Dissecting an Anti-YearlyKos Op-Ed...And What It Means For Liberals

[DrFunkenstein]

I strolled upon this typical media lazy thinking from someone paid to think out loud, namely Dennis Byrne at "Real Clear Politics," which describes itself as "a trusted filter for anyone interested in politics."

It's called "The Leftwing Circus Comes to Town," while described in the web address as "a gathering of clowns."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/a_gathering_of_clowns.html


Let's start up, shall we?

When Clinton spoke the truth at the forum about lobbying practices in Washington, the crowd roundly booed her. Asked about taking campaign money from lobbyists, she pointed out that lobbyists "represent real Americans"...See, right there she stepped in it, not just on the lobbying thing, but acknowledging what the lefties don't want to hear: Corporations, for all their faults, do something good; they give people jobs.

Such a cheap argument. Progressives don't think corporations should be banned, and don't boo them as evil capitalist pigs. Although some of them pretty much are. We decry the lengthy and sometimes systematic way in which corporate business practices too often hurt non-executives. Is this guy really trying to say that we oppose jobs, rather than, say, golden parachutes, unethically jacked up prices, subsidized pollution, and so on?

Byrne continues.

There are abortion industry lobbyists, twisting arms for "a woman's right to choose." Other lobbyists are prowling the halls of Congress on behalf 12 million illegal aliens yearning (we're told) for citizenship, universal health care, global (un)warming, family farmers, teachers--I could go on forever listing lobbyists who are excused or ignored by the left because they are doing it for "good causes."

Is he really so stupid that he cannot distinguish between groups advocating social justice positions and those attempting to bend legislation for profit? While I am strictly pro-choice, I make a clear distinction between anti-abortion lobbyists and Exxon. And so do most progressives. Ok, the NRA gives me problems because of the way social advocacy and the weapons industry align, but I'm assuming this guy went to college and can understand such nuances.

I'll just throw another quick quote just to let you know which way the wind blows for Mr. Byrne.

(T)eachers, who have shackled public education with their job protections and lush retirement benefits, and don't forget the auto workers whose benefits have so weakened the American auto industry that, for the first time, more foreign cars are being sold in America than domestic ones.

Should I mention how absurdly underfunded our education system is, regardless of those "lush" benefits, or that the insistence by Detroit upon building underperforming, gas-guzzling cars may have something to do with consumer preferences? Japan has a lovely health care system and still manages to sell a car or two. So does Germany.

Clinton discovered what conservatives long have known: talking to lefties is like trying to talk to children. Rational argument and facts don't impress.

Damn you Ralph Nader with your cheap demagoguery! How could we have been fooled by your 14-page memos detailing insurance procedures for the nuclear power industry!?! Oh, progressives, how could we fallen for all that whooey about stem cell research and safe-sex education? We should have listened to the conservatives from the start! To hell with Darwin! To hell with Rachel Carson! I still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that gay marriage equals bestiality! I can't hide it anymore!

Sorry about that. Got a little carried away. Let's carry on. Byrne then talks about Obama's suggestion for dealing with Osama Bin Laden in the face of hypothetical resistance from Pakistan equals the Bush Doctrine.

Did no one catch the irony that Obama's promise of a new direction is almost the same as Bush's direction? Note that Obama's statement included the qualification that he would strike where there is "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets," which is something Bush claimed he had before attacking Iraq. Are they all so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they can't think straight?

Byrne obviously failed to read any statement ever uttered by Obama outside of that single (misrepresented) quote, and seems to have not read anything in his life at all. Very - painfully - obvious was the highly limited scope of Obama's hypothetical strike on high-value terrorists. I am practically a pacifist and have no qualms about limited military excursions (as opposed to, say, the nuclear missles others have suggested keeping on the table).

Like most progressives, I feel that small-scale attacks by special forces on terrorist outposts are a necessary compliment to larger (as in "HUGE") efforts to win the hearts and minds of the third-world as a long-term strategy to eventually reduce terrorism to all but nothingness.

-------------

As progressives, we cannot allow people like Byrne to use these cheap logical fallacies, otherwise known as bullshit, to portray the netroots as a bunch of yahoos. We cannot afford to ignore them. We have to make efforts to hammer our voices into what is understood as common sense. That's one of the benefits of Obama, his gift of making liberalism seem as normal Oprah herself (since in actual values, not semantics, Americans are overwhelmingly liberal). We've got to sharpen our dissecting knives and be prepared to knock down these lazy arguments, which somehow almost never get contested on the larger media stage. There are thousands of lives at stake in the battles over a few phrases. A sobering thought, but true nonetheless.

[BridgeTheGap]

1. They're just like Bush: "you're either with us or against us..."

If you challenge them at all, your called a commie/socialist etc.

[xultar]

2. I know a former lobbyist for the Deaf. Are all lobbyist bad?

[The Traveler]

3. Of course not ... but isn't the issue, is it?

Isn't the issue the disproportionate and inappropriate level of influence corporate lobbyists achieve (at considerable expense) over the legistlative process? Isn't a corollary issue the corrosive effect produced by the constant flow of corporate dollars into the political process?

[killbotfactory]

7. Did they ever send a Senator on vacation somewhere to get their legislation passed?

This is the kind of crap people are protesting. Everyone has a right to lobby the government, that right shouldn't extend to sweetheart deals guaranteeing jobs to those in Congress who do their bidding, or high value sports tickets, or golfing vacations to "find facts" about legislation, or all the other corrupt bullshit that goes on.

[Major Hogwash]

4. I knew it all along - it's all them damn teachers fault.

I guess we can't blame it all on our parents anymore.

This guy Byrne sounds like he woke up with a hooka pipe next to his bed.
I wonder how long he has been smoking that crap.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Actually, He Sounds Like He Could Use a Hooka Pipe Next to His Bed

I kept my response at a fairly rational level, but reading the piece makes me think what a sad little man is Mr. Byrne. At an emotional level, this guy is playing the smarmy know-it-all that really gets down to what people mean when they say the media is elitist. He thinks that making the netroots seem unworthy of a voice at the table, he is making himself seem more worthy in the eyes of others. He doesn't even have any ironic distance from this assy move, which wouldn't make it any better, but would at least clue us in that he is not as much a fool as he comes off.

Maybe a couple of puffs would mellow him out a bit, and he'd realize that cheap shots are hardly a way to boost your standing with others.

[welshTerrier2]

6. great "pick apart", DrFunkenstein

excellent analysis.

allow me to add some to this quote from the article:

Note that Obama's statement included the qualification that he would strike where there is "actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets," which is something Bush claimed he had before attacking Iraq. Are they all so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they can't think straight?

Of course, the author failed to point out that bush MANUFACTURED that "actionable intelligence." And, speaking of "actionable intelligence", what about all the intelligence he ignored prior to 9/11. He just seemed to conveniently ignore that little national disaster.

Your points about distinguishing between corporate lobbyists and other lobbyists were also dead on. The left is not anti-corporation or anti-business or even anti-profits; we're opposed to the poisoning of the electoral and legislative processes by money. Businesses are not citizens. Oh, and by the way, corporations are not "real Americans" either.