Durbin, Rove, Limbaugh, Amnesty International, and Selective Outrage

by Cliopatria

I would like to be clear on something. I think that it is always wrong to use the Nazi analogy (or the Communist/Stalinist/Fascist ones) especially when labeling someone. It is easy, it is cheap, it is tawdry. Thus in the past week, when I found myself defending Richard Durbin, (On Big Tent and the main comment pages at HNN) it was probably fair to ask why I seem to have exempted him from my argument. I think it is a legitimate point, and one about which I want to be clear. This is especially so since while I have been critical of the left and liberals in the past with their profligate use of words like “Fascist” and “Nazi,” I am a liberal, so it also may have seemed that in providing cover for Durbin I was trying to protect one of my own.

Senator Durbin made an extremely poor choice of words. But I simply do not think he said that which some have accused him of saying. And I am trying to be intellectually honest about this. In any case in which someone calls someone else a Nazi (or any of the other things) someone ought to be able to show clearly how they did so, and the construction should always be fairly easy to show – there should be a subject, a verb such as “is” or “are,” and then something about Nazis or Communists. No one can do this with Durbin without adding words or phrases that change the meaning of what he said. If you have to do this, you are not honestly addressing the words he actually spoke. Who did he actually call a Nazi?

Thus this week when Karl Rove said that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers … or"liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies'" I was outraged, but I was further outraged by the fact that none of the conservatives who were so exercised by Durbin’s words saw fit to say anything. There is no question as to what Rove said and meant. None. And of course what he said is demonstrably wrong. Many, many, many liberals – Thomas Friedman, The New Republic in its entirety, dozens of politicians, small fries like myself, indeed, of folks who called themselves liberals, more than 80% supported military action in response. ( Andrew Sullivan has simply been fantastic on this Rove calumny.) Durbin, meanwhile, did not say that any particular people or group were Nazis. He tried to make a point, and it is clear, even as I defended him, that the point offended many, although I think it is as accurate to say that it allowed a lot of people to feign more outrage than they actually felt. For that I think Durbin was right to apologize, even if there was more than a little sense that conservative criticism browbeated him into making it.

Furthermore, what in particular was Durbin arguing? That mistreatment and torture, or things that look like torture, are wrong, are un-American, and that we should not be doing it. This is a pretty reasonable argument to make. This is why when some argued that Trent Lott stepped down from his leadership position, so Durbin should do so too, I was enraged. Trent Lott, 54 years after the defeat of the Dixiecrats, argued that it would have been better for America had Strom Thurmond, and not Harry Truman, won the 1948 election. The idea that there is any analogy whatsoever between Trent Lott advocating five decades after the fact a party that advocated white supremacy and implying that they were right and Dick Durbin making an ill founded comparison (if this is what he did) in which he opposed torture and other behaviors is simply ludicrous. In the end, the substance of someone’s speech – what they advocate – has to be more important than how they advocate it. That does not mean that we do not speak out against poor use of language, and especially hurtful language. But the difference between advocating the segregationist South and condemning actions while comparing them to Nazism is quite another.

There is also more than a hint of opportunism by the right on this matter. For most of the Clinton Presidency and beyond (more on this momentarily), Rush Limbaugh referred to feminists as “feminazis.” Consider this in all of its audacity: women who supported legislation providing for pregnancy leave, or who wanted a form of universal health care, or who simply sat on the Democratic side of the aisle were being compared to Nazi killers. This clever usage of the pun was part of the name Limbaugh had given them! Where were the critics on the right? I challenge those who disagree with me to name five prominent conservative columnists, politicians, academics, or other figures who spoke out against this ruthless, awful, craven bit of demagoguery.

Some might try to dismiss Limbaugh’s importance. This is nonsense. Limbaugh did not gain a profile that was high enough to get him a brief and ill-fated gig on Monday Night Football because he had critical insight into the intricacies of the zone blitz. As a cultural and media voice in the conservative sea change of the 1990s, Limbaugh was a crucial player. He still is. More people listen to his show than any other talk show on radio, and far more people – 20 million -- get their news and information from Limbaugh than from, say, the New York Times. Limbaugh even defended his use of the term as “right” and “accurate” the other day – after Durbin’s comments! (And after lying and saying he had not used it in years, despite having used it twice in April 2004, once in May 2004, and as recently as February of this year.)

Some might say that Durbin is a United States Senator, and Limbaugh is a radio personality, and thus it is right and just that we condemn one and ignore the other. But this in fact is all the more reason to be outraged at Limbaugh. The voters of Illinois can make the decision whether or not Durbin represents them. They can, in effect, fire him. We do not get this luxury with radio hosts or columnists. Furthermore, the right has already (rightly) expressed outrage over the fact that Amnesty International compared Guantanamo Bay’s prison facilities to a Gulag (even though, in the end, Amnesty International wanted to stop particular objectionable behaviors – what exactly is the motivation for using the term “feminazis”?). It is rather convenient for those on the right now to feign outrage while they apologize for Karl Rove or continue their silence regarding Rush Limbaugh. It is, alas, not surprising.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/28/2005

Mr. Simon,
I would not disagree with that assessment.

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/28/2005

Tom,
I must respectfully disagree. I do not believe that Moore’s generalizations are comparable to Rush’s since Moore’s exaggerations focus on one administration, and not (to my knowledge) all conservatives or all Republicans. I have read a line once about a comment he made about Americans in general, but that is the fullest extent that I can think of (just for the record, I am not a fan of Moore and believe that he has done more harm that good with his films and ultra-liberal books- fortunately, I believe his impact was only temporary).

I also do not believe that Republicans “trick” people into voting for them. Republicans do what Democrats do and what all politicians have always done: play to the themes that resonate with the people most likely to vote for them.

I would agree 100% with the fact that “there is plenty of silliness to go around.”

E. Simon - 6/28/2005

There tends to be more commonality in the responses to visceral/emotional scenarios than in the responses to intellectual questions, which naturally invite differentiation, and hence, a fractured audience of devotees. Think about it Marc, why is the following for virtually any rock group larger than that which would exist for a philosophical movement? People respond quicker and more predictably to an emotional appeal or one exerted through the force of one's personality. The issues more likely to be promoted today by the Democrats have lost the emotional strength of the appeal they had or the size of the interest they aroused in the 1930's and, to a lesser extent, the 1960's.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/27/2005

". . . there is plenty of silliness to go around. I think that we can agree that calling someone a Nazi/Commie/Catsam-family-member is just going too far . . ."

Tee hee! Had I been drinking milk, it would be coming out my nose.

dc

Tom Bruscino - 6/27/2005

There is no doubt that Limbaugh has a broad audience. Of course he does. He is extremely influential in recruiting/mobilizing rank and file Republicans. But I cannot tell you the last time I saw a conservative pundit or politician refer to the brilliant arguments of Limbaugh. In fact, the very few times I've listened to his show, I wa shocked about how fixated he seemed to be on how he had all the original ideas and everyone was copying him but giving him no credit. The point is that as long as I've been paying attention--which admittedly only goes back to the late 1990s--there has been a serious disconnect between Rush and conservative intellectuals and national Republican politicians. They just don't engage. They don't cite him. They don't pay attention to him. They try to ignore the fact that he is so effective with the rank and file. They just ignore him, generally. So of course they didn't say anything about the feminazi thing. They don't say anything about him. Ditto Savage and Coulter.

Last year this weekend, Fahrenheit 9/11 made only slightly less than Batman Begins did this year. We should not underestimate the influence--however ephemeral--of a Michael Moore. And I'm sorry, he is every bit as bad at making generalizations as a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage. Howard Dean as chair of the DNC has made some pretty strong and generalized comments about Republicans in the past few months, too.

I don't buy the What's The Matter With Kansas argument that Republicans have tricked yokels into voting with their hearts--eg: stopping them gays from marrying--instead of their heads or pocketbooks, and so their more likely to engage in personal attacks. The Republicans went overboard in the Clinton years, the Democrats have matched them in the Bush years. The point is that there is plenty of silliness to go around. I think we can all agree that calling someone a Nazi/Commie/Catsam-family-member is just going too far, and we should all try to call a person out when they do it. Right now, neither side wins (but that does not excuse Durbin, or Limbaugh, or whomever).

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/27/2005

It would be unfair for anyone to underestimate the power of Rush Limbagh or compare it to Franken or Moore, who are mere media personalities. Limbagh is far more than that, as the following 1993 article makes clear. An excerpt:

A month after George Bush's defeat by Bill Clinton last year, Reagan sent him the following unsolicited note:
Dear Rush,

Thanks for all you're doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I've retired from active politics, I don't mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.

I know the liberals call you "the most dangerous man in America," but don't worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be."

Sincerely, Ron

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-bowman080103.asp

The left simply has no equivalent, nor does it have any equivalent of Michael Savage or Ann Culter. One might find someone on the web who is the liberal equal of those people in scope of their condemnation, but he/she is not to be found on national papers, nor given the legitimacy of the national media over and over.

Derek Charles Catsam - 6/27/2005

Tom --
But you still have to condemn those people. At no point do I condemn them for sitting on the same side of the aisle. What I condemn is that I assume you cannot meet my challenge -- name five conservatives who spoke out against Limbaugh during the years (including this one) that he used the term "Feminazi." And Limbaugh has, again, 20 million viewers. He is not Al Franken. Limbaugh was a vital figure for the right in the 1990s and beyond, with tremendous power. And swo the hypocrisy is that suddenly now use of the word Nazi is verboten, but it was not when your side was silent about Limbaugh all of these many years while he provided a very useful wedge for the Republicans and conservatives. I'd place bets that i can establish a list of 20 liberals and Democratrs who blasted Byrd, and 20 conservatives who did the same to Lott. What i do not get is this pass that Limbaugh has gotten, the reverberations of which Republicans benefitted from for a decade.

dc

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/27/2005

Tom,
Your posts are well taken and appreciated. However, although my bias is freely admitted, I do believe that there are fundamental differences between how Democrats generally “attack” their opponents and how Republicans do and that this is a matter of where their constituents come from.

Republicans tend to focus on so-called personal traits (character, trust-worthiness, etc.) because their constituents are made up, at least in part, from social conservatives who value personal issues over policy ones. Fiscal conservatives will vote Republican so long as their economic policies remain constant but social conservatives need Republicans to aim for the heart of their opponent rather than the head. This explains why so many people who would otherwise benefit from Democratic issues vote Republican. As one such colleague told me, they follow their hearts, not their heads or their pocketbooks.

Democrats, by contrast, are made up mostly from diverse policy-centered constituents whose goals are specific policies rather than the individuals carrying them out. This is not to say that issues of trust and character don’t matter, they very much do, just like policies matter to Republicans. It is merely to say that the focus, the emphasis, and the attacks are generally aimed at different areas.

Although this is a brief and incomplete overview, I do believe it captures the point that I am trying to make, which is that it is not unfair to make certain generalizations even if they obviously do not apply to all Republicans or all Democrats. Personally, I would put the honesty, the civility, and the credibility of Frankin, Schultz, or Moore over Limbach, Hannity, and Culter any day of the week. None of the former (to my knowledge- correct me if I am wrong) have a habit of making blanket accusations against Republicans, or conservatives (quite the opposite, they often brag about their popularity among conservatives, though how accurate this is, who knows), whereas all of the latter do exactly that on a regular basis.

Tom Bruscino - 6/27/2005

Folks can follow at least part of the debate here: Big Tent: More On Durbin. Let me add that to me, the harm of Durbin's comments trump any good or bad intentions that might have been behind them.

That is pretty much all I want to say about this issue, but one thing: I'm not sure how productive it is for folks on either side to accuse the other of hypocricy all the time. Obviously both Derek and Marc are Democrats, and from their perspective, they see Democrats as engaging in self-criticism more effectively than Republicans. But to make blanket assertions, or to use responses to Rush Limbaugh as a litmus test, only opens Democrats up to the same charges in return. Who really wants to be held accountable for everything that the Randy Roberts, Al Frankens, Rush Limbaughs, and Michael Savages of the the world have to say, not to mention the Trent Lotts, Rick Santorums, Robert Byrds, or Richard Durbins, just because they happen to sit on the same side of the aisle on some issues?

Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/27/2005

Derek,
Your lamentation of the hypocrisy of all this is absolutely right on target. The problem is that rather than debate actual philosophical differences on the direction of the country or policy differences, politics today is a matter of point scoring, and very little else.

Thus we have Durbin, or Dean, or some other Democrat caught on camera saying something that looks embarrassing and it is all over the media. Generally speaking, this is an affliction that tends to effect Democrats more but not because Democrats make more outrageous comments. The reason is that when a Democrat says something, there is a chorus of condemnation you can count on from other Democrats as well as Republicans. When Republicans make such comments, their co-partisans tend to stand behind them 100% and defend them when asked, thus making the issue far more ambiguous. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but they are exceptions.