It’s so ingrained it simply MUST be mentioned, even in articles that are entirely about the right-wing’s need to lie and distort to cover their lack of arguments. For instance: Slate’s “The GOP’s War Against Facts: The truth became dangerous for the Republican Party when it ran out of arguments.” By Dahlia Lithwick and Raymond Vasvari pulls no punches when it comes to laying the blame for the muddled conversation on Capitol Hill at the feet of the obfuscating GOP.
// ]]>
Someday political scientists will try to date the decline of reasoned discourse in America to the moment when the left and the right began to invent their own facts. Climate change deniers, the purveyors of lies linking abortion to breast cancer, and creationists will all be blamed for the end of meaningful debate between liberals and conservatives. But that’s not quite right. The real end of civic discourse can be traced to the new conservative argument that facts themselves are dangerous.
It’s a dangerous contention not just for what it hides, but also for what it reveals: a lack of any other arguments.
There is not one example of a left-wing invented fact. The article does not mention, once, any attempts by the left to deny the public information the way the right has been furiously covering up who their rich donors are. There is no equivalence on the left to Mitt Romney refusing to release his tax returns. Every word is directed to the right and their utter lack of transparency.
Yet, right there in the first sentence: “Someday political scientists will try to date the decline of reasoned discourse in America to the moment when the left and the right began to invent their own facts.”
Why is that there? What purpose does it serve? It’s just stated as a fact without a shred of proof or context to support it. It’s a given. Except it’s not true. The left, as a movement, does not invent its own facts. Oh sure, Michael Moore is an exception but he is hardly the voice of the left. MSNBC does not engage in systematic deception the way Fox has been documented to do. There is no left equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of AM hater radio in its fact free zone. So why do the writers just assume there is? It’s unlikely they accidentally left it in there. Two writers and at least one copy editor just let it slip? Nah. The “both sides” meme is so ingrained among certain journalists it’s like they don’t even know they’re dong it any more. It’s almost become a law: “Anytime an accusation or scandal is attributed to the right-wing, an equal accusation or scandal must be attributed to the left. If no scandal fits the bill, just assume their must be one that hasn’t been uncovered yet. Balance must be maintained at all costs.”
This is why we can’t get any straight answers in this country. There are not two equal sides to every argument and calling a conservative politician a liar does not make you “biased;” It makes you honest. Honesty is a quality sorely lacking these days.
facebook comments:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I felt the same way when I read that article. I was like, “you totally nailed it” with the subtitle: “The truth became dangerous for the Republican Party when it ran out of arguments.” But then they went completely went off the rails by falsely equating the left and the right, only to later recover somewhat with the rest of the article.