A step beyond a step too far.

Lawyers. I know: the word alone almost causes you to swoon with joy and thanksgving. Lovers, fighters, poets -- there's no evil that these paragons of truth and virtue cannot conquer, no danger that they will not face, no friend-in-need whose call they will not answer.

Yes, I am one of them. Save your applause, please, until the end -- for there are heavy matters that we first must discuss.

Heavy matter numero uno: The speed with which politico-shtick and lawyer shtick are converging. The rush to apply the bare minimal standards of honesty that govern us law-folks to political rhetoric -- the "if I say it this way it will just barely be truthful" test. You know what I mean: "no controlling legal authority"; "I never said Iraq had WMDs, I said it had WMD programs"; "I suppose it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

This one foot over the line, one foot behind is usually just fine. Sure, a partisan or two gets stirred up, but most people can distinguish between spin and lie. But, sometimes, in our eagerness to score rhetorical points, we take that step beyond a step too far . . . .

This bit of mendacity, ably by exposed by Josh Marshall, is one such example. The subject is Abraham Foxman's recent op-ed in the Washington Post. Mr. Foxman is a good writer and thinker, and much of his piece manages to be both readable and reasonable. But this rhetorical trick -- and it is a trick -- demeans his argument (bold mine):

[T]here is a tendency in some circles to psychologically delegitimize the Sharon government . . . . Reflexive and distorted reactions to Sharon, whether calling him a Nazi or unrepentant hard-liner or war criminal or racist or drinker of Muslim children's blood, all have an impact. Such outrageous reactions, repeated time and again in the media, in Islamic conferences, in some parts of Europe and in international organizations, have their cumulative effect. The result is to treat a proposal by nonofficials, legitimate as it may be, in a way that would never occur with any other democratic government.

Hmm, which of these things (Nazi, hard-liner, war criminal, racist, Muslim-blood-drinker) is not like the others? And how would you feel if I lamented "such outrageous reactions" to George W. Bush as calling him a "baby seal killer, proto-Fascist, conservative, and Satanic dickweed"?

You see the trick, no? You demonize a reasonable statement by associating it with unreasonable ones. This kind of veiled attack by association is a variant of an ad hom -- it's an attempt at misdirection, rather than debate. And, speaking as an unrepentent supporter of Israel, it takes only a few brains in the bucket to see that Prime Minister Sharon is indeed a "hard liner."

Mr. Fox should know better.

Comments

[Jordan]

Hear, hear! Someone over at Tacitus the other day spoke of reviving the classical definition of "equivocation" to explain the forked-tongue casuistry of modern political discourse. After all, you can't denounce lying sumbitches if they aren't really *lying*. Maybe, von, this is related to your theory of legalese taking over political rhetoric.

The core definition of equivocation is that a word or phrase with two different meanings is used as if they have only one meaning. Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations" might be the best example, and Bush WH use of the words freedom, terrorism, and Mission Accomplished frequently make good contemporary examples. In the Clinton case, the second meaning is Clinton's private definition of "sexual relations," which is far more limited than the standard public understanding of the phrase - a real squeaker. In the case of "Mission Accomplished", the second meaning only kicked in after months of continued conflict in Iraq made the banner's original meaning seem strikingly inappropriate - you see, explains the WH, the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission was accomplished. We thought that was clear from the footage.

Anyhow, here is an exhaustive definition with many examples, some entertaining. This one's pretty good with partisan slant in the examples, and lastly, a very full crosslinked set of synonyms.

[Jordan]

P.S. - can someone explain why every online def of equivocation uses the prolife argument about the humanity of the fetus as an example? Isn't this more a question of faith than logic?

P.P.S - hooray for bloodsucking lawyers! ;)

[Jordan]

strike humanity insert innocence.

[Moe Lane]

"And, speaking as an unrepentent supporter of Israel, it takes only a few brains in the bucket to see that Prime Minister Sharon is indeed a "hard liner.""

Speaking as another unrepentent supporter, I would agree with you. I'd also agree with Marshall (and I think, you) that 'hardliner' is hardly a slur, too.

Moe

PS: Jordan, I think that it's because there are precisely four people in the USA that have not been inundiated with oceans of information and agitprop from both sides of the prolife / prochoice debate, and all four of them are too busy holding their hands over their ears and screaming "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" to be able to surf the Net.

[von]

Well said, Jordan. I have a feeling this will be fodder for another post. . . .

Speaking as another unrepentent supporter, I would agree with you. I'd also agree with Marshall (and I think, you) that 'hardliner' is hardly a slur, too.

Absolutely. And if that's what one wants, by all means support Sharon. Mr. Fox's sin is to attempt to portray critics of Sharon's policies (or any so-called "hardline" policy) as critics of Israel. The two are not the same.