First, I never thought a quasi-philosophical post would attract the kind of attention it has. It's nice, though.
Second, I found Marshall's comments interesting. He throws up the idea, which I thought was implicit in what I wrote, that we all rely upon second-hand reports for those things for which we aren't present. Therefore, I think, our utilization of these facts is only as reliable as the sources of the facts. Fair enough. By tossing this out there, I do believe Marshall is attempting to call in to question the reliability of sources - again, implicit, I think is the idea that conservative sources are more reliable than liberal ones. Unfortunately, at least for Marshall, the reliability of sources is an easy matter to settle. There is enough information out there to test whether or not, to give just one example, the Bush Administration lied to get us in to war. Marshall, it seems, insists that this is not the case, when in fact it is easily shown to be factual. This is neither controversial nor even interesting (at least from a philosophical perspective; from a political point of view, it is profoundly important). What is interesting is continuing to ask questions - "were you present when this or that event occurred? do you have the information the President has?" - that would seem to get us trapped in long discussions over the reliability of various points in an argument. We could all go down these little alleys and by-ways, in order to point out how irrelevant they are. Or we could reiterate the main point, and insist that arguments about their reliability are nonsensical on their face.
I much prefer the latter. What is even more interesting is the way in which ad hominem attacks start to ooze through the edges. An example of something close to an ad hominem remark is Marshall's insistence that we liberals cherry-pick facts, because we have our conclusions firmly in mind. Fascinating, really, because the past six years has shown that it is conservatives who do this over and over and over. Yet, through the magic of rhetorical projection, it is we liberals who do this. Again, facts need not apply. It is a rhetorical strategy, and that is really all that matters. And, again, it is more important that these narrative elements make their appearance.
While I find the whole strategy fascinating on an intellectual level, as a political strategy it is irksome, to say the least. Lying behind it is the idea that by winning a rhetorical battle, one side or the other has "Truth" on its side, and therefore the opposition is not only politically erroneous but intellectually disingenuous and morally obtuse. Of course, as we all sit around trying to decide whether or not one side wins and the other loses, those in power go about doing what they wish, and neither winning an argument nor pointing out that the powerful aren't interested in facts changes this. I am not interested in winning an argument. I am not interested in being proved right, or even being proved wrong. The goal is not winning an argument, but pointing out a pattern of behavior that is harmful to our traditions, our security, our laws, and our liberties. The goal is action to stop these actions, and reverse our current course. While it is important to point out various errors of fact, it is far more important, once this is done, to move on and not get caught up in the rhetorical strategy used to keep the process from moving forward. It is best to just say, "You're wrong" and move on. This isn't avoiding the issue, because there is no issue. It is, rather, not allowing our opponents to keep us from doing what needs to be done. Once we surrender the idea that we are engaged in an argument it is necessary to win, we can be about the business of taking our country back. Let the right "win" their arguments. I would much prefer acting to keep our deep slide in to national oblivion from proceeding.
I took the title of this post from Jack Germond and Jules Whitcover's classic study of the 1988 Presidential election, Blue Smoke and Mirrors, in which they wrote about the rhetorical sleight of hand the Bush Campaign used to defeat Michael Dukakis.
Virtual Tin Cup
