Straw Man Politics and The Great Rhetorical Divide

Karl Rove's recent comments regarding the "liberal" response to 9/11 have deeply offended most liberal Americans (myself included). The reason Rove's remarks are so infuriating is that they baldly mischaracterize the position of nearly all serious minded liberals. Yet this should surprise no one. Rove's remarks are just another example of the rhetorical device that has become the primary method of persuasion among conservative pundits and politicians over the last decade: the straw man argument. In this age old method of argumention, an advocate manufactures a position (a straw man) and claims that it's the position held by his opponent. He then contrasts this looney position with his own, setting up a false dichotomy. The straw man argument has been a staple of American political discourse since the founding of our country. In the past, however, the use of this particular rhetorical device was limited in large part by the nature of the news media. For most of our country's history, the mainstream press corps served as a check on excessive straw man politics (and deception in general). A politician or pundit who went too far in mischaracterizing his opponents' positions (or basic facts) would lose credibility in the eyes of the media gatekeepers. He would be marginalized and his views would be debunked or simply ignored. If politicians wanted coverage, they had to confine their rhetoric to a zone of reasonabless, and this meant refraining from grossly mischaracterizing the views of the opposition.

But the major media outlets no longer have this gatekeeping power. The arrival of alternative media outlets like FoxNews, talk radio, and the internet have allowed politicians and pundits to bypass the old media filter. They are now free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and they can be assured that the message will find an audience. As a result, our political discourse today essentially operates on the honor system. In such system, those who do not wish to fight fair can use straw man tactics to great effect.

Though there are certainly offenders on both sides of the political spectrum, I strongly believe that conservative pundits and politicians have disproportionately engaged in these deceptive tactics. I believe that, on the whole, conservative politicians and commentators have shown a far greater willingness over the last decade to make intentionally misleading claims and resort to arguments which are fundamentally dishonest. Take for example, Bush's statements on Social Security Reform. Bush routinely tells audiences that the Social Security program will go "flat broke" and you "won't see a dime" unless we fix it immediately. These claims are patently untrue, and remarkable in their sheer brazenness. I can't think of a major Democratic policy position which rests on such a demonstrably untrue premise. Similarly, toward the end of the 2004 election, Bush's stump speech and television ads were chalked full of entirely dishonest characterizations of John Kerry's positions on a variety of issues. Bush fundamentally misrepresented Kerry's positions on health care, the war in Iraq, and foriegn policy, just to name a few. Kerry's speeches and ads, in contrast, while strongly criticizing Bush's positions, contained few (if any) outright mischaracterizations or lies. In the world of the liberal and conservative media, the tactics are similarly asymmetrical. For example, if a neutral fact-checker were to compare a typical radio program of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh with, say, an episode of Al Franken's show, it wouldn't even be close. Franken may be equally partisan, but his rhetorical style is far far less deceptive. Indeed, like many other liberal commentators, he spends the vast majority of his time debunking the deceptive rhetoric of his conservative counterparts. For yet another example of this phenomenon, contrast the New Republic (a liberal magazine) with conservative magazines such as the National Review and Weekly Standard. The New Republic writers routinely publish articles that question liberal conventional wisdom and go out of their way to praise conservative politics and conservative policies that they agrees with (a recent TNR cover stated "Was Bush Right all Along?" Just try to imagine Clinton getting similar coverage from the Weekly Standard or National Review). More importantly, when the writers of the New Republic criticize conservative ideas, they almost always presents them in their most favorable light before dismantling them. In clear contrast, the writers of the Weekly Standard and National Review, though clearly intelligent and articulate, rarely, if ever, give a fair shake to opposing points of view. They instead rely on straw man arguments to make their own positions seem stronger and to avoid the most troubling arguments to the contrary.

Bear in mind, I am not suggesting that, on a substantive level, liberals are more often right than conservatives (that's an issue-specific question). Nor am I questioning the genuineness of conservatives' beliefs; my point is merely to contrast the methods of persuasion commonly employed by each side. I honestly believe that, on average, conservative commentators and politicians are far more willing to employ intellectually dishonest arguments in making their case. I think conservative commentators and politicians are (again, on average) far more likely to treat their readers/listeners/voters as rubes by distorting facts and using deeply disengenous arguments. In other words, they are more willing to abuse the honor system that governs our political discourse. Unfortunately, the mainstream press, in its obsessive desire to be perceived as "balanced," does not distinquish between substance and strategy. They simply report what both sides are saying, even when one side is being far more deceptive than the other.

So if you accept my assertion that there is a qualitative difference in the rhetoric style employed by each side (which I expect many of you won't), the next obvious question is why. Why don't liberals simply use the same tactics and even the playing field? This is a difficult question, but I do have a theory. I believe that liberals find it much harder to reconcile the use of deceptive tactics with their basic worldview. True liberals define themselves by how they approach problems. Their belief system is based on empiricism and basic notions of fairness. Liberals, therefore, generally believe that their positions on issues are empirically and morally sound and will prevail over competing views on their own merits, without the need for deception. Moreover, the primacy of concerns for fairness and justice naturally lead to a more deontological ethics. For liberals, the ends generally do not justify the means, and process has intrinsic value. Liberals, therefore, often feel very uncomfortable using deceptive or misleading tactics, even in the pursuit of a good cause. They view it as being inconsistent with their core belief system. Many conservatives, on the other hand, believe strongly in higher truths, often religious truths. This leads to a more teliological sort of ethics, one which places more importance on the ends than the means. As a result, conservatives are more willing to use whatever means necessary to accomplish the ends they seek. There is less importance placed on process. Tactics which are misleading and disengenous are implicitly justified by the importance of the ends being sought. The result is a greater willingness to engage in straw man arguments, to mischaracterize and dissemble in an effort to persuade.

As a final note, let me again emphasize that I am speaking in general terms. There are certainly "liberals" out there who employ deceptive tactics and there are conservatives with the utmost intellectual integrity. This issue, like most issues, is not a matter of black and white, but rather shades of gray. I do believe, however, that there is a real and noticeable difference between the general quality of discourse across the political spectrum.