Let's Attack the Argument, Not the Person
- Print print this page
- Discuss 23 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
The race for the White House has begun to gear up as more candidates enter the fray and make their positions clear.
This is good, because most Americans have not yet really made up their minds. However, how we are exposed to the candidates can either be off-putting or educationally revealing depending on how honest the portrayals are and how dirty our favorites are made to look.
Watch a few TV news debates, and some of the techniques become obvious. One side uses the smirk and the shake of the head to suggest the opposition is dead wrong. As one side outlines a point of view, the camera switches to a close-up of the opposition, who smiles patronizingly and slowly shakes his head in wonderment or denial. There is no need to come back with facts or rebut with another position. The grinning headshake says it all.
Another ploy to discredit your opponent is the personal attack. This one has been around since the year one.
When I was reviewing theater, most of the critics did their best to remain objective. There was one, however, who would attack an actor’s performance by zeroing in on the size of the actor’s nose or perhaps the thinness of the actress’s lips. None of the rest of us could see what those supposed defects had to do with the play — we suspected it was this critic’s way of hiding behind his inability to see what was taking place on the stage. In other words, it was strictly an ego thing.
This personal attack is seldom seen in theater reviews but is a standard tactic commonly used against people running for office. Admittedly, Donald Trump’s hairdo seems like fair game. But does it really have anything to do with his ability or lack thereof?
Sarah Palin has been a target from her entrance into the national political scene. Her hair, her dress, her daughter, her “gee willikins” and “reload” comments have inspired attacks, and I suspect they have succeeded in reducing her chances for election to a pinpoint.
The latest to be on the receiving end of jokes is Michele Bachmann, who has been accused of having “crazy eyes” and a bad hairdo. What about her stands on issues? These so-called commentators could not care less. They would rather concentrate on her eyes and teeth.
Personally, I think Michele Bachmann is a beautiful lady, but that is not the reason I consider her qualified to be president. Appearance counts, of course, but only up to a point. And it should never be the target of ridicule.
Writers frequently try to excuse ridicule by calling it satire. But unless you are an Oscar Wilde about to create “The Importance of Being Earnest” or a budding Shakespeare, true satire may be the most difficult of all types of writing. A couple of missteps and wit descends into slapstick. Even some of our best writers have often fallen into this pit. The theater, for the most part, avoids it because it seldom succeeds. As the saying goes: Satire is what closes in Philadelphia on a Tuesday.
All politicians follow coach Vince Lombardi’s creed: “Winning isn’t the only thing. It’s everything.” Only the techniques vary. Debates don’t count. Positions don’t count. Ideologies don’t count. All that counts is winning.
The big hazard with these non-issue putdowns is not the harm they cause the candidate but the harm they do those of us trying to seek the best person to vote for. The head-shaking smirks blur our vision in a smokescreen of scorn that can cause us to pass up on the perfect candidate.
So let us hammer away at stands and issues and true character flaws and ignore physiognomy. Let’s park the ridicule rebuttal where it belongs: in a high school sophomore class.
Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@nc.rr.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Easygoing 1 year, 10 months ago
So after 2 + years of constant attacks on President Obama, we now have a new, kindlier, gentler Allan Jeffries who will check facts and provide workable solutions. Looking forward to it. By the way, commenting how how he likes the looks of a female candidate while deriding commentators who don't like her hairdo seems a bit inconsistent.
coffecreme 1 year, 10 months ago
No kidding
JimHeim 1 year, 10 months ago
Shorter Jeffeys: "Liberals are mean to my candidates." Could have saved a tree or two.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago
For years, a politician's personal life and temperament have been considered fair game because we're told over and over that "character matters." Now that it's the right's candidates under the same character microscope, criticizing them is a "personal attack."
Sorry, Mr. Jeffries, if you didn't stand up then, you can sit right down now. I don't want to hear it.
TreadLightly 1 year, 10 months ago
The problem with President Obama is that no matter WHAT you day, or HOW you say it about his crippling of our economy and ceaseless international apologizing, it is called a RACIAL attack or DIRTY POLITICS.
We should hope that the "character evaluation" from the Dems will focus on church attendance, honesty, duty, service, etc, but since the "politics of personal destruction" worked so well on Bush, we may be hoping against hope.
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
The problem is that the economy collapsed prior to Obama taking office. Plants moved or were in the process of moving overseas. Revenues dried up because the housing bubble burst and common folk didn't have the funds (previous tapped from growing house equity) to spend any more. All before Obama. Since Obama the bleeding has been stopped, albeit without the job creation, and company profits will hit records this year, nevermind Wall Street gains and executive compensation increases. So... the "racial" label may get thrown around because it is not obvious on what other basis this left-center President gets trashed for stuff that ain't his fault.
jamjam 1 year, 10 months ago
hehehehehe.
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
You're right Mr. Heim's, there are quite a few Liberals that do have a mean streak in them. When they are unable to argue with reason and truth, time to get down and dirty and kick in the character attacks. It's in the playbook, remember? Diane
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
Yup, lots of facts, logic, and truth spoken here! LOL.
Cosmo4slice 1 year, 10 months ago
The first thing, I have to say I can't stand critics views of anything. What person has the right to tell me whats good and whats bad, that is my choice. I would rather have a Preident whom looks like 40 miles of bad road and has the fortitude to the right thing for the country, than a President whom looked like they just stepped off the set of a glamour movie, whom is all smoke and mirrors.
Courseaire 1 year, 10 months ago
What I find on a lot of the commentors on "The Pilot" is thaty attack each other, Libs v. Conservs. They personally attack the Politicals (though they are fair game), yet they call them horrendous names, had they used the same names against the other commentors, the comment would be deleted by the "Pilot" as against their policy, yet they can use those same names to attack Bush, Obama, Palin, Bachman & others. You are right in that they attack the individual rather then the policy or actions. Some commentors only do personal attacks.
Courseaire 1 year, 10 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Cosmo4slice 1 year, 10 months ago
I am neither Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. I am a "AMERICAN" and wants whats best for the future of the USA. All this bickering back and forth is accomplishing exactly ZERO. Our founding fathers would have a stroke, if they seen how our country has become. There is a difference between political debate and shouting political rhetoric every other word. The currunt state of affairs, with all poltitians, trying to upgrade their powerbase and putting through legislation, that supports there own agenda (Jamie Boles and the bill for Undertakers to spy on peoples insurance), so they can show people the super deluxe funeral arangment and prey on people in their time of grief. I myself think a good start would to have term limits on Legislators. Lobbist need to be outlawed. How long was Strom Thurmon, Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy, in office. Lots of the older legislators want it to be how it was in their day. The world is a different place than it was 25 years ago, we need young minds who really want to change the world. It is their world and my kids world to inherit, not some fat cat career polititian, that still thinks in the past not the future.
Easygoing 1 year, 10 months ago
Amen
MikeNC 1 year, 10 months ago
Cosmo, I think all of us agree we are Americans first. Proof of that came on 9/11. I think most of us, whether Right or Left, agree, term limits need to be inserted. Some of the politicians in office, are old as dirt. Not too mention, the benefits they've grown to love, are hard to walk away from, plus the longer they are in power, the more money they are able to aquire for re elections, barring some scandalous affair or tax evasion(sometimes). BUT I do wonder about the statement of being neither a Republican nor a Democrat. To me, and this is my take and not meant to be insulting, with the grave issues we face in this Nation today, I find it hard for one not to lean more one way than the other. Why is an Independent, an Independent? One either wants to see Less Government, or they want to see More Government. They are either for addressing the Debt situation, with no tax increase, or they are for tax increases. They are either for increasing the debt ceiling with no reigning in of Government spending on the table at the same time, or they aren't. If a Republican finds that a Democrat running for office, has better qualifications than his counter part, fine, go vote for him. And Vice Versa. But to think that the two parties are going to sing Peace Train together and allow people to stay neutral,isn't going to happen. It hasn't happened in the last 234 years, and don't see it in the near future. Back in our early days, I doubt there were very many Independents sitting on the fence. And I do not mean that in a negative sense. Our early founders and Americans, took sides. Diane
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
I'm an Independent. I could care less if it's "more" government or "less" government, I want responsible government. I believe that the debt situation needs to be addressed by deciding what it is that we need from our government and then providing the necessary funding to accomplish it. If reducing the size of government allows us to reach that goal, great. If an increase in funds is needed, then we must generate the capital via additional taxes to get what we want. In our current situation, not raising the debt ceiling will be catastrophic and, therefore must be done. Attempting to hold the country ransom by refusing to agree to raise the debt limit becomes a political tactic that will blow up in the faces of all who are proponents of that tactic and will cause untold damage to our country. Everyone agrees that there are government programs that can be run more efficiently, scaled back or completly eliminated. These are the same programs that were in effect during Republican as well as Democratic administrations. Debt ceilings have been extended during these same times but having a guy named Obama at the helm now makes the situation untenable for a certain portion of the population. Being an independent allows me to vote for the candidate that best represents my values, needs and viewpoint. Blindly following a party line does not.
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
There are politicians in office for years because their constituents vote for them. Our system of government already has a term limit feature called the voting booth. The folks in office reflect the intelligence of the voter. Maybe we don't need better politicians, maybe we need smarter voters.
Cosmo4slice 1 year, 10 months ago
I agree, but people are resistant to change. The devil you know vs the Devil you don't know. How can a fellow with great qualifications, but no money, compete with the oldtimer whom has all the cash avalible from is old cronies, and plasters the media with ad's, but the better canidate is crushed under the political steamroller. Their also need to be a limit on how much money a canidate can spend to level the playing field. A bunch of top political positions are bought, even though they are terrible people, only concerned with their own agenda..
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
Which is why I say we need smarter voters. Voters who research the issues before supporting a specific candidate. How many voters who support "straight party" candidates would believe the moon was made of cheese if these candidates ran political ads claiming it to be fact. I know a bunch who respond on this website that would call you a communist and demand you leave the country if you didn't believe what their party said.
Bflat 1 year, 10 months ago
Well said ! Straight party ticket voting is exactly why we have problems in our county with the good ole boys in control and a huge multimillion $$$ federal sized JAIL being constructed while #1 school shut down over a $500,000 budget shortfall and the usual poor planning for education. If people really took time to really see what is happening, we would not be in such a mess. Straight party ticket voting just keeps the same ole, same ole going on and on until people actually take responsibility for their actions. It won't happen until enough people care enough to effectuate change. That's probably when they realize all the added "value stream taxes" on cell phone and cable bills were pretty much silently stuck in there and the supposed "no tax increase" is just another lie told by politicians. Not all taxes and income into the county coffers is from property taxes. When's the last time you really looked at your cable bill or cell phone bill to see what was tacked on in the form of county tax? Voting the straight party ticket mindlessly is a big part of the problem in our county.
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
Diane- Ideologies are too restrictive. Why must I/we check off everything in the left column versus the right column. Maybe we want to assess each issue independently. It's okay to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's okay to be pro choice and pro gun. Saying no new taxes is silly. Sure you can be tax adverse but at the same time we should be thoughtful enough to understand that this country has had stronger economic periods with significantly higher tax burdens. When you are blind you become a follower and can easily be misled. Independent thinking is a freedom that liberty provides. It would be a waste to not exercise our right to think things through.
carlj1161 1 year, 10 months ago
Interesting article you quoted from Peter Wehner in Commentary. In that CNN poll he quoted some of his statistics he also left out some key numbers. The most glaring one would be the fact that 54% approve of the way the President is handling his job. But on the other hand only 41% approve of the way he's handling the economy. While I don't refute the numbers quoted, I only think it's fair to look at the entire poll before you trash someone http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/30/rel9d.pdf
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
Name three regulations supported by Obama that show "no regard for the middle class American."
Courseaire 1 year, 10 months ago
Courseaire 1 year, 10 months ago
Now how much in bonds, stocks or mutual funds do the middle class own & I'm not talking about what might be in their IRA, 401K or SEP accounts - in total, not a lot.
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
Which "proposed tax law"? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act doesn't help the middle class? Really? Preventing insurance companies from dropping your coverage doesn't help the middle class? Stimulus bill? Labor jobs equal middle class. Saving or creating labor jobs helps the middle class. Now if you want to make an argument like Paul Krugman that the stimulus had no chance because it was too small, please be my guest.
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
You made the claim my friend, just asking you to back it up.
keke 1 year, 10 months ago
Reading these comments makes me lament the state of our schools these days. People still don't know which 'to' or 'too' to use or the difference between 'they're' and 'there'. What horrible spelling and grammar!
JER 1 year, 10 months ago
Thank you for correcting my mistake in grammar. I am aware that "they're" is correct. I just didn't catch it. They did teach it correctly when I attended school in the 50's.
Cosmo4slice 1 year, 10 months ago
Just because someone uses impoprer grammer, does that instantly make them a idiot??? How about going through school with no glasses because your parents didn't care if you could see!!!!! I only found out because I flunked the eye exam when I went to get drivers licence.
dogboy 1 year, 10 months ago
...impoprer grammar, HEHEHE
Cosmo4slice 1 year, 10 months ago
Yeah Yeah Yeah, Open mouth insert foot.
carlj1161 1 year, 10 months ago
I totally agree with the comment "All politicians follow coach Vince Lombardi’s creed: “Winning isn’t the only thing. It’s everything.” Only the techniques vary. Debates don’t count. Positions don’t count. Ideologies don’t count. All that counts is winning" The problem is the losers, that always seems to be the American people as a whole. It would be nice if the politicians set an example of cooperation rather than an adversarial form of government.
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
It amazes me how we have become a nation of faux constitutional experts and wannabee economics gurus.