Moments of Clarity
There are several a dangers for all those strongly involved in politics. In the heat of a campaign it is common to resort to exaggerations, distortions, or even untruths in order to win. This “political rhetoric,” while hard to defend, is usually written off as simply the result of “getting caught up in the campaign.” Once the election is over, politics goes back to “normal” until the next campaign season.
But one of the “innovations” introduced by the Clintons was the never-ending campaign. Now, politicians are in ‘campaign mode” all the time. As a result, what would normally be simply “political rhetoric in the heat of a campaign” becomes the norm. Worse still, as it is repeated over and over and over, those who say it become so accustom to it that they forget that it is political rhetoric and actually begin to believe it!
Take for example the lefts claim that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. As it became clear that we were not going to find WMDs in Iraq, the initial reaction was the correct one, that Bush had been mistaken. Sure, the kooks immediately concluded that Bush lied, but the more sober minded understood the absurdity of such a claim. More importantly the leading Democrats who had had access to the same intelligence as Bush had reach the same conclusion as Bush. Then there were all foreign governments , leaders and intelligence services that had also reached the same conclusion.
But political rhetoric being what it is, ‘mistakenly concluded’, soon became ‘exaggerated the intelligence’, which then morphed into ‘Bush lied.’ More importantly the inflation of political rhetoric moved up the political hierarchy, far past just the kooks, until it began to appear even among democratic leaders, and then eventually became the norm for the party as a whole.
While the liberal dominance of the major media normally servers the democrats very well, here it actually becomes a hindrance. Republican rhetoric is constantly checked by the liberal media. For example, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth basically charged that four of the claims made by John Kerry about his service in Vietnam were untrue. The Swift Boat Veterans were clearly correct on two of these points and on the other two, it was pretty much up to whose account you believed. Given the fact that Kerry had clearly lied on the first two, Kerry’s history of lies about Vietnam, such as his testimony to Congress about alleged atrocities, and the number of Swift boat Veterans challenging Kerry’s account, normally the benefit of the doubt would have gone to the Swift Boat Veterans.
But Kerry was a liberal, and so none of this mattered. The major media ignored the two points where Kerry was clearly wrong, and focused on the other two where there was some question. Kerry’s account was supported by the official record, and thus probably for the first time ever, the media claimed that the official account could not be questioned. But in any event, the media’s defense of Kerry, checked the Republican rhetoric before it could become too exaggerated. No such check exists for liberals. In fact, as a result of their unchecked rhetoric, Liberals today see the Swift-Boat charges as completely fabricated lies made up solely for political reason.
Worse, as their unchecked political rhetoric become their reality, it becomes a basis for further and even wilder claims. The claim that Bush lied about WMDs, morphed in to Bush Lied about the War, and finally everything Bush says about war is a lie. For growing number this even includes that Bush knew about or even planned 9/11.
This distorted view of reality recently combined with another inflated stream of rhetoric that went back to the swift-boat controversy. The liberal political rhetoric that the swift-boat veteran lied about Kerry’s military service, quickly became ‘Bush lied about Kerry’s military service.’ When that fact that Bush never questioned Kerry’s service was pointed out, it was dismissed with the assumption that the Swift boat veterans were acting at the behest of Bush.
The real danger of all this political rhetoric is that it cuts one off from reality, and becomes a barrier which shields the holder from things like facts. This all came to a head last week. As even some critics of the war have pointed out, the situation in Iraq has improved, and we seem to finally be making some progress. There are still some serious problems that remain, but the surge has had positive effect on the situation.
But many of the Democrats are immune to such good news. Viewed through the lens of their political rhetoric, victory is not an option, and thus any positive news from Iraq must be just another lie from the Bush administration. Since General Petraeus is the one delivering the news, in their eyes he is little more than just another swift-boat veteran.
Thus the Moveon.org’ New York Times ad, “General Petraeus or Betray-Us,” was in one sense just the next logical step in the left’s confusion of political rhetoric for reality. After all, as I heard some defending Moveon.org say, the Swift-Boat veterans attacked Kerry, so what is the difference between that and Moveon.org attacking Petraeus? Some differences might be that Kerry was a politician in the midst of a President al campaign, and he was questioned about his claims by those who served with him, versus General Petraeus is an active military commander in the midst of a war, being question by a partisan political organization. But such distinctions are irrelevant in political rhetoric of the left.
As despicable as this ad was, it does provide a moment of clarity, that cuts through all the obligatory “We support the troops” rhetoric and shows where the left really stands. The ad show clearly hollowness of such claims of support. There is also a moment of clarity in the reluctance of the democratic Presidential candidates, Except for Biden to condemn MoveOn.org. Those who really ‘support the troops’ did not have to wait to be asked about the ad, nor did they need to have time come up with a response. Hopefully the American people were watching and took note.
