In which someone much smarter than me agrees

A couple of weeks ago I commented on why it’s unhelpful to throw out accusations of racism in political discussion.

Charles Krauthammer last night, on the increase of such accusations:

You know, the accusation of racism is a sign of desperation by people who know they are losing the national debate, and they want to hurl the ultimate charge in American politics.

This is dealing from the bottom of the deck, and I agree that it is a disgusting tactic. It’s done as a way to end debate…

Accusations of racism are the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel.

HT: The Corner

Selective memory, glass houses, and all that.

I didn’t watch the President’s speech last night. But apparently Joe Wilson, a Republican representative from South Carolina shouted “You lie!” when the President claimed that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants.

That is classless, tacky, unprofessional, disrespectful, and stupid. Wilson has since apologized, as he should have. As a human being and as the President, Obama is entitled to respect and civility, and elected officials should have the self-control to act like adults on such an important occasion. (Now I have been known to raise my voice at the TV when the President speaks; if I met him in person I would show greater restraint.)

That said, it’s hilarious to see the New York Times’ account of the incident. The article notes that “members of both parties were trying to recollect such a pointed attack from an individual lawmaker at a presidential address,” then goes back to the Clinton years for an example:

When President Clinton addressed Congress in 1993 to push his health care plan, “both sides of the aisle received the President warmly,” according to a report in The New York Times at the time.

“But when he began talking about raising taxes on tobacco to pay for the plan, or the need to cut Medicare and Medicaid, many on the Republican side of the aisle began snickering, shaking their heads skeptically and making faces at each other,” the article said.

Oh, those childish Republicans, up to their old tricks. But I was trying to remember– wasn’t there another president between Clinton and Obama? Oh yes, that’s right. His name was George W. Bush. He was booed and shouted at, oh, about every single time he addressed Congress. I’m sure the New York Times was appalled at such juvenile behavior at the time.

Why calling “racism” in political debate is unhelpful.

Abraham at 22 Words had a post this weekend on the kerfuffle over the President’s speech to schoolchildren. (I agreed with it.) It only took 2 anti-Obama commenters for the first accusation of racism to come out.

This is now standard in public and private discourse. Criticize Obama or his policies and you will be labeled racist, Nazi, anti-American, etc– whether by a blog commenter or a member of Congress.

There are at least three reasons not to bring up the charge of racism when you’re in an argument. (I mean argument in the technical sense– when you’re presenting and defending your point of view.)

1. It’s an attempt to end debate, rather than respond to the claims of your opponent. That suggests that you are unable to respond to the claims of your opponent.
2. It’s seldom based on evidence, making it both an unforgivable and an unprovable offense.
3. It suggests that you, the accuser, are more preoccupied with race than the accused.

Probably the best response to “You’re just saying that because you’re a racist” is “Well, OK, but you’re just saying that because you’re an idiot.”

ObamaCare = government-subsidized abortions

The National Right to Life Committee has a new document out explaining in detail how every version of the health-care bill would force taxpayers to finance elective abortion.

This is not a surprise or a trick move from the President. He has given every indication at every stage of his career that he wants to make abortion more easily accessible. Every Christian who voted for him either knew this or cast a woefully uninformed vote.

Interrogation program was “effective and circumscribed”

A reasoned analysis from the predictably-reasonable Wall Street Journal.

A bad intelligence move, and why it happened.

Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder announced a preliminary investigation of terrorist interrogations during the Bush era. This is a bad move.

What does it mean? It could pave the way for criminal prosecutions of some intelligence operatives who used “enhanced interrogation techniques” in questioning captured terrorists.

Why is it a bad move? Because of the message it sends to those in the intelligence community.

• It’s a warning to them that, even if the intel they gather prevents attacks and saves American lives, should the political climate change they could be thrown under the bus. In other words, it discourages these men and women from doing what is at times necessary to get the information they need.
• It also suggests to qualified, skilled people who are considering working in intelligence that their career would be better spent elsewhere.

Why is it happening now? Because the President’s domestic agenda is in danger, and his poll numbers are falling. As is his custom, when questions are raised about his competence or performance, he is bringing up the specter of the wicked George W. Bush. Bush remains a useful whipping boy whenever Obama needs to change the subject. Mark my words, this will continue into the 2012 campaign.

Why invoking Nazism is bad (for both Left and Right)

Michael Gerson:

Nazism is not a useful symbol for everything that makes us angry, from Iraq to abortion. It is a historical movement, unique in the ambitions of its cruelty…  Nazism was the “beard game,” in which the beards and sidelocks of Jews were pulled off or set afire before audiences of cheering soldiers. It was the practice of making elderly Jews dance around a fire of burning Torah scrolls. It was whole orphanages deported to death camps, and pits full of corpses, and ancient communities erased from human memory, and death factories issuing a thick smoke of souls, and a mother trading her gold ring for a glass of water to give her dying child.

Read the whole thing.

White House Forms New Department: Ministry of Truth

One of the most entertaining what-if games to play these days is to watch President Obama and imagine if George Bush had done the same thing two years ago. This might be the best example yet: a White House blog post asking citizens to report anyone spreading “fishy” (=critical) information about Obama’s health care plan.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

We’ve seen for a couple of years now that there is no legitimate criticism of Obama; everything is either racist or dishonest. So we have the White House asking citizens to pass on things they hear in “emails or casual conversation” to an Orwellian email address. And, as Byron York points out this morning, those emails would become White House records not covered by the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, they could be the basis for an enemies list that would be “both secret and permanent”.

Go ahead, imagine Bush trying that. How do you think that would have gone for him?

Our bad.

Secretary of State Clinton:

We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change.

As exciting as the never-ending Obama Apology Tour is, isn’t it a little bit ironic that this was said in a country where over a billion people are burning their trash?

Ultimately right, proximately stupid.

President Obama this morning:

The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.

One day that will be proven right. It will not be because of Obama’s brilliance.