Romancing the straw man

When Dan Paden falls in love with a straw man, he falls hard. Paden is the blogger who likes to pretend that David Niewert is somehow being hypocritical when he berates the radical right in the country for tolerating eliminationist rhetoric, but fails to condemn the same tactic on the left.

Of course, you can’t tell from Paden’s latest screed that eliminationist rhetoric is the bone of contention, because he has stopped using the phrase "eliminationist rhetoric" altogether:

Now, I realize that there is a lot of venomous rhetoric coming from certain quarters of the right, as well, and too few people on the right say so. My objection to Mr. Neiwert in this respect is not so much that he doesn’t serve as a watchdog for leftist venom — that’s not his job or his responsibility — but that it seems to me that he engages in the very behavior — ignoring nasty rhetoric from one’s own side — that he objects to in post after post. It certainly appears that he lambastes the right for behavior he duplicates. It’s hypocritical in the extreme.

David Neiwert has spent years documenting the use of eliminationist rhetoric by the radical right, and pointing out how the mainstream right ignores and slowly adopts that selfsame rhetoric. When you read Neiwert’s posts, it’s very clear that the rhetoric in question is far beyond “nasty” or venomous”. The right-wing rhetoric Newiert examines is called “eliminationist” for very good reason: as Neiwert defines it, “it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination”.

Paden doesn’t dare use the term “eliminationist rhetoric” because to do so would highlight his fundamental dishonesty. Are the examples of left-wing rhetoric he gives in his latest post “nasty” and “venomous”? Undoubtedly. Do any of those examples openly advocate that the targets of the venom be assaulted or killed? Not a one. Does that mean that Paden is comparing apples and oranges? Absolutely. Neiwert does not spend a lot of time decrying left-wing eliminationist rhetoric for one simple reason: There simply is not a great deal of it to be found, as Paden has himself demonstrated.

I pointed out earlier that when I called Paden on his bait-and-switch tactics, he suddenly decided that what he had been talking about all along was the newly coined category of “hostile leftist quotes”. It’s fundamentally dishonest for Paden to conflate his carefully-undefined category of “hostile” rhetoric with the clearly eliminationist rhetoric that Neiwert exposes. The fact that Paden now entirely avoids the use of the phrase “eliminationist rhetoric” suggests strongly that he knows he’s being dishonest in his criticism of Neiwert.

There’s one last bit of evidence that puts the lie to Paden’s accusations. David Neiwert has, indeed, pointed out that it is just as wrong for the left to employ eliminationist rhetoric as it is for the right to do so:

I understand that liberals have been subjected to a relentless barrage since, really, 1994, and by this stage of the game many of them, myself included, are in a fighting mood.

But the atmosphere, due to the nature of the rhetoric being encouraged on the right, really calls for cool heads at this juncture.

I understand the desire to want to fight back. But I don’t think it behooves anyone in the liberal camp to use the rhetoric of violence, in any shape or fashion right now.

Most of what I’ve seen so far is of the decidedly harmless variety. Some liberal commenters, for instance, on certain threads I read have devised, satirically, a “duck pit” into which all conservative minions will be cast on the day of liberal reckoning, there to be nibbled to death by a thousand hungry ducks. My friend Atrios the other day said he’d respond well to a campaign appeal based on taking Tom DeLay “out back and kicking his ass.”

In any other environment, I wouldn’t worry about that kind of semi-violent talk; it’s part of the rough and tumble of political jousting. Lord knows I know exactly how Atrios feels. But things seem awfully volatile to me now, to the point that I think liberals need to stick to the high road and eschew any sort of in-kind response to this rising tide of violence… Talking tough may feel good, but it can be a two-edged sword. There are ways for liberals to make known their fierce determination without playing the right-wing’s violent little game. That’s their trap; let them thrash in it.

Fact-free, straw-man arguments are the easiest to employ, and Dan Paden certainly seems to enjoy the ease with which he can sling untruths at others. Happily, arguments of that sort are also among the easiest to debunk.