Department of false equivalencies

Submitted by stillnotking on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 3:17pm. Tags:

Politics

Krugman on ABC's This Week (video, h/t ObWi):

"Krugman: This is not just about McCain and what he did. The fact of the matter is, for a long time we have had a substantial fraction of the Republican base that just does not regard the idea of Democrats governing as legitimate. Remember the Clinton years. It was craziness, right? They were murderers, they were drug smugglers, and the imminent prospect of what looks like a big Democratic victory would drive a lot of these people crazy even if Sarah Palin wasn't saying these inflammatory things. It's going to be very ugly after the election.

Roberts: On both sides that's true. I think that you've also had a huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are illegitimate, and that was particularly true after the 2000 election, and to some degree after 2004. And so you really do have at the core of each party people who are not ready to accept the verdict of the election.

Krugman: I reject the equivalence."

Apparently this is the new meme: conservative racists and conspiracy theorists who believe Obama is a secret plant of Muslim terrorists or Bill Ayers (or, implausibly, both) are the mirror image of liberals who believe George W. Bush is a war criminal or a felon*.

Here's the difference. What one thinks of Bush's actions is a matter of opinion, but the actions themselves are not. He orchestrated the preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation, he has ordered the torture (as defined under the Geneva Conventions) of detainees, and he has broken the law in circumventing even the rubber-stamp FISA court on surveillance. These facts are not in dispute. One can argue that Bush was justified in these things, but one cannot argue that he did not do them.

By contrast, claiming that Bill Clinton is a drug dealer or a murderer is to appeal to innuendo and supposition rather than fact. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, and in my opinion, some of his actions as President were also illegal and/or qualified as war crimes; but he is not a serial killer who "disappears" his political enemies, as was routinely alleged by the nuttier folks on the right. There is no equivalence here.

*I would also note that the liberals who believe these things are, in almost every case, advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush. That makes them the mirror image of those Republicans who called for the impeachment of Clinton, not the people at McCain/Palin rallies screaming for Obama to be killed. Big difference.
--

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

stillnotking's blog
Login or register to post comments

I hate Cokie Roberts (#129233)

by catchy on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 4:57pm

A brainless centrist w/out any real convictions. Her vapid analyses don't resemble common sense -- they're just whatever she thinks is an acceptable position given the views of others.

I can't remember who eviscerated her a few yrs. back but somebody wrote up something about how her reporting and media appearances were the opposite of an adversarial check on government -- her entire career is about homage to her class + DC social circle.

The article was accompanied by a nice photo of her in front of a camera w. a microphone + reporter's overcoat that didn't completely cover up a gown she had obviously just been wearing to some high society event.

The caption read: Cokie Roberts is not a real reporter, she just plays one on TV.

(

)

False equivalence of false equivalence (#129218)

by Bird Dog on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 4:27pm

Cokie and Paul were talking about Republicans viewing the Clinton adminstration as not being legitimate (Paul's view) and Democrats viewing the Bush administration as not being legitimate (Cokie's devil's advocate view). Krugman rejected that equivalence, presumably because the Clinton administration was legitimate and the Bush administration is not. They are both legitimate administrations, which made the argument kind of silly. Krugman was being his usual partisan self.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

)

Cokie was talking past him (#129228)

by stillnotking on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 4:45pm

Krugman was specifically referring to the right-wing crazies who viewed Clinton as illegitimate, not in the sense that he was not legitimately elected, but in the sense that he was a person so horrible he had no legitimate right to govern.

Roberts tried, fairly dishonestly, to flip that into a discussion of election outcomes. Krugman's example is far more germane, because there is little likelihood of the 2008 election being as close as the '00 or even the '04 (whichever way it goes).

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries