Thus, for example, a charge by the Obama campaign that McCain's proposals are a dangerous continuation of failed Bush policies are deemed to constitute equally negative charges when compared to the McCain campaign's encouragement of views that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim terrorist supporter.
Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of pointing out the ridiculousness of this false equivalence in connection with the media's distorted quest for "balance" in their reporting.
Unfortunately, I've seen this distorted conception of false equivalence too often in recent years from members of various interest groups that, for one reason or another have conservative leanings, as far ranging as the medical community, business owners, and our local rabbis. Following Katrina, in particular, we heard non-stop talk radio and TV talking heads - and even sermons - bemoaning the so-called "blame game," and particularly comparing that Democrats' demands for accountability from the Bush Administration as a result of the Administration's Kartina inaction, with the genuinely nasty, vile charges by Edward Klein about Hillary Clinton in The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President.
Common sense tells us that these are not the same - one is a complaint about a demonstrable failure and a demand for action in the face of a disaster, the other is a specious bit of politically motivated character assassination with no basis in reality.
Common sense tells us that these are not the same - one is a complaint about a demonstrable failure and a demand for action in the face of a disaster, the other is a specious bit of politically motivated character assassination with no basis in reality.
Similarly, the last few weeks have given us ongoing complaints that the current elections have taken on a nasty tone on both sides, regardless of the fact that Barack Obama is criticizing John McCain's policy proposals whereas John McCain and his surrogates (for whom he is responsible, no matter how he would like to pretend he is not) are attacking Barack Obama's patriotism and his religious views while also explicitly lying about Obama's legislative history.
It's an embarrassing attitude from people who should know better. But, of course, in my community these groups voted for Bush based on selfish economic interests - we're not allowed to say that - couched in a professed (and sometimes genuine, despite being wrong) belief that the war in Iraq was good for Israel's security (certainly tort reform has nothing to do with the right wing views in the medical and business communities, right?) - despite the fact that it has been nothing of the sort - and are inclined to vote for McCain this year because of an obsession with the Iranian threat and a desire for an aggressive posture toward Iran. Remarkably, they are able to get beyond the false equivalencies when, for instance, the issue of the Palestinians comes up. In fact, these same people equating political criticism by Barack Obama with character assasination by John McCain, condemn anyone who falls for the false equivalence of comparing Israeli actions, which are always in self defense and accordingly are always properly measured and balanced, and Palestinian actions, which are always based purely on hatred and a desire to eradicate Israel from the map. Only a fool, or an extreme liberal Democrat (what's the difference, right?), would buy into the argument that there's any equivalence here, right?
The charge of equivalence at the end of the day is just a defense in order to avoid facing up to the fact people are backing a contemptible candidate running a hateful campaign, to get off the hook since "both candidates are doing it."
But, of course, they're not both doing it.
It's an embarrassing attitude from people who should know better. But, of course, in my community these groups voted for Bush based on selfish economic interests - we're not allowed to say that - couched in a professed (and sometimes genuine, despite being wrong) belief that the war in Iraq was good for Israel's security (certainly tort reform has nothing to do with the right wing views in the medical and business communities, right?) - despite the fact that it has been nothing of the sort - and are inclined to vote for McCain this year because of an obsession with the Iranian threat and a desire for an aggressive posture toward Iran. Remarkably, they are able to get beyond the false equivalencies when, for instance, the issue of the Palestinians comes up. In fact, these same people equating political criticism by Barack Obama with character assasination by John McCain, condemn anyone who falls for the false equivalence of comparing Israeli actions, which are always in self defense and accordingly are always properly measured and balanced, and Palestinian actions, which are always based purely on hatred and a desire to eradicate Israel from the map. Only a fool, or an extreme liberal Democrat (what's the difference, right?), would buy into the argument that there's any equivalence here, right?
The charge of equivalence at the end of the day is just a defense in order to avoid facing up to the fact people are backing a contemptible candidate running a hateful campaign, to get off the hook since "both candidates are doing it."
But, of course, they're not both doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment