- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
One of the most remarkable things about the rise of the conservative media is the success of the strategy of attacking strength, despite the obvious, staggering hypocrisy of such attacks. ... Most recently, Al Gore got attacked for not caring enough about the environment in his electrical usage. This is amazing when the comparison is made between his work and the planet-destroying oil obsessions of Bush and Cheney, et al.
Malkin and Kurtz' attack is on this same pattern, I believe, and the strength that they are trying to neutralize is precisely the fact that a core value of liberalism is reasoned and civil discourse. -- marfks
To this point, what the right is doing is what both sides do effectively: Highlighting perceived hypocrisy. Nothing turns off the American public like hypocrisy.
What critics are saying is "liberals claim that, 'a core value of liberalism is reasoned and civil discourse,' and yet, their rhetoric is anything but. Witness the Huff Po comments."
Al Gore preaches conservation but he wastes energy.
John Edwards speaks regularly about his empathy for the working man, yet he just built a ginormous mansion, flaunting his obscene wealth.
We on the left do the same thing all the time. Quite effectively. Homosexuality is not a big deal in a Democratic politician, but it is outrageous in a conservative Republican politician or evangelical. Why? Because it suggests hypocrisy: Preach one way and live the other. The issue of homosexuality is irrelevant to the debate.
In the last election, we used the issue of "corruption" very effectively against the Republicans. Part of the reason it was so effective is not because Democratic politicians are so clean, but that Republicans claim to be the party of good government and fiscal responsibility. Hypocrisy.
This is reflective of no grand strategy by the right. It is merely low-hanging fruit. Kurtz was easy to predict because he's lazy and this was a no-brainer of an issue.
These are self-inflicted wounds.
Much of the Arab world believes that 9-11 wasn't perpetrated by Arabs because Arabs would never do that. It therefore must've been the Israelis, trying to turn the world against the Arabs.
That's no different than the crap I'm reading here. Must've been right wing trolls or the biased media trying to make us look bad. Worse: They're conspiring. We're the victims.
We look bad when we make excuses and look for scapegoats.
We win when we stay on offense and on message. This debate puts us on defense. In my opinion, we're wasting time arguing that "they are bad," or "they are no better," or even "here's why they are bad," when we should be showing why our ideas are better.
