Actually, I’d characterize it not so much as an anti-Left rhetorical bludgeon as an anti-thoughtful-foreign-policy rhetorical bludgeon. Any attempt to try to actually dissect a foreign policy issue and figure out whose policy actions contributed to any tension is seen as BAF. Truthfully, any attempt to do anything but paint the USA as a blameless sainted missionary for truth, justice and democracy is seen as BAF.
Shall I go ahead and claim that all conservatives are xenophobic racists based on the actions and words of David Duke? (Although the comparison isn’t completely apt, since David Duke has much higher name recognition than Ward Churchill ever will.)
I see the smiley, but just to take that issue on for a second. Ward Churchill means nothing to most on the left – he’s a marginal radical whose views have little bearing on mainstream issues. So there’s really little reason for those on the left to know about him.
However, for the right, Ward Churchill is a fantastic strawman who can be used to demonize everyone on the left, especially those whose views have nothing to do with Churchill. So it’s in their interest to know a lot about him.
I’d say the same thing if he said “often”. At a minimum, he should give us a few examples so we can set some boundaries. Or else we end up with **Bricker **offering counter examples, and then you guys shoot them down one by one. Let’s define what we’re talking about before we talk about it.
Let me make a suggestion: Let’s discuss the claim that Obama does this. That he’s an American blamer. Would that work?
I thought we were discussing people who reacted to any criticism of US policy by calling those who criticised: ‘America blamers’ - not the people who were making the criticisms.
My opinion is: when it happens as the OP describes, it’s an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization, with a bit of ad hominem tossed in for seasoning, and thus an invalid argument.
But the frequency of such events is part of the point.
My opinions is that there are instances when the accusation is right and instances when it is wrong. I don’t see what else one could say about the general statement. If you have a way of counting and cataloging all the instances, I suppose we could make an attempt at determining the ratio of right accusations to wrong.
I mean, this is silly. When it’s bad, it’s bad. When it’s good, it’s good. Without a specific example, there really isn’t much more one can say.
That’s better. And I do agree that overstating the frequency of such events can be in itself a hasty generalization. How much a part of the point it may be, however, is, um, debatable. Wait…:smack:
Yes. I happen to think that the OP, while perhaps erring in semantics, is being reasonable with his question, not knee-jerking.
So, I think it’s fair to say that the phrase is most commonly ascribed to run-of-the-mill liberals, not just more extreme members of the left like Ward Churchill.
Would the lefties here characterize Obama’s minister for the last 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, as a blame-America-firster? Talk radio certainly isn’t lacking for quotes of his that seem to suggest that America is usually at fault, had 9/11 coming to it, etc.
Maybe he’s an extremist too, though, and not representative of the standard-issue, run of the mill, 240 yrds down the fairway, Lefties. Let’s hope the president didn’t assimilate any of that garbage.
Wait…:smack:
