This is the way the left argues
The left’s strategy on Benghazi is clear: ignore and/or minimize and/or mock (see this). Their talking points have pretty much boiled down to “anyone who pays attention to Benghazi is a stupidhead” or “pay no attention to those men temporarily in front of the curtain. They’ll go away soon.”
There’s nothing subtle about it, but it works. The secret to its success is one the right couldn’t copy even if it tried, because it depends on the full cooperation of the MSM in the coverup (or, in the case of Benghazi, the coverup of the coverup).
Greg Sargent offers a typical column here in which he says to pay no attention to Benghazi, it’s nothing, a big fat nothing of a nothingburger. And the proof he offers, the analysis, is—well, it amounts to “Because I said so.” He never deals with the actual charges or tries to refute them systematically with logic or evidence. It is unnecessary.
Sargent is a writer for the WaPo. Surely in the past writers for the WaPo were required to maintain at least a pretense of arguing about actual facts before they dismissed them? But Sargent is hardly alone; this caliber of writing has become standard: the responses of liberals and the left to the concerns of the right re Benghazi amount to a claim that the right’s objections are absurd on the face of it.
But just exactly what is absurd about questioning what went on during an attack at a consulate in which four people—including the Obama-appointed ambassador to that country—were murdered and the president slept through it all despite having been informed that it was ongoing? And what’s absurd about asking why inadequate security was provided the consulate despite repeated pleas for more, and an obviously dangerous climate there? What’s absurd about questioning why potential rescuers were ordered to stand down early in the battle? Or why although the administration knew there was no demonstration it lied repeatedly to the American people and said there was? And what about the jailing of a fall guy to take the heat, who is still in prison? Or about the possible coverup by investigators specially appointed by the very people who may have been at fault in much of this? Or about accusations that very well-placed and important whistleblowers were purposely intimidated from testifying?
Whether or not you believe that these charges will pan out or not, there is no question they are extremely serious. How could they be bogus concerns? And actually, the left does not really think they are absurd, either. They just think people aren’t paying attention, and if they pooh-pooh the whole thing enough, people will continue to not pay attention. And that’s about the gist of it.
Here’s another typical approach, by Joe Klein in Time. Note his contemptuous tone, and his repeat of the Candy Crowley lie from the second debate (“Obama called the Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror'”). I (and many others) demolished that argument back when Crowley made it—but then again, Klein and Crowley get a lot more exposure than I do (or, much more importantly, than the truth does), and the big lie works.
Just to refresh your memory, here’s what I wrote about Obama’s Rose Garden speech, the one Klein is referencing when he writes that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror.” He absolutely did not do any such thing, but Klein (and Crowley before him) are relying on the fact that we’re too lazy, and it’s all too complicated, for us to go back and actually, like, you know, look at Obama’s speech. They count on the fact that we should just take their word for it, and they are right—for the most part we (the American public) will.
[NOTE: DaTechGuy points out a seeming exception to the rule: he writes that Morning Joe on MSNBC has, for the first time, covered Benghazi fairly thoroughly. I don’t watch MSNBC or Morning Joe (or many TV or radio news or opinion shows at all), so I can’t say. Of course, Joe Scarborough is a strange hybrid, not really a man of the left at all (he was, and I believe still identifies as, a Republican), although he doesn’t seem to be on the right either. As I said, I don’t follow his show at all, but my sense is that he’s the token “conservative” at MSNBC, which means not much of a conservative at all. But still, I suppose it’s better than nothing. As DaTechGuy points out, it at least introduces the MSNBC crowd to the arguments:
Why does this matter? Two things:
1. Morning Joe is usually where you go for the left’s talking points for the day, that isn’t the case today.
2. The MSNBC viewer base has simply not seen this argument. As far as they are knew before today the Biggest villains on Benghazi were the makers of the worst film EVAH & Mitt Romney and anyone who suggested otherwise was part of a GOP conspiracy to bring down our beloved president before the election and their beloved Hillary after.
This is a story they never heard! As Stacy McCain put it
the only TV reporter not employed by Fox News who has treated the Benghazi cover-up as a legitimate story ”” Sharyl Attkisson of CBS ”” is being treated like an unprofessional pariah by her own network, while Chuck Todd of NBC News quite literally laughs off criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.
Really, they out-did themselves on this one. Check out the “Don’t Bother to Read This Dull Story” headline from the New York Times:
Official Offers Account From Libya of Benghazi Attack
Here’s another way you might headline the story, if you actually wanted to get readers to, y’know, read the story:
VIDEO: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks Describes
”˜Saddest Phone Call’ That Ambassador Stevens DiedUnless you saw that testimony ”” which was just one highlight of a six-hour hearing that the major networks did their best to ignore or dismiss as mere politics ”” you would have no reason to suspect how riveting it was, if all you saw was that bland New York Times headline.
For the professional left, this story on Morning Joe is a double disaster.
In the short term it forces the MSMBC audience to confront the possibility that their heroes President Obama & Hillary Clinton left Americans to die in Benghazi & lied about it for political reasons. It gives a story they have been able to dismiss MSM credibility, that’s bad.
In the long term it raises the possibility that there is another story beyond the wall of silence. That there is a whole world of news they might be missing.
I wish I could share DaTechGuy’s relative optimism. I don’t, because I’ve devoted quite a bit of time and effort to studying and observing how resistant people are to letting in and fairly evaluating information that goes against their already-established worldviews. Still, I’m glad Scarborough has given it the old college try.]
[ADDENDUM: Related, and well worth reading.]
IMO this is in great part because the MSM still relies on the appearance of being a non-partisan reporter of the facts; you know, the old “Walter Cronkite as the most trusted man in the U.S.” canard.
I suggest that this tradition is at least in the beginning stages of breaking down; it doesn’t happen overnight. The first crack in the dyke was Fox News which has been perpetuated and enlarged by the conservative blogosphere. Now, with the Koch brothers possibly also buying into the MSM we may see a widening of that crack.
With each of these steps it becomes more and more difficult for the MSM to perpetuate its myth and this myth’s destruction will eventually even reach many low-information voters.
The right wing fringe has always been around and always made these ridiculous arguments. You people never quit trying, do you? Even though no one pays attention you just keep trying! Oh well! I guess you serve as a reminder of why common core education is so necessary.
sharpie,
QED
It’s funny. My once fairly liberal boyfriend was watching Fox News the other night. He said “Look!” and pointed to Mara Liasson. I had to let him know that Fox News has always had people from the Left on their channel.
The Left lies. It always has. They wear blinders on their eyes, like their refusal to look at the Gosnell case. You would think they would be in favor of having abortion clinics meet the same care quality standards as any clinic (or at least as good as your local tattoo parlor). The truth is that they don’t care, they don’t want to read anything that contradicts their closely held beliefs. And that is exactly what they are doing now on Benghazi. It would matter only if there was a Republican president. It’s exactly why Mark Stanford’s infidelity matters and Clinton/Weiner/etc’s infidelities don’t.
Teri Pittman: the excuse usually given about the different standards for the infidelities is that the Republicans are hypocrites because they’re violating their own stated morals and the Democrats are not.
Pretty sad, if you think about it. Democrats given a pass supposedly because they have no moral standards.
America’s inner dialogue:
I have embraced my new self. What? No you haven’t. Oh, yes I have. Have not. Have to. Have not. Have to.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/339832.php
It’s time.
It’s past time, actually. It’s time to go after them for what they are- a part of a political machine.
Defunding the comfortable sinecures of Academia and the host of government supported nonprofits would be next.
First step was public sector Unions, and with 30 R governors, that is already en route. Won’t happen in NY or California, but they’ll be bankrupt before long anyway and miserable.
The absurdity is not in the questioning nor in the events themselves, nor anything in between. The absurdity is in the ether, the vibes, the zeitgeist. The absurd has become the norm. How does one even identify the absurd with nothing rational available with which to make a comparison?
The banking system of corruption is absurd but we go on. Quantitative easing to infinity is absurd but the easing continues. Same sex marriage is absurd but… Islam is absurd and is even more absurdly a “religion” and nearly beyond absurdity, one of “peace” — but it is ascendant. It is absurd that a nation would, in two generations time, kill off 50+ million of its children and, within that same time frame, replace them with 50+ million third world-people of color-low IQs-even lower understanding or acceptance of Western culture, immigrants. Is it not absurd that we think ourselves free while living under the vigilance of CCTV cameras, DHS, TSA, the Patriot Act, the extended Patriot act, NDRP executive orders, militarized police, and drones?
Hell, Obama himself, in his persona, is absurd.
The absurd has become the new status quo ante, the new ‘previous state of affairs’. All previous notions of absurd are hereby and henceforth normative.
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=49111
Sharpie,
Are you opposed to the hearings?
Are you opposed to the facts coming out?
Do you believe what happened was a protest because of a video?
What part of Susan Rice’s statement on 5 networks 5 days after 9/11/2012 was true?
Was their any part of Susan Rice’s statement that was not true to you?
Did the secretary of state act appropriately either during 9/11/2012 or during the hearings afterwards? Was she forthcoming?
Will you answer these questions Sharpie? 🙂
Don’t rebut baseless smears like the ones Sharpie proposes with rational thought. It’s pearls to swine.
I am still dumbfounded that a civil servant actually had to tell Congress that it DOES MATTER when Americans are killed and the government lies about it. I would never have imagined that we could come to this point. But here we are.
Here’s what I’m afraid of: We’re losing our sense of humor. When that happens it shows we’ve lost some perspective which is probably needed.
Folks (if I can borrow that word from Obama, but have you noticed he stopped using it after the election) who frequent this site should know I’m a right wing nut, at least by progressive definition. I’m the tea partinest, red neckest, yahoo this side of the Pecos. So, when I write a fairly obvious parody and it’s mayhaps taken seriously, well, I hope it shows we’re ready for perspective, some relief.
We’re all suffering from anger, anxiety, frustration, loss and sorrow. We can’t even talk or argue with the idiots taking away our country, our freedoms, our children, our future . . .
But let humor, let the enemy camp hear laughter, let the ordinary joys resume again–that’s the answer or at least a prelude to one.
I was in the Navy and if I declined to rescue people who were under attack and then lied about it, I would have been up on charges of moral turpitude and pusillanimous conduct in the face of the enemy. Lying to the public is a betrayal of trust but that obviously doesn’t bother this administtration.
The modern left, that is to say the postmodernist institutional-niche occupying types that set the political tone for their client class dependents, don’t in fact argue. Not as argument has traditionally been understood, anyway.
We all understand that by now, don’t we?
They instead emit what are intended to be behavior modifying noises at some targeted audience. Any incidental reference to a particular state of affairs implies no commitment on the part of the speaker to adhere to some public canon of accurate representation.
As you note, that kind of cynicism is not anything particularly new in politics and ideological disputes.
But what once was merely a preferred tactic – that of making the opposition appear ridiculous rather than laboriously engaging its reasoning – is, since the entire notion of truth as something objective and “out there to be discovered” has been abandoned, now the only tactic that makes any sense to them.
Naked narrative, arbitrary framing, and reiterated perspective structuring stories, are on their view the only real language game that there is.
Why then would anyone expect a leftist that doesn’t believe in the concept of truth as “something to be found independent of our minds” in the first place, to “tell the truth” as if the phrase meant “tell what really happened”?
What can “truth” as traditionally understood, even mean in the mental universe of a modern liberal or leftist post the 1980s?
Do we imagine that while mocking the notion of representational truth, they would somehow and nonetheless, say, out of consideration for their ‘fellow citizen’s’ sensibilities, try to make their behavior shaping statements as accurate as possible?
What again, exactly, is the point of their explaining to the herd of producers whose lives they are busily appropriating, what they eventually intend for it?
Ace has a post up right now in which he declares war on NBC:
Sounds like a good plan, but will there be steadfast warriors?
T,
I’ve been trying to figure out if you figured my post out. I believe you did.
QED, indeed!
sharpie,
All you needed was the “/sarc” tag. The sarc tag is your friend. It has saved many a deadpan humor post of mine being taken the wrong way.
I knew your post was deadpan but that’s only because I’ve seen your other posts here. Ah, the Internets, their bare textual splendor is so captivating…
Thank you, Ziontruth, and my apologies to all for leaving it off. Muchas apologias.
I’m not suffering from anger.
I simply asked some questions and got no answers. 🙂
I won’t do that again!
Ha, Sharpie!
Sorry, I thought something was amiss, but only had time to browse quickly.
And thus has sharpie inadvertently demonstrated the principle of “Beyond Parody”; the modern Left has reached, and indeed long surpassed, the point where you could possibly make up anything more absurd than what they would actually say.
The reason it’s so difficult to show a sense of humor about them is that the moment you think you’re joking about their views, they proceed to demonstrate that, no, that really is what they think. It’s not that we can’t take a joke — it’s that there’s nothing left to joke about.
I’m down with the Ace boycott. We’re cancelling our cable post haste.
Anytime, Sharpie. Kudos for not taking my comment as condescending. 🙂
holmes,
Mine’s been a zero TV home for nearly seven years. The MSM in my country isn’t much different from America’s, so eventually I got fed up and now the big screen operates solely on an HDMI feed from my Wi-Fi connected laptop computer.
It’s enough for me, sure, but the lingering question is always the same: Will the Resistance attain critical mass quickly enough?
I projected onto you, Baklava. I won’t do that again!
I’ve been a life-long newspaper reader. In Chicago we received 2 a day and 3 on Sunday. My dad was a television engineer so we had a TV in all the common areas of our home and our bedrooms long before that became normative and news was on all the time. Slow but sure I’ve given up on the MSM. I’ve been getting my news from the internet for years. During Hurricane Katrina I was watching but Shepard Smith took care of that. I haven’t watched television news since. Once Obama was elected I gave up both papers (Daily News & LA Times) and haven’t looked back. I refuse to support these enemies of the Republic with my time or money. There is enough out there now to do just as Ace proposes. That’s how I roll.
Barry Rubin at PJM also has a good article on Benghazi. Hetakes it back to a serioisly flawed outlook on foreign policy.
One thing that has become clear to me is that this administration is incpable of recognizing or learning from mistakes. But then what can you expect from a bunch of politica maneuverers with no experience.
Sharpie,
You might want to start posting as Sharp Tongue in Cheek to avoid future misunderstandings. 🙂
I read Ace’s call and agree. I refuse to click on links to places like the NYT or politico for example. I already know how they ‘think’ and how they spin. May their revenue streams dry up until even Soros denies funding.
CABLE NEWS RACE
WED., MAY 8, 2013
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,383,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 2,937,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,638,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,628,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,363,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,240,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,576,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,450,000
CNN COOPER 1,391,000
CNN BLITZER 1,382,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,250,000
CNN PIERS 1,085,000
CNN BURNETT 944,000
CNNHN DR DREW 940,000
MSNBC MADDOW 877,000
MNSBC O’DONNELL 826,000
MSNBC MATTHEW 703,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 624,000
MSNBC HAYES 573,000
This is the way the left argues.
The main problem with trying to get them to change is that their method is very successful for them, and is supported by most of the other mainstream institutions. Essentially, they don’t have any good reason to change how they debate, function, or release information, or whether they tell the truth. That is a personal problem for those who attempt to counter them.
As well, the method seems to parallel the criminal justice system. Any defense lawyer will highly recommend the client to shut up, if required to speak then to say as little as possible, and to remove as much clarity as possible. More so when the client is probably guilty.
How to argue with them: Show them your backside.
The Left, aka the progressives, started as a social class around the last of the 19th century comprised of Criticizers-of-the-middle-class. They were defined by being the “outsiders” not only because they held themselves philosophically aloof (better), but also by the fact they were a small minority. Gradually, they become greater in number by the nationalization of education and by defining any minority as a part of their culture/group. Therefore, their cohesiveness and identity come from those two generators: 1) I am a critic so I belong with the critics, and 2) I am a minority so I belong with the minorities.
This makes them vulnerable not to persuasion but to decreasing returns. In other words, as critics and persecuted victims, they are immune to persuasion. That’s why persuasion and education is a waste of time. (Not education per se, but re-education)
But here’s the part where it’s okay to play patient: they plant their own seeds of destruction. Because their identity as “the other” will implode when they swell to the point where “the other” is gone and when they criticize each other. Like the Muslims need a host, so do progressives.
Not a good good strategy, you say, this patience! Is that it. Well, maybe so. We all live on the same planet and I don’t see anyway of getting around that.
For now. Could be that Mars or some other place may be the “New England.”
>>> In the short term it forces the MSMBC audience to confront the possibility that their heroes President Obama & Hillary Clinton left Americans to die in Benghazi & lied about it for political reasons. It gives a story they have been able to dismiss MSM credibility, that’s bad.
I predict…. nothing.
Why?
The Liberal Midnight Reset Button, of course.
LIV’s are signaling the failure of the American Experiment …we’re not self-correcting anymore.
There’s too much proudly stupid in the electoral mix.
Ooh look: Kool Aid.
It’s time to change the franchise, the charter, the privilege, the patent, whatever. The constitution.
Something.
I’ve said it before … in order to gain traction to criticize Obama’s foreign affairs, solve the source of the problem: rehabilitate Bush’s legacy.
For the public, any immunity the Obama administration is granted on foreign affairs is founded on the vilification of Bush and the GOP by extension. That is the basis for the perspective that anything Obama does *in contrast* is better than the alternative of Bush and the GOP. Or more starkly stated, if Bush/GOP was categorically wrong, then Obama/Dems are diametrically right *in contrast*.
Recall that Obama’s Libya strategy was explicitly positioned as the anti-Bush Iraq strategy. That means in the public’s mind, the 4 dead for the better and right alternative strategy is still cheap compared to the thousands lives and billions (trillions by critics’ extrapolated costs!) lost on the worse and wrong Iraq strategy.
If, however, Bush’s Iraq strategy and broader post-9/11 foreign policy are rehabilitated in the public’s perception, then Obama’s Libya strategy and broader foreign policy can be criticized with public traction.
As long as you allow the false narrative, misinformation, and propaganda against Bush, OIF, the Freedom Agenda stand as the historical truth, you can do no better than spin your wheels with the public perception of Obama’s foreign affairs.
Eric,
I do not disagree with you strategically. In practice, however, this is a very difficult assignment because the MSM still controls most of the national narrative. As I mentioned above, I believe that this is beginning to change, but it will not happen overnight and I’m certain not in the remaining tenure of the Obama administration (more’s the pity).
Still, your call is a necessary one. Without such calls to action as your’s to drive such change it might never happen at all.
Sharpie,
I did, but responded as I did because it works on so many levels. As sarcasm it is a clear demonstration of Neo’s point.
As a “troll response” it is a clear demonstration of Neo’s point. Kind of like John Kerry proclaiming that in America we have the right to be stupid; QED.
Lisa Myers of NBC has said that dems are calling her, trying to undermine and discredit the hearing’s witnesses.
That’s another way the left argues.
Amazing that it’s so blatant that even an NBC reporter would, 1, notice it, and, 2, SAY SO on the air.
The desperation must be as visible as a brick wall coming at you–to strain a metaphor.
T,
Tactical application of strategy: two birds, one stone. You do it practically by using Bush as the positive comparison to the negative contrast of Obama in current foreign policy critiques of Obama.
The media is designed to use provocative, adversarial, yet also simplified dichotomous frames. They won’t be able to help themselves if the BushvObama frame is pushed with enough volume, clarity, and momentum.
An example of the MSM opening the door to the BushvObama frame – Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13686562-the-arab-spring-is-dead-and-syria-is-writing-its-obituary
Engel compares the anti-terrorist effect of US intervention in Iraq favorably to Obama’s disastrous ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring, which of course, encompasses Benghazi and Libya, as well as Syria. Engel doesn’t clarify and push BushvObama – doing so is not his job. However, Republicans could and should widen that opening and drive through the gap with the BushvObama frame.
What happens when Bush’s legacy isn’t upheld and it’s not used to critique Obama in current affairs? This happens:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/opinion/zelizer-bush-library/
Obama’s failures are assigned to Bush. They get it away with it because Republicans run away from Bush’s legacy. Republicans seem to think the damage can be contained to Bush and fail to recognize that the attacks on Bush’s record are calculated to discredit the whole GOP.
The Republicans could and should have been using the BushvObama frame as soon as Obama’s tissue-thin mystique was punctured by his real-world failures. The problem is Republicans – led by short-sighted IR realists (Saddam revisionists/nostalgics) and libertarians (isolationists) – accepted and even endorsed the BDS frame, seemingly ignoring the self-inflicted political wounds from their doing so.
The Republicans should have spun the BDS strategy against the Dems once Obama’s real-world record opened the door, but instead, the GOP upheld the Dems’ BDS frame and absorbed the GOP-discrediting hits. The Dems’ reliance on BDS could be turned against them if Bush’s legacy is rehabilitated and the better/worse, right/wrong polarities are flipped in the frame. Flip the Bush legacy to a positive in public perception and the whole Dems/GOP political balance will flip if the Republicans can follow through.
BushvObama is a time-sensitive strategy. It will work now. Wait too long and it’ll be too late to make a difference.
Richard Aubrey,
I disagree. That’s not desperation. ‘Mean girl’ politics is their MO and SOP. Desperation isn’t needed in order to use a proven front-line strategy.
Their goal is not to be awarded power for winning policy debates on merit. Their goal is to take and hold power by defeating their domestic political competition. There’s a difference.
In short:
Rehabilating Bush’s legacy in public perception via the BushvObama critiquing frame does 2 things: GOP replaces Dems on the high ground while the Dems are knocked down to the low ground they made with BDS, and removes Obama’s I’m-rubber-your-glue armor.
Eric,
“They won’t be able to help themselves if the BushvObama frame is pushed with enough volume, clarity, and momentum.”
I do not disagree. My point is that it is difficult (not impossible) because their leftist meme controls their narrative. Furthermore, what is important is that you have an audience that first at least hears such a comparison; second, eventually an audience that listens to it.
Again, not impossible, but a tall order when the enemy contols the communication.
I repeat, however, that this makes it even more necessary to raise such a call to action as yours.
T,
They don’t control events, though. And events are spun. As events have unfolded poorly under Obama, there hasn’t been much spin from them. More like minimal attention and reliance on the public perception backdrop that no matter what, Obama is better/right in contrast to Bush’s worse/wrong.
Take away the BDS backdrop and they are very vulnerable.
The opportunity is there right now to change the rules of the game. In the spin arena – ie, the decisive narrative arena – there’s a vacuum right now. A vacuum is an invitation to any usurper who’s bold and smart enough.
Step firm into that vacuum, seize the initiative, seize the frame, seize the spin of current events and the narrative, use the media’s nature to broadcast the new narrative, and thereby bend the public perception to your frame. Keep up the momentum and stay ahead of the competition, and you’ve just reprogrammed the political environment.
Activism works for the right just as well it works for the left. It can be done if the GOP has the activist skill, swashbuckling cajones, commitment, and imagination to do it.