Lots of things are not unreasonable. Innocent use of words like “target”, “enemy”, “bulls-eye”, “crosshairs”, etc. weren’t unreasonable. Until a couple of weeks ago.
You guys trumped up the problem to such an important level… could you please just tell us what the rules are?
And before Brainy G tells me what I know and don’t know please focus on “to such an important level”
Who says it wasn’t unreasonable? You keep coming back to this claim that nobody had a problem with any of this incivility until last weekend, but it isn’t true. We know Gabrielle Giffords thought it was unreasonable. It’s true that some people have gotten overly specific in what kind of talk about symbols should or shouldn’t be allowed, and as far as I’m concerned there’s no civil way to compare a GOP talking point (however false) to Goebbels’ propaganda.
Which, of course, is why Representative Giffords expressed concern about the crosshairs when the ads went up–and why the Palin people actually had the decency to take them down after Giffords expressed her concern.
(The really clear example of Palin’s stupidity is that when the issue was raised in the last few weeks, instead of jumping up to say “My team used a poor image that we immediately removed,” she hunkered down and went on the attack with her scurrilous use of “blood libel”–ratcheting up the incivility.)
As to civility being a recent issue: bullshit. The tragedy in Tuscon simply focused the matter in a way that has caused more people to pay attention to it.
Civility in Congress died after the 1994 elections and there is ample evidence for that.
Really? If you mean there’s no way to do so without causing offense and stirring stong emotion, I would hope that’s the case. There’s no way to accuse a person of pederasty without causing offense, either, but the point should always be whether the accusation or comparison is apt.
Congressman Cohen’s comparison of Republican talking point propagation to the “Big Lie” technique has some support behind it. Yes, it’s overly provocative to draw a line from the GOP to the Reich Ministry of Propaganda**^**, but it isn’t inapt.
^[sub]And it’s also probably a bit tone deaf of Cohen to forget that Hitler coined the phrase to accuse ‘the Jews’ (and Marxists) of betraying the Fatherland (by spreading a false reason for Germany’s defeat in WWI).[/sub]
OK, let’s see it.
Please provide some objective cites demonstrating the level of invective before 1994, and afterward, and that the level of civility decreased.
Regards,
Shodan
Unfortunately you (and Cohen) are giving credence to the claim that Democrats want the Republicans to tone down their vitriol but aren’t willing to hold their own party to the same scrutiny. The government takeover of health care thing is a lie, full stop. It’s true that it has been a successful lie. It is easy to say all of that without bringing the Nazis into the discussion. Godwin aside, comparing someone to the Nazis is generally about the least civil thing you can do in a conversation. You can’t demand civility and then turn around and say that comments like this aren’t uncivil because they’re apt. Many of the people who are spouting nonsense about Communism and the government takeover of health care think their comments are apt. The problem is that they’re wrong and that it’s difficult to address any complaints about the bill when people are comparing its tenets to mass murder.
Well, I dunno. If the analogy were to concentration camps, that would be one thing. But the comparison is to the “Big Lie” technique of propaganda, which is clearly and historically connected to the Nazis.
What part of “to such an important level” don’t you understand?
I had never heard the** March 2010 **interview before but just watched it. Does Chuck Todd have blood on his hands for not taking her more seriously? How about all the other Democrats who saw this coming… were a few complaints enough or do they have blood on their hands too?
Have I ever said “nobody had a problem” with it before?
What I am saying is that Democrats are riding this tragedy for all it’s worth.
And what I am asking is "What are the rules for future civility?
Just as an exercise, you should make sure to compose your next ten posts with no question marks anywhere.
I don’t understand your definition of “to such an important level.” This was an issue people were concerned about for a long time. A lot of people didn’t notice them because they didn’t think it mattered. More people are paying attention now because of the shootings (even though it looks like there was no connection between the two things).
This is kind of academic anyway. It’s obvious that the shooting had no effect at all on the tone of discourse around the country. Yelling and screaming is more fun and gets better ratings.
I never said anybody had blood on their hands.
You’ve implied a couple of times that nobody complained about this until Giffords was shot:
And so are the Republicans. Surprise!
Where did I approve of Cohen’s comments or say they weren’t uncivil? I took exception to your statement that “there’s no civil way” to make a comparison of a present day phenomenon to an aspect of Nazism. I can (and did) disagree with that statement without asserting that Cohen exhibited civility.
Please note also that I did not say Cohen’s invocation of the Holocaust was apt, but only his reference to the Big Lie.
I can’t see how I’m feeding the ‘liberal hypocrisy’ meme by by subjecting a vitriolic statement to factual analysis. Yes, I’d applaud if one of Cohen’s fellow Democratic congresscritters got up on their hind legs and rebuked him, and said unequivocally “Republicans aren’t Nazis and they aren’t our enemies,” if they then continued Cohen’s valid point about HCR.
But immediate and exclusive condemnation of Cohen by liberals would be senseless kneejerking on the same level as the criticism of “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” because it uses the word “killing” instead of because it’s a stupid lie. It’s the sort of self policing that actually promotes false equivalencies in the media. It’s comparing “The Lie-berals are traitors and enemies to the great 'Merkin way of life” as claimed by every goddam rightwing political hack tv broadcast for the last decade or two, to “hey, the Nazi’s said the same sorts of things about the Jews” as said by Wilbur Milquetoast (D-TN) to C-SPAN cameras in an empty House.
By saying the comparison is apt. Using this standard a lot of lies in politics are comparable to The Big Lie.
Very well. If you are discussing a policy of genocide or ethnic cleansing, or racist and repressive laws, a comparison to Nazism could be apt and in those cases civility is not an issue. In other cases, it’s not civil and it’s probably going to be such a deliberate exaggeration that even if there is a core truth, it’s counterproductive and better put some other way. You can call out the dishonesty of “the government takeover of health care” without invoking Nazism. It’s not something that’s implicit in the subject matter.
“The Big Lie” is inextricably linked with Nazism.
Just the ones that are repeated in lockstep by one political group and reinforced by media voices in order to achieve political goals through their acceptance among a large enough percentage of the target audience.
Or propaganda based on propagation of a deliberately divisive, distractive and provocative lie?
Right. And how does this place modern day recognition of usages of the technique off limits to civil discourse?
The ones that succeed, you mean? What you just described is a core element of everybody’s media strategy.
No, I think my version works better. You can lie without being comparable to Nazis.
“The Big Lie” isn’t a technique, it’s a specific historical lie the same way the blood libel is a specific historical lie. It is not possible to be civil when comparing your political opponents to the Nazis. Full stop. I’m not just picking on the guy for using the phase “The Big Lie” either. That might be a common enough phrase that it could be overlooked.
It means that when you say your opponent is using “The Big Lie” and (as if that wasn’t enough) explicity mention Goebbels,
No it isn’t. “Everybody” doesn’t make deliberate bald untruths and distortions into integral parts of their message. You really cheapen the allegation when you imply we’re talking about political spin.
I think the focus on Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’ (and focus on Palin herself, really) is a distraction, but the phrase really is linked to a specific historical libel. This is not the case for “the Big Lie”. That term is not tied inalterably to its first usage, any more than terms such as “quisling” and “lynch” are tied to the specific gents originally referenced. It has been used since the end of WWII to denote a technique, not the specific lie alleged by Hitler.
Again, I don’t argue that Cohen’s direct reference to Goebbels and the Holocaust were appropriate. I’m arguing that if people knowingly use a technique closely associated to Nazis it’s not out of line to say they’re using the technique, even if the connection will inevitably be inferred.
“Everybody” means the Democratic and Republican parties, not everyone in the world. And yes, “everybody” does it.
We are talking about political spin. In this case we’re talking about moronic lies and I’m not losing sight of that, but that’s part of the whole ball of wax, too. Lies are not separate from the other rhetorical devices used in politics.
I’m not sure about the comparisons you’re using (quisling and lynch take their names from actual people), but regardless, this is a matter of opinion. “The Big Lie” is a phrase that originated in reference to the Nazis, and that’s what people are more likely to think of when describe something - even if it’s a lie that is big - as “The Big Lie.”
The Nazis were liars, but lying about your opponents is not a technique closely associated with the Nazis. Neither is having people repeat your wording (we even have a cutesy term for that now - “talking points”) or having people argue your case in public.
Look, if you don’t agree that the Big Lie exists as a propaganda technique independent of use of the term by or about Hitler and Nazi Germany, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you about current examples of the technique. You’re not going to see any valid comparisons if you think “Big Lies” require a program of genocide or oppression, or that systematic incorporation of deliberate and falisfiable lies into the core public arguments of a major political party is normal political spin.
Define it, then. So far your definition seems to be “a lie a lot of people repeat on TV,” and no, that is not good enough to make it a tactic instead of a reference to the Nazis.
Hitler did coin the phrase – to characterize what he perceived or purported to perceive as Jews distorting history to blame Germany’s WWI defeat on Ludendorff.
It’s a well defined term already. Since you’ve argued that it means the specific example Hitler used (or that it means the specific way Hitler lied regarding the Jews – you haven’t been real explicit), I know our understandings differ substantially. So I’d rather find a third party definition (they’re out there) that we can agree is common usage and then argue about what counts.
(You realize that this diversion about Cohen is a distraction away from the dangerous rhetoric we’ve been discussing into an argument about merely cynical and depraved political techniques and their relative abuses, yes? We’ve even agreed that Cohen’s comments were unhelpful and dumb.)