McConnell is whining

Here's something from Media Matters that I found especially interesting.

(Now before I start, I should say that I am well aware that Media Matters has its critics. Some people think that Media Matters should not have tax-exempt status. That has no relevance to the accuracy of its reporting, however. Since Media Matters targets only the conservative media, others consider them biased and therefore don't respect their research. But the fact that Media Matters targets only conservative media does not show that their research isn't worthy of respect. This blog focuses on the conservative media, but I have what I take to be very good criticisms of my targets and they must be judged on their own merits.)

Oliver Willis quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell's speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday as follows:

Last June I stood here and warned of a grave and growing threat to the First Amendment. That threat has not let up at all. Our ability to freely engage in civic life and organize in defense of our beliefs is still under coordinated assault from groups on the left that don't like the idea of anyone criticizing their aims. And from a White House that appears determined to shut up anybody who disagrees with it. Now on the outside there is a well-documented effort by a number of left wing groups like Media Matters to harass and to intimidate conservatives with the goal of scaring them off the political playing field and off the airwaves as well. An internal Media Matters memo from January 2010 showed the extent to which these tactics have been turned, literally, into a science. In it, we learned of the group's plan to conduct opposition research into the lives of on-air news personalities and other key decision makers over at Fox News. And to coordinate with 100 or so partner groups to pressure the network's advertisers and shareholders to, get this, by the threat of actual boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, embarrassment and other tactics on a variety of issues important to the progressive agenda.

Willis writes that, in response to McConnell, Media Matters president Bradley Beychok said, "Mitch McConnell seems to be implying there is something underhanded or sinister about what Media Matters does. That is not the case. We monitor and correct conservative misinformation in the media." I have been reading Media Matters long enough to know that Beychok's assertion is generally true. And that, by the way, is good enough: absolute perfection in the pursuit of one's goal is too much to ask.

Let's think carefully about what McConnell said, granting, at least for the sake of argument, that Media Matters' mission is exactly what Beychok says it is.

McConnell complains that organizations like Media Matters are trying to "harass and intimidate conservatives" with the intention of "scaring them off the political playing field." How are they doing this? By using "boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, [and] embarrassment" to apply pressure to Fox News advertisers and shareholders. Why? Because they disapprove of criticism of their liberal agenda. At stake is the freedom of conservatives to "engage in civic life and organize in defense of [their] beliefs."

Now, think about that, and ask yourself, what really is wrong with any of this? I know for a fact that there is much misinformation in the conservative media. Correcting it does not necessarily imply or require a political agenda. None of my criticisms of Lori Ziganto's anti-abortion posts, for example, took issue with her position; rather, I criticized her bad arguments and misinformation in support of her position. But suppose that Media Matters has a political agenda. Again, what is wrong with this? Fox News has a political agenda. Mitch McConnell has a political agenda. Shouldn't conservatives disapprove of criticism of their agenda? Why wouldn't they? Would there be anything wrong with conservatives using boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, and so on, to apply pressure to, say, MSNBC advertisers and shareholders? No. No activity McConnell mentions is against the law. And freedom of speech does not protect anyone from having to confront those who disagree with them. Rather, the "grave and growing threat to the First Amendment" is represented by those like McConnell who believe that they have a right not to be challenged in the marketplace of ideas. Seriously, who is a bigger threat to the First Amendment: those who protest against Fox News, or those who have a problem with such protests? And McConnell's claim that conservatives' freedoms are endangered is ludicrous. Conservatives have all the freedoms everyone else has. But conservatives also have to face the consequences of exercising those freedoms, just like everyone else. If you want to broadcast the crazy shit one is apt to find on Fox News, people are going to get upset. And by the way, isn't that what you're counting on? You want your own people to get upset so that they'll write those checks, right?

What's really going on here is that McConnell is whining. Never have I heard as much whining and moaning from Republicans as I've heard since Obama was elected in 2008. They complain about NPR because NPR refuses to lean to the right and consequently they want to defund the CPB. (You might think that NPR has a liberal bias. I listen to NPR every day, and I can tell you that you are wrong.) Broadcasting should be privately funded, they surely believe, especially tea party types. Well, if Fox News has to compete in the marketplace with everyone else, then they will have to put up with consumers, some of whom are well organized, who don't like them.

Now, you might say that my reasoning is good, but the assumption that I began with is false: Media Matters' mission is not what Beychok says it is, but is in fact some other sinister thing. My challenge to you is this: show me that you're right. Show me your evidence. Make a case for your point of view. I am open-minded enough to consider good arguments, and I have in the past gone where the evidence has taken me and changed my mind. (Once, I thought that the death penalty is morally justified. How wrong I was about that!)

Φ finds a lefty blogger wanting

In her comment on one of my posts, a valued reader suggested that I "call out more on the left" and mentioned Oliver Willis by name.

For various reasons, I believe that I am better equipped psychologically to call out those on the right. Still, even the most devoted lefty can detect sloppiness in Willis' work, as well as a tendency to demonize those with whom he disagrees.

One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama was his dedication to the principle that we disagree without being disagreeable. I was primed for it after a Rove-directed presidency propelled by the demonization of and refusal to negotiate with opponents as well as its commitment to assholery in general.

I know that I sometimes fail to live up this this principle. I am perfectly capable of being an asshole. It's something that one has to resist every time one thinks about politics or reads the blogs or tunes in to cable news. For example, during the health care reform debate, I was so frustrated with Republican obstructionism that I cheered on former Florida Representative Alan Grayson when he said on the floor of the House that the Republican plan for health care reform was to die quickly in the event of injury or illness. Too many Republican politicians, in my view, don't really care about reforming health care, but it is unfair to claim that they want people to die quickly. And surely there are some Republican politicians who are troubled by our health care system and want to reform it.

So it is clear that some lefties engage in assholery from time to time, myself included. Willis is no different. In one post, Willis presents the following passage from this story:

During his weekly news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Boehner claimed that Mr. Obama has added 200,000 federal workers since he took office (a figure that has been disputed), and shrugged at the idea that Republican efforts to slash government spending would put many of them out of work. 

“If some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it,” Mr. Boehner said. “We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.”

In response, Willis writes, "And with that, John Boehner tells the truth about what conservatives think about jobs." And that's it.

That's what conservatives think about jobs. Granted, Boehner is their leader in the House, but Willis is overgeneralizing a bit, isn't he? And the implication that Republicans in the House are opposed to jobs is unfair. Now, there is nothing wrong with taking issue with what Republicans tend to believe about the government's role in managing the economy. Those government jobs actually stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of people who will likely spend most of it. But demonizing Republicans in general by implying that they're anti-job is unfair and over the top.

In "Write A Negative Story About The NRA, Get Racist Hate Mail," Willis quotes Michael Luo of the New York Times as writing the following:

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

Luo tweeted that he received an e-mail in response to the story which read in part, "why don't you go back to where you came from?"

Willis characterizes this as "the response from the right," and ends the post with the statement, "They are who we thought they were."

What justifies Willis in painting all conservatives with the same broad brush? How is this any different than the bullshit one constantly finds at a right-wing blog like Lori Ziganto's, where it is suggested that all pro-choicers believe in abortion on demand and either support the activities of Kermit Gosnell or are not alarmed by them? We can all do better than this.

Another Willis post from February is entitled, "Republicans Really Hate America, Want To Shut Down Its Government." The post, in its entirety, is as follows:

That is the only rational way to view this joke of a budget passed by the House GOP. How bad is it? Even the conservative blue dog Democrats – many of them basically Republicans – passed on it. These same people who think that the Wall Streeters who caused the fiscal crisis should be rewarded versus punished, think that the people who should pay are the poor and infirm.

The same people, who blanched at the financial reform bill that had already had most of its teeth taken out, seek to kick the neediest Americans right in the teeth.

Combine this with the assault on unionized workers in Wisconsin and Ohio, in addition to other, less high profile instances, and it is very clear that the Republican Party and the conservative movement that backs it isn’t very fond of this country.

The President and party they supported almost brought the nation to its knees for their 8 years of misrule. Now it seems they want to administer the killing blow.

We can’t let them.

Republicans really hate America, they seek to kick the neediest Americans right in the teeth, and they want to administer the killing blow, according to Willis. Now, it might be argued that Willis did not intend to say that Republicans know that their budget cuts would deliver the killing blow to the United States. Perhaps he intended to say only that they want those cuts but do not realize that they would kill the United States. But that interpretation doesn't cohere well with the title of the post.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of deep budget cuts. I personally agree with the President's former plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans, and I'm tired of the Republican tendency to ask only the poor and middle class to make sacrifices. But the idea that Republicans hate America and want to kill it is ridiculous. I am sick and tired of hearing from right-wingers that I hate America simply because I'm a liberal. If I don't want to be the target of that shit, then why would I make others the target of it? Someone has to be the big person in this and respond to inflammatory rhetoric with dispassionate facts and reason. Can't Willis be that guy? Can't I?

Judging from the few posts I have read, Willis and I are often in agreement on political matters. But he should strive to set a better example and be a more honorable representative of those of us on the left. As should I.