It is a mistake to doubt the sincerity of one's opponents. It usually prevents you from seeing what is right or wrong with their argument, and it never increases your ability to persuade them or neutral observers. And almost nobody writing on Kos is a liar.
A plague that has cursed me since 1st Grade is a disease that makes me go into the temple and knock over the idols. (Simon, Randy, Paula: you’re safe. I mean REAL idols, not you guys.)
The one I’m after today is the false assumption that seems common around here that your opponent is not only wrong, buy lying.
Demonizing one’s opponents is the pandemic that most threatens American unification. Far more virulent than "corporate control over the major parties" or even "special interests’ stranglehold over government" is the blinding inability
a) to realize that the people who write in these spaces have far more in common with Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh than with the folks who skip this corner in favor of fantasy football, pornography and Chuzzle (If you haven’t seen it, look it up; it really is oddly capitvating.); and
b) to understand that those who write here believe pretty much everything they write here.
What set me off today was a response to a comment I made defending yesterday’s diary aimed at explaining to my fellow Hillary supporters how and why I could rationalize crossing over to Obama if he beats us over my best efforts, which I have not yet abandoned. Without repeating my dazzling prose here, I said that if he beats the best candidate ever to run for the office, I would join with those who hope he lives up to the dream, because there isn’t a better course of action than to hope and dream if we lose. Someone replied that their choice was "not projecting. But doing." I said I couldn’t tell who this supports; the pronouns made it appear that this was an Obama supporter, but that didn’t make any sense as Obama hasn’t DONE anything; rather, he presents a dream of what he will do that is appealing.
This response earned me an "HR" for "repeating deunked right wing memes." My accuser wrote that my comments were "Patently, blatantly, seemingly willfully untrue. dReally, try to do some research before you start smearing the record of a senator from your own party." To prove his point he listed eleven Obama amendments, principally to appropriations bills, that had been adopted and said that Obama submitted nearly 900 other bills, amendments or resolutions, presumably that had not been adopted. Someone else thought he was a bit over the top, so he defended his action, saying "the diarist said, ‘[Obama] hasn't DONE anything.’ There's no agreeing or disagreeing on that point; there's telling the truth, and there's lying. Lying always gets you an HR."
Now I don’t think anyone is confused about whether or not either one of our comments was the "truth" or a "lie."
Neither his comment nor mine is absolutely, unequivocally accurate in the most absurdly literal approach to linguistics. Has Barack Obama "DONE" "ANYTHING"? One could say that Ludwig van Beethoven DID something this year by decomposing a bit more. (There’s a silly old joke here that would be a digression. Google "Beethoven" and "decomposing" if you want to read it.)
But it isn’t a "lie" for two reasons: a) saying Barack hasn’t "DONE" anything does not mean to anybody that he failed to draw breath, poop or pee since coming to Washington; and b) I (and, if you’re honest, you too) were unaware of any one of the legislative accomplishments on the list; it isn’t a "lie" if you don’t know what is inaccurate about the statement. Even his Texas surrogate famously could not name anything he had "DONE." Which is not to say he is incontinent or comatose. Or even unqualified. It is to state the undeniable truth that "actions" are not his appeal; dreams are.
Contrast this, if you will, to the attacker’s comment that "lying always gets you an HR." Why that very day, one of the top rated diaries, one which escaped my accuser’s wrath, (or HR) was one entitled "The worst narcissists our country has ever seen." Who would you guess? Paris Hilton, perhaps? (As narcissistic as anyone short of Madonna, but not dangerous, so probably not the "worst." Aaron Burr? (Now there’s a guy whose adamant conviction that HE must rule the country lead him to sell out the military.) Joseph McCarthy? (The need to hear his own voice on the radio certainly set back civil rights and fine arts in America by several decades.) Ted Bundy? (Killed a lot of women so he could see the look in their eyes as they feared death; you have to stand in awe of a guy to whom a few seconds of sated curiosity is worth a woman’s life.)
Nope. I’ll bet, if you are a reader of these tomes, that you already knew that such hyperbolic rhetoric in this space is reserved only for one of the people we malign with gusto, and that just doesn’t include entertainers, athletes or artists. Nope, it was one of the remaining candidates for President, but I won’t even bother to tell you which one because it doesn’t matter. Not one of the five remaining candidates is remotely close to earning the accolade of "the worst narcissist" in American History, and both my attacker and the author are perfectly aware this is true. Yet there was no "HR" for that story, which suggests that it isn’t true that "lying always gets you an HR."
He, of course, knows that. Anyone who visited this web site twice knows that thousands and thousands of intentionally overblown statements escape the dreaded "HR" on a daily basis around here. But I would not label my attacker or the author of the "narcissist" manifesto as "liars." They certainly exaggerate. They spin. They speak with dramatic purpose, aiming their rhetorical arrow at least a bit above the target to provide room for gravity to pull them into range.
But as Humphrey Bogart said to Mary Astor, "You lied to us about your sister and all of that, but that doesn’t count. We didn’t believe you." The irony of Sam Spade’s comment was, of course, that Bridgid, (or whatever your name is) intended Sam to believe her, whereas the typical Kosian brickbat is intended to injure, not inform. The floundering diagnostician did not intend that anyone believe any Democrat running for office was more narcissistic than George Forman (father of five sons named George). So, frankly, that doesn’t count, because we didn’t believe her. Neither did my accuser believe he could pull that wool over anybody’s eyes.
But I’m straying far from my point, which is that, within the confines of rhetoric, context and the intended (as opposed to the distorted) meanings of words, nearly everyone writing here means what they say and are writing what they mean in order to improve the country. A lesson I learned when clerking on the Court of Appeals was that one of the worst, and most common mistakes an advocate can make if failing to understand that his or her opponent almost certainly believes every word they are saying. Although there is hardly a diary published here that doesn’t have several, if not dozens of commentators accusing the diariast and each other of being "liars", they are almost always wrong. Usually, painfully, foolishly, absurdly wrong.
And it does us no good. I genuinely believe that the country will be much much better off if Hillary Clinton regains momentum next week, racking up 25 point victories that convince the automatic delegates to choose evidence over dreams; experience over youth; proof over faith. I’m not lying about that. And if it happens, one of the very difficult tasks will be to convince Obama’s supporters that it was fair and reasonable and that although they had their hearts set on that dream becoming a positive reality, the wonder of America coming from not allowing women to vote to electing one President within a century is also a dream worthy of the most optimistic idealist.
But, as I wrote yesterday, I must steel myself for heartbreak and look to the best interests of the country if it doesn’t happen. And I will tell my opponents, that yesterday made it harder to do. I understand that campaigns cause one to demonize your opponents, so I try my best to let it roll off my back when two of the most effective champions of racial equality are called racists for comparing this year’s victor in South Carolina to the only person in history to have won South Carolina twice without becoming his party’s nominee. In a clear moment I understand that they, too, will understand the absurdity of such a charge. I understand that competitive spirit and the desire to wound one’s opposition causes ridiculous overstatement, yet it is hard to forgive childish comments like my accuser uttered. Several times I considered whether it was better to simply leave Kos to the children or to figure out if there was some appeal where I might be told that it is not Kos’s policy to allow anybody with a keyboard to inflict demerits that must be advertised whenever I write here.
But whether I do write on Kos or am allowed to write on Kos is of no moment at all. The TR’s , (are there really such things as "HR’s"?) the "rec’s" and the lists are of such small concern that Henry Kissinger’s comment about how vicious is academic politics — precisely because the stakes are so small — would predict how nasty things get around here. But there ARE larger stakes, and we seem to be doing all we can to diminish our chances in November.
So here’s the deal. Hillary Clinton is not a liar. She isn’t. Think about it hard, look for evidence not passion, and you will know that. Barack Obama is not a liar. John McCain is not a liar. Bush. Well, every rule has its exceptions. There’s frankly no way at all he didn’t know that Rumsfeld was on his way out, that there was doubt that Saddam had WMD, . . . .
It would be helpful if Kos would award his own TR to everyone who used the word "lie" or "liar" in a diary or a comment. That would improve the swimming in this pond.