In other words, when they see they are being mischaracterized by their opponents, they say that it's proof that their opponents "will do or say anything in order to win". (And, of course, once you believe they'll do anything to win, you're likely to feel justified in doing anything to stop them.)
This, naturally, is just another distortion, because -- even though politicians routinely resort to unacceptable behavior -- they aren't literally willing to do or say anything in order to win. And politicians don't apply this reasoning equally to any name-calling or distortions coming from their own side. So this kind of reaction is at least an exaggeration if not an act of name-calling in its own right.
It's similar to accusing someone of not caring about the truth.
EXAMPLES AND ANALYSIS
"When Donald Trump says he'll make America great he means make it even greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump. Great for the guys who don't care how much they've already squeezed from everyone else. Great for the guys who always want more. Because that's who Donald Trump is: the guy who wants it all for himself. And watch out, because he will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants. That's who he is."-- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), June 27, 2016.
Comment: Warren is demonizing Trump – as well as other unnamed "rich guys" – saying they don't care about other people and will "crush you into the dirt" – presumably metaphorical violent rhetoric meaning that they'll do anything – in order to satisfy their selfishness.
***
"The UK just voted to leave the European Union – so-called “Brexit”. … This is the end of the world as we know it, OK? Please take this seriously. What happened? What happened was, you have this complete right-wing, crazy, racist, xenophobic horror show breaks out in the UK. They don’t want no immigrants – sound familiar? They don’t want multi-culturalism – does that sound familiar? The don’t want to have nothing to do with nobody, period, except for people who look just like them – basically, white folks – in Britain. They say they can’t even deal with white folks in Europe, they just want to be on their own. So everybody goes, “No way, who cares? These people are crazy. If you vote for Brexit, if you vote to leave the European Union, you’re going to destroy the economy. You’re gonna be doing crazy stuff. You’re gonna crash your stock market.” Does any of this sound familiar? You’ve got a movement of crazy people that are going for power, making lunatic arguments, and then you have good, thoughtful, liberal people saying, “Oh, that wouldn’t be prudent. That wouldn’t work out. The policies seem irrational.” … Crazy, hard-right lunatics just led the UK off a cliff into the vast abyss of stupidity and foolishness and soon-to-be economic chaos. Does this sound familiar? The same people in the United States will give you the same argument and tell you it is impossible that Trump can win. … The pollsters don't get it. The pollsters call reasonable people and ask them reasonable questions and get reasonable answers and put you to sleep. And they tell you that Trump can't win. And they told the people in Britain that these Brexit people couldn't win. … And the people in the UK who pushed this insane idea are the worst people ever born in the UK. These are not good people. These are not smart people. These are not kind people. These are racist, hateful people. Some of them are neo-Nazis. And people said they would never be able to get any traction. Well, look at the news. They got a ton of traction. If you don't want this nonsense to happen in the United States, quit tell – slap your friends upside the head who are watching NPR, eating their tofu, and telling you how wonderful it is that Trump is horrible. It is not wonderful that he is horrible. It is horrible that he is horrible. … This hate-wave that just tore Europe apart? Coming soon to a voting booth near you. And we need to have every single person we know doing every possible thing to stop it. Thank you."-- Pundit and CNN correspondent Van Jones, June 23, 2016, referring to the Brexit vote and how it relates to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Comment: Jones is demonizing Trump and Brexit supporters – in part, accusing them of anti-immigrant bigotry – as well as calling them stupid. Are there no non-bigoted, sensible reasons to support Trump or Brexit? Also, Jones says people should "do anything to win", though I imagine he's being emphatic, not literal (though, much of the rest of what he said seems to be meant literally).
***
Clinton will have to campaign with unwavering poise against the most dangerous and unpredictable variety of opponent—a demagogue who is willing to trespass every boundary of decency to win power.-- Pundit David Remnick, retrieved June 12, 2016, referring to Democratic presidential contender former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.
Comment: This is "demagogue" and "they'll say anything" rhetoric.
***
"The parties are completely out of control and completely out of touch. And Hillary Clinton doesn't realize that the game has entirely changed. She is playing the old main line politician that will say whatever they have to say to get elected. Donald Trump, I think also says whatever he has to say to get elected, but in a completely different way."-- Pundit Glenn Beck, May 24, 2016, referring to Democratic presidential contender former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.
Comment: Beck is accusing Clinton and Trump of being willing to "say anything" in order to get elected.
***
"Rick is a really good spokesman who had the unenviable task of working for a candidate willing to do or say anything to get elected".-- Alex Conant, communications director for the campaign of Republican presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), February 22, 2016. He was referring to Rick Tyler, spokesperson for the campaign of Republican presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who fired Tyler earlier that day.
Comment: This is the "they'll say anything" caricature.
***
“We will not allow Ted Cruz to do to Marco in South Carolina what he did to Ben Carson in Iowa,” Rubio communications director Alex Conant said in statement to reporters that captured the tone of recent days. “Cruz has proven that he is willing to do or say anything to get elected. Over the last 10 days, the Cruz campaign has lied, smeared, fabricated and even Photoshopped. We fear the worst dirty tricks are yet to come. We strongly urge all South Carolina Republicans to beware of suspicious news reports, emails and social media posts during tomorrow’s voting. The Cruz campaign will do anything to stop Marco Rubio's momentum."-- From a February 19, 2016, story in Politico by Nick Gass, featuring a quote from Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC).
…
“Politics in South Carolina is a blood sport,” Haley said, gesturing to her footwear. “I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement, but because you have to be prepared to kick at any time.”
Comment: Conant is using the "they'll say anything" caricature, while Haley is using violent rhetoric.
***
“We ran a hard campaign against each other. He said things that hurt my feelings, I said things that hurt his feelings. It was tough! But he won and I lost. And I said, ‘I want to do everything I can to get you elected,’ and I did. I did everything I could think of to do.”-- From a February 17, 2016, story in Vogue Magazine by Jonathan Van Meter covering Democratic presidential contender former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her campaign in 2016, and referring back to her contest with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2008, who won the Democratic presidential nomination.
…
One woman, perhaps a decade younger than Hillary, with a thick Midwestern accent, stood up to speak her piece: “I want to say that when I listen to you, I feel that the political discourse is taken back to sanity.” Knowing laughter rippled through the crowd. “I really feel like with the Republicans . . . that there’s almost a collusion to all say things that aren’t . . . sane. So I want to really say thank you to you because you’re pleasant, you’re joyous, you’re happy. And your running for president is, I think, fundamentally an act of generosity.”
Comment: Is Clinton indulging in the "they'll say anything" caricature with respect to herself? Also, the woman speaking to Clinton is deriding Republicans as not being sane.
***
"We have listened to liberals all of our lives. We know exactly what they want to do. And those of us who've been paying attention know exactly how they go about it. We know how they go about getting everything they want. If they have to deflect, if they have to lie, if they have to distract, if they have to state that exactly what they want is not what, whatever. We know what they want. They want ultimate power and control. We know why. They have contempt for average, ordinary Americans and every other type person, don't think they're capable of leading their own lives responsibly and don't even want to give them the chance to. It's just an unquenchable thirst that they have for power and control over people. And getting guns out of the hands of people would represent the pinnacle of wresting control, wresting freedom and liberty away from people and gaining control over them. … Don't be fooled. He's not worried about the criminals getting guns; that's not his focus. His target is on the innocent. Everybody, every liberal Democrat, every gun control advocate wherever you find them, in order to succeed, they have to take guns away from the law-abiding. … Don't be fooled. He's not worried about the criminals getting guns; that's not his focus. His target is on the innocent. Everybody, every liberal Democrat, every gun control advocate wherever you find them, in order to succeed, they have to take guns away from the law-abiding."-- Pundit Rush Limbaugh, January 5, 2016, responding to President Barack Obama's gun policy speech that day.
Comment: Limbaugh is demonizing Obama and liberals, claiming they don't support gun control with the goal of protecting people, but that they instead seek to control people and take away their freedom. This is also the "they'll say anything" caricature, as well as "distraction" rhetoric.
***
"She's always been – whether it was Whitewater or the email scandal, she always lies. And now to be saying that we're just right in the perfect spot with respect to ISIS, I don't think that's a lie, I really don't think she knows what she's doing."-- Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, December 21, 2015, referring to Democratic presidential contender former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Comment: Trump is accusing Clinton of distortion – more, that she always lies, which could also involve the "they'll say anything" caricature – but he then immediately contradicts himself and says that Clinton is not lying in her assessment of ISIS. Rather, he says, she's made a false assessment of the Islamic State based on being "out of touch with reality".
***
The heartbroken sister of fallen Benghazi hero Glen Doherty delivered her sharpest criticism yet of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday, saying the presidential candidate “wasn’t truthful” about the 2012 terrorist attack.-- Kate Quigley, December 9, 2015, as related in a Boston Herald story by Hillary Chabot and Tom Shattuck.
“She knows that she knew what happened that day and she wasn’t truthful,” Kate Quigley said on Boston Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show yesterday. “This is a woman that will do and say anything to get what she wants. I have very little respect for her. I know what she said to me and she can say all day long that she didn’t say it. That’s her cross to bear.”
Comment: This is the "they'll say anything" caricature.
***
"I want to begin with concerns that voters have about each of the candidates here on this stage that they have about each of you. Secretary Clinton, I want to start with you. Plenty of politicians evolve on issues, but even some Democrats believe you change your positions based on political expediency. You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?"-- CNN's Anderson Cooper, October 13, 2015, questioning Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Party presidential debate.
Comment: This is the "they'll say anything" caricature.
***
I would argue that all of the G.O.P. candidates are calling for policies that would be deeply destructive at home, abroad, or both. But even if you like the broad thrust of modern Republican policies, it should worry you that the men and woman on that stage are clearly living in a world of fantasies and fictions. And some seem willing to advance their ambitions with outright lies. Let’s start at the shallow end, with the fantasy economics of the establishment candidates. You’re probably tired of hearing this, but modern G.O.P. economic discourse is completely dominated by an economic doctrine — the sovereign importance of low taxes on the rich — that has failed completely and utterly in practice over the past generation. … If the discussion of economics was alarming, the discussion of foreign policy was practically demented. Almost all the candidates seem to believe that American military strength can shock-and-awe other countries into doing what we want without any need for negotiations, and that we shouldn’t even talk with foreign leaders we don’t like. … I began writing for The Times during the 2000 election campaign, and what I remember above all from that campaign is the way the conventions of “evenhanded” reporting allowed then-candidate George W. Bush to make clearly false assertions — about his tax cuts, about Social Security — without paying any price. As I wrote at the time, if Mr. Bush said the earth was flat, we’d see headlines along the lines of “Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” Now we have presidential candidates who make Mr. Bush look like Abe Lincoln. But who will tell the people?-- Pundit Paul Krugman, September 18, 2015.
Comment: Krugman is using "stupid" name-calling as well as the "they'll say anything" caricature. He's also accusing Republicans of failed policies. Finally, Krugman is using the "only my opponent" caricature, saying it is a false equivalence to say Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of making false assertions.
***
Though AIPAC can generally count on bipartisan support on any issue it cares about, it never had a prayer of beating an administration that was prepared to do and say anything to get its way. Once the president made clear that he considered the nuclear deal to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy legacy, the chances that even the pull of the pro-Israel community could persuade enough Democrats to sustain a veto override were slim and none. In order to achieve that victory, Obama had to sink to the level of gutter politics by smearing his critics as warmongers and slam AIPAC with the same sort of language that earned President George H.W. Bush opprobrium.-- Pundit Jonathan S. Tobin, September 2, 2015. His remarks concerned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Iranian nuclear deal.
Comment: Where did President Barack Obama say that opponents of the deal were warmongers? Is that a distortion of Obama's position? Also, Tobin is accusing of "negative politics" and being willing to "say anything" in order to win. Lastly, it's the "only my opponent" caricature to suggest that Obama, but not his opponents, resorted to unfair tactics on the debate about the Iranian nuclear deal.
***
A hidden-camera video released last week purported to show that Planned Parenthood illegally sells tissue from aborted fetuses. It shows nothing of the sort. But it is the latest in a series of unrelenting attacks on Planned Parenthood, which offers health care services to millions of people every year. The politicians howling to defund Planned Parenthood care nothing about the truth here, being perfectly willing to undermine women’s reproductive rights any way they can.-- New York Times editorial, July 22, 2015. The editorial concerns a video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing what is done with fetal tissue after abortions.
Comment: The New York Times is demonizing the makers of the video, saying they don't want women to have reproductive rights, care nothing about truth, and will say anything to win. Would it be fair to say that The New York Times editorial board supports infanticide, or would they call that demonizing?
***
Sometimes I think that Rush Limbaugh is the dumbest man in America. This happens whenever I take him at face value and forget that he is basically an entertainer with contempt for his audience. He will tell them anything. Last week, as if to validate my opinion of him, he went after Michelle Obama for playing the “race card” at the dedication of a museum in New York City. He described her as angry and complaining.-- Pundit Richard Cohen, May 11, 2015, in an article entitled, "Michelle Obama, criticized for the sin of being black". Cohen's article concerns remarks made by pundit Rush Limbaugh on May 7, 2015, regarding comments made by First Lady Michelle Obama on April 30, 2015.
Comment: This is name-calling, of the "stupid" variety. Cohen is also demonizing Limbaugh as having contempt for his audience, and saying Limbaugh criticized Obama for being black. Cohen also uses the "they'll say anything" caricature against him. (There is also "race card" rhetoric being used by Limbaugh.) Cohen can disagree with Limbaugh's remarks without resorting to name-calling.
***
Preparing for a debate over immigration, Republicans have sought to portray Clinton as opportunistic on the issue. "Obviously she's pretty good at pandering and flipping and flopping and doing and saying anything she needs to say," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said during an event with Hispanic Republicans in Denver.-- From an Associated Press story, May 5, 2015, entitled, "Clinton: Nation needs to fix broken immigration system", by Ken Thomas. The story reported Priebus' remarks that day.
Comment: Priebus is accusing Clinton of hypocrisy, and indulging in the "they'll say anything" caricature.
***
Examples from 2014.
***
Examples from 2013.
***
Examples from 2012.
***
"[There are people] who sincerely believe that history has devised a leftward ratchet, moving in fits and starts but always in the direction of a more powerful state. ... The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought. ... Our fiscal ruin and resulting loss of world leadership will, in their eyes, be not a tragic event but a desirable one, delivering the multilateral world of which they've dreamed so long. ... I urge a similar thoughtfulness about the rhetoric we deploy in the great debate ahead. I suspect everyone here regrets and laments the sad, crude coarsening of our popular culture. It has a counterpart in the venomous, petty, often ad hominem political discourse of the day. ... And besides, our opponents are better at nastiness than we will ever be. It comes naturally. Power to them is everything, so there's nothing they won't say to get it."-- Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), February 11, 2011, during speech to Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
Comment: Notice, Daniels calls for a higher standard of discourse and laments the coarsening of our politics. He says we should avoid "venomous, petty" rhetoric and strive for civil debate. But then he demonizes his political opponents by saying that they are happy that we face fiscal ruin and a loss of international status, and that they only care about power and will say anything to get it. And he indulges in the "only my opponent" caricature by saying that liberals -- and not conservatives -- are "better at nastiness". This, unfortunately, is fairly typical. Politicians routinely say they're opposed to name-calling and invective, and then go on to verbally abuse their opponents with name-calling and invective.
***
"The one thing that is clear is that when power is confronted with real change, they [referring to Bill and Hillary Clinton] will say anything."-- Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, January 23, 2008.
Comment: This is name-calling, and perhaps ad hominem argument as well. Although it is certainly the case that the Clinton campaign has resorted to unfair tactics, this "stop at nothing to hold on to power" accusation is false and derisive. (This accusation is made in lots of political contests, but is it ever true? Is there ever a candidate or politician who would literally say or do anything to achieve power? I doubt it.) Plus, pretty much every campaign uses unfair tactics at some point or another, Barack Obama's included. Does that mean it's fair to say "Barack Obama will say anything to become president"?
***
OBAMA: I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message.-- An ad – "Anything Radio" – from Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) campaign, January 2008, criticizing Democratic presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
ANNOUNCER: It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama. The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama "did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans." In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class. But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote "paid tribute" to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America.
Comment: Obama is responding to remarks in which Clinton distorted Obama's words: Obama wasn't supporting Republicans, he was only noting the success and popularity of their ideas in the 1980s and 1990s. However, in responding, Obama has resorted to the "they'll say anything" caricature.
***
"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. ... Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"-- State senator Barack Obama (D-IL), July 27, 2004, Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
***
"Shariputra, suppose that … there was a very rich man … [One day, at the man's house] a fire suddenly broke out on all sides, spreading through the rooms of the house. … he was greatly alarmed and fearful and thought to himself, I can escape to safety through the flaming gate, but my sons are inside the burning house enjoying themselves and playing games, unaware, unknowing, without alarm or fear. The fire is closing in on them, suffering and pain threaten them, yet their minds have no sense of loathing or peril and they do not think of trying to escape! … My sons are very young, they have no understanding, and they love their games, being so engrossed in them that they are likely to be burned in the fire. … The house is already in flames and I must get them out quickly and not let them be burned up in the fire! Having thought in this way, he followed his plan and called to all his sons, saying, 'You must come out at once!" But though the father was moved by pity and gave good words of instruction, the sons were absorbed in their games and unwilling to heed them. They had no alarm, no fright, and in the end no mind to leave the house. Moreover, they did not understand what the fire was, what the house was, what the danger was. They merely raced about this way and that in play and looked at their father without heeding him. … [the man] had this thought: … I must now invent some expedient means that will make it possible for the children to escape harm. … And so he said to them, 'The kind of playthings you like are rare and hard to find. If you do not take them when you can, you will surely regret it later. … They are outside the gate now where you can play with them.' … At that time, when the sons heard their father telling them about these rare playthings, because such things were just what they had wanted, each felt emboldened in heart and, pushing and shoving one another, they all came wildly dashing out of the burning house."-- Gautama Buddha, the Lotus Sutra, recorded c. 100 BC - 100 AD.
Comment: Is this an example of Gautama being willing to "say anything" in order to win people over, advocating that the "ends justifies the means"?
***
"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."-- The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, 1st century AD.
Comment: Is this an example of Paul being willing to "say anything" in order to win people over, advocating that the "ends justifies the means"?
(The list above is not intended to be a comprehensive record of all relevant examples.)
No comments:
Post a Comment