Political Guilt by Association Posted by: Jon Henke
on Monday, April 03, 2006
Democrats seem to be turning the Association Fallacy into a campaign plank. First, referring to a House bill to "make it a crime to be in the United States illegally or to offer aid to illegal immigrants" — a bill not supported by the White House, and, as Brendan Nyhan notes, "Bush is taking major flak within his party for not supporting a punitive, enforcement-only approach" — Howard Dean says...
"The president has a moral obligation to rein in the right-wing extremists in his party and stop this divisive rhetoric about immigrants."
Nobody thinks that Mr. McCain shares all of Mr. Falwell's views. But when Mr. McCain said that the Christian right has a right to be part of the Republican Party, he was in effect saying that Mr. Falwell's statements are within the realm of acceptable political discourse. [...] But if you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are accepting some responsibility for their extremism.
Now, obviously, public perceptions can be, are, shaped by associations. Nobody should understand this better than Howard Dean, whose somewhat moderate campaign was essentially caricatured and derailed by his rhetorical association with the angry and distant left. But the fallacy of composition is a poor basis for judging an entire political philosophy.
Nevertheless, this political "Pottery Barn rule" — you tolerate it, you've bought it — might be interesting. Some political figures for whom the Democrats have accepted some responsibility...
Michael Moore: who, Paul Krugman said, "may not be considered respectable", and whose movie Fahrenheit 911 Paul Krugman called a "a tendentious, flawed movie" which would leave viewers "believing some things that probably aren't true" — an understatement, to say the least. Krugman did say he would "probably find myself berating Mr. Moore"...but not until Krugman was done using his "tendentious, flawed movie" for political gain. [i.e. "when the crisis of American democracy is over"]
Nonetheless, she's been called "a delightful person" with "credibility" by Howard Dean, who went on to say that "all of us should support Cindy Sheehan".
Those are, of course, just the first three that came to mind. I've no doubt that the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians are aligned with many more objectionable characters, thereby "accepting some responsibility for their extremism". Feel free to leave nominations in the comments!
Once upon a time, it was Paul Krugman who wrote that journalists ought not "fall for political histrionics", because we're talking about important stuff and not "who takes whom to the prom". Or, the college commencement ceremony, as the case may be.
Too often I’ve heard "democrats" slammed for something that the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party says. I heard democrats slammed for things that the Green party says. Yes, it would be nice if moderate republicans and moderate democrats would disavaow both of their extreme wings. As the undisputed leader of the party in power and the free world Mr. Bush at least is in a position to take that stand. Its hard for the democrats to lead when they don’t have a leader.
The difference Cindy, is that the Democrats have pretty much BECOME the Cindy wing of the party. While the Republicans have satyed on a fairly moderate course. That is why they continue to win elections despite incompetence. Now There used to be a lot of moderate Democrats but most of them have now become independents or else they just don’t bother to speak up anymore. I don’t really like the republican party very much, but at least there are still some resonable people in the party, A few old school fiscal conservatives, a few western state libertarians, a few guys with principles. I see nothing like that in the Democrat party anymore.
The difference Cindy, is that the Democrats have pretty much BECOME the Cindy wing of the party. While the Republicans have satyed on a fairly moderate course. That is why they continue to win elections despite incompetence.
My god, can we finally put this nonsense to rest? Feingold wants to censure Bush regarding the NSA spying scandal. Now, if the Dems have become the Cindy wing of the party, they would be lining up foursquare behind Feingold. But they haven’t. They have done the opposite.
If there is one meme that is more baseless than any other, it is that the Dems have gone extreme left.
Feingold wants to censure Bush regarding the NSA spying scandal. Now, if the Dems have become the Cindy wing of the party, they would be lining up foursquare behind Feingold. But they haven’t. They have done the opposite.
Because, in addition, they’re also the chickensh*t wing of the party...just like when Murtha opened his yap, they’ll praise him and agree with him but abandon him to look "moderate"
Maybe I mainline Fox news, but I’m sure you have your nose stuck in The Nation, and your radio tuned to NPR? Right?
I stand by my comment. only a lefty would not notice how far left the Dems have become since the last two years of the Clinton Admin. (Or did I imagine all those articles in left wing magazines that excorriated Bubba for being too centrist?
Because, in addition, they’re also the chickensh*t wing of the party...just like when Murtha opened his yap, they’ll praise him and agree with him but abandon him to look "moderate"
Jesus H. Christ. Can you be more incoherent? Can you be more ridiculous? You claim on the one hand that the Democratic party - and particularly its Congressional members - have gone extreme left. But then you claim that they have abandoned the "far left" position - represented by a man who is a war hero - not by going to his left, but by going to his right. Are you fu**ing insane? Bushbot rot has finally ruined your brain. Your brain is mush and you are beyond help.
I stand by my comment. only a lefty would not notice how far left the Dems have become since the last two years of the Clinton Admin. (Or did I imagine all those articles in left wing magazines that excorriated Bubba for being too centrist?
Because, in addition, they’re also the chickensh*t wing of the party...just like when Murtha opened his yap, they’ll praise him and agree with him but abandon him to look "moderate"
Jesus H. Christ. Can you be more incoherent? Can you be more ridiculous?
What’s incoherent about this? Shark makes the point that the dems have a far-left attitude / agenda as witnessed by their acceptance and endorsement of Murtha’s crazy rantings, but are too cowardly to really act on it. Witness Feingold: he gets up on the floor of the Senate and suggests the President Bush be censured... then immediately leaves the floor rather than stay for debate. Then he goes out and criticized member of his own party for being cowardly (but he made damned sure there were no cameras around when he said that).
Murtha suggests that we should immediately abandon Iraq and is praised to the skies by his party and their lackeys in the MSM for his "courage" (he even got a "Profiles in Courage" award, if I recall correctly). But when an actual motion to follow his advice is put on the floor, all his support evaporates. The dems talk a lot of lefty talk for the consumption of whackos like Soros and Babs Streisand, but they haven’t got the guts to back it with votes.
The common democrat meme on the war is that Bush lied, is an incompetent CinC, and broke the law with the NSA intercept program. Feingold suggests "censure". A few dems have gone so far as to suggest impeachment. Now, if they REALLY think that Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, what are they f**cking around for? If they’re right, the man needs to be removed from office and sent to prison. But the best that their leaders can do is say, "I can’t rule that out."
