Matt Bai’s False Equivalence on Dissent
Since it used to be that George W. Bush was President, but now Barack Obama’s president, and Bush was a Republican but Obama’s a Democrat, it seems that the new lazy cliché is to hold that everything is just the opposite of what it once was. Thus Matt Bai writes:
Such an acknowledgment of common purpose has all but vanished, as the realignment in American politics — a hardening of regional loyalties that began with battles over civil rights and Vietnam — deepened the cultural divisions in Washington. Each party has demonized the other and embraced the notion that dissent can have no moral or intellectual value.
Really? Brendan Nyhan calls this a “classic case of false equivalence” and says “some Democrats have certainly criticized or undermined dissent, I’m not aware of any evidence comparable to the pattern of vicious attacks on dissent by Republicans between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the end of George W. Bush’s time in office.”
I would distinguish between the “demonization” issue and “the notion that dissent can have no moral or intellectual value” issue. On demonization, sure, if it’s a day that ends in “y” people are demonizing their political adversaries. But there was a specific “wartime” contention being put forward during the Bush years which held that strongly-worded political criticism of the Bush administration was, as such, undermining American national security. I genuinely don’t think anyone’s made an equivalent claim. Indeed, all the most prominent progressive voices I’m familiar with have themselves engaged in fairly strong criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to some issues. This reflects an important and somewhat enduring difference between the political parties. The Republicans are much more reliably conservative than the Democrats are progressive.
You can’t understand contemporary politics if you don’t understand that.
15 Responses to “Matt Bai’s False Equivalence on Dissent”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 9th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
How long have you been looking for a reason to post a picture of a demon? To be fair, though, the demon is pretty cool.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
But there was a specific “wartime” contention being put forward during the Bush years which held that strongly-worded political criticism of the Bush administration was, as such, undermining American national security.
Yeah but were people outside the Village really cowed by that “contention”? My view is that most people had more spine – it’s not like they were going to throw you in jail – although Yoo did flirt with limits on free speech amazingly enough.
You have to be fearless like Rorschash in prison: “You don’t understand, I’m not in here with you, you’re in here with me!”
March 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
virtually none of the coverage I’ve read of Republican criticisms of Obama’s economic strategy is taking note of the fact that the alternative being offered us is insane. Recall that John McCain was calling for an economy-destroying spending freeze back during the campaign and nobody seemed interested in how nutty that was.
It’s kind of bizarre to decry “partisanship” when the minority party is basically demanding we throw the country’s economy over a cliff.
At a certain point, reporters have to stop acting as though increasingly insane Republican policy proposals are being offered in good faith, and start pointing out that the obvious political calculation here is that they’d rather run against Hoover in 2010 than FDR, so they’re demanding Obama follow Hoover’s policies.
At this point, we’ve seen them rail against deficits in a recession, which is bad enough. But it comes after 30 years of driving them up and on the heels of 3 weeks ago, all the Republican members of the Senate voting for $3 Trillion in deficits to finance high-income tax cuts! They’ve backed a spending freeze! They’re deciding the hill to die on is earmarks, which represent 1% of the budget! They’re refusing to staff economic advisers’ positions as political payback!
The only arguably sane thing they’re suggesting is that we let the banks “fail.” But they’re being maddeningly unclear about this. If they were politically willing to vote for the funds to support nationalization, this would be a good thing. But they’re so maddeningly vague on the policy details it’s just as likely they want to liquidate everyone, which would basically usher in the Great Depression.
So, again, I’m wondering exactly when the fact that Republican policy proposals are demented and insane gets factored into the political coverage.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I’m increasingly convinced that, if it weren’t for the intellectual subsidies constantly provided by our “liberal media,” the Republican Party would have the same level of support as the Libertarian or Green parties at this point.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
You cannot understand contemporary politics, at least, with regards to the word ‘dissent’ unless you understand that when non progressives use the word there’s always a joke lying at the bottom of it.
Using the word ‘dissent’, say a few years ago, when being against something like the Iraq war, implies that the ‘dissenter’ is like someone under the USSR or something, that it’s an act of physical courage. Most non progressives thought that progressive types who described their disagreement as ‘dissent’ were more than a bit ridiculous in this regard. When a righty nowadays says something like now that Obama is the POTUS, dissent is no longer the highest form of patiotism is poking fun at people who use the term unironically. Maybe the joke is a bit too meta for the people being ridiculed to get though.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Beware any argument that focuses on forms and ignores content. If I’m reading Yglesias correctly, he’s disagreeing with the superficial problem in Bai’s work, but ignoring the deeper problem.
To say that the Republicans “demonized” people – and to suggest that this is necessarily wrong – is to ignore the content of the Republican claim. Republicans claimed that folks who favored a traditional reading of civil liberties, for example, were threats to the survival of the United States. This claim is problematic because it’s deeply vicious and false, not merely because it’s deeply vicious.
Demonization of demons is appropriate. You have to judge claims based on their content, not just their form.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Is that picture from a Monster Magnet album cover?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
the conclusion seems a bit bass-ackwards here. Democrats being more likely to criticize Obama than Republicans were Bush somehow means that “Democrats are less reliably progressive” than the Repugs are conservative?
not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you had to go through to get there, but your reasoning really seems to support the opposite conclusion. criticizing one’s own party leader can certainly indicate one who is “more progressive”.
of course Matt Bai’s piece is ridiculous on its face. but Republicans are such god-awful whiney losers that we can expect nothing less. they will cry and moan and whine and drool all the day long, and really, its best to ignore them for now. the idea that dissent has been crushed by the Obama administration is so laughable it’s pathetic. there is certainly no evidence of any such thing having happened, or anything close. what is true – is that these guys have been losing every argument now, since 2006 or so. every one. and in their still under-developed minds, that is the same thing as ‘crushing dissent’. they don’t feel quite as free to just make shit up anymore. and to them, that means they’re being oppressed, because, well, they’re used to just making shit up.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
There are more DINOs than RINOs.
But they weren’t blindly obedient to their president, Bush. They revolted on TARP I: The Beginning as did some “progressives” although TARP I probably gave us some breathing space.
Republicans are independent enough to know when to revolt in the name of insanity.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Bai angers me, but the Sunday Times Magazine angers me even more by its biased roster. Among its regular contributors and writers of the opening editorial or column, he’s the representative of the Democrats or liberals, for goodness sake.
He’s also, of course, just plain unimaginative and repetitive, as well as wrong and harmful to progress. His one note, again and again, is that the Democrats must move to the center. He’s found so many forms in which to say this that it’s hard to remember them. There was the article praising Senator Clinton as the future of the party and likely nominee because, well, she wasn’t liberal.
This one is perhaps his most disingenuous. He could argue that moderating Obama’s proposals even more is good policy, but perhaps he knows he’s lost on that one. He could argue that it’s necessary politically to win GOP votes, but he has to admit quite explicitly that they simply refused. They were the extremists, much as Obama tried. He could argue that Obama set a great model for the future by starting to compromise, getting political brownie points with the public and setting a good tone even when the GOP isn’t persuaded by it.
But no, he has to say, well, it’s hopeless, but Obama has to become more of a compromiser than he is even if it’s bad policy and pointless, because it’s just the nice thing to do.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Bai HAS a point: we’re saying the same things about the GOP that they said about us for 6 years.
The difference is, we’re right.
As far as progressivism in the Dems, I think Matt’s point was that Blue Dogs are functionally Republicans. I think we’re seeing a new partisan divide, though; serious local politicians (in Ohio at least) are running as Dems, while only theocrats are running as GOP.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:09 am
“Indeed, all the most prominent progressive voices I’m familiar with have themselves engaged in fairly strong criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to some issues.”
heh indeed.
I think the key aspect is what you like to call “the hack gap,” not differences in intensity and uniformity of ideology.
The absolutely absurd aspect of Bai’s false equivalence is the implicit assumption that only the opposition party ever criticizes.
In fact, there is a vigorous debate among Democrats. I would guess that many of the progressive voices you have in mind are on my blogroll. They are absolutely wiling to accept criticism of Obama as legitimate, because they criticize Obama, often from the left.
There is no equivalence in the degree of partisanship, party discpline and duckspeaking. Republicans said a Republican President shouldn’t be criticized, Democrats criticize an Democratic President (and this is nothing compared to what we said about Clinton or Carter, or, of course, Johnson).
The parties are very different. I think it is not just that Republicans are more conservative than Democrats are
leftist, uhm liberalprogressive.They are emotionally very partisan (even more than we are) they are disciplined, a lot of them are hacks.
There are no Paul Krugmans or Glenn Greenwalds on the right (there used to be conservatives willing to criticize Republicans but they were banished for criticizing Bush).
March 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am
>Each party has demonized the other and embraced the notion that dissent can have no moral or intellectual value.
Just like all those extremist blogs that Joke Line wrote about but could never name even one when he was called on it.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I would say that the hipsters have done a pretty good job demonizing dissent from the reigning orthodoxy on abortion and sexual morality.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Great page I will be a return visitor!.
I am from Yemen and learning to speak English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Save with coupons, deals promotions at couponmountain.”
Waiting for a reply
, Taite.