In fact — hold on a minute — he doesn't make arguments. Arguments require the marshalling of facts under the yoke of reason. [He] makes claims and assertions. He offers...innuendo. He raises your passions about X so that you will believe Y must be true. He is a whispering Loki who values passion over persuasion, which is one reason he's changed his claims against [the President] so many times.
Who do you think the above quote refers to? You'll probably be able to guess when I tell you that it's taken from a column by Jonah "Cabana Boy for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" Goldberg over at NRO. Since this criticism is coming from the right, there's really only one person who could be the subject: Michael Moore. Of course, were this criticism coming from the left, it could be referring to any number of conservative bloviators. Goldberg seems to recognize this, but apparently it doesn't bother him:
Now, I have no doubt that I will be getting some e-mail from someone or other shouting "What about Limbaugh!?" — or Robertson, or Coulter, or Michael Savage. These are different people each deserving different defenses (and different criticisms). But whatever these guys may or may not be guilty of is beside the point. The point is that the Moore-lovers themselves think there are absolutely no redeeming qualities to the alleged monsters in the right-wing parade of horribles, and yet they hypocritically create their own Frankenstein just so they can have a brazen liar of their own. In other words, if you think Rush Limbaugh is a hateful liar who is destroying America, you do not defend Michael Moore or yourself by saying "Moore is our Limbaugh!" Fighting fire with fire is fine in war, but in debates fighting perceived lies with willful ones wins you few points.
I'd be interested in hearing Goldberg's defense of Michael Savage, but at the least it's revealing that Goldberg feels such a person is worthy of defending. I don't know where Goldberg's charge of liberals "hypocritically" creating "their own Frankenstein" in the form of Moore comes from. That's just bizarre. But of course, from his past work we know that Goldberg actually has no problem with hypocrisy.
What's worse is that most conservatives, including myself, do not think Limbaugh is a brazen liar. Most of the Washington liberals celebrating Moore — outside the DNC where he is simply a hero — concede that Moore is a liar, a propagandist, a crafty fool. Moreover, Limbaugh can answer a question about what he believes without changing the subject or reaching down his pants for a fistful of red-herrings. Moore cannot.
If, as Goldberg claims, most conservatives don't consider Limbaugh a brazen liar, that doesn't exactly speak well of the intelligence of conservatives. Maybe they should check out this revolutionary new device called Google. Goldberg's parsing of "perceived" versus "willful" lies is positively, hilariously Clintonian, and his comment about Limbaugh "answering a question about what he believes" is ironic, given that Limbaugh famously avoids any format where his claims might be challenged, where he'd actually have to defend his "ideas."
The thrust of Goldberg's column is that it is, yes, hypocritical for liberals to condemn Limbaugh and embrace Moore (as if it were any less hypocritical for conservatives to do the opposite). Nonsense. What's going on here is that, for decades, conservatives have been bringing guns to knife fights, and after decades of complaining about it, liberals are starting to wise up and do the same. Deal with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment