Yesterday at the cafe at Schuler, a copy of the book entitled Dude, where’s my country (or something like that, I feel silly just typing that title) by Michael Moore was sitting next to my table. I picked it up and flipped through it, not expecting to find any “facts” or “insights” necessarily, but I was hoping for a few laughs. Unfortunately, I was disappointed (in the latter expectation at least).
I enjoyed Roger & Me, as well as TV Nation the couple of times I watched it. I understand there’s some widely divergent opinions regarding Mr. Moore, but I figured that as long as you take his work as the expression of a particular viewpoint, not an attempt to present an unbiased expression of all viewpoints, it was okay.
However, towards the end of Dude, Moore violates my personal cardinal rule for political discourse. As a result I would like to propose a new rule, modeled upon “Godwin’s Law”, which regards gratuitous comparisons of one’s opponent to Hitler/the Nazis. (Thanks to Andy for the link to the official definition). My rule, which I would like to call the Moore-Coulter Rule, runs as follows:
“Any argument based upon the attribution of the arguer’s opponent’s political opinions to his or her ignorance, fear, or malevolence, should be disregarded.”
Towards the end of his book, I think in a chapter about how to talk to your conservative brother-in-law, Moore explains that the reason conservatives are conservative is because they fear [black people, gay people, Moore himself, whatever] because they are ignorant–they don’t know any [see list above]; and therefore they wish to oppress them in order to protect their own personal worldviews and lifeways. (That’s what I gathered from my quick skim, anyway.)
I wouldn’t dream of touching the logic of this argument with a ten-foot pole. What aggravated me was that Moore, a man a good deal older than me and presumably more politically savvy, is using the same dopey arguments that I did when I was 16 (the only possible reasons anyone could disagree with me is that they must be either mean or stupid or both). Like the Nazi comparison, the mean/stupid gambit is a blatant ad hominem attack, and works by instantly conjuring up emotional animus against the opponent by means of an unprovable generalization; in place of an actual reasoned argument against the opponent’s position.
I’m so tired of this kind of stuff. I first noticed it when I used to read the editorial page in the University of Nebraska’s student paper. I guess it’s understandable in 20-year-olds, but, to borrow Moore’s argument, by the time you’re forty-ish one would hope you’d actually met some [conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, whatever] and realized that they’re a pretty equally mixed bag as regards intelligence and philanthropy.
In any case, I believe that this rule would improve the quality of public discourse, and reduce the amount of time I have to waste reading about how Republicans hate everyone whereas Democrats only hate America.
By the way, the “Coulter” in the rule’s title refers of course to Ann Coulter. I haven’t read any of her work, but their titles speak for themselves as far as this rule’s applicability in her case. As a final note, I would also like to propose that the credibility of anyone who chooses to appear on the cover of his or her own book should automatically be reduced by 50%; but maybe another time.
Excellent post, Michele. I’ve seen a version of the Moore-Coulter Rule – perhaps the Moore-Coulter Rule Lite – that is prevalant among less radical pundits and isn’t quite as blatant but certainly hints at the opponent’s ignorance, fear or malevolence, but is in the guise of undermining someone’s credibility.
For instance, a few months ago, I was reading an article by a guy named Geov Parrish at Working for Change about Judge Roy Moore and the ten commandments monument. Basically, this writer didn’t even address the constitutionality of the issue at hand but made a list of all the commandments he assumed Judge Moore had broken to argue for having the monument removed. By calling Judge Moore a hypocrite (definitely encompassing the ignorance, fear and malevolence parts), Geov Parrish decided that the judge wasn’t even in a position to argue and therefore he loses. It was such a lazy way to avoid making an argument.
I also remember being frustrated by some conservative pundits (there were articles by Jed Babbin and Mark Levin at the National Review online particularly) over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity (she was the wife of Joe Wilson who debunked the Bush administration’s claims of Iraq getting yellowcake from Niger) because the fallback “argument” I kept coming across was to undermine Joe Wilson’s credibility – he only sat around drinking mint tea in Niger (ignorance), or he is a Democrat (malevolence) – rather than discussing the real issue at hand – that someone probably broke a federal law by leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the press. Again, it just seemed like another cheap shot. Partisan jabs like these (rather than intellectual arguments) are why I’ve lost interest in reading about political stuff lately.
I think the problem with these people who are so whole-heartedly partisan (especially Moore and Coulter) is that they are only preaching to the choir when they are writing. They don’t have to go to the trouble to make a reasoned argument because everyone reading their stuff already agrees with them. They don’t bother to do simple things like presenting evidence and convincing anyone. However, this laziness and sloppiness causes their opponents to not take them seriously at all and not even mount a critique against their argument (or lack thereof), thereby enabling them to keep up their hyperbolic accusations without real accountability.
Great post, Michele! And I agree 100% with Kim’s comments above.
Political “discussion” is in pretty sad shape these days. The problem with Moore and Coulter is that shouting ludicrously extreme statements (Bush is Hitler, Democrats are traitorous commies) attracts a lot more attention and money than does quietly listening to all sides of the story and coming to a reasonable solution. As long as we keep buying their books (and turning to them for their opinions on everything that happens, as if their very irrationality provides them with special insight that the rest of us don’t have) we will continue to get the Moores and Coulters we deserve.
I was all set to write a long comment, but I see that everything I was going to say was already said… Nuts.
I, too, was a fan of Roger & Me and TV Nation. At the time, I took every word Moore spoke as Gospel truth. Much has changed since then, (mainly within my own head) and now not only do I not agree with just about everything he says, I don’t find him remotely funny anymore. Sad. Plus, he’s more evil than Hitler.
Well done on all sides.
Awesome post.
The primary reason I no longer watch any of the Hardball, Crossfire, Hannity and Colmes shows that I used to enjoy is that I’ve realized that no one, from either side, ever seems inclined to make intelligent arguments for their position, or listen to and engage the arguments of their oppnents. You just try to shout your opponent down with hit-and-run political attacks, without being forced to support your premises.
One already knows what an exchange between Paul Begala and Robert Novak or Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes will look like. One attack after another, with neither side answering the attacks of the other. It becomes noise rather than discourse. Frustrating.
Michele, if you’d like some prime examples of what are essentially Prophets of Moore, stop by either Common Ground or Morningstar coffee house. I’ve engaged in a LOT of political conversation there, and the only thing I’ve been able to glean is the fact that precious few ‘fact check’ for both sides of the issue. In addition, there’s an astonishing relationship between the amount of thought one puts into their arguments and ‘beliefs’ and where on the party continuum they happen to be. (I guess with so many parties, perhaps it should be a matrix or something?) The more to one ‘side’ they were, the less attention they paid to evidence, facts, etc – even to what they were saying.