Meta-arguments

Monty Python had a great sketch on having an argument, in which one character requests to start an argument and then proceeds to start an argument over it. It would be hilariously funny if it wasn’t such an accurate picture of how Republican leaders “debate” political issues these days.

In today’s paper, Paul Waldman nails the Republicans for their consistent “change the argument” strategy. From John Kerry’s “flip-flops” to the current overreaction to Sen. Durbin’s comments about Guantanamo Bay, many of the Republican leaders prefer “meta-arguments” – arguments about the arguments. This keeps the media coverage and political discussion well outside the bounds of substantive dialogue.

Waldman has two great examples. When Kerry was accused of flip-flopping, he responded with, “I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?” To the Republican leadership (and the news media), Kerry’s verbal gaffe was worse than the war that has caused 13,000 American casualties.*

And then there’s Durbin’s comment on the FBI’s Guantanamo report where he remarked that the abuses “sounded like something from the prisons of a dictatorial regime.” Waldman’s description of the Republican response deserves full quotes:

Republicans beat their breasts in outrage, saying Durbin had compared every man and woman serving in uniform to the Nazis, even that with his Senate speech he put Americans' lives at risk and gave succor to Osama Bin Laden

Maybe someday we’ll return to debating political issues (if in fact we ever really did), but for now, stay tuned for the latest right-wing spin on Waldman’s piece!

*Naturally, I now hate the troops, America, and give aid and comfort to Osama, Nazis and the devil for mentioning that any American lives have been lost. “Would I rather have Saddam back – he gassed his own people”