"We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. … But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. … And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child’s very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won’t -- that we can’t always be there for them. … It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children. This is our first task -- caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? … I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. … We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. … We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"-- President Barack Obama, December 16, 2012, speaking at a prayer vigil held in response to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: But what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to change so as to reduce these tragedies? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
""A pragmatic progressive" political party is the ne plus ultra of American political fantasy. It expresses unarguable values: Progress is what we all want, and all politics should be pragmatic. The question is: Why don’t we have it? Why do we have a conservative movement based on frantic spin and outright mendacity, but no true progressive movement opposing it based on facts?"-- Letters to the editor of The New York Times (by David Berman and Nina Bousk, respectively), published December 16, 2012, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
...
"How about a Common Sense Party? It seems it’s been a long, long time since political parties have evidenced common sense."
Comment: Berman is indulging in the "only my opponent" caricature, saying that Republicans and conservatives (but not Democrats and progressives) resort to "spin" and lies. He also indulges in "pragmatic" rhetoric. Bousk, meanwhile, indulges in "common sense" rhetoric. What positions are common sense? Does anyone decide to take a position that isn't common sense?
***
"On Friday, we learned that more than two dozen people were killed when a gunman opened fire in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. … As a nation, we have endured far too many of these tragedies in the last few years. An elementary school in Newtown. A shopping mall in Oregon. A house of worship in Wisconsin. A movie theater in Colorado. Countless street corners in places like Chicago and Philadelphia. Any of these neighborhoods could be our own. So we have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this. Regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 15, 2012, during the president's weekly address, referring to the December 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
"The assault weapons ban enacted under President Clinton was deficient and has expired. Mr. Obama talked about the need for “common sense” gun control after the movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colo., and he hinted during the campaign that he might support a new assault weapons ban, presumably if someone else introduced it. Republicans will never do that, because they are mired in an ideology that opposes any gun control."-- New York Times editorial, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: First, this is a distortion (or at least an exaggeration). Republicans do not oppose all gun control whatsoever. In fact, they support many gun control laws, just not as many as Democrats and the editors of The New York Times do. Second, The New York Times editorial page is indulging in "ideologues" rhetoric. Lastly, The New York Times editorial page correctly points out that President Barack Obama earlier indulged in "common sense" rhetoric.
***
"We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. … As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."-- President Barack Obama, December 14, 2012, referring to the shooting that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Comment: This is a platitude (or maybe several platitudes). Of course, everyone wants to do something "meaningful" to prevent these tragedies. But what? Different people have different beliefs about gun policy, and about the best way to stop shootings like this. What is it Obama is referring to when he talks about "politics" and how are we supposed to put it aside? How exactly are we supposed to "come together"? Are people supposed to give up on their beliefs about what amounts to good policy on guns? Is this basically a call to get rid of "ideology"?
***
Republicans in Congress like to find ways to hold the economy, and ordinary Americans, hostage to their ideological agenda. Just as they are once again threatening another phony debt ceiling crisis that will jeopardize the nation’s credit rating, they are, once again, threatening to withhold vital funds for Hurricane Sandy relief unless the Democrats agree to unrelated spending cuts.The White House has requested $60 billion in federal disaster relief to repair the damage caused by Sandy, but Republicans have balked. Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey called disaster relief “wasteful spending.” And four other right-wing Republicans told The Hill that they would demand cuts in other programs to offset the expense.-- New York Times pundit Andrew Rosenthal, December 13, 2012, commenting on health care reform legislation being considered for passage by Congress.
Comment: This is demonizing -- describing Republicans as wanting to do what's wrong -- and "ideologues" and "hostage-taking" rhetoric.
***
"[A] vocal minority on the hard-left continues to argue to the leaders of their party -- from the President on down -- that Democrats in Washington should do absolutely nothing about short-term or long-term spending problems. This is the Thelma and Louise crowd, the ones who dream about higher taxes and the bigger government it will pay for, regardless of the impact on jobs or the economy or America’s standing in the world. These are the ones who recklessly ignore the fact that we can’t keep running trillion dollar deficits every year and throw a tantrum if somebody suggests that maybe the taxpayers shouldn’t keep subsidizing every last program Washington ever dreamed up. Their reckless and ideological approach threatens our future. And anyone who’s serious about solving the problems we face should ignore it, starting with the President. … It’s time for the President to present a plan that rises above these reckless and radical voices on the hard-Left, that goes beyond the talking points of the campaign trail, and that has a realistic chance of passing the Congress. The time for campaigning is over. It’s time for the President to lead."-- Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), November 26, 2012, from the floor of the Senate.
Comment: First, who is saying this? McConnell doesn't name who holds the "Thelma and Louise" position he describes. The danger -- which brings us to the second point -- is that McConnell is creating a straw man, a caricature of his opponents. They really don't care at all about the impact on the U.S. economy? Third, McConnell is engaging in "ideological" rhetoric, as well as "radical" rhetoric, as well as "talking points" rhetoric.
***
"Our platform, crafted by Democrats, is not about partisanship but pragmatism; not about left or right, but about moving America and our economy forward. Our platform -- and our president -- stand firm in the conviction that America must continue to out-build, out-innovate and out-educate the world. … We also must pull from our highest ideals of justice and protect against those ills that destabilized our economy -- like predatory lending, over-leveraged financial institutions and the unchecked avarice of the past that trumped fairness and common sense. … Our platform calls for a balanced deficit reduction plan where the wealthy pay their fair share. And when your country is in a costly war, with our soldiers sacrificing abroad and our nation facing a debt crisis at home, being asked to pay your fair share isn't class warfare -- it's patriotism. But we all know -- it's common sense -- that for an economy built to last we must invest in what will fuel us for generations to come. … Let us not fall prey to rhetoric that seeks to gut investment and starve our nation of critical, common-sense building for our future. … You should be able to afford health care for your family. You should be able to retire with dignity and respect."-- Convention Co-Chair Mayor Cory Booker (D-Newark), September 4, 2012, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention.
Comment: Booker employs a lot of rhetoric, here, that needs clarification. First, how is the platform "pragmatic" rather than partisan? The distinction between pragmatism and ideology is seldom explained by politicians. Second, Booker employs platitudes by invoking ideals that everyone favors. For instance, we all want affordable health care for everyone and to have top-notch education for our kids, the question is which policies best achieve that goal. And we all want people to pay their fair share, the question is what does fairness demand in particular with respect to taxes and spending. Third, Booker invokes "common-sense" without specifying what it is that amounts to common knowledge. Who is it in terms of financial institutions or political opponents who has behaved -- in Booker's view -- without common-sense? Lastly, Booker invokes patriotism. But, again, he doesn't specify what counts as fairness, so he also doesn't specify what counts as patriotism. Is he saying that people who disagree with the Democratic platform on taxes are unpatriotic?
***
"[GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney and [GOP vice presidential candidate Paul] Ryan have put ideology ahead of what's right. … The embrace of an ideologue like Paul Ryan may appeal to the Republican Party's Tea Party base, but it will completely alienate independent voters, especially in battleground states. … Throughout this campaign, Mitt Romney has lacked a clear vision. Now he's embraced a radical ideologue with a dangerous one. This election is absolutely a choice between two visions for our country's future. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have solidified their roles as rubber stamps for the reckless and failed economic theories of the past."-- Commentator and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, August 12, 2012.
Comment: There's a lot going on here. First, the "ideology" accusation. Then the claim that Romney and Ryan put ideology "ahead of what's right", as if they know what's right and best, and instead do something else. Rather, Romney and Ryan have a different idea of what policies are good for the country, different from Brazile and other Democrats. Then there's the accusation that Ryan is a "radical". Finally, there is the "failed policies" accusation.
***
"This is not the Democrat Party of Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman, who was Algore's running mate in 2000, has been drummed out of this party. He had to run as an independent for his own Senate seat, whenever the last time he ran. This is not the Democrat Party of Bob Strauss, all these old guys that go out and have a cocktail at the end of the day and talk about how wonderful it is to run Washington and so forth. These are radical, monothematic ideologues who have no desire to be reasoned with. They have no desire to be treated reasonably."-- Radio pundit Rush Limbaugh, July 18, 2012.
Comment: It couldn't be that Democrats disagree with Limbaugh about what works, it has to be that they're "ideologues". Would the same accusation in the other direction be fair? If Limbaugh doesn't agree with the arguments of Democrats, does that mean he has "no desire to be reasoned with"?
No comments:
Post a Comment