How the left wins political arguments: keep it simple, stupid
Commenter “Mrs Whatsit” send me a link to this article by Megan McArdle about the influence of elite insiders on the making of policy recommendations and explaining the rationale behind them to the public. Worth reading.
I want to highlight the following:
The net effect…was that the administration could make claims that were impossible to effectively refute in debate, because doing so required voters to follow lengthy technical discussions, and the readers had whole lives to live and didn’t have time to master the arcane art of…
The actual ending of the sentence was “CBO budget rules,” because McArdle is talking here about the passage of Obamacare. But it occurs to me that you could fill in the blank with almost anything politicians do and that the MSM covers, actions that neither the politicians nor the MSM actually want the public to understand in any deeper meaningful way. You would be talking about one big reason why spin and propaganda work.
I often make efforts on this blog to get the story behind the story, to research my posts and write in enough depth so that I’m not just repeating talking points or slogans. If it sometimes helps to make what I write tedious or long, so be it, but I tell myself that at least the process of doing the research has helped me understand the truth better, although never completely.
It happens all the time that I find the story behind the story to be fascinating, and very different from the spin. I came across that yesterday with the “Reagan and Bush gave executive orders on immigration, so what’s the big deal if Obama does the same thing?” argument Democrats were making. It’s the talking point you see everywhere from Democrats and the left and their minions in the MSM, sometimes accompanied by photos of Reagan. Obama last night alluded to the idea that he was only doing what all presidents have done (the unspoken corollary, by the way, being that acting as though it were different could only come from animus and/or racism towards him in particular).
It is completely untrue that he is only doing what Reagan or Bush or other presidents have done before him. Not all executive orders are alike. Not all executive orders that deal with loosening or extending a rule on immigration are alike, either, as I explained in this post yesterday. But understanding the reasons why what Reagan and Bush did was not at all the same as what Obama did would “require voters to follow lengthy…technical discussions” (in McArdle’s phrase about Obamacare). Obama and the Democrats and their supporters are bargaining right now, in the constitutional crisis over immigration that Obama has initiated, that (exactly as Gruber admitted re Obamacare) the majority of American voters are too stupid and/or too lazy to understand what’s really happening, and will passively accept the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument.
Therefore, especially if the MSM is on your side, it’s easy as pie to tell effective lies, if you’re bold and blatant enough, and no one has an interest in checking up on you.
Because the “Reagan and Bush did it” argument will be heard over and over again, it’s a good idea to revisit some of the salient facts, and the discussion isn’t really all that “lengthy and technical” (although perhaps more lengthy and technical than most people are willing to follow). I wrote some of the facts in my post yesterday, as I said, but I think the most interesting ones were actually quotes from Powerline in the “addendum” to that post. I’m going to repeat those quotes here, because I think it really shows how shameless the MSM is in ignoring and/or distorting history in order to influence people politically. Here’s Paul Mirengoff with a little history lesson:
The Act [passed by Congress in 1986] also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”
Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.
This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).
House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.
Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.
There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
See my post on the last thread on Lies…
Once the truth is absent the lie prevails
“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence”. Solzhenitsyn
It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes… we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions – especially selfish ones.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the 20th century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The next war… may well bury Western civilization forever.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lie #1: Every President has Taken Executive Action on Immigration
No other president has ever issued an amnesty of anywhere near this scope, created it out of thin air, or built it upon a prior executive action instead of a statute
Lie #2: Illegal Immigrant Crossings are Down
this is the third straight year that border crossings have gone up
Lie #3: It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently
Under the royal edict, the work permits can be renewed every three years, and most likely, they will be renewed at the same 99.5% acceptance rate as DACA applications
Lie #4: Only 5 Million
Make no mistake about it. Obama’s illegal amnesty will not just apply to 5 million individuals. It will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty
Lie #5: Deport Felons
e has done the opposite. 36,000 convicted criminal aliens were released last year, 80,000 criminal aliens encountered by ICE weren’t even placed into deportation proceedings, 167,000 criminal aliens who were ordered deported are still at large, 341,000 criminal aliens released by ICE without deportation orders are known to be free and at large in the US
Lie #6: Don’t deport families
bama is playing the family card. It works like this: people are encouraged to come here illegally, Obama grants them amnesty, then their relatives all get to come, even though they would otherwise be ineligible under public charge laws
Lie #7: They have to pay taxes to stay
Aside from the absurd notion that they would turn someone away for not paying taxes, almost every one of these illegal immigrants lacks a high enough income to incur a net positive tax liability
Lie #8: Background Checks
the reality is that Obama has already done this with DACA, and 99.5% of applications were approved, including those of criminals
Lie #9: Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border
what good are more agents if they are explicitly intimidated into turning a blind eye. Moreover, there is no promise to build a fence or implement a visa tracking system, so any talk of enforcement is an insult to our intelligence
Lie #10: Scripture tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger
There are different variations of this verse throughout the Bible, but each one uses the Hebrew word “Ger” to describe what Obama translates as “stranger.” A Ger is a convert to Judaism. The commandment was not referring to people who illegally migrate to a nation state. And more importantly, it is downright offensive to Americans to insinuate that not granting them benefits is tantamount to oppression
excerpted from: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2014/11/top-10-lies-from-obamas-nullification-speech
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obama gladly rebuts its own lies as soon as they are no longer useful. The Democrats don’t care what that does to its stooges — they will anyway string together some kind of explanation.
the original
Moscow gladly rebuts its own lies as soon as they are no longer useful. The Kremlin doesn’t care what that does to its stooges — they will anyway string together some kind of explanation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
OBama lies because he genuinely and honestly believes that there is no such thing as truth.
the original
Putin’s Russia lies because it genuinely and honestly believes that there is no such thing as truth.
I thought that that was one of the best pieces Megan McCardle has written in a while. And she’s right.
I think one reason people like this blog is that Neo is willing to take on and distill some of these “lengthy technical discussions”, enough so that her readers will get interested enough to want to dig into them themselves.
I’m an example with the ‘Gramscian Tide’ phenomenon, of which I was totally ignorant until I came here (and I continue to study it with ever-increasing dismay).
It does seem to me that defining “tweaking” of current law is a very difficult task. There’s a pretty good piece up at AOL highlighting this:
I’m having a hard time seeing Obama’s change to letting the sponsoring citizen be a non-adult is something completely different than the Reagan and Bush changes.
We used to be a serious nation with a serious place in the world. We did great things and thus we held serious debates in public.
Now, “it’s especially [easy] if the MSM is on your side, it’s easy as pie to tell effective lies….”
And so we no longer have any serious debate. This is as fine a reason as any other to leave a dying America. It’s deying, debate is dead, and dishonest plagues the body politic like a corpse in the sun, picked over by carrion.
McArdle is right and neo enlarges the point nicely.
Many of my contacts are former enlisted men from my Navy days. They are good people – hard workers, patriotic, and family oriented. Some are quite successful businessmen. But many of them get their information almost exclusively from the MSM. They have lives they are happy in and don’t want to get bogged down in the nitty gritty of politics and government policies. There are some days when I get upset because they are just drifting along without making the effort to understand the issues. But there are also days when I sometimes envy them. How much less stressful it would be to just coast along and accept what the MSM tells me. Like Alfred E. Neuman, “What, me worry?” 🙂 Unfortunately, I’m just not wired like that. I want to understand what’s going on and I am grateful everyday for neo and all her wonderful commenters. It’s like being a member of a college seminar where everyone is getting their say and we all are getting educated a bit more everyday.
Keep it simple and call anyone who disagrees a racist!
If you are on our soil without going through the process to be here legally you are by definition a criminal, period. Nothing that the messiah has done changes this simple truth.
Think for a moment about what this says about public debate; One is not arguing to sway minds, one argues to say, as Obama has about Obamacare, that an issue has been debated in the public forum. By implication, the govt’s duty to its citizens has been satisfied with a debate that has been reduced to the formalism of Kabuki theater.
And this outrage is perpetrated with the tax dollars forcibly wrung from our wallets and purses. Thank you Congress and Mr. President. May we have another?
And yet, there is, I believe, cause for hope. I just read this over at Ace of Spades (ace.mu.nu):
T,
I wish Ace were right. I truly do. And though I depend on my own observation and reading, what I am seeing is the opposite.
Watch this short video taken on our college campuses.
Oh yes, regarding the left’s (via Obama) actions, there is whining and complaints. There are eloquent and impassioned arguments and rebuttals. But yesterday’s outrage will soon become tomorrow’s norm and the ball has been moved just a little further down the field towards the goal line.
The republicans lack the courage to act in any meaningful way. They tremble and quake at the very word impeachment. They go along, because inside, they are not really much different. No meaningful reforms will occur regrading immigration, taxes, energy policy, you name it.
Bread and circuses all the way to the collapse. Because the one thing nobody will touch, the real third rail of American politics is the freebies government has given the citizens, poor, middle class, and rich.
All this outrage about Gruber saying in an unguarded moment, or moments what he thought was true. He was correct. We are that stupid. (By we I mean the everyone) We elected this phony twice!. We are so degenerate that such phonies, who would have been marginal clowns at best in a more serious age, are now considered serious.
If Ace is in any way right, it will be too little, too late. Nobody is willing to face the hard medicine of loosing their bread and circuses. Nothing has changed since ancient times.
Tim P,
I understand your frustration. I, OTH take a more optimistic view. Why? We’ve seen this before in history and Obama and his minions are simply too narcissistic to attend to the lessons of history. I also see it as a long term struggle. No waving of a magic wand to make things right in an instant. Also a quote at Ace (Reiner Maria Rilke quoted by Maetenloch):
“Wer spricht von Siegen? éœberstehen ist alles” – “Who speaks of victory? Endurance is everything”
Neo:
Nothing less than brilliant here.
Well said, Tim. Alas.
The story, in this case that Reagan did it, that goes along with the lie or talking point or misdirection or whatever is always heard repeated and repeated in propaganda style. I think that this is both an indication of the low opinion the propagandist has for the public and a way of telling himself that what any rational person would know to be crazy is really true. Believing the truth of the moment is very important to the psyche of someone whose life is a continual utopia psychodrama.
What sweeping changes can we hope to see come Jan. 20? McConnell and Boehner are not my idea of guys who want to tangle with no community organizers. Maybe an internal fight within the Republican Party? That might not be so bad.
Actually, there’s an even faster way of doing this.
In Australia, under their previous (leftist) PM Julia Gillard, who stopped enforcing border control – just like Obama – 3 illegal immigrant boats per day were arriving in Australia.
Under their current (centre-right) PM Tony Abbott, who started re-enforcing border control, that number dropped to zero.
Australia has a coastline of approximately 16k miles. The US/Mexico border is 2k miles long. Border control works.
Ann:
Did you read the quote at the end of my post? It explains the difference. Reagan and Bush were acting under powers granted them explicitly by an act of Congress that had just been passed, and they were carrying out the will of Congress. In fact, objections to what they did centered mainly on the idea that they hadn’t gone far enough in their actions.
Obama is acting instead of Congress, in order to thwart its will and do what it has explicitly refused to do. He used to make statements that clearly recognized that fact, over and over. Now he has turned on a dime.
Ann: I’m having a hard time seeing Obama’s change to letting the sponsoring citizen be a non-adult is something completely different than the Reagan and Bush changes.
Thats because you dont know what is required of a sponsor. In order to be a sponsor, you have to fill out form I-134 Affidavit of Support or form I-864
I-134 – To show that visa applicants have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States. The sponsor must file a separate affidavit for each applicant.
I-864 – This form is required for most family-based immigrants and some employment-based immigrants to show that they have adequate means of financial support and are not likely to rely on the U.S. government for financial support.
That is the sponsor, in the case of my wife and i, has to sign a form that basically says that if things go sour, and they cant work, you will support them NOT welfare, or other programs of the state, and will do so for a minimum of three years.
with US child labor laws, how can a child sponsor someone and pay their rent and lodging and food and all that if the person sponsored cant?
The “child” cant support the adults
the “child” cant legally enter into a binding contract
the “child” is not legally allowed to work until a certain age and without parental permission
ergo ipso facto – you know the rest…
and under US law
as far as how they win arguments, they dont.
they validate belief (without truth or validity being an issue), and ignore facts.
in order to win by facts the subject has to accept that these are the facts, and accept losing if they are not with the facts.
most liberals will say things like, i dont believe thats true, they dont believe that it “should be that way” etc
so one side is arguing reality, the other side is arguing the validation of beliefs understanding that one believes reality, not confirms it by fact – including validating that they believe they are being factual, or fact based. their beliefs are confirmed by zeitgeist numbers, not by details.
so you have one side saying what people want to believe, do believe, and believe because so many are the same in their ideas… while the other side says, look, these are the facts, they impose these limitations, and so on and so forth.
one requires acceptance of what one already believes the other requires belief to change to be accepted.
this is what hitler did as to jews… what obama does with race… plays on beliefs, not on facts, and their side of the system plays games to establish the right beliefs before they take advantage of them, often by forcing the social group by shame, or other methods till it exists long enough those who are younger believe what those who are older portray by fear of social aprobation
so women are equal, men are scum
older people know women are not equal, but act as if they are, and so do not oppose laws of affirmative action (a thing that proves inequality) and fear of legal trouble, social trouble, etc. molds the behavior. young people growing up follow the beliefs they pick up, not the facts of the cargo cult front imposed by social games.
so by establishing some fake rule that pretends that equal numbers would exist if there was no racism, they get to confirm the belief that blacks do not behave differently than whites, who behave differently than chinese, etc. (ie. levels of physical aggressiveness and impulse).
they pin the difference on culture and hate of blacks an you have a hard time fighting belief. the math gives them some crutch of an excuse which lets them hang on to the belief the way a water cooler in the ocean allows one to survive a shipwreck
so the facts of things dont matter. ferguson is a good example, of their desire to use believe to impose a reality, rather than allow reality to create their beliefs.
is it any wonder that leaders who understand this look down on the idiot rubes?
T with regard to the media and Democratic Party being taken down:
1) have you (or anyone else) noticed whether Obama has lost an once of popularity over this. Polls at RCP do not reflect any.
2) Obama & the Dems won the youth vote in the last elections. People do not give up ideas that prove bad, they die off and better ideas take their place. That means the anti-Dem/left-wing fascist ideas have a better chance of dying out.
In short, it is way too early to think the left-wing fascist Obama is finished. A people stupid enough to elect and re-elect something like him cannot boast of being a nation of quick learners.
BTW, the book Camp of the Saints describes a world in which a mass migration of third world poor descends on Europe. I don’t know how it ends.
It sounds like we agree.
Remember half of the voting electorate voted against him. If the “Romney wasn’t conservative enough” faction would have shown up in force at the polls to at least vote against Obama he would not have a second term, but perhaps in the long term that was for the best. This way, as his administration fully implodes he’s denied the “If only I’d had more time” excuse.
It’s way too early to make predictions about where this goes. I, writing for myself however, don’t see defeat as the only possibility.
100+Million corpses last century were how they “won the argument”. Worth remembering in this vapid age of nearly instant forgetting.
But, then, the Twin Towers came down in Manhattan a scant few years ago and the high minded, short puckered slicks elected and re-elected The Bama and the nausea provoking new Lefty Mayor. Stalin is grining knowingly.
Hmmmmm….Seem to be having a cynicism attack today.