Monday, June 30, 2008
Dumbing down Swiftboatary
Andrew Sullivan and others compare the left's attacks on John McCain's military record to "Swiftboating," which recalls the campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry in 2004. It is not, however, the best historical analogy that will catch on this year. Swiftboatary has been dumbed down:
...I must disagree with charges that McCain is being "Swift Boated." For this to be a "Swift Boating," people who stayed at the Hanoi Hilton would have to say that McCain was lying about what he did there -- or perhaps that his repeated claims that events there were "seared, seared" in his memory are false, and he was never actually there at all -- and those people would have to be telling the truth.
It would also get closer to Swiftboating if McCain compounded his public relations problem by refusing to release his military records because he did not want to reveal that he had lower grades in college than George W. Bush. Don't forget that.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jun 30, 10:09:00 PM:
A large part of the reason I object so strenuously to gay marriage is I am really sick and tired of words and phrases being redefined. On a weekly basis I run across definitions for old words that are completely different from what I was taught. When I was a kid "gang bang" had a sexual definition, now it has an organized crime connotation. It all feels so Orwellian. It has become very difficult to "mean what you say and say what you mean" in today's world. Add to the mix the "mulit-cultural" part and communicating in my profession has become very difficult. So, a pox on everyone who tries to change the meaning of words and phrases in English language, which already has the largest vocabulary in the world.
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 10:33:00 PM:
> the left's attacks on John McCain's military record
I think a more accurate phrasing would be something like "the left's attacks on John McCain's claims that his military record qualifies him for the presidency"...no?
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 10:49:00 PM:
Anon-
No, that is not even close to being more accurate.
Please identify anywhere that John McCain has said what you claim. He includes his military service in his resume, but it comes along with a few additional qualifications. Remember, as recently as 2004 the Democrats were saying that military service was an important asset for a candidate for President, which it is. Gen. Westly Clarke found out that it is not a good idea to attempt to smear a war hero, some people might object.
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 10:56:00 PM:
@ tyree: Words change through dynamic use, which is why Spanish, French, German and English are so similar as compared to the similarities between Latin and Greek. This has never been stopped in the history of time, and will not stop, probably ever. Also, gay marriage doesn't seek to redefine the religious institution of marriage; that's the Church's business, and they can do what they want. The gay marriage argument is that for purposes of the government, "marriage" is really just a streamlined contract to convey power of attorney, visitation rights, inheritance entitlements, and a few other things like unique tax status. To accomplish a similar thing in the private legal sector costs in excess of $10K at times, and even then hospitals and such may contest the contract. Why should a legal agreement be so streamlined for some and so expensive for others? Essentially, what part of the definition of legal marriage demands this two-tiered system, with some pairings paying thousands extra for the same thing? If the traditionalists that fought interracial marriage and fight gay marriage had a strong, sound and justifiable definition of legal marriage in the first place that didn't rely on one group's interpretations of divinity being inflicted on others, perhaps there wouldn't be so much of a problem.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Mon Jun 30, 10:59:00 PM:
I think a more accurate phrasing would be something like "the left's attacks on John McCain's claims that his military record qualifies him for the presidency"...no?
No. The idea that military service is a qualification came from Democrats -- see, e.g., the nomination of John Kerry, which had no rational basis other than the bizarre view that he was electable because he had served in the military.
I'd be delighted to agree that being shot down and languishing in prison is not inherently qualification for the presidency. The point about McCain's service comes down to this: his refusal to accept early release from the Hanoi Hilton and thereby endure years of mistreatment he could have avoided is evidence of (1) very strong character, and (2) that
John McCain understands leadership. Barack Obama has no such personal sacrifice to point to; that does not disqualify Obama, but it is a significant difference between the two men.
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 11:03:00 PM:
Anon,
That is why many on the right accept the idea of "Civil Unions" to address the issue as opposed to hijacking a concept that has had a fixed meaning for thousands of years. Let them have their rights, just let them build their own institution and leave marriage alone.
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 11:40:00 PM:
> Please identify anywhere that John McCain has said what you claim.
You really don't think the McCain campaign is using his military service as a qualification? From his website, his tagline is "John McCain...Courageous Service, Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions." 5 of the 9 paragraphs in his bio are about his military service.
I'm also a bit confused about the Kerry comments. Are you all claiming that Kerry was the first person ever to use military service as a qualification in the history of the USA? Even if this is true, could you then please spell out for me clearly how this constrains the McCain and Obama campaigns in this election cycle? I guess I missed the part where every new campaign signs a pledge to be 100% consistent with every campaign back through the founding of the county ;-)
By JPMcT, at
Mon Jun 30, 11:40:00 PM:
Swiftboat:verb. The act of any Republican campaign to publicly display an embarrassing but undeniably true fact about a Democrat that has heretofore been suppressed by the mainstream media.
Usage: variable. Democrats can be "swiftboated" when caught in a lie. Republicans are "guilty". A Republican cannot exercise the option to be "swiftboated".
By , at
Mon Jun 30, 11:54:00 PM:
"Let them have their rights, just let them build their own institution and leave marriage alone" sounds a lot like "I have nothing against them, so long as they kep to their own kind" Separate but equal is not equal, even if you think your bigotry and prejudice have the benefit of a long and glorious past. THe day will soon come where all of those opposed to gay marraige are viewed the same way as the George Wallace and his southern bigots who wanted to block the schools from those dirty negros.
p.s. homosexuality has been around forever...demonizing it has gone in and out of style for centuries.
By Sara (Pal2Pal), at
Tue Jul 01, 12:07:00 AM:
Anon: I don't think there is much quibble over the purpose of so called "gay marriage." But, why the insistence on the word marriage, why not call it what it really is, a domestic partnership or civil union? Leave marriage to those of us who believe our marriages vows to be sacred. If you are fine with a State sanction, then everyone, gay or straight, for any reason, who doesn't want the commitment in God's name can let the State sanction a domestic partnership.
By , at
Tue Jul 01, 01:26:00 AM:
Anon-
You didn't write that McCain's campaign was using his military service as "a qualification", you wrote "claims that his military record qualifies him for the presidency". Two very different meanings.
The change in the language I am talking about is plainly not "change through dynamic use", but change through political pressure. Policeman became police officer, chairman became chair, retarded became developmentally disabled, handicapped became differently abled, illegal alien became illegal immigrant became other migrant. I am sure you know exactly what I am talking about. Thousands of words have different meanings from when I first learned them and a lot of that change was forced onto us by politicians and the media. Perhaps you have never had anyone yell at while standing in the hot sun trying to raise money for the "mentally retarded" but I have. Of course, no new word can be used to substitute for marriage, that is a "special" word that has to have it's definition changed, who decided that? Not "We the People" thats for sure.
George Wallace.. yeah, he and his Democratic buddies were sure taught a lesson by the Republicans, it's too bad that the changes in the language and usage of it mean many people don't know the history of that era, and which party was on which side.
Your long post about the legal arrangement of marriage is wasted, we are talking about language.
Newspeak is not our friend, but it is a close ally of those who want to change the way people think, on both the right and the left.
By , at
Tue Jul 01, 01:38:00 AM:
> You didn't write that McCain's campaign was using his military
> service as "a qualification", you wrote "claims that his military
> record qualifies him for the presidency". Two very different meanings.
These seem like pretty much the same thing to me. I'm not sure what part you are picking at here...is it the "a" as in "one of many" vs. the implied singular in "qualifies" that bothers you?
I will try to be more precise in the future...maybe something like "McCain devotes 68% of the bio on his website to his military service" ;-)
By , at
Tue Jul 01, 09:21:00 AM:
Anon-
Your wrong. The two statements are very different, and one doesn't need to be an English professor to see the difference. Discussing Tigerhawks article with you has been frustrating as have all my discussions on the internet.
Deny everything
Admit nothing
Make counter accusations
Standard progressive operating procedure.
I guess we can assume, Tigerhawk, since there was no substantial rebuttal to your premise, that the term "Swiftboating" has indeed been dumbed down by the left.
By , at
Tue Jul 01, 01:06:00 PM:
> Your wrong. The two statements are very different
Notice that you still haven't explained the difference, you've just asserted that they are very different. Perhaps you just have a higher standard of precision for blog comments - I think they were close enough to get the general idea across. It's also weird that you chose to focus on that point because it was minor and tangential to the main point under discussion. It's now taken us off-topic and spent our energy on parsing instead of the core idea.
The key point I was addressing was this. Did the left attack McCain's record as Tigerhawk claimed? Or was the point whether McCain's record qualified him for the presidency. I think those are two very different things. Attacking McCain's record would be to disparage his service or question his patriotism and it doesn't seem to me that the left is doing that. Asking if McCain's background gives him the skills and experience to be president seems like a legitimate question to me (and the answer very well could be 'yes' and that would be fine with me - I think military service could be useful even if one were not a general).
>I guess we can assume, Tigerhawk, since there was no substantial
> rebuttal to your premise, that the term "Swiftboating" has indeed been dumbed down by the left.
Remember the famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In other words, I think it is odd for you to require the 1 or 2 lefties that comment here to come up with a convincing argument or you claim "I win".
By Bob's Blog, at
Tue Jul 01, 08:29:00 PM:
Very well stated, and right on.
By , at
Wed Jul 02, 10:35:00 AM:
Anon-
I didn't explain why the two sentences are different because I think you have enough education to know that and you are just trying to waste my time. Note that Tigerhawk himself answered your question and also answered in the negative.
In debate, when a resolution has been stated, and then one side tries to change the subject, they loose. Arguments are different, and I try to avoid arguing.
By , at
Wed Jul 02, 04:50:00 PM:
> I didn't explain why the two sentences are different
I offered my thoughts on the difference which you ignored. You are still focusing on an unimportant detail of my wording instead of addressing the actual issue here.
The claim in the original post was that the left was attacking McCain's military record. I countered by trying to say the left was actually attacking McCain's record only as it relates to how well it prepared him to be president.
> Tigerhawk himself answered your question
And I think he confirmed my point even though he rejected my wording. He offering reasons why McCain's background was good preparation - that's the actual debate and I appreciate his comments.
Anyway, I can see we are not getting anywhere with this so we should just give up.
By , at
Fri Jul 04, 12:45:00 PM:
A note: there are multiple anonymi, so I will just lay claim to 10:56 and use a handle. Also, I think it worthwhile to observe that the terms "liberal" and "the left" have been so casually used to describe so many things that they cease to be descriptive; ie we cannot posit an inclusion/exclusion rule that would partition a population in question consistently across people applying it, and/or if we each used our own we would have wildly different outcomes. One might term this the "dumbing down" of either or both of these, and yet no one is up in arms about that.
This point was driven home for me when I asked a Republican friend whether opposing a Defense of Marriage Amendment to the Constitution was a "liberal" position. His answer was "yes," while I oppose such an amendment on the grounds that I dislike government taking any stance on a what is fundamentally perceived as a religious institution; I don't think it has that prerogative (and on that topic, I favor civil unions for everyone). I think this is a small-government conservative position, and when such a thing has been tagged "liberal" my respect for the tag as informative wanes dramatically.
