When it comes to political discourse, I would argue that that there are some things that are out of bounds. For example, there is no need for analysts/pundits/whomever to engage in personal attacks. Another behavior that ought to be out of bounds is the direct equation of one’s political opponents with the enemies of one’s country. Such behaviors strikes me as a rhetorical accusation of treason and that is utterly unproductive and totally uncalled for. Further, it is poor(if not juvenile) argumentation and an unproductive approach if ones goal is actual persuasion. Of course, if one simply wants to score cheap points with one’s own boosters, then I suppose that one really isn’t interested in either analysis nor persuasion.
Of course, this type of “analysis” is typical for Hugh Hewitt.
No matter how strained a reading Josh Marshall can conjure up, bin Laden thought the Democrats were to be his partners in creating the world he wants to live in.
(Emphasis in the original).
You know, if all OBL wants is to raise taxes, legalize gay marriage and institute universal health care (or whatever else one might tag as Democratic policy goals), I don’t think we need to be too worried about him. I mean, please: what in the world can one say that OBL would want to “partner” with the Democrats to do? I really have a hard time seeing the Democratic Party of the United States to be especially interested in OBL’s vision of the world. As such, what in the world in Hewitt talking about?
The answer, of course, is that he is spouting nonsense, yet it is nonsense that apparently helps him earn a living, I suppose.
Ultimately, this is just another example of the utterly remarkable nature of Hugh Hewitt’s partisanship–a breed of partisanship that is thoroughly unhealthy for our national discourse, and yet one that far too many people seem to enjoy. One can prefer one party to the other, and one can think that one party is better than the other in terms of security policy or whatever else one may like. However, the notion that there is any congruency between OBL’s vision of the world and that of Democratic Party is simply ludicrous. Indeed, Hewitt is either delusional or saying what he thinks his audience/readers want to hear.
And yes, I am aware that Hewitt isn’t the only one, and that there are those on the left who do similar things. Still, I happen to read this quote, and hence this is the quote I commented upon.
h/t: Andrew Sullivan
Updated: half-completed sentence above fixed.
Sphere: Related Content
September 9th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The Knucklehead of the Day award
Today’s winner is Hugh Hewitt.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Steven,
Thanks for leaving that sentence incomplete.
Either Hewitt is delusional or as I finished it. Today’s Knucklehead of the Day.
Cheers,
Bill
September 9th, 2007 at 8:28 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor writes- You know, if all OBL wants is to raise taxes, legalize gay marriage and institute universal health care (or whatever else one might tag as Democratic policy goals), I don’t think we need to be too worried about him. I mean, please: what in the world can one say that OBL would want to “partner” with the Democrats to do? I really have a hard time seeing the Democratic Party of the United States to be especially interested in OBL’s vision of the world. As such, what in the world in Hewitt talking about? [...]
September 9th, 2007 at 8:29 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor writes- You know, if all OBL wants is to raise taxes, legalize gay marriage and institute universal health care (or whatever else one might tag as Democratic policy goals), I don’t think we need to be too worried about him. I mean, please: what in the world can one say that OBL would want to “partner” with the Democrats to do? I really have a hard time seeing the Democratic Party of the United States to be especially interested in OBL’s vision of the world. As such, what in the world in Hewitt talking about? [...]
September 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
[...] Like comments by Hugh Hewitt that I noted over the weekend, I find it problematic (to be kind) to basically accuse those with whom one has policy differences of what amounts to treason. And no, I am not being hyperbolic here–to say that critics are actively using their words to further the defeat of the United States, with the commensurate death of troops such a scenario entails, is to say that they are traitors. While it is hardly impossible to envision persons acting out of brazen self-interest to the point that their actions could be traitorous. However, for foreign policy experts to have an intellectually honest disagreement with Podhoretz hardly constitutes seeking America’s defeat, it is called having a different opinion. Last time I checked, having one’s own opinion was wholly appropriate, nay even constitutional, in the United States of America. And while one may wish to gripe about the media, the bottom line is that Podhoretz doesn’t like the media coverage because it isn’t saying what he wants it to say. [...]