Conservative: In my mind anybody who criticizes this war in Iraq is a filthy traitor and should be strung up.Let's call this technique changing the terrain. The liberal thought she was defending against the charge of being disloyal and anti American, and so couched her response in that language. But then, in a rhetorical switch-a-roo, the Conservative (and Rush Limbaugh loves making this argument) instead switches the argument from being about the Loyalty of Protesters, to a debate about the self-involvement of protesters. See how that works?
Protester: Wait a moment, I think if you don't agree with a policy you have a patriotic duty to let your feelings be known.
Conservative: See there you go, pretending that simply protesting makes you patriotic.
Of course Liberals can use this technique too.
Liberal Commentator: We have all the evidence we need to suggest that President Bush drives around in an 18 wheeler running over people just for the heck of it.It's an annoying but effective technique.
Questioning Quint: I don't know. This evidence doesn't look all that convincing to me.
Liberal Commentator: So you think we shouldn't even question President Bush's policies, but just believe whatever he tells us?
Anyway this was triggered by an interesting article on the validity of dissent by Byron Williams.
The formula for deconstructing dissent is as old as recorded history. The leadership continually promotes the idea that an attack is imminent, while denouncing the dissenters for their lack of loyalty and claiming such dissent during a crisis is a threat to the country's safety.Strong but accurate words.
But dissent is the oxygen of democracy. Without it, we would risk choking on the fumes from our own megalomania.
No comments:
Post a Comment