More smearing of dissent from the Bush administration

Via (ugh) the Progress Report and E&P, here's presidential spokesman Trent Duffy suggesting that critics of the war in Iraq don't want to win the war on terror:

Q: Is the White House concerned about the protests that are planned in Salt Lake City today?

MR. DUFFY: The President addressed that directly. He can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror, and we cannot retreat and cut and run from terrorists, but he just has a different view. He believes it would be a fundamental mistake right now for us to cut and run in the face of terrorism, because if we've learned anything, especially from the 9/11 Commission Report, it is that to continue to retreat after the Cole, after Beirut and Somalia is to only empower terrorists and to give them more recruiting tools as they try to identify ways to harm Americans.

So he believes that people have a fundamental right to express their views. That's one of the reasons we're fighting this war on terrorism, to protect our fundamental rights. But at the same time, he disagrees strongly.

And via the Progress Report again, here's Donald Rumsfeld comparing critics of the war in Iraq to those who praised Stalin and Communism during World War II:

Of course, some are arguing that the effort in Iraq is doomed. Recently we've again been told that Iraq may prove worse than Vietnam, and it's been alleged that we're not winning...

Throughout history there have always been those who predict America's failure just around every corner. At the height of World War II, a prominent U.S. diplomat predicted that democracy was finished in Britain and probably in America too. Many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during that period. For a time, Communism was very much in vogue. It was called Euro-Communism to try to mute or mask the totalitarian core. And thankfully, the American people are better centered. They ultimately come to the right decisions on big issues. And the future of Iraq is a very big issue. So those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through.

For more on attacks on dissent since 9/11, see my Spinsanity column from Sept. 2004, All the President's Spin, and Henry Farrell's updated list of claims that the left is rooting for the other side in Iraq or the war on terror.

Update 8/25: Readers seem to think my objection to these comments wasn't laid out in enough detail, so here's a bit more. (I try to keep it brief generally since I've written so much about the smearing of dissent that I don't want to repeat myself. See what I've written in the past [linked above] for more information.)

Duffy's quote uses a key tactic that is employed in attacks on dissent - blurring the distinction between a handful of people on the fringe who actually want the US to lose the war on terror and the vast majority of Americans, who do not. Duffy, speaking generally about anti-war protests and opposition to the war, says that Bush "can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror." That is a smear. You can protest against the war in Iraq and still believe we "must win the war on terror" -- indeed, that is undoubtedly the position of most opponents of the Iraq war.

Another tactic that is frequently used is to associate political opponents with hated figures -- Saddam Hussein, Nazis, North Korea, etc. We wrote about this frequently on Spinsanity. And I believe Rumsfeld's statement is very much in that vein. Yes, he is making a historical analogy, but it disguises an attempt to liken war opponents to Communist sympathizers. That analogy implies that war opponents sympathize with the other side. That, again, is a smear. With the exception of a handful of fringe figures, it is not a fair statement about those who question the war in Iraq.

Various readers will undoubtedly respond by saying that obscure extremist X or Y said something favorable about the insurgency. And they may be right. Such statements are loathsome, but they do not excuse making sweeping generalizations about a huge swath of people. 56% of Americans believe the war in Iraq is going badly -- are they sympathizers with the insurgents? Do they believe we don't need to win the war on terror?

Comments

[Anodyne]

Brendan,

I really enjoyed reading your book, but I'm missing the point of these examples.

Duffy's statement looks like a straightforward expression of belief, not a smear.

Rumsfeld's statement has a bit of inneundo to it, but seems to be a sincere expression of his world view and his understanding of history (one with which a reasonable might disagree). Could you elaborate?

[DennisThePeasant]

I'm with Anodyne of this one...There's no "there" there in either of those quotes.

And if you're seriously asking us to entertain the notion that the International ANSWER crowd (and their ilk) sincerely wants U.S. to succeed in Iraq, or in the War on Terror for that matter, then I'm afraid you're going to be laughed out of the room. They've left too much of a paper trail for that argument to fly.

Either you've flat-out gone over the top on this "crushing of dissent" thingee you've been on about or you've decided to go in for a bit of good natured self-parody of earlier dissent related hyperbole. I'm betting on the former but hoping for the latter.

Take a deep breath. You're smarter than the above post, Brendan.

[Anodyne]

Dennis,

I will not presume to speak for or try to defend Brendan, but my experience is that he has been quite willing to attack smears on all ideological divides in the past.

You can make the argument that few administration officials or their spokespersons have used smear tactics when it comes to the issue of dissent over the GWOT or the ongoing occupation of Iraq (as opposed to other issues), and perhaps you would be, on balance, correct. That is a worthwhile discussion to have. This particular post dealt with attacks on dissent. While ending it with a link to other examples of non-administration parties that were identified over at CT may seem conspiratorial or a reflection of Brendan’s dogmatic beliefs to some, I'm having trouble seeing anything sinister or wrong-headed in it.

Again, I don't wish to speak for Brendan, but a main thesis he seems to uphold in his work is that smearing (an emotionally effective tactic) is not useful for understanding or a healthy dialogue. My guess is that he would also decry some of the examples that Eugene Volokh produced in the post that set Henry Farrell off on his search.

Perhaps one thing that comes out of all of these exercises is that, at least on the question of dissent over occupation and GWOT, public smearing by pundits and high profile bloggers is rather infrequent and, apart from setting off some emotional skirmishes in the blogosphere, has little impact on public perceptions. I think concern over the administration engaging in it would be well placed. The point of my post was that I simply did not see the examples he offered as relevant to making that case.

[DennisThePeasant]

Anodyne-

Points taken.

I guess my primary problem is that I find legitimate criticism of the dissenting does not constitute the act of 'smearing'.

For example, there have certainly been statements about Cindy Sheehan that could only be characterized as 'smears', but there have also been perfectly legitimate criticism of her motives, intent and any number of her own statements on a variety of topics. One needs to take care to make sure to recognize the distinction between the two...because there is a distinction between the two. An important one.

There are times when I have felt that Brendan paints with too broad a brush in this matter. Not necessarily because of my political orientation or who he is criticizing, but because I think his brush is too broad. I would consider his post above to be an example of that tendency.

For the most part I find the idea that any dissent is being stifled these days (in the age of the internet, cable news, cell phones and cell cameras) on either side of the political divide to be a bad joke, and I am inclined to suspect the motives of those who claim it repeatedly.

[Anodyne]

Dennis,

I don't want to hijack this thread and I was lucky enough to fill my daily quota of pontification early this morning. So, just a couple of observations and an unsolicited recommendation:

Brendan, you and I have not agreed on a working definition of "smear". This makes it a little difficult to proceed.

Applying the "I woke up with a hangover" test: In a morning debate class I wouldn't want to be assigned the role of defending the position "rhetorical or investigative tendencies are independent of political orientation (or more to the point, belief structure)", regardless of which causal direction my opponent chose to argue. I wouldn't have enough functioning brain cells to win.

I accept that there is a tendency (perhaps in some cases even a necessity) to assign motivations in the assessment of the quality of an argument. A lot depends on the perceived harm caused by the argument. At least on the matter of Brendan's post, whether we all agreed in the end that it was a clunker or it had merit, it's hard to see where the harm comes into play.

Which brings me to my unsolicited recommendation: Geoffrey Stone's book Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime. If you don't like it, I will pick up the tab.

[DennisThePeasant]

A-

Good enough. I would be the last to consider B's post harmful. Actually, I like his stuff quite a bit, despite the fact that we have differing political orientations. He's one of the few Democrat/Liberal types that I read for content rather than fisking material.

I've heard of, but not read, the book. I checked with my library and they have a copy. I've reserved it. So don't worry about the tab!

D

[Anodyne]

Btw, Brendan, if this post was a parody, let me be the first to say, well done. It may just be a case of pearls before swine. Like Dennis, I went back and forth on the question myself when I first read the post.

A question mark at the end of the post title would have made it easier for those of us who are a little slow on the uptake to have enjoyed the full effect.

[Rick]

I am against the war in Iraq and have been before the start. Reason: basically the burden is on the person starting the war to explain why the war is necessary. Bush has never done this to my satisfaction.

As for the "war on terror", like most wars on abstractions (the poverty, drugs, illiteracy, bad taste), this is not a war, per se. I neither want victory nor defeat in the "war on terror" - I'm still confused as to what the hell it is!