Brendan Nyhan

On The Horse’s Mouth last week, I wrote a post that criticized Nazi/fascist comparisons made by various public figures, including Sean Penn’s recent suggestion that fascism has come to America under President Bush.

In it, I specifically disavowed any equivalence between the importance of Penn and more powerful conservatives who used rhetoric comparing war opponents to Nazi appeasers, but pointed out that the principle is the same in both cases: “Penn is hardly as powerful or influential as the White House or O’Reilly, but this kind of rhetoric is destructive no matter who it comes from.”

Nonetheless, Eric Alterman slammed me for — guess what? — suggesting equivalence between Penn and his rhetorical counterparts on the right:

I am with Atrios on this. Absolutely, the left needs to police itself and I think I do as much of this as a person can, in my position(s). But this “the-left-is-just-as-bad-as-the-right” disease in a liberal publication that knows well the differences both in power as well as ethics between contemporary conservatives and liberals is beyond counterproductive. It’s downright destructive. What’s more, it’s sloppily done, as the commenters here, and on previous Atrios posts have demonstrated.

Meanwhile, George Soros, the liberal financier and aspiring public intellectual, has written a new book in which he compares President Bush to Communists and Nazis — here’s the transcript from CNN today:

BLITZER: Let’s talk about your new book, “The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.” I want to read to you a quote that sort of startled me, I’m sure a lot of your readers, once they read it: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the technique used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.”

Now, when a lot of people hear comparisons between President Bush and Nazis and Communists, they’re going to say, George Soros, you’ve gone over the top.

SOROS: You actually picked up the most incendiary part of the book. And I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between the Nazi regime and our open society, because we are a democracy, but there are some similarities in the propaganda method, which I pointed out.

BLITZER: But, George Soros, you lived through the Holocaust. You know firsthand what the Nazis were doing. You lived through the Cold War, the worst of the Stalinist era. To make comparisons between the president of the United States and these regimes, a lot of people are going to say, what are you thinking?

SOROS: Well, that is unfortunate because I think there are some serious arguments about our open society being endangered by the policies followed by the Bush administration. The war on terror, which does not have an end, changes — it leads to an undue extension of executive powers. It has stifled debate. Criticizing the president is considered unpatriotic, and as a result, we have been following policies which endanger our position in the world.

BLITZER: A lot of people will agree with you on that but where they will starkly disagree is to then bring in the whole Nazi and Communist comparison.

SOROS: Actually, it’s a valid point, and maybe I did go over the line, but I think that on the whole, my assessment is a balanced one. And the fact that, frankly, when President Bush said, you are either with us or you are with the terrorists, that’s when I was reminded, but I should have probably kept it to myself.

BLITZER: Because I’ll read to you what you wrote in The Washington Post in 2003. You said, “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me. Bush feels that on September 11th he was anointed by God. He is leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence.”

That’s what you said then. Now I guess you acknowledge you went over the top.

I co-wrote a whole book about President Bush’s PR tactics, but comparing them Nazi or Communist tactics is way over the line. Even Soros admits he may have gone too far. So will Alterman “police” the left? Don’t hold your breath.

In his column on the Media Matters website this week, Jamison Foser criticizes my Horse’s Mouth post about a New York Times article on reactions to President Bush’s primetime address on 9/11.

Here’s what I wrote:

[New York Times reporter David] Stout also fails to directly contradict Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who mischaracterized President Bush’s remarks. In the sixth paragraph of the article, he quotes her statement that “On the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, President Bush continued to try to justify the invasion of Iraq by drawing nonexistent links to the 9/11 attacks.” But Stout waits until the very last paragraph of the article to contradict her claim:

Democrats have long accused Mr. Bush and his top aides of disingenuously implying a link between the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. But on Monday night, Mr. Bush said, “I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.”

I’ve written extensively about how administration officials have linked Iraq to 9/11. But last night was one of the very rare instances in which Bush disavowed a direct connection. Pelosi’s statement is misleading at best, and Stout should have called her on it.

Foser attacks me in his column, saying I “missed the forest for the trees”:

Speaking of which, Bush continues to try to con the country into thinking Iraq did have something to do with 9-11 — and continues to benefit from the way the media cover those efforts.

Writing for the American Prospect’s “The Horse’s Mouth” weblog, Brendan Nyhan claimed that the criticism of Bush by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) for trying “to justify the invasion of Iraq by drawing nonexistent links to the 9/11 attacks” was misleading. Nyhan wrote: “I’ve written extensively about how administration officials have linked Iraq to 9/11. But last night was one of the very rare instances in which Bush disavowed a direct connection. Pelosi’s statement is misleading at best, and [New York Times reporter David] Stout should have called her on it.”

Unfortunately, Nyhan missed the forest for the trees. Bush may have “disavowed a direct connection” between Iraq and 9-11, but in talking extensively about Iraq during what was billed as a solemn commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, Bush clearly gave viewers the impression that Iraq had something to do with the attacks.

This is, to anybody who has been paying attention, easily recognizable as a tactic frequently used by Bush and his backers: They don’t explicitly say “Iraq was behind 9-11” — in fact, they take great pains to note that they aren’t saying it. But in repeatedly discussing one in the context of the other, Bush and his backers create an impression that Iraq and the 9-11 attacks are linked, even as they insist that they are not doing so. And reporters let them get away with it; they even (unwittingly, we presume) help out.

It’s annoying to be lectured about a tactic that is “easily recognizable” to “anybody who has been paying attention” — we wrote about Bush’s efforts to suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11 months before Media Matters was even founded, and we devote substantial attention to it in All the President’s Spin.

In addition, I don’t know how a reasonable person can read the speech and conclude that “Bush clearly gave viewers the impression that Iraq had something to do with the attacks.” The first time the word Iraq appears in the speech Bush immediately denies a link: “I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.” After such an explicit denial, it’s perfectly acceptable for Bush to discuss the war in Iraq on the anniversary of Sept. 11th (or any other day).

Critics of Bush’s effort to connect the war with 9/11 should be declaring victory, but instead Media Matters wants to preclude Bush from ever discussing the two together in any way again. They’re wrong.

Things that make you go hmm: Peggy Noonan claiming President Bush is “not trying to polarize:

Pundits and historians call Mr. Bush polarizing–and he is, but in some unusual ways. For one thing, he’s not trying to polarize. He is not saying, “My team is for less government, your team is for more–my team, stand with me!”

Mr. Bush has muddied what his team stands for. He has made it all come down to him–not to philosophy but to him and his certitudes.

What is polarizing about him is the response he elicits from Americans just by being himself. They have deep questions about him, even as he is vivid to them.

It’s true that Bush isn’t trying to polarize voters on the issue of the size of government (he’s implicitly conceded that debate). But he and his party are saying that the GOP will protect America while suggesting Democrats “are willing to wave the white flag of surrender”, which is a far more polarizing claim in the current environment. This argument doesn’t pass the laugh test.

In his column today, George Will, a political philosopher turned pundit, offers a monocausal explanation of social behavior that would make Karl Marx blush. Apparently, “most social pathologies” ranging from “crime to schools that cannot teach” are caused by single parent families:

[Washington Post reporter and author Thomas] Edsall notes that one-third of American children — and almost 70 percent of African American children — are born to unmarried mothers. Then, in an astonishing passage about this phenomenon, which is the cause of most social pathologies, from crime to schools that cannot teach, he explains how Americans differ concerning what he calls “freedom from the need to maintain the marital or procreative bond.”

There’s no question that out-of-wedlock births are associated with increased crime rates and lower educational achievement (among other problems) and that the number of such births has gone up over time, but are they really “the cause” of “most social pathologies”? Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure there was no shortage of criminals, bad schools, or other social pathologies back in the 1950s.

The article I linked to last week on a College Republicans intern who wanted to hold a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” has caused an uproar, and the GOP is running for the hills, as Michael Crowley notes:

Republicans on campus and in Washington distanced themselves yesterday from controversial political activities discussed by an intern for the College Republican National Committee.

The intern, Morgan Wilkins, a sophomore at the University of Louisville, who is being paid to organize College Republicans throughout the state told The Michigan Daily on Sunday that she was considering organizing an event at campuses around the state that would have had participants shoot paintball or BB gun at cardboard cutouts of prominent Democrats like senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. She also said she might hold “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” where students would try and find a volunteer hidden on campus wearing a shirt that said “illegal immigrant” on it.

“We would never do those types of events or support them,” College Republicans chair Robert Scott said. “First, because they’re offensive to some members of our club. Second, because they undermine one of the goals of our organization, which is to include as many people as possible.”

A Daily report published Tuesday describing these events sparked a minor national uproar. An editing error that misidentified Wilkins’s employer as the Republican National Committee, not the CRNC caused much of the outcry. There is no official link between the RNC and the CRNC.

Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean sent a letter to his counterpart at the RNC, Ken Mehlman, demanding that he denounce the activities and put a stop to them. Mehlman called the events “reprehensible” in his reply to Dean. He also noted that Wilkins was not employed by the RNC, as was originally reported.

CRNC chair Paul Gourley said that while the group employs Wilkins, it had nothing to do with the proposed events.

Note Scott’s quote: the proposed activities are, he says, “offensive to some members of our club.” But apparently not all!

Romenesko flags this hilarious advisory from the News & Observer, a newspaper based in Raleigh (see a PDF of the front page):

From the Page One left rail “Advisory to Readers”: “Today’s Life, etc. section includes a photo of a famous fresco by Michelangelo that includes nudity.”

The picture of the Sistine Chapel (which appears below) accompanies an innocuous-looking story about a religion survey:

Hide the children!

Update 9/17 12:03 PM: Via Romenesko, N&O public editor Ted Vaden reports on his blog that only one person was upset:

So far, only one person didn’t like the art. Two others tch-tched The N&O for feeling that a warning was necessary

Here are my posts on The Horse’s Mouth yesterday:
–A nasty title for an anti-Coulter book
–Times correction watch: 1 for 3

In the conclusion to All the President’s Spin, we argue that it’s important to stigmatize the use of PR tactics by embarrassing politicians who robotically repeat talking points and buzzwords (like “The Daily Show” does). So it’s good to see a columnist for The Hill mocking Deborah Pryce and John Boehner for their hackery in promoting the new catchphrase “terrorist tribunals” (via Josh Marshall):

During a Tuesday meeting of the House Republican conference, Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) unveiled a handy new rhetorical device aimed at furthering House Republicans tough-on-terrorism national security agenda.

Instead of referring to military tribunals as, well, the military tribunals that they are and have been known as throughout their entire existence, House Republicans should start referring to them as “terrorist tribunals,” to emphasize the bad guys they will be trying. (Very clever. Never mind that good ol’ American adage “innocent until proven guilty.”)

But even after Pryce’s instructions, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) needed a reminder. When he rose to speak about next week’s floor schedule, according to our fly on the wall, he mentioned “military tribunals for suspected terrorists.” He then caught himself, looked at Pryce, and asked, “What is it again?”

Pryce corrected Boehner, who then amended his speech with the by-the-playbook phrase “terrorist tribunals.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank has written an excellent column on the Republican strategy of suggesting that Democrats are traitors, which includes another objectionable quote from John Boehner:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was his genial self at a meeting with reporters yesterday morning, showing off his golf-ball-pattern tie and talking of a conversation he once had with Jack Nicklaus about the baby-blue cravat.

But 15 minutes later, Boehner had moved from the necktie to the jugular: He speculated that Democrats may be guilty of the capital crime of aiding and comforting the enemy.

“I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting terrorists than in protecting the American people,” he said.

One of his listeners, offering Boehner the chance to rescind that charge, asked if he really meant to accuse Democrats of treason. “I said I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists,” he replied, repeating more than clarifying. “They certainly don’t want to take the terrorists on in the field.”

The majority leader’s charge of treachery was no accident. Two months before Election Day, Republicans have revived the technique used with great success in 2002 and 2004: suggesting that the loyal opposition is, well, not so loyal.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) seemed to have the same talking points yesterday. In a fight for his political life, Santorum worked himself into a rage on the Senate floor, hollering: “If you listen to the Democratic leader, our lesson is: . . . Let’s put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That’s the message.”

The arrival of Treason Season, heralded by the charged address President Bush gave on Monday’s 9/11 anniversary, is right on schedule.

Indeed. I’ve updated my timeline of attacks on dissent again to reflect the Boehner and Santorum quotes plus a John Thune quote that Milbank flags elsewhere in the article; it’s below the fold.

(more…)

George Allen has issued yet another apology for “macaca,” his fondness for Confederate flags, and other aspects of his ugly history on racial issues. Meanwhile, Allen’s behavior continue to haunt him; yesterday Josh Marshall linked to my post on the noose Allen hung in his law office, which he tried to say was “more of a lasso.”