The Democrats' Shameful Rhetoric
By Jeffrey Folks
AmericanThinker.com
There are many ways to refute an argument. The proper way to do so is with ideas, with rational argument, and with facts. If you are considering a reduction of the federal budget by $61 billion, don't resort to scare tactics. Check out what happened the last time budgets were cut toward the end of a recession -- for example, during the early years of the Reagan administration. In that case, budgetary restraint preceded two decades of unprecedented economic expansion.
It's also reasonable
to make
deductions
from fundamental principles. Conservatives
who believe in the right of self-defense
have truth on their side. Instinctively,
every human being knows that one has the
right to self-defense when attacked. From
that truth one can deduce that one has a
right as well to the means of
self-defense.
For the left in recent years,
none of these legitimate forms of argument
have been an option. This is because the
left is fundamentally lacking in ideas. The
"truths" that the left relies on are
intellectually specious. These fraudulent
ideas include the notion that all human
beings have a right to an equal share of
society's wealth; that government exists to
control the lives of its citizens and to
redistribute wealth; and that these
principles are universal and so must involve
the redistribution of wealth from rich
nations to poor ones.
None of these truths are
self-evident to anyone except ideologues on
the left. Most human beings immediately
recognize that egalitarianism and
centralized state control are bad ideas.
For this reason, it is impossible for
Marxists to engage in rational argument
based on ideas: they resort instead to crude
forms of abuse.
When Bill Clinton
turned to the audience in his 1992 town-hall
debate with George H. W. Bush and mockingly
said, "He just doesn't get it," that was not
a form of rational debate. It was mockery.
Exactly what was meant by Clinton's
statement is unclear. What, exactly, was it
that Bush did not get? Clinton either could
not or would not say. But the sneering
derision of his remark gained him points, at
least with the Democratic
base.
They too were convinced that George Bush,
Sr. did not get it.
Mockery has always been a
staple of playground disputation. If you
can't beat your opponent with ideas, mock
him. That particular technique has been a
staple of leftist rhetoric as well for the
last 20 years. It was popular not just with
Bill and Hillary Clinton but with the young
staffers who accompanied them to the White
House, and it's just as popular today.
The latest wrinkle in this
disgraceful history of rhetorical abuse is
Obama's practice of labeling his opponents
"children." Directing his remarks
especially to Speaker Boehner, the President
implored Congress
to "act like grown-ups."
"We don't have time for
games," said the President, even as he
rejected the GOP proposals out of hand.
This from the man who has increased the
national debt by $4.5 trillion.
Pretending that he is the
adult in the matter and that Congress is a
kindergarten full of screaming brats (but
that only the Republicans are at fault) may
seem like a good tactic to those directing
Obama's reelection effort. But it does
nothing to lead the discussion in a useful
direction. Like all forms of derision, it
is a way to avoid discussion altogether. It
is the President's way of saying he has no
intention of advancing any kind of ideas on
the budget. As Obama made clear in his 2012
budget proposal, his idea is to raise the
national debt to $41 trillion by 2030, thus
putting us in the same position as Greece,
Ireland, and Portugal, but with no one to
bail us out.
Obama may
think that calling the opposition "children"
is a good way to remain above the fray, but
this irresponsible ploy doesn't do the
country any good. It's the same thing as
calling the tea party "extremists," as Sen.
Chuck Schumer did last week (or suggesting
they were fascists as Nancy Pelosi was doing
a year ago). Likewise, labeling your
opponent the "Party of No" says nothing
about your own party and its
agenda.
Again, that is because
Democrats don't want to talk about their
agenda. How can you come out and say, "We
want to create a socialist welfare state in
America" or "We want to raise
taxes
to the point that the
economy
stagnates and American businesses are driven
overseas"? How about, "We want to turn the
country over to
union
bosses who will run every company into
bankruptcy the
way they did GM and Chrysler"? Those aren't
exactly ideas to campaign on. That's why
all the Democrats have left is mockery.
The rhetoric of derision is
already filling the airwaves in response to
Paul Ryan's thoughtful "Path to Prosperity"
budget proposal. Repeating
the
comments of
USAID administrator Rajiv Shah, Sen. Barbara
Mikulski of Maryland denounced the Ryan
budget proposal as a killer of children and
an assault on the elderly to boot. That
argument is a version of the playground
staple, "I'm not stupid, you are." ("I
don't starve kids and kick the elderly out
of their homes, you do!")
Most conservatives don't resort to this sort of rhetoric for the reason that they have not had to. Conservative thinking proceeds from a clear and undeniable truth: the truth that all human beings have a right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Because conservative thought never departs from this fundamental truth, it is never lacking in strong ideas. The idea that citizens have a right to live as they wish, and speak as they wish, without the interference of government is a truth that cannot be refuted. The notion that those who labor should be allowed to keep their income and spend it as they wish is a compelling idea. The idea that if we are to live in peace, we must be willing to defend ourselves against our enemies in undeniable.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture.