Argument by smear tactic
Oliver Kamm responds to my criticism of his 'rules of politics'. I'll keep it short, because there's really nothing more boring than long inter-blog debates that eventually swallow their own tail and disappear into a void of meaninglessness. Also, his arguments are pretty much just bluster and fall apart under a bit of scrutiny.
Firs he takes me to task for saying that, while parties agree that the security of the nation is important, that does not require there to be any agreement on the way in which that security is assured. He then ties himself up in linguistic knots by basically claiming that any disagreement over defence issues is actually agreement:
There's complete agreement, for example, that our defence rests on the collective security provided by Nato, and only those far outside the political mainstream maintain otherwise. Where there is disagreement has traditionally (excepting Labour's moment of madness in the 1980s) had nothing to do with the contending ideologies of the different parties, but reflects legitimately differing views on defence priorities - that's what I meant by national security's being properly an area for bipartisanship.
So, everyone agrees, except those who don't, and when there are differing views, it's still an area for bipartisanship. Huh? Remember, Oliver's original rule was 'they are entitled to bipartisan support while doing so' yet now he seems to regard that 'differing views on defence priorities' - a term so vague it can encompass pretty much anything - still falls within the realms of 'bipartisan support'.
Then, of course, he goes back to the good old smear argument - that anyone who was opposed to war in Iraq was a totalitarian and anti-semite:
The Liberal Democrats thus allied themselves with the totalitarian and antisemitic Left in the certain cause of leaving in power a genocidal tyrant today, tomorrow and, through his appalling sons, a generation hence. It is not 'simply opinions' to observe this but a fact, about which we must all make our own value judgements
Of course, to extend this argument, that means that organisations such as CND and the Quakers can also be decsribed in those terms, yet they never do get smeared like that (even though CND were a co-organiser of the protests) because everyone recognises it's a completely flawed argument. It's saying that because two groups both agree on one facet of one issue, they can both be assumed to share exact views on every facet of that issue, even when common sense tells you they don't. No one, except those on the absolute extremes, was saying that the Hussein regime should be left alone to do whatever it wants - the issue over Iraq was that we were being rushed into a war with no mandate from the UN, without even the support of all of Nato, on the basis of evidence that was shaky at best with, as we're seeing now, no clear plan for what to do once the war was won. Of course, in the Kamm-world, no one has the right to point that out, as the government has made its mind up, and we must all rally round the flag and cheer it on.
Firs he takes me to task for saying that, while parties agree that the security of the nation is important, that does not require there to be any agreement on the way in which that security is assured. He then ties himself up in linguistic knots by basically claiming that any disagreement over defence issues is actually agreement:
There's complete agreement, for example, that our defence rests on the collective security provided by Nato, and only those far outside the political mainstream maintain otherwise. Where there is disagreement has traditionally (excepting Labour's moment of madness in the 1980s) had nothing to do with the contending ideologies of the different parties, but reflects legitimately differing views on defence priorities - that's what I meant by national security's being properly an area for bipartisanship.
So, everyone agrees, except those who don't, and when there are differing views, it's still an area for bipartisanship. Huh? Remember, Oliver's original rule was 'they are entitled to bipartisan support while doing so' yet now he seems to regard that 'differing views on defence priorities' - a term so vague it can encompass pretty much anything - still falls within the realms of 'bipartisan support'.
Then, of course, he goes back to the good old smear argument - that anyone who was opposed to war in Iraq was a totalitarian and anti-semite:
The Liberal Democrats thus allied themselves with the totalitarian and antisemitic Left in the certain cause of leaving in power a genocidal tyrant today, tomorrow and, through his appalling sons, a generation hence. It is not 'simply opinions' to observe this but a fact, about which we must all make our own value judgements
Of course, to extend this argument, that means that organisations such as CND and the Quakers can also be decsribed in those terms, yet they never do get smeared like that (even though CND were a co-organiser of the protests) because everyone recognises it's a completely flawed argument. It's saying that because two groups both agree on one facet of one issue, they can both be assumed to share exact views on every facet of that issue, even when common sense tells you they don't. No one, except those on the absolute extremes, was saying that the Hussein regime should be left alone to do whatever it wants - the issue over Iraq was that we were being rushed into a war with no mandate from the UN, without even the support of all of Nato, on the basis of evidence that was shaky at best with, as we're seeing now, no clear plan for what to do once the war was won. Of course, in the Kamm-world, no one has the right to point that out, as the government has made its mind up, and we must all rally round the flag and cheer it on.
Nick got away with this at 9:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home