The Inequality of Equivalence

 

 

From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

 

equiv·a·lence

Pronunciation:

\i-ˈkwiv-lən(t)s, -ˈkwi-və-\

Function: noun

Date: circa 1541

1 a: the state or property of being equivalent b: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction

 

 

On Saturday, I posted this to my blog: http://mitch4president.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/a-call-for-sanity/

 

In it, I took the position that the rhetoric of John McCain, Sarah Palin and their campaign had created a potentially incendiary atmosphere at some of their recent rallies which was only being exacerbated by Barack Obama and his campaign by using terms like “erratic” when speaking about Senator McCain. I felt that further escalation in this vitriolic war of words could lead to an unfortunate and violent conclusion. I then called on both candidates to consider where this was going and offered a proposal for a return to sanity.

 

I also posted it to a ‘Friendly Political Ranting’ forum and these were the replies:

 

“I’m sorry– McCain is impulsive and unpredictable, and prone to explosive, vicious outbursts– I don’t think it’s below the belt at all for Obama to describe him as erratic.”

 

“I believe this also – it’s hardly dirty politics to point out these “flaws” that many of the rest of us see (and fear) also.”

 

“Me, three! Although sweet talking McCain is probably a very good idea right about now if there’s any hope that someone might read your letter and consider it. Saying “Senator McCain is “erratic”" might well be true, but you do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

 

“I have to agree on that point. Quoting wikitionary, “erratic (adjective) unsteady, random; prone to unexpected changes; not consistent” 

Where did anyone get the idea erratic had anything to do with describing someone’s age. “He’s erratic.” Does not equate with “He’s elderly.” Never has. The initial reference to Obama’s use of the word erratic as a negative reference to McCain being elderly, came from McCain’s campaign in their daily talking points. Just like McCain’s campaign quick reference to the word sexism when describing Obama’s campaign’s response to naming Palin as McCain’s running mate. Nobody’s ever equated the two words before. 

According to the dictionary, the use of the word erratic seems appropriate in describing McCain’s response once the economy grabbed the headlines: wandering around New York and DC when he was s’posed to be at the capital or white house, lying to Letterman to get out of his show and being caught giving the Couric interview on the SAME network, warbling on his ideas/statements and appearance at the debate (I’m being kind here.), etc, etc, etc.”

 

“I’ll fifth or sixth that. 

McCain’s campaign told out right lies. Obama described the behavior of a candidate who suspended his campaign and then didn’t; one who veered from pillar to post like a fighter that had taken an unexpected uppercut.”

 

“We were being specific about the latest round of vitriol, were we not? If we were then the McCain camp is truly the transgressor. If you want to go back then all sides will offend during the heat of a campaign. In that case I think it fair to measure the degree and volume of misleading sputum generated by each camp.”

 

And part of my response to the replies:

 

“With all due respect (and we all know what that phrase means), you seem to be missing my point. It’s not about what’s fair in politics. 

When McCain, and more predominantly Palin, rile up their crowds to the extent that they have, the people in those crowds cease thinking rationally because those types of attacks are designed specifically to appeal to the primitive portion of our brains. Obama’s use of the word “erratic” only serves to exacerbate a volatile situation, the escalation of which might cause someone who is already on the edge of reason to react in an unreasonable and potentially violent fashion. 

The point is the candidates for the highest office in the land should stop for just one short moment, think about where this could lead, and try to restore our collective sanity before something tragic occurs. Given this country’s history, that’s a real possibility. 

And if, after taking that breath, the two sides decide the best course of action is to keep throwing increasingly vitriolic epithets, then so be it. But keep this in mind: Fighting fire with fire only leads to bigger fires. And in this case, we could all get burned. “

 

Next came the message from Congressman John Lewis which said Senator McCain and Governor Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” and compared it to the tactics of Governor George Wallace which “created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.”

 

The McCain campaign responded, “The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama’s record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.”

 

Is Congressman Lewis equating Senator McCain with Governor Wallace? Of course not. Congressman Lewis is saying that he witnessed firsthand the result of Governor Wallace’s language and fears an equivalent response to Senator McCain’s. Whether or not the comparison itself has equivalence, is not relevant. What matters is the type of visceral response the comments of Senator McCain and Governor Palin provoke.

 

Then last night, came this exchange between Rachel Maddow, host of the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and David Frum a former speechwriter for George W. Bush:

 

 

 

 

The gist of Mr. Frum’s argument, as I see it, is that everyone, no matter how “small” their “plate” bears some responsibility for the degradation of the tone of our political discourse. Furthermore, when Ms. Maddow and others in her position use sarcasm and humor in their observations on substantive issues, it only serves to continue the downward spiral of that degradation and if we are to get an serious discussion of these issues, everyone must elevate the level and tone of their own rhetoric.

 

Ms. Maddow counters that there are “different kinds of discourse” and humor has its place among them. She argues that there is “something qualitatively different” between what she does on her show and the threats of violence a few members of McCain and Palin’s crowds have shouted in response to the candidates’ vituperative statements. I took that to mean that there is something of an equivalence quotient which can be used to gauge appropriateness.

 

They’re both right. Barack Obama has said, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” but when he and his spokespeople respond to the McCain-Palin’s riling of their crowds with harsh words, “fair” or not, of their own, it doesn’t serve to quell the anger or repudiate the smears and misinformation. It only serves to perpetuate the hostility which then results in hostility towards McCain and his supporters. Now, I’m not saying that attacks such as those perpetrated by the McCain campaign should go unanswered, but the way to fight angry lies is with truth, not more angry language. The word “erratic”, despite what Senator Obama and his surrogates say, is a reference to Senator McCain’s age and mental acuity. And if it is distasteful to me, an Obama supporter, imagine how it sounds to someone who is McCain supporter and already in an agitated state. When partisan surrogates and commentators appear on network and cable news and use their position to further spread their preferred candidates’ propaganda, it doesn’t add insight or perspective and their angry tone towards one another is just more fuel for the fire. 

 

The argument over who started it and that the degree of the transgressions somehow gives one side or the other a higher moral ground is specious at best. Sure you would prefer a candidate to be more circumspect before starting a war of words, but the response must be equally measured lest that war escalates into something far worse.

 

On the other hand, as Ms. Maddow pointed out earlier in that same show, when confronted with the absurdity of Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of President Bush’s ‘Saddam has WMDs’ justification for starting the War in Iraq, being in charge of this country’s strategy as to our own nuclear weapons proliferation—Mr. Wolfowitz thinks we need more—this fairly cries out for a cynically humorous commentary. I have watched the Rachel Maddow Show since its inception, and whereas I feel her colleague and mentor, Keith Olbermann, sometimes goes to far the tone of his snark, I don’t think Mr. Frum’s criticism  of Ms. Maddow, and his perceived role for her, are at all accurate or fair. Ms. Maddow treats serious matters with respect commensurate with their gravity and less serious issues with a lighter, often humorous touch. If it is Mr. Frum’s desire to remove all humor from our political discourse, he must first get politicians to stop saying and doing things which are patently ridiculous.

 

Ms. Maddow’s interview with Mr. Frum does serve to illustrate my original point. It shows that it is possible for people with disparate points of view to engage in an intelligent conversation even after one of them opens by insulting the other. Rather than countering Mr. Frum’s personal attacks with some manner of retaliation, she asked him to clarify his position and the two were ultimately able to have a civil discussion. Had Mr. Frum done the same thing with a more confrontational, less analytical host, it could have disintegrated into the kind of shouting match which is all too prevalent these days and which accomplishes nothing.

 

The third and final presidential debate is tomorrow night and Senator McCain has promised to raise the issue of William Ayres, the “washed up, unrepentant, domestic terrorist” whom Senator McCain claims he “doesn’t give a damn about”. We shall see if that actually happens and the response by Senator Obama.

 

 

Today’s random logic: Why is Senator Obama’s “relationship” to someone Senator McCain feels is irrelevant relevant?

 

.

Advertisement