Skip to main content

There has been a lot of discussion and punditry around the shooting in Arizona and trying to place blame.  I firmly believe that blame rests solely on the perpetrator.  Could things been done to avoid it, probably, and we can all think of things like, better mental health care, better gun control, etc. I am sure there are many more ideas.  This diary is not about the shooting, but the political rhetorical climate of the past few years.

There have been lots of lies, lots of baseless rhetoric, lots of attention getting inflammatory statements that don’t get called out.  While most people can see through the hyperbole, many others start to believe it. When they don’t get called out, people start to believe them. We can all repeat many of these lies and inflammatory rhetoric:

- Obama isn’t a citizen - Obama is a socialist/nazi/Kenyon/Muslim - Death panels - Job killing health care bill that no one knows what’s in it - The big government take-over of the banks/car industry - Second amendment solutions - They are racists - They hate America

Much of this rhetoric will not go away.  While the examples I give are mostly from the right,  I think both sides of the discourse are equally at fault for lies and rhetoric.  The real winner of the 2010 election cycle wasn’t the Republican party, the  and the losers weren’t the democratic party.  The ideas of tax cuts and cutting government didn’t win over health care coverage for all, and government supporting the economy.  The real winner was the environment of lies over truth and honesty.  The traditional media is at fault, the politicians are at fault, many professional bloggers are at fault, many of us are at fault (me included).

So what can and should be done about it.  First off, rather than calling it out and refuting the statement, ask for clarification.  Seek first to understand.  "What do you mean by second amendment solutions?"  "what do you mean by watering the tree of liberty?" "Are you suggesting an armed insurrection against the government?"  

This allows the speaker to clarify that statement, then continuing on the questioning, to things like, "OK, if you aren’t really calling for armed insurrection, then you must be making rhetorical statements just to get attention.  What specific solutions are you suggesting?"  "I’m sorry, I must be really stupid here, because I am not exactly sure why you are saying that, can you explain what you mean?"

Many of the statement made by speakers like Limbough, Hannity, Angle, Palin,  (yes I am only using the right as examples, and I know it) it is just that – getting attention.  No consequences of the lies, no consequences of the inflammatory statements, and certainly no clarification of these statements to show that they are just that – attention getting hyperbole.  Rarely does a statement get called out to the degree that is should.  When statements like that do get called out, they are refuted by the opponents, repeated by the allies, but never called out to the speaker, asked for clarification until the truth, and motivation of the statement are fully accounted for.  Calling BS on statement is not the same as making the person making the statement explain themselves.  

Politicians in debates need to act like lawyers in a court room, rather than just repeating political rhetoric, call for explanation and more explanation until the originator of that statement looks like the idiot they are.  Interviewers also need to continue the line of questioning, rather than act like a know-it-all, like O’Reilly, and arguing, let the person convict themselves.  Steven Colbert did this beautifully with a representative that wanted to put the 10 commandments in the capital.  Colbert asked the representative if he could repeat the 10 commandments, and he could not.

The real winner of the 2010 elections were the hyperbole, lies, and the liars that tell them, not one political party over another, and certainly not one sides ideas over another.

Originally posted to jimraff on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:16 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So, what exactly do you mean by that? (0+ / 0-)

    After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

    by jimraff on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:16:31 PM PST

  •  List Some of the Democratic Party Lies nt (0+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:26:03 PM PST

  •  They won because (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies, jimraff, JeffW

    we did not force them to talk about issues, and we did not summarize the progressive points and positions in a way that logic-deprived children of Reagan "back to basics" could understand.

    I am sitting in Allen West's district as I write. He put up thousands of signs, said "I'm black and retired Army Colonel" and never once debated policy with Klein. Thus, he won.

    No dialogue. No logic. No policy. Just bluster.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:42:13 PM PST

    •  Right, we also did not call out the lies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and hyperbole (I like that word) for the crap that it was, and let them squirm over it.

      After the Republicans burn down the world, they will prove the Democrats did it.

      by jimraff on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 06:45:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  To nice! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I was once a school administrator (period of temporary insanity) and had a board member who was "too good." At first I thought he was an opponent, because he refused to believe how low the motives of some folks were.

        In the end, his inherent intelligence and honesty won out and we ended up real allies for improvement and good works.

        Calling out lies is an important first step.

        Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

        by MrMichaelMT on Wed Jan 12, 2011 at 07:01:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You lost me right about (0+ / 0-)


    I think both sides of the discourse are equally at fault for lies and rhetoric.

    Next batter.

    When the left calls out the lies from the people you mentioned they play victim. They don't 'call out' Democratic party lies, because we do that too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site