out to be totally unrelated and out of all proportion to the original attacks.

                  Churchill was definitely out to provoke thought and discussion, even controversy. I find it more significant that he's an ex-Vietnam vet, than that he's got Native America roots. He knows, as well as any, that we've all been down this route many times. Our governments say one thing, do another, the established media help justify the actions and it's only later that the missing pieces fall into place. Won't get fooled again? Over and over again.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                    What he wrote was simply heinous. People do not deserve the death penalty for their job. Also, there was much more going on in that building and under it than financial stuff. There were also a horde of most likely Columbian natives working in the building at I’m sure hundreds of menial tasks. It has been my experience that these people are some of the nicest folks that I have ever met.

                    What he wrote reminds me of what I call the neurotic tough guy. That’s the guy that can’t cry or feel a feeling so he says something crass and awful. There’s a scene in Old Yeller where the kid starts saying, “I never wanted that darn dog anyway,� when his beloved pet is dieing. It’s like that. I hope.
                    He mentions that the CIA also had an office in the building in the article. He also wrote that if the boot had been on the other foot and it had been a similiar building somewhere like Iraq, such deaths would simply have been dismissed as collateral damage. And a lot of people have died in Iraq, one way, or another. The US admin. there not even bothering to count the civilian casualties.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                      I never heard about the CIA thing until these posts. Frankly, I doubt it, but even if they did how important could it have been. Also, some of the countries that we have had conflicts with of there such as Iraq started conflicts before we did, thus they got attacked by us. Meanwhile, Osama did not like us because we as infidels have a base in the “holy� land. I think that the towers were attacked because they were a monument more than anything else.
                      I can't imagine a better place for the CIA to have an office, monitoring all those foreign trade delegations. However, apart from the fact that it must be a bit of a puzzle as to why so many tiny and relatively insignificant countries insist on attacking US interests, Churchill's main argument seem to have been an attempt to show just why so many groups around the World might be annoyed with the US. And, why it's important to see that there may be other reasons for their actions than those given by the offical line.

                      Yes, the setting up of US bases in Saudi Arabia does appear to to have been a major flashpoint with Bin Liner, but the symbolic attack on Capital may have had a lot more to do with the corrupting influence of the West's ruthless exploitation of Saudi OIL. If the US and UK hadn't been shoaring up the Saudi Royal family and their deeply corrupt feudal system for so long, perhaps it would have collapsed decades ago to be replaced with something more democratic, or at least a secular dictatorship like Iraq's under Sadman Hussein, or Syria's. Instead of it fostering the particularily brutal and severe form of fundamentalism that encourages public executions under sharia law and that eventually spawned an even more extreme Fundie nutcase like Osram A. Binliner.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just to add a short rider on the Saudi System, they're starting an experiment with democracy today, local government elections, spread over two months, starting with Riyadh. No women are allowed to vote and apparently no one's actually sure how much power the elected municipal authorities will actually have. Still It's a start.

                        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4252079.stm

                        Things must be serious if they've decided it's time to try some limited democracy in Saudi.

                        ...

                        Originally posted by The Adlerian
                        ... Countries are run by either rich people, military people, or insane religious people. Frequently, all three of these are rolled into one. I bet that you could choose any country superimpose it onto the united states and it would be trying to dominate things. ...
                        Yes and at the moment the US is indeed, apparently run by all three. Although it may well be true that other countries might act in a similiar way, were they in the same position as the US, none are. Not even Russia, or China. None have the Global reach, the immense technologies for war, or the bottomless demand for resources.

                        As a Brit, I find it far more alarming that the UK has tied itself so tightly to Uncle Sam's coat tails. Obviously, we have business interests in common and a possibly "insane religious" leader, in the Prime Minister, but there was a time when we had a more diverse and functional democracy, back in the days when the Prime Minister did not assume presidential powers.

                        Might also say that both Blair and Bush are also backed up by the vast power of that media Galactus, Rupert Murdoch. Can't help wondering if there's a connection with the political aims.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                          Does he have a right to say it? Yes! But, he does not have the right to keep his job after saying it. Anne Coulter was fired from MSNBC a few years ago for her comments. Generally, though, she is a different case, as I believe that she is more like an independent contractor. She writes books and does appearances wereever people are willing to pay her.

                          Being a professor at a college is not the same thing. So, as it has already being said, a professor is part of the marketing aspect of the whole institution. If he is making outrageous statements that the college and the public dislike he affects the whole of the college. The college can choose to weather the storm or tell him to support his ideas independently.

                          I do not think that this is a free speech issue, as this man, if he gets fired, can continue to say anything that he wants and publish anything that he wants to.
                          I have a couple of thoughts about the issues here. I'll address this one first. I'm glad people are talking about this issue.

                          The university doesn't have to support him, but they simply can't fire him. Tenure protects academic debate more rigidly than general assurances related to freedom of speech. With tenure, you are not only employed for life, you are allowed the freedom to engage in and promote any academic debate in which you find merit. What he said isn't popular, and was certainly insensitive. However, the University of Colorado and its Board of Regents better have deep pockets if they try to fire him, because I am certain that his contract grants him the right to say those things without fear of censoring, let alone fear of losing his job. In some ways, I'm guessing he probably sees it as his job to say them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            To Bill's comment on rhetoric--

                            The right certainly has controlled political rehetoric over the last ten years, if not longer. The right has a unified voice in many issues, and can dominate the way everyone frames issues. Often the rhetoric is paper-thin, but when people accept it uncritically, or even use it as if it is common usage of the language, you get to control debates.

                            Part of the Democrat's problems, but not necessarily those who are further left, is a clarity in message. "Not the right's point of view" isn't much of a message, and attacking the key positions from many angles only reinforces the importance of the right's message.

                            What's my point... :) You control the rhetoric, you define the debates and control the issues. Of course, when you define the debates and control the issues, you also control the rhetoric. The left has failed to embrace any sensibile way to break that circle. Part of the problem of accepting many points of view is that you'll always have less collective conviction with respect to any message than those who are unquestioning true believers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Very sad that our country is made up of simpletons who need a rhetoric and pithy catch-phrases in order to be able to formulate an opinion, much less a moral understanding of humanity. Evidently, the common man doesn't even think, he simply veers toward the strongest scent, the prettiest words. Forget deep contemplation; just go with what most people are saying. That's always the best plan. :roll: *sigh*
                              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X