By Edwin Cooney
It was bound to happen. After all, by holding the
Republicans (excuse me!) conservatives, responsible for the recent government
shut down, hadn’t I just scolded a group of Americans who see themselves as being
on a moral mission? Their only weakness,
it seems, has to do with the degree of their purity! No one is as pure as Mark Levin or Sean Hannity—unless
maybe it’s Glenn Beck! Michael Savage
has little regard for Rush Limbaugh, and some of the newly-elected conservative
congressional Turks are absolutely certain they’re purer than is Speaker Boehner—but
I’m in danger of getting off the topic. Yes
indeed, I was taken to the proverbial woodshed! As for the actual spanking, more about that
later. I can’t say the spanking didn’t
hurt, because one of the most frustrating experiences in life is the lack of
substantial acknowledgment of one’s most disheartening concerns.
Three Mondays ago I wrote that the shutdown of the
government, a movement conceived and led by Republicans, was pushing me toward
the edge of anger. I likened my mood to
that of the late conservative commentator Paul Harvey back in the fall of 1966.
Throughout the column I gave the reasons for my state of
mind. In so doing, I sought to demonstrate
how, from time to time, I’ve given credit to conservative administrations and
even asserted that there’s value in conservative thinking when it’s applicable
to problem solving. I went on to say
however that I discern two major causes for the GOP led government shutdown. The most immediate is deep seated Republican opposition
to “Obama care.” Ongoing personal dislike
for the person of President Obama is, obviously, the central cause for the
current national crisis.
The most vigorous objection to what I wrote came from a
“proud conservative” who, rather than addressing himself to the causes of the
shutdown and the ideological differences that brought about the political
stalemate on Capitol Hill, chose to simply charge me with “knocking down straw
men.” Concerned about the possible
accuracy of his assertion, I researched the practice of setting up and knocking
down straw men during the course of discussion or debate, so that I might
assess my own guilt. This is what I’ve discovered.
First, I have indeed been guilty of that practice on
numerous occasions, although my October 14th column clearly wasn’t
such an occasion. Second, I discovered
that my “proud conservative” reader practiced exactly that strategy in his
response to my “ad hominem attack on conservatives.”
One sets up a straw man when one makes a counter argument to
an issue without addressing the argument being made. Here’s an example.
Andy says he’s glad that the sun is shining so brightly today. Randy responds by asserting that Andy
obviously and foolishly hates rain, because rain is as essential to our well
being as is sunshine. Randy’s argument
is a straw man because Andy didn’t address himself one way or the other to
rain.
My “proud conservative” friend spent most of his response
repeating to me why Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. He listed inflation as being 13%—he was right
about that. Unemployment he stated was 21%
(that wasn’t even close—unemployment under President Carter never went above 7.5%).
What he should have referred to was the
rate of stagflation—a combination of inflation and unemployment that was 21%. He complained about the Olympics—I guess he
believes that President Ronald Reagan, who considered the Soviets “evil,” would
have delighted in the Soviet Olympics in the wake of their recent invasion of
Afghanistan! Jimmy Carter bungled the
hostage crisis and Ronald Reagan brought the hostages home. Thus, Jimmy Carter became his straw man!
Here, briefly, is a list of the complaints or “straw men” I
made or set up.
First, for as far back as I can remember, conservatives have
longed to roll back FDR’s “New Deal.”
FDR’s taxing and regulation of the rich and powerful for the benefit of
the poor, they’ve always insisted, is the root of all evil.
Second, the social welfare of the American people has never
been and is not the legitimate business of the federal government.
Third, the main reason for this is just plain greed. Their money is simply too valuable to be
spent on you. (Clearly, that was my most petulant argument!)
Fourth, conservatives find it convenient not to understand
the fundamental difference between the functions of business and
government. The legitimate function of
business is to make a profit. The
legitimate function of government is the management of national affairs—both
foreign and domestic—in patriotic service of us all.
Fifth, I wrote that conservatives somehow believe they can
spend four or eight years in personal attacks and impeachment proceedings
against “liberal” presidents without doing the slightest damage to the
credibility of the office once one of their own is elected to it.
As for my attack on conservatives being ad hominem, in order
to rate that evaluation the attack would have to be reckless and false. Arguable as any of my points may be, in order
for them to be false, conservatives must be the most seriously misunderstood
political group since the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond’s day! Of course my big sin in that column was when
I asserted, “...the way conservatives are currently behaving is downright
unpatriotic!” You might note, as my
“proud conservative” reader apparently fails to grasp, I was writing about
conservative behavior as opposed to the legitimacy or application of conservative
doctrine.
As for the spanking, sure it stung, as it was administered
by a “straw man”! Still, I’d rather bear
the pain of the spanking than the shame of not having properly identified self-serving
irresponsible behavior when it occurs!
Sorry reader, Jimmy Carter’s imperfections are no excuse for
2013 conservative complicity in unpatriotic behavior!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment