Right Rhetoric: ‘You Lost Me at Hello’
And now for something that is not (directly) related to what’s going on in Iran.
With the exception of a few — Joe Scarborough and Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, Shep Smith, et. al. — I am finding it increasingly difficult to sit down and listen to, read, or take seriously the rhetoric of the modern members of the so-called right wing of American politics and political commentary.
For regular readers, this is not a news flash — but it’s bugging me more than usual, because I think it’s getting worse. RenĂ©e Zellweger’s character in the movie “Jerry Maguire” told Tom Cruise’s character that he “had” her “at hello.” Lately, the “hello” is where the right wing is losing me.
Still — because I was once one of “them,” and I still share many of their purported concerns (projected deficits, runaway spending, concentration of power in Washington, etc.) — I keep trying to hear what they have to say. But no matter how much or how often I try, I end up (more times than not) walking away in utter disgust.
One reason: A significant share of their contemporary arguments strike me as … just plain bizarre, out-of-touch, based (at times) on circular logic. Case in point: James Taranto’s take in the WSJ yesterday on Obama’s statement that “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.” Taranto’s conclusion: “Obama’s analysis made no sense on Tuesday, even though it was substantially identical to ours on Friday.”
Now, I might be getting really, really slow in my middle-age years, but no matter how many times I read Taranto’s entire tirade on this topic, I can’t make sense of his conclusion. Taranto’s saying this … why? Because Obama didn’t reach the same conclusion on the same timing as Taranto? Because Obama previously said he found a debate between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi “robust”? (God knows that two people with much in common can’t have a “robust” debate. Just ask any married couple in America.)
Another reason today’s right wing is losing me at hello: The volume and vile with which they foist their bizarre arguments on us. Reference Frank Rich’s column earlier this week. A right-wing friend of mine dismissed Rich’s column as a “conservative hater” rambling on about “conservatives who hate.” Whatever. Separate the message from the messenger, man; argue the merits not the motivations; etc.
Writing all of this, I do understand there are screamers on the left. Example in prime: Kos and friends, whom I stopped reading long ago. And yes, the left also has its has its own cauldron of circular-logic junkies, though I can’t find a ready, convenient example for this post.
Regardless, it still seems to this lone observer — right now, at this specific point in time, and overwhelmingly so — that there are more intelligent, calm, grounded voices leaning left than there are leaning right.
At the risk of broken-recordness: That’s a shame. It’s a shame because I continue to believe we as a nation get better ideas when the left and right are in a state of productive balance. But the way things are looking right now, this train is going to veer off-balance, left, over the next several years. And for that — and whatever ills or fortunes might result — today’s right wing should be blaming no one but themselves.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
36 Responses to “Right Rhetoric: ‘You Lost Me at Hello’”
The “quasi-official” (or effectively “official”) righties you encounter in the media (with the exception of a very few who established themselves in a legitimate way over several years, like Limbaugh) are just copycats of the few truly successful ones, or are just hangers-on engaging in their own kind of Washington-celebrity camp-following political-parasite culture. They're no more effective currently than, say, the Republicans in Congress are, in getting things done or in earning public attention and respect.
They're just part of the Washington parasite culture, and on the losing end of the 2006 and 2008 elections and what that implies and indicates about public opinion of them currently.
Obama was concerned primarily about Iran's foreign policy (terrrorism, mainly) and its nuclear program. Obviously the two are different regarding Iranian _domestic_ policy, but we have no place in that matter.
(A more intelligent critic would wonder why we could have Secretary Clinton scold Cuba and present it with a list of firm demands before it would earn our respect, while we're treading extra lightly with Iran. Is it due to Iran's current foreign policy and nuclear threat, or what? Why haven't the righties asked that?)
OK – Taranto's comment is hilarious. But what scares me (conservatives posters will excoriate me for saying this and question my moderate credentials), is that, compared to Michele Bachman, Sarah Palin is starting to sound ratonal. One could, of course, say the same about Keith Olberman or Barney Frank compared to a rational, but hard left liberal, say Mike Farrell.
The truth is when you're out of power you talk louder and say more outrageous things to claim the public's attention. That's pretty normal. What's more disturbing to those who would like a more “robust”, and less acrimonious, debate in America is the way the R's in particular and conservatives in general seem to be constantly tripping over their own shoelaces as they try to get on the dance floor.
Still — because I was once one of “them,” and I still share many of their purported concerns (projected deficits, runaway spending, concentration of power in Washington, etc.) — I keep trying to hear what they have to say. But no matter how much or how often I try, I end up (more times than not) walking away in utter disgust.
Agree 100%. The sensible public voices coming from the right are few and far between, and it's to our detriment. Until the right finds spokespersons that come across as reasonable human beings conservative ideas will not be taken seriously.
Pete,
You’re trying to make a rational argument about making a rational argument…….then you cite Frank Rich as a source.
There has to be a word for the comic, tragic irony of that.
Peggy Noonan, an erstwhile republican, wrote an article that highlighted the difference between how the left and the Bush administration spoke about each other. It was undeniable and self evident after she asked the readers if they could even conceive of Bush using the same terms about a Democrat as what was used against him. Frank Rich, as I recall was specifically mentioned.
Whether you have bumped your head or have slipped away to the lure of left wing elitist cocktail parties (as have the wayward former right wingers you mentioned) your point is lost because it simply doesn’t pass the smell test. You ask the readers to believe the left is now calm and reasonable while the right is incensed and vile. Even the craziest leftist couldn’t buy a premise so opposite the truth.
Are you looking for numbers? Thinking about breaking away to your own website and trying to establish a reputation as a “maverick” blogger? It’s hard to imagine where you can go from here. Perhaps if Frank Rich starts an advice column…….
1. “The truth is when you're out of power you talk louder and say more outrageous things to claim the public's attention.”
Actually, Ann Coulter, to name one example, seems muted, as have been many a GOP or conservative commentator and other among “conservative elites.”
2. “You ask the readers to believe the left is now calm and reasonable while the right is incensed and vile. Even the craziest leftist couldn’t buy a premise so opposite the truth.”
Except those making such claims boldly and loudly.
One does get the impression, listening to the GOP that one is listening to a bunch of slimey, soulless used-car salesmen who will use any type of angle they can, even shifting in the same sentence if that's what it takes to get you to buy what they're trying to sell.
Another reason today’s right wing is losing me at hello: The volume and vile with which they foist their bizarre arguments on us. ~ P.A.
One has to wonder when that aha moment is finally going to occur and embarassment set in.
…your point is lost because it simply doesn’t pass the smell test. ~ jwest
The idea that regular readers here would suspend imagination long enough to accept a jwest administered “smell test” is worth a laugh… or at least a snort.
The bottom line is one of desperation. When Democrats are running around calling soldiers in Iraq “murderers” or specifically calling Bush a fascist scumbag, it's easy to smack them around even in the most in-your-face terms possible.
When your chief political opponent is someone as controlled as Obama, your criticism is apparently limited to… teleprompters and ignorant “Socialism” labels.
The interesting thing is Obama has made ample policy errors worthy of real critique. Of course many of these are positions that the Right actually agrees with, so they're still stuck with thinly veiled “identity politics” comments or more generic anti-Liberal attacks (because that's what they're paid to do).
And then there's the Cheney Exegesis, though the perception of conservative ownership of the national security issue is somewhat dulled since Iraq.
While I am a democrat, and maybe because I am, I see the republican party imploding.
Alot of it seems to have to do with a thinking that is both very childish and immature as well as the fact that they are essentially very self absorbed.
This is not the republican party I remember as a kid growing up. There seemed to be real statesmen and people who's priority was the good of the country.
It seems after Reagan the party just became totally engrossed in it's members thinking solely about self and becoming more and more immature.
they gave up policy and serious or thinking indepth. It's all about name calling and shallow arguments that while it's catnip to the media, is annoying and stupid to the rest of us.
They never honestly present an argument or debate. Just talking points. And they are about point scoring and one upsmanship. Even if it makes them look like 12 year olds.
The noise machine has gone into paranoia world and promotes conspiracy theories and fear mongering. Nothing more.
And while it is amusing or annoying, it's also dangerous.
Until they start to have an honest discussion with the people on policy and dump the talking points and name calling, ect., until they behave in good faith and dump the childish games and dishonest tall tales, until they start to worry about the good of the country rather then the lunatic fringe, they are in trouble.
The democrats have their own problems and we have gone through this kind of thing before, but, I don't recall we got this bad.
Then try the blogosphere, especially the libertarian-leaning part. You can't find a reasonable, calm argument at NRO? At Instapundit? Volokh Conspiracy? No Oil For Pacifists? Maggie's Farm? Neo-neocon? Then I don't think it's their problem.
As to not being able to find examples on the left right off the top of your head, why don't you try Stickings, who dots his columns with such words as “crazed,” “Christianist,” and “warmongering.” Or Kathy Kattenburg and “Vile Hypocrisy.” These are the sorts of phrases that the writer regards as snappy, descriptive prose but are to the receivers, unnecessarily insulting. Just like Michael and Kathy might think if similar terms were hurled at them.
Or do you really not notice such things as they go by? The problem may be more your perception then.
Had to jump in on vwcat, who I just missed. Yes, we are very familiar with liberals who pine for the good old days when conservatives were better.
Except that's not what you said then, was it? So perhaps you aren't the most objective authority.
If progressives ever discover self-observation, they will be unbeatable. Of course, they might not be so progressive then.
Then try the blogosphere, especially the libertarian-leaning part. You can't find a reasonable, calm argument at NRO? At Instapundit? Volokh Conspiracy? No Oil For Pacifists? Maggie's Farm? Neo-neocon? Then I don't think it's their problem.
Agree, I check Instapundit, Volokh, etc all the time. I wish the GOP “leaders” were as sensible.
I'm white and I'll be 40 this summer. I should be entering that phase of life where my politics start to lean right and voting more and more GOP. However, I am in fact more 'liberal' now than I was even 10 years and I haven't voted for a Republican since the 2000 election.
For every example of right-wing extremist someone jumps in a and offers several examples of left-wing nut-jobs to demonstrate how insane/irrational/wrong/insert your favorite word here the 'left' is. For myself, I do not measure a political side by it's pundits. Every side has it's share of kooks. I look at elected officials and right now I'm horrified at the Republican leadership in DC and around the country. When an elected governor with a wink and a nod hints that Texas should secede from the USA and not single national GOP member stands up and calls 'B*LLSH*T' I can not take that party seriously. Or a national party that still refuses to accept any responsibility for the huge debt incurred from the last 8 years or two wars that have drained this country or the unfunded Medicare drug plan or well the list just goes on and on.
Forget looking for sane pundits until the leadership returns to reality.
Leo,
Then why aren't any on the left jumping in to call BS while the Obama Administration claims that it can create more jobs and grow the economy while starting up new transportation, energy, environmental, financial, and health regulations. The Democrats claim they want the economy to grow but then create a level of uncertainity that prevents any sane person from investing.
Then why aren't any on the left jumping in to call BS while the Obama Administration claims that it can improve public education after almost 50 years of failing to improve public education. Does anyone really believe that the prep school, Ivy legue educated Obama Administraiton can really come up with a method of get real performance improvement.
Then why aren't any on the left jumping in to call BS while the Obama Administration when it proposes open borders and the same time that it wants to limit green house gas emissions. How can the left hope to lower population and end sprawl while maintaining open borders and unlimited immigration?
Then why aren't any on the left jumping in to call BS while the Obama Administration claims that it can control spending at the same time as talking about nationalizing healthcare? Every government health program has cost much more than initial estimates. How is the Obama program going to be any different.
Why aren't liberals talking about how much of the GDP that the government will consume in the future and what the effects of increased taxes will be on the economy?
SD, apparently you haven't been paying attention. There are considerably more people “on the left” who have been expressing concern with Obama and levying criticizm than ever there were on the right expressing concern with GWB… at least for his first 6 years. That lockstep mindset eventually started taking it's toll, but democrats don't seem to suffer quite as much from the same malady. I see people from the left taking Obama to task all the time.
It is possible that BOTH left and right are argumentatively dysfunctional right now, Pete.
But because they are so busy uncritically and blindly repeating the talking points written by the leftist blogosphere, TMV's current stable of authors seems incapable of considering that possibility. The promise of perspectives from “left, right, and center” goes unfulfilled.
JSpencer:
Conservatives actually value authority and loyalty a great deal more than Liberals, who tend to emphasize fairness and potential to cause harm as foundational values.
With that context understood it's no real surprise that the left tends to be more fragmented generally. This also helps to explain why we hear about RINOs or otherwise ejected Republicans when they don't follow the “with us or against us” methodology.
“The interesting thing is Obama has made ample policy errors worthy of real critique. Of course many of these are positions that the Right actually agrees with, so they're still stuck with thinly veiled “identity politics” comments or more generic anti-Liberal attacks (because that's what they're paid to do).
“And then there's the Cheney Exegesis, though the perception of conservative ownership of the national security issue is somewhat dulled since Iraq.”
I regret not encountering anything good about this here, on this site (I waited as I often do for others to do their part). The Democrats and liberal Americans for ages have been tarnished as weak on security (when not acting openly against it, in favor of our adversaries), and when Obama made his speech at the same time Cheney did (hyped by fools as a “duel”), intelligent observers and listeners of it know that Obama and the Dems were on the defensive about national security and his policy with respect to the prison at Guantanamo (one of the many objects of wrath of the many pathological people in the Dems' left wing and farther left). Obama's speech was defensive, gravitating toward arguments made in favor of his and his administration's positions and intentions (plans) on these issues.
He did this again in his speech in Cairo. The more diseased people will say it was to repair damage done by the Bush administration (some sick people still hate Bush and Cheney and don't want to stop bashing them and _still_ want them punished for something, somehow). It was not. The speech's words aimed to dispel common anxiety the Arabs and other Muslims have that arises not even so much for US support of Israel (exposing a dark hatred the Arabs and others have, one sadly shared here on the farther left), but because the Muslim world has an inferiority complex and resents the West as it has ever since the Middle Ages, when progress there effectively stopped while the West overtook them. Obama even went so far as to challenge his audience, telling them to be open and honest about what they discuss behind closed doors, things that are long-established facts. It was in some ways a defense of the USA and the West, similar to how he defended himself domestically in the earlier speech, against common misconceptions or even myths.
Superdestroyer: Many on the left believe all that nonsense, that's why. They even _want_ it.
How many of them are expecting “green jobs” to magically appear next week or sometime, any time, soon, to be followed by a transformation in our energy supply sources (even though solar and wind aren't able to replace base-load generation, and both sources, solar in particular, aren't developed enough)?
How many of them actually believe people will gladly tolerate new fuel taxes or vehicle taxes and even before that, rush to downsize from standard-size vehicles into smaller vehicles, or to rush to electric vehicles (the recharging infrastructure as well as generation capacity for which has yet to be developed, for vehicles inferior in performance and costing much more)?
Too many.
“If progressives ever discover self-observation, they will be unbeatable. Of course, they might not be so progressive then.”
To be more general, many will outgrow their leftism, as is commonplace and the natural way of things — maturation. This is counteracted by agents who espouse leftism even when grown, the most notorious being the media (notably left of the public at large, as are many in government and in academia).
The older people who remain liberal or who surprisingly _become_ liberal, or more liberal (such as my friend in DC) are the most interesting.
“… They never honestly present an argument or debate. Just talking points. And they are about point scoring and one upsmanship. Even if it makes them look like 12 year olds. …”
Your statements above and related ones hold more true to the Democrats than with the Republicans, though another related remark may be that's what _Washington_ is like these days. I used to like listening to C-SPAN for information and even a perverse form of entertainment during the 1990s (when Christopher Dodd would lie about GOP “extree-mists” and Al Gore would babble robotically about “dev-a-state … and … de-stroy … Me-di-care…and…Me-di-caid…” but even C-SPAN (on which often every other word is “uh”) is as unpleasant to listen to as a typical speech or press conference by George W. Bush.
I think it's more interesting that anyone becomes conservative at all since apparently every lever of power and perception is controlled by liberals. Calling it “maturation” is a non-explanation.
“This also helps to explain why we hear about RINOs or otherwise ejected Republicans when they don't follow the “with us or against us” methodology.”
The real question is why we rarely hear criticism of Democrats when they do the exact same thing.
Oh. Wait. It's because Democrats get a pass. I remember.
Google search for:
“Republican In Name Only” – 41,800 results
“Democrat In Name Only” – 10,300
My guess would be we don't hear as many criticisms of DINO commentary because the terminology isn't used as often by Democrats.
The terminology isn't used as often because democrats tend to understand and accept a diversity of opinion more than republicans seem to. Given the Ayn Rand-ish posturing as of late by certain factions of the right, it's ironic how much they seem to avoid individual thought and expression.
That's not really true either. Dems can be just as viscous in their attacks on people not agreed with (believe me, I know).
Sure they can, but not as much in the collective sense as the R's. There's a reason why the D's have a greater diversity of support.
Yes, vicious. The D's have a broader base of support right *now* because the R's have been shutting everyone out who isn't hard right. The “no compromise” crowd seems to think they can build a viable election model off such a narrow paradigm (or they're just crazy and projecting a model that can't be sustained long-term, in my opinion).
So Dems gain by default, but don't expect it to last more than a few years at most. Pretending this shift is permanent or says more about the inclusiveness of democrats than exclusionary practices of republicans is wishful thinking.
The Democrats can have a bigger tent because the big government party will always have an easier time paying off all of its groups. The problem is that eventually paying off all of the factions will break the bank (See California). When the unions, educators, minorities, public sector, and the elite want a piece of the government goodies. The Democrats nevver take anything away (except guns), never ask anyone to behave themselves, and always want to protect people from themselves. Of course, the Democrats can be the big tent party.
In the long run, as the U.S. becomes a one party state, the level of corruption is skyrocket since cheating will be the only way that people have to protect themselves from the government.
Which is of course contradicted by the fact that Republicans have almost always drawn more money from corporate interests and others and their balance sheets are historically far above those of Democrats (until this last election cycle anyway).
The whole “Dems want your guns” nonsense is also counter to actual real-life events. In fact Democrats have no problem accepting rural, pro-gun Dems into the party which makes them “big tent” almost by definition. Can you imagine Republicans allowing an elected Rep to propose gun control legislation or turn pro-choice?
I mean sure they do it, and then that guy ends up getting kicked out (a la Specter).
Leoin NM, then I will play the Great Karnak, and reveal that you do not have more than one child, probably none at all. The idea of people growing more conservative as they grow older is often related to the experience of raising more than one child past the age of eight.
Yeah, I know, that's unfair and illogical and an overgeneralization. But I'm right, aren't I?
Ethos, You are getting donations confused with government benefits. The Democrats can keep all parts of a big tent party happy by giving all of them a piece of the government pie and passing laws that benefit them.
When the Democrats did not need the blue dogs, the Democrats were quick to pass gun laws such as the “assault” weapons ban and Democrats tried to sue gun manufacturers. In the elections where the Democrats need suburban and rural whites, they stopped talking about gun control. Now that the Democrats are back to being the one, dominate party, they have started talking about gun control gain.
It is the same as giving the upper class white progressives the public transportation projects they want while ignoring the big truck culture of blue collar Hispanics and illegal immigrants.
In the end, the cost of the Democratic Party being the big tent party will be massive to the U.S. It also causes the Democrats to by hypocritical in that the leadership talks about spending will solve public education's problems while that same leadership all send their children to private schools.
DINO terminology may not be used as often, but the method of driving out those who dissent from Required Thought is used as much by Democrats as anyone else. Ask Joe Lieberman.
But, of course, we're supposed to give it a pass because Democrats are Good Guys and Republicans are the Bad Guys, right?
If Democrats were interested in following the Republican baseline for “driving out those who dissent from Required Thought,” Blue Dogs would have been tossed long ago and the Democratic party would have dissolved itself from the inside out just as the GOP is doing now.
And you can ask about passes all day, Gadfly, I'm not going to get into that kind of game. No one gets a pass, but Reps get more criticism right now because frankly they need it. I don't want to see Dems running both houses of Congress for the next two decades, but if Reps don't get their act in gear, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Most troubling to me these days is the further collapse in our representational democracy's legitimacy. Democrat or Republican, our elected officials apparently continue to focus on narrow, 'special' interests and furthering their own political careers. If there is one thing we need to change in our democracy maybe it's the way we enact legislation. Quite possibly 'direct vote' from the constituency (via internet or equivalent alternative) is the most hopeful future? I know they're discussing developing an 'alternative', separate internet for government use, maybe it can be combined with personal login potential for every last citizen? Too much like big brother? What we've got now is too much like little children home alone with access to the cookie jar.