« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Joe Klein's Undeveloped Method for Puncturing Guilt By Association
Joe Klein said,
I wish Blitzer had been a bit more dogged and asked, "What could you possibly mean by that, Senator Lieberman--and please be specific. Why do you think Hamas "favors" Obama over McCain? What are you implying here, Senator? And were you worried about Obama's Middle East policy positions when he came to campaign for you in Connecticut?Klein is recommending that reporters actually be dogged in trying to get the specifics behind a vague allegation. But he falls short of framing his recommendation as a widely-applicable method for helping the public to deal with guilt by association accusations. We need such a method to help us reach people who are initially influenced by guit by association attacks.
If I were Klein I'd continue, explaining that
the power of McCarthy-style accusations exists partly because they're vague. "Hamas prefers Obama" seems to imply that Obama is like Hamas. He's a radical sympathizer. Is that what Lieberman actually means? of course not. If he were peppered with a series of deft questions, it would become clear that the only somewhat supportable charge Lieberman can make in this realm is that Obama doesn't have the experience to protect Israel. But, of course, the implication that Obama is a closet radical is what Lieberman's base and the undecided are likely to infer.Klein can add that guilt by association attacks require reporters to ask for proof in the form of something radical Obama has said or done. And if there is no proof, reporters should ask if this kind of attack subverts the democratic process by repeating unsubstantiated attacks.
Advertisement
Comments (1)
Why do horrible people like you even though you say you hate them? The best you can do is repeatedly reject and denounce the people you already hate. But that doesn't change the fact that they still seem to like you (think you will do something good for them, or won't be able to do something bad to them). That's why unchallenged this works (to some extent)
I think you are wrong to think asking for proof makes a difference (even though in this case it is not even Hamas making any kind of official statement). Clinton did the same thing to Obama when Farrakhan said he preferred Obama.
The question to ask Lieberman is, if a serial killer endorses John McCain should we ask ourselves why they think he will be so good for murderers? If the KKK endorses John McCain should we ask ourselves why do racists think so highly of John McCain? If people who favor the use of torture endorse John McCain, should we not wonder why they think he will be so good for torturers?
The point is, the accusers will never accept the same absurd argument made about them--no one would--so you have to confront them with it. make them explain why it applies to the other guy but not you.
May 15, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment