First, I’d like to compliment Brian at Iowa Voice for his post on this issue, which I think is pretty definitive. Only one minor quibble I have with it: a few people are attacking Fox beyond discussing how misleading the ad was, the merits of his argument, etc, but the vast majority are not. So on the whole, Brian is right on that point.
I’d also like to expand on a few things to what he said, namely that the left is engaging in underhanded tactics we by now are all too familiar with and sick of right here at election time in an attempt to gain more traction in the polls, and I’d like to note them in this post. There are many, but here are the primary tactics:
The first one: Playing the “absolute moral authority” card, which translates into: you can’t attack what Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, Michael J. Fox, etc say because of who they are: a mother who lost her son in Iraq, women who lost their husbands on 9-11, and an actor who is waging the fight of his life against a debilitating disease, and if you do attack what they say then you are “attacking an Iraq war mother who lost her son!!!!”, “being mean to women who lost their husbands on 9-11!!!”, and “beating up on a sick man!!!!” This tactic is designed for one purpose: to make the person arguing against the anointed “victims’” position(s) feel so guilty for supposedly being so mean-spirited and insensitive against the grieving, the less fortunate, the sick that they’ll shut up and cease arguing their case, which sometimes translates effectively into shutting down and cutting off the debate, which further translates into “the left is correct on this issue by default.” I find this tactic the most abhorent of them all, because the left has long fancied themselves as champions of free speech, open debate, and tolerance of all opinions, yet they engage in this very tactic routinely in order to cut people off at the knees. I admit, it’s been effective far too often, but I hope the tide is changing with this latest attempt. Now, they don’t actually come out and SAY you can’t criticize what the “victim” is saying, but they imply it with every word and action.
A side layer to this tactic is the attempt at playing on people’s emotions. Americans are most sympathetic to people they view as sympathetic or underdogs, people like grieving Iraq war mothers and 9-11 wives, and visibly sick and disabled people. We see someone who is sick, or sad, and we want to reach out and help them in any way possible. Tugging at the heartstrings of the American people is a hallmark of the Democratic strategy to win over voters and demonize opponents.
The second one: Avoiding the issue they are too afraid to discuss the merits of by sidetracking the issue onto something else. Case in point: making this whole debate regarding the Fox ad about Rush Limbaugh rather than whether or not Fox’s ad was misleading, and rather than debating the merits or lack thereof of embryonic stem cell research. They’d rather do this, rather than focus on whether the ad was misleading or not, because apparently it’s easier to take aim at a popular, controversial conservative radio talk show host than it is to defend a misleading ad.
The third one: The fear factor. Once again, we see Democrats trotting out the fear card they so routinely accuse Republicans of using, when in fact Republicans are light years behind Democrats in this department. This year, the fear card has two themes, the first of which is “if you don’t vote for me, protectors of child predators will still be in control of Congress” (re: Foley) and the second one is “if you don’t vote for me, sick people won’t be cured in the coming years because Republicans oppose cures for the sick” (re: stem cell research). This tactic is often used in conjunction with the first tactic I mentioned, in order to play on people’s fears (commonly known as demagoguery - how fitting that the word starts with DEM).
The fourth one: Mislabelling the issue as being about “stem cell research” in general, without specifying that the controvery surrounds embryonic stem cell research, not other forms of stem cell research. Saying someone “does not support stem cell research” is misleading, because casual followers of the issue whose sole knowledge of stem cell research (in general) is that it “has the potential to cure people” may not know that there are different forms of stem cell research out there, and that most people who oppose embryonic stem cell research approve of other kinds of stem cell research in hopes that it will provide cures for the sick. The champions of “free speech” and “open debate” are really champions of controlled debates where contrary facts, specific terms, and other information that is necessary and vital to form an informed opinion on an issue are regarded as irrelevant to “the cause.”
All of the above are shameless, devious, manipulative, and disingenuous attempts by the left to win over voters. They can’t win on the merits of their position on an issue in and of itself, so they have to either a) stifle discussion about it, b) sidetrack it with meaningless discussions that don’t directly address the issue, c) scare people into believing they are victims or can be victims that only Democrats can rescue, and/or d) confuse the issue by deliberately distorting or omitting facts that may be contrary to what they’re advocating.
I spent a lot of my time today debating about the Fox ad with friends of mine at a forum I used to frequent before the blog really started picking up steam. I wanted to get out there and see (and debate) what was being said about it by a variety of people, both left and right, beyond the blogosphere. I found a mixture of people saying that it was ok to debate Fox on the merits of the issue and others who got flaming mad because someone dared criticize the “victim” (MJF). Then this evening I perused some lefty blogs before coming here and got boiling mad at what I saw. As expected, the absolute moral authority and fear cards were being thrown out there with wild abandon like sophomores shooting spitballs onto a high school bathroom wall, and Rush Limbaugh was made the focal point of this issue, as if debating about what Rush Limbaugh said and did is going to resolve the disagreement over embryonic stem cell research.
I’m issuing a call to verbal arms: Conservatives have got to start STANDING UP to this deliberate stifling of the debate and quit letting the left set the tone and shape of it by forcing us to back off. Conservatives will never win new hearts and minds based on the merits of our ideas if we 1) continue to be too embarassed to talk about the more controversial issues because we’re worried about being portrayed as heartless and evil and 2) allow the left’s misreprensentations and in some cases outright lies about those controversial issues go unanswered because of that worry.
Our ideas are viable and sound. The only way to prevent other people from knowing that is if we allow the left continue to define the parameters of the debate. Stand up, be strong, wave the conservative banner proudly, and most importantly: we need to stand our ground. Because if we don’t, the left will continue to win in the court of public opinion on complicated and important issues like embryotic stem cell research and we can’t, and should not, let that happen.
Others blogging about this: Michelle Malkin, Allah, Anchoress (also here), Pirate’s Cove, more from Brian at Iowa Voice, Brent Baker at Newsbusters
Prior/Related:
- Washington Post writes about Rush’s statements on MJ Fox ad, but doesn’t note that he apologized “bigly” for his remarks later in the show (Update: They added the info that he had “backed away” in an updated version of the story)
- MJ Fox records another ad, this one for Michael Steele’s opponent Ben Cardin (Update: Cardin actually opposed stem cell research)
- Missouri’s Jim Talent: Your typical heartless and cruel conservative
- Peggy Noonan on the left’s peculiar version of ‘the right to dissent’
- Harry Reid: Major-league *edited* (re: stem cell research issue)
ST,
To your list I would add:
The fifth one: deliberately omitting certain inconvenient facts about embryonic stem cell research. Like the fact that it has not been found effective against any conditions yet, while adult stem cells have been used to treat 72 conditions (link is in the Iowa Voice post referenced above). Like the fact that embryonic stem cells may have the potential to cause tumors when used (can you imagine the outcry if a multinational pharmaceutical company put a drug on the market that might have tumors as a side effect?). Like the fact that in Missouri at least, this is all about cloning, not stem cell research anyway.
In other words, blatantly misleading. About what I’ve come to expect from the leftists.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 10/26/2006 - 10:50 pm
Great Post ST.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/26/2006 - 11:58 pm
As the left continues to expand the meanings of underhanded in diminutive manner, I fail to be surprised at anything they’ll say or do anymore. They have travelled so deep inside the belly of the beast, up is down and Alice can never find her way home. Not even Senator flip-flop can track’em with his illustrious tracking skilzzzzz.
Popcorn anyone?
Comment by forest hunter @ 10/27/2006 - 1:19 am
Great minds think alike, since I posted this today (before I saw yours)
Expect a trackback shortly
Comment by Karl @ 10/27/2006 - 2:48 am
Michael Fox has a horrible disease and I hope I nor my family ever has to suffer from it, but the whole argument has been lost with the debate on him and Rush.
Great White Rat has it right, the fact that tumors have been detected and they want to PRODUCE the fetal embryos is just another step in cloning. The couple who have a mult-million dollar business in this have alot to gain if this passes, have been left out of the truth here also.
Mr. Fox has a right to state his beliefs and we have a RIGHT TO DISAGREE with those beliefs but the left wants to stifle debate on facts, just tell enough to gain sympathy, like there is NO private funding at all for embryonic stem cell research.
WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO SUPPORT SOMETHING WITH MY HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS THAT I FIND OFFENSIVE …. but hey, the dems parade out the jersey girls, mama sheehan, Mr. Fox, all to stifle my dissent, who’d have figured?
Comment by Drewsmom @ 10/27/2006 - 6:23 am
Disclaimer first: I am not calling anyone a terrorists.
BUT, that aside, it is amazing how similiar the tactics are…
Hezbollah fires from civilian location and if Israel fired back they are reports all over the media that they are killing civilians.
The use of human shields (and I equate the Democrats more with this one) that they hide behind while attacking others figuring that no one will attack them back because of who they are using as a human shield.
I am sure there are plenty more examples, but the fact remains I see quite a similiarity in tactics.
Comment by sanity @ 10/27/2006 - 7:00 am
Great analogy sanity!!
Comment by ChefJeff @ 10/27/2006 - 9:19 am
Has anyone asked what Billy Graham thinks of embryonic stem cell usage??? Seems to me that there is alot of focus on Michael J. Fox’s opinion that Embryonic Stem Cell usage will help him, but the science thus far does not support that opinion, nor does he support this opinion financially. Which to me is a clarion call that he doesn’t believe what he is saying in the ad. I once heard Billy say that he was thankful for all that the Lord has done for him, and that Parkenson’s would allow him to see his Lord and Saviour all that much faster. That is an opinion that I can grasp.
Once M. J. Fox entered the arena of politics, he opened himself to criticism. This should of been expected by him. He is not beyond criticism because he is suffering. He said himself he is not a victim, so he is capable of defending his statements. There is alot of wrong information in all of this, I worry about where science is taking us. In a strictly spiritual sense I would never want a medication made from an embryo. Just something about it that bothers me greatly. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 10/27/2006 - 1:37 pm
I can see your point Lorica, I’m anything but religious, but medicine made out of people has a creepy, soylent green kind of feeling to it. And how people react to a disaster like getting an incurable disease or condition is in large part dependent on their personality an beliefs. Some will want a cure no matter what has to be done, others will refuse treatment if it goes against their moral beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily make one person right and the other wrong, but there are things that fall outside of the gray area and are definitely wrong. But of course, Billy Graham isn’t allowed to comment because he’s a Christian.
One Babylon 5 episode had a really similar theme. They had fought a major war against another race, and had caught a noted war criminal of that race, a person who did horrible medical experiments on captured prisoners. This woman was worse than all the concentration camp doctors combined, but she had an ace in the hole, she had a little drug she had invented that would grant immortality. Because of that, the governments of all the worlds that had fought against her kind decided to let her live if she gave up the formula. The kink was, and this was something she loved, you had to kill one person for every person you gave immortality to. She thought of this as her crowning achievement, believing, rightly so, that most wouldn’t care, and that the governments that held her in such contempt would kill millions more than her kind ever did to get the drug, this was her revenge in a way, making everyone else behave worse than she did. In the story, in the end as her ship was departing it was destroyed by someone who thought that this medicine came at too high a price.
This is an interesting story, in many ways it’s a metaphor for this exact embryonic stem cell debate, and one’s opinion on whether it should be allowed or not depends on where on the sliding scale betwee sperm and egg and crying baby people think life begins.
Comment by Severian @ 10/27/2006 - 1:53 pm
- O’Reilly mentioned an aside last night, when he was doing the M.J (I’m heavily medicated) Fox’s political spiel for McCaskill. He said that there’s apparently some couple who have invested 25 MILLION in the pro embryo stem cell agenda, where they stand to make a fortune if she get’s in and pushes the requisite legislation. That could prove interesting. Veddy interesting….The plot thickens yea verily…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/27/2006 - 2:38 pm
That’s the same as the biotech companies who pushed for the 3 billion bond in CA 2 years ago…
One great father of our country said something about the people learning that when we can vote for goodies the country is over or something. I hope I didn’t mangle that thought too badly.
Because no lunch is free.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/27/2006 - 2:41 pm
Michelle exposes Hollywood hatred
Don Murphy uses the p word, w word, f word, b word, and s word all in one post about Patricia Heaton and other conservative hollywood types and athletes who made a no on ammendment 2 commercial.
Michelle wrote at the end of her post:
The name of Murphy’s production company, appropriately enough, is Angry Films.
Of course, Don Murphy won’t be the issue to the drive-by legacy media the way they tried to make Rush the issue.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/27/2006 - 2:48 pm
Dr. Mary Davenport’s take on the issue:
She also writes:
The doctor writes in conclusion:
Comment by Baklava @ 10/27/2006 - 5:25 pm
The doctor’s words say if all for me … use adult or cord stem bloood and if you want to do the research on embryotic stem cells do it with private funds …not my tax dollars cuz I HAVE A RIGHT TO MORALLY DISAGREE WITH THIS.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 10/27/2006 - 6:15 pm
yeah, I referenced that piece a couple of days ago in my intial MJF post, I think. The MSM won’t feature too many voices like hers in their articles and newscasts about embryonic stem cell research *shock*
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/27/2006 - 6:36 pm
- This is just another one of the many ugly faces of the Secular Proggs, who want total freedom to do anythng they choose with human life, versus people who hold the idea of the sanctity of life. I think this is going to be a very very long and bitter struggle, and I doubt you’ll see it resolved in any of our lifetimes. Just imagine the mischief that could be wrought in a setting where people could be raised in groups of 5, actual identical twins, with no way to tell them apart. I think some of the worst on the Left dream of a time when they could plausibly, and finally, avoid any personal responsibility for any act, no matter how grievous. And through all of this, no “feeling” of the rights or care for the human life they would be playing G_d with. It’s all about “Me”, me, me, and always has been with the Left.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/27/2006 - 9:35 pm