What is "partisan" ? Part II
Glenn Greenwald calls out the extraordinary hypocrisy of Charles Krauthammer, from his undeserved Washington Post national platform, attacking anyone who dares raise any question about our minimal gun control laws in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, and doing so only one day after using it as a Fox News talking head to say the killings were inspired by Al-Jazeera and the Palestinians.
Yesterday, I slammed the thoughtless use of the word “partisan” to describe adherence to what can only be described as core, central, mainstream American values. This, however, brings up another wrinkle to legitimate use of the word. I don’t think people on either side of the gun debate, whether they use this incident to raise the issue or not, are being “partisan” in the way the word is usually intended – as Krauthammer said, “to score political points.”
No matter how you slice it, this is a serious, heartfelt debate about matters of grave public importance. As profoundly stupid as I think they are, those I consider to be the “gun nuts” – the people who have this compelling belief that the 2nd Amendment allows absolutely no restriction whatsoever on any person being able to obtain and use any weapon that is designed to send a projectile of any size or shape into either an animal or another human being, and to kill it – are without doubt sincere in their belief that events like Virginia Tech are the price America has to pay for freedom. They also sincerely believe that events like Virginia Tech and Columbine pose a threat to their beliefs, and they react. Likewise, those who want more gun control laws are sincerely trying to find ways to prevent some really awful things from happening, and they think such events make the need to find solutions obvious.
People who advance strongly felt positions on important matters of public policy are not trying to “score political points.” Even if they are seeking political support in the process, that is irrelevant if it is a genuinely-held belief. In reality, it is the accusation itself that is actually partisan because it is unjustified, and is an attack on the opponent personally, and not on the issue. “Partisan” is generally used as a pejorative. What it really means in the context of our political discourse is that the only motivation for a position or argument is to advance one’s party even if the argument is faulty. Those few Senators trying to pretend the Justice Department scandal is not a serious matter are being “partisan,” because they know perfectly well that it represents an attempt to undermine the historic bipartisan compromise that has been designed to assure the integrity of all the U.S. Attorneys. The only reason they are saying that is that Gonzales is a Republican appointed by a Republican President.
But there’s even more in the case of Krauthammer here. What takes the Krauthammer hypocrisy above and beyond is the extraordinary jump in logic. He is not making the 2nd amendment argument (to which I suspect he has opportunistically flip-flopped in recent years for, yes, purely partisan purposes), but is attempting to use the tragedy to dredge up support for his disgraced anti-Islamic neo-conservative ideology. It is being used to resurrect himself and the Republican Party politically out of the disaster they have created. Is that partisan or what?
Yesterday, I slammed the thoughtless use of the word “partisan” to describe adherence to what can only be described as core, central, mainstream American values. This, however, brings up another wrinkle to legitimate use of the word. I don’t think people on either side of the gun debate, whether they use this incident to raise the issue or not, are being “partisan” in the way the word is usually intended – as Krauthammer said, “to score political points.”
No matter how you slice it, this is a serious, heartfelt debate about matters of grave public importance. As profoundly stupid as I think they are, those I consider to be the “gun nuts” – the people who have this compelling belief that the 2nd Amendment allows absolutely no restriction whatsoever on any person being able to obtain and use any weapon that is designed to send a projectile of any size or shape into either an animal or another human being, and to kill it – are without doubt sincere in their belief that events like Virginia Tech are the price America has to pay for freedom. They also sincerely believe that events like Virginia Tech and Columbine pose a threat to their beliefs, and they react. Likewise, those who want more gun control laws are sincerely trying to find ways to prevent some really awful things from happening, and they think such events make the need to find solutions obvious.
People who advance strongly felt positions on important matters of public policy are not trying to “score political points.” Even if they are seeking political support in the process, that is irrelevant if it is a genuinely-held belief. In reality, it is the accusation itself that is actually partisan because it is unjustified, and is an attack on the opponent personally, and not on the issue. “Partisan” is generally used as a pejorative. What it really means in the context of our political discourse is that the only motivation for a position or argument is to advance one’s party even if the argument is faulty. Those few Senators trying to pretend the Justice Department scandal is not a serious matter are being “partisan,” because they know perfectly well that it represents an attempt to undermine the historic bipartisan compromise that has been designed to assure the integrity of all the U.S. Attorneys. The only reason they are saying that is that Gonzales is a Republican appointed by a Republican President.
But there’s even more in the case of Krauthammer here. What takes the Krauthammer hypocrisy above and beyond is the extraordinary jump in logic. He is not making the 2nd amendment argument (to which I suspect he has opportunistically flip-flopped in recent years for, yes, purely partisan purposes), but is attempting to use the tragedy to dredge up support for his disgraced anti-Islamic neo-conservative ideology. It is being used to resurrect himself and the Republican Party politically out of the disaster they have created. Is that partisan or what?
posted by KISSWeb | 1:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home