JIM LEHRER: Let's go to another dispute, the so-called Al Qaeda Seven. Liz Cheney and her group criticized some justice department lawyers, because they once represented some Guantanamo detainees. Where do you come down on that?
DAVID BROOKS: Ah, well, I think the ad, which sort of accused whose values do they have - do they have Al Qaeda or Taliban values, I thought it was tremendously unfortunate. I mean, it's just part of a long range of corrosive language. And to be fair to Liz Cheney, if you Google "Taliban" and "Liz Cheney", millions of people have called her a member of the Taliban and made similar charges.PBS Newshour, 3/12/10
You know what mentality I have always hated? Since elementary school hated? The idea that just because someone once picked on you, once kicked your lunch box, once pushed you down, once cut you in line, once made your life hell, it somehow gave you license to do the same. In elementary school through high school, the idea was as soon as you got to the exalted grade of the kids who were picking on you, you could then pick on the kids who occupied the grade you were in now. It was, and is, a stupid idea. Picking on the freshman as a senior does nothing to the senior who picked on you. It just continues a cycle of meaningless and ridiculous abuse, for no other reason than because you had to deal with it and you refused to be the last one.
It is a simple-minded, mean mentality. It depends on making someone else a victim in order for the former victim to be the victor, to feel powerful.
It is an immature philosophy and displays a distinct lack of empathy. It is also what David Brooks suggests we use in order to "be fair" to Liz Cheney.
Brooks is probably right; any other week, if you were to Google "Liz Cheney" and "Taliban", you would probably garner a lot of hits comparing the two. Right now, though, most of the hits are about the ad itself and Brooks' defense of Cheney. In a normal week, a lot of those would be malicious. Most would be blatantly false. I'm saying "a lot" and "most", because I'm sure there are also pages ripping apart those other pages and defending Cheney.
You know what else? I'd bet my teeth that none of those people calling Liz Cheney a member of the Taliban are from the Department of Justice. You know, the people Liz Cheney is now directly comparing to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Funny thing, that. Funny how the school mentality can still be defended by those well into their forties when employed by people getting toward the middling of their own fortieth decade.
There is no "being fair" to Liz Cheney when she blatantly uses her non profit to disseminate the exact same tactic being so egregiously used against herself and her own father.
There should only be condemnation for so spectacularly failing to progress past the idea that passing along this sort of mean-spirited and completely baseless accusation to a whole new wave of victims. David Brooks thinks there is some sort of balance that has been reached here: Liz Cheney was attacked by someone, so she gets to attack someone else with that as part of her excuse. Sorry, but no. And that sort of rationalization calls Brooks' own assessing skills into question as well.
The other thing that gets me is how neither Jim Lehrer nor Mark Shields makes this argument; Shields should have mentioned that the DoJ lawyers probably weren't the ones slandering Liz Cheney all over the interwebs. And then he should have mentioned that even if they were, that still does not excuse Cheney's sinking to their level.
Because that is the other very real issue here. When has it become appropriate in the public discourse to pull what is essentially a "I know you are, but what am I?" smack down? This is beyond concerning. This says that somehow, no one progresses past elementary school (a thought I've often had and feared, and now discover may be the abject truth of the matter). And that? Is unacceptable.
Making excuses for Liz Cheney, calling an ad tremendously unfortunate instead of calling it out for what it is - a baseless, fear-mongering attack ad - does not make one a member of polite society. Couching one's statements and one's bets doesn't make one the better person.
And, no, the ad in question doesn't sort of accuse. It does accuse, full stop. The fact that Brooks can't even make that statement without waffling, and the fact that no one corrects him, makes me worry.
5 comments:
Right on! I'll admit that I had been unaware of this fiasco before reading your post, but all the same I do appreciate getting to see an irate PetPluto rant.
Admittedly I'm no Christian scholar, but didn't Jesus say some stuff about treating your enemies better than they treat you, and that we're judged by how we treat those we consider inferior to us? I thought I read that somewhere.
This is clearly not a "defense" of Liz Cheney. Brooks explicitly says that this kind of language is corrosive, but it's only fair to acknowledge that extremists on both sides employ this kind of corrosive language.
That doesn't mean that Cheney's comments should be excused, or that she now "gets to attack someone else" because she was previously a victim. Nothing in Brooks's comments indicates that he holds that view.
This is clearly not a "defense" of Liz Cheney.
"And to be fair to Liz Cheney, if you Google "Taliban" and "Liz Cheney", millions of people have called her a member of the Taliban and made similar charges."
Brooks explicitly says that this kind of language is corrosive
Ah, well, I think the ad... ...I thought it was tremendously unfortunate. I mean, it's just part of a long range of corrosive language."
Sorry, Mikhail, but this goes toward both making excuses for Cheney's nonprofit's ad, and toward rationalizing that it is one in a "long range" of corrosive language. You know what? It is. But he never says where on the line it falls. He first calls it "unfortunate". Brooks goes out of his way to not condemn the ad, and then makes allowances for one of the ad's makers.
it's only fair to acknowledge that extremists on both sides employ this kind of corrosive language.
Really? When asked about this ad, you say, "It's tremendously unfortunate", and then you say, "but people have done it to her", and that counts as fairness?
I don't think that's fair. Partially because a lot of the people making Cheney-Taliban comparisons are bloggers, and she's substantially higher up on the "Pay Attention To Me!" train. Secondly, it doesn't talk about what is wrong with this ad. He doesn't say, "This ad is atrocious and shouldn't have been produced. It attacks people who have not attacked her, and unnecessarily and unfairly questions their motives and their patriotism. And even though there is corrosiveness on both sides, that excuses neither side". And then, he could have even mentioned explicit examples on the Left that he felt applied.
Instead, he said, "to be fair". "To be fair" is the get out of jail free card. Just because all of the other kids on the block are doing it doesn't mean you shouldn't have your shit called out in the clearest of terms. And he didn't call her shit out. And neither did Lehrer or Shields.
I don’t think Brooks’s intention was to excuse Liz Cheney’s remarks by casting her as a victim. I believe he was trying to point out that this kind of corrosive language is just as damaging when it’s directed at Liz Cheney as when it’s employed by Liz Cheney.
That’s not a defense of Cheney; it’s a broader statement about the tone of our national dialogue.
The kind of logic that you're using - Brooks didn't overtly condemn Cheney's comments, therefore he implicitly condones them - is unfair.
I’ve been reading David Brooks’s columns for years, and at this point, I think I have a pretty good sense of what he believes. The argument that you’re attributing to him here just doesn’t mesh with his political philosophy. He would never argue that “Liz Cheney was attacked by someone, so she gets to attack someone else with that as part of her excuse.” That argument doesn't make sense, and no one with half a brain would make it.
I really think you're cutting down a straw man.
The kind of logic that you're using - Brooks didn't overtly condemn Cheney's comments, therefore he implicitly condones them - is unfair.
Way to misrepresent my argument. I didn't say he was condoning Cheney's remarks. I said he didn't condemn them, and then made statements based on their excusal. If you punch me and I say, "what do you expect? He was hit too". That doesn't mean I'm condoning your actions. But it does mean that I'm defending them within a stupid parameter. Just because you've been hit doesn't mean we should expect you to hit. Brooks, with his "to be fair", makes the expectation that Cheney will hit. That is a problem.
I’ve been reading David Brooks’s columns for years, and at this point, I think I have a pretty good sense of what he believes.
And I.... haven't?
I've read David Brooks. I listen to him once a week. I find him to be benign, and generally one who has good intentions, but also someone who makes false equivalences and would puts forth the picture of a world more cleaned up so it fits into his vision than one that takes into account the numerous factors. His column on Haiti's poverty, for example. His column on the Norwegian Olympic team, on the other side of the spectrum, for another.
He plays in false equivalencies when what he is commenting on falls into his blind spot. I believe this is one of his blind spots, where he can say "both sides employ corrosive language", and think he's stayed above the fray. That? Is a problem for me. Corrosive language should be called out as such. You can put it in a larger frame work of corrosive language, but to leave it at "to be fair, both sides do it - and with this very topic!" is to not do what is necessary.
Post a Comment