When I read Michael O'Hanlon's ornery remarks in The Washington Times this morning, I suppose I took it for granted that he didn't also have a Wall Street Journal op-ed. I mean, I know the guy's prolific, but how many conservative media outlets can he be in simultaneously? Well, I was wrong. The essence of the argument is that if Obama thinks that face-to-face meetings with foreign leaders will single-handedly solve all of America's policy problems, then he's sorely mistaken. This is, of course, true but O'Hanlon can't be bothered to adduce any evidence that Obama does think this. After all, you'd have to be extraordinarily dumb to adopt the straw-man view that O'Hanlon's attacking here.
« Fear Factor | Main | McCain and Choice »
And If Obama Were A Giraffe, He'd Have a Really Short Neck
14 Feb 2008 01:13 pm
Comments (30)
The only hordes who read the WSJ op-ed page(except for those like me who read it for its comedic value) are likely to nod in agreement with O'Hanlon anyway. Facts and logic don't even enter into the equation.
By the same token, McCain thinks he will solve all the world's problems by looking foreign leaders in the eye and telling them we mean business.
I've noticed many of Obama's critics resorting to strawman arguments. It basically goes "Obama supporters think that if we elect Obama, all our problems will be solved". If they have even less shame, they might allege that Obama himself believes that nonsense.
i'm the kind of wall street journal reader who simply skips the editorial page, and as joe klein's conscience says, the nutcases who believe what's on the wsj editorial page are a lost cause anyhow.
but my real question is this: i can't say i pay close attention to the every utterance of michael o'hanlon, but on the face of it, it appears he's getting dumber (and shriller). is this the case?
Remember, O'Hanlon is a "liberal," just like Hillary, so his words have more weight when it comes to bolstering right-wing talking points.
The only thing Obama stands for is shaking hands with our enemies. And they will all do this under a giant banner of Che Guevara. While smoking weed. And laughing about how much they like the morning after pill.
We can't risk electing a liberal Islamofascist communist president that loves to get high.
Vote McBush in 2008! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!
But these people are dumb. This is the same thinking that led them to the conclusion that Cheney is not part of the executive branch is a viable argument.
But these people are dumb. This is the same thinking that led them to the conclusion that Cheney is not part of the executive branch is a viable argument.
The WSJ Op-Ed page has been a stunning success in its ability to take an intelligent readership and indoctrinate them with the most stupid arguments imaginable.
JKC, you're missing another aspect of the WSJ readership: people are well-to-do but not rich and hoping to become more rich. They read the WSJ Op-Ed page and start to think, "these people are the wealthy people in the market that I am trying to emulate. They must know what they're talking about." It's actually a pretty slick indoctrination operation, playing on the class-insecurity and the aspirations of the upper-middle-class to turn middle-of-the-road white-collar professionals into the dittoheads of the professional class.
Here's the really weird thing about O'Hanlon...
Maybe my memory is totally playing tricks on me, but I distinctly seem to recall that in the period shortly after 9/11, he'd seemed like one of the more sensible foreign affairs pundits, standing up for a time against the crazy proposals of the neocons on a variety of issues. Then, over a year or two, he morphed into being just another neocon warmonger.
If so, I'd guess that this would be a perfect example of the "donor-driven" nature of DC thinktankery. I've certainly heard that the same thing also happened with lots of the "libertarian" pundits or writers at Cato, Reason, etc.
afferent input, that is gold.
Giraffes don't count, because their necks only have seven vertebrae. Owls are the critical demographic, as we'll find out in Oregon (which may yet count).
The best approach to foreign policy is to get advice from O'Hanlon and do the exact opposite of whatever he suggests.
The guy is really good at being wrong.
The essence of the argument is that if Obama thinks that face-to-face meetings with foreign leaders will single-handedly solve all of America's policy problems, then he's sorely mistaken.
Well, somebody's got a straw man argument going on here, but it ain't O'Hanlon - it's Matthew.
After all, you'd have to be extraordinarily dumb to adopt the straw-man view that Matthew's attacking here.
And If Obama Were A Giraffe, He'd Have a Really Short Neck
Obama as is he now has a very short neck for a Giraffe. In the possible world where he's a giraffe, I don't know how long or short his neck would be.
Al, I read the op-ed, it just goes through examples of times when Presidents talked to other world leaders and talks about whether the results were positive or negative, as well as times when Presidents didn't talk to other world leaders and the results were positive, and then says "Therefore Obama's policy (which O'Hanlon made up) of making other world leaders be nice through sheer persuasiveness is unlikely to work."*
*This is a paraphrase.
Two things: Al's trollery is getting lazier. It's the rhetorical equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"
Secondly, in what sense can O'Hanlon be considered center-left in foreign policy any longer? If someone in Britain published only in The Sun, the Independent, and the Times of London, and called himself a liberal (US meaning), he would be laughed off the stage. Vice versa with a "conservative" who wrote only for the Guardian or The Scotsman.
Yet, in the more decorous and hierarchical culture of American newspapers, such foolishness is allowed to persist, unquestioned.
Egads.
Is Fred Hiatt asleep at the wheel? America is in deepest crisis with a pacifist candidate who wou7ld have made Churchill sick and surely would have appeased at Muncih, O'hanlon is showing a Vulcan's bravery and boldness confronting this moral relativist, and where is the WAPO op ed page?
With the Washington Times showing it is willing to make inroads into the serious right wing schizoid set to become the paper to read in D.C., WAPO needs to do something pre-emptive. I say - lure Max Boot to the Op Ed page! It is the best way to show that, in the town that runs on spilling American blood for defense industry profit, the Post won't be left behind.
al, here's the first 2 grafs:
"A central element of Barack Obama's plan to change American foreign policy is his intention, upon becoming president, to meet with foreign leaders of extremist regimes -- the type of rogue-state dictators that George W. Bush has generally shunned during his time as president.
Applied categorically, this would be a bad idea. Meeting with enemy heads of state is neither as original as Mr. Obama implies, nor as promising as he claims. As a specific option for dealing with difficult regimes, it has potential merit on a case-by-case basis, and should always be considered -- but only after a careful assessment of what the United States believes it can get out of such meetings and dialogues."
sounds just like what matthew said....
"The WSJ Op-Ed page has been a stunning success in its ability to take an intelligent readership and indoctrinate them with the most stupid arguments imaginable."-Posted by Tyro
I've always thought that was the purpose of the WSJ. Create an audience preselected for wealth, intelligence and economic conservatism and then blast them with outrageous right wing propaganda.
I've always thought that was the purpose of the WSJ. Create an audience preselected for wealth, intelligence and economic conservatism and then blast them with outrageous right wing propaganda.
Ah, but the WSJ's new owner will surely stop that./snark
After all, you'd have to be extraordinarily dumb to adopt the straw-man view that O'Hanlon's attacking here.
Or you'd have to be Larry Johnson or Joe Wilson.
Or perhaps all of the above.
Why do idiots like Michael O'Hanlon fixate so compulsively on the matter of face to face meetings with foreign leaders?
This whole perception management school of international diplomacy really reminds me of the actor who goes to the audition full of information about what people are saying the casting people are looking for and condescendingly pities the actor in the corner who isn't wearing the right shoes or doesn't have the right haircut but doesn't get the part because the dude who had the cheesy shoes is just significantly better.
SO FRUSTRATING.
One thing that I think we all can agree on, as we test how strong Obama is in the face of the pure evil of Iran and Syria, is that we, at least, are allied with democracies in the Middle East. For instance, according to this BBC story, our good friends the Saudis, who President Backbone just visited on his liberty and democracy tour, gave a very very fair trial to this woman before condemning her to death for witchcraft. You have to admire our allies in the Middle East, really. We are defending them because America and the Saudis share common moral bonds.
Sure we do.
After all, Bush's Christian base would burn a witch in a heartbeat.
I wonder, will the right wing nuts bring this up?
"Hey, Saudi Arabia can burn a witch because we did it in Salem!"
"Hey, Israel can drive the Palestinians into the sea because we did it to the Indians!"
"Hey, we can torture 'terrorists' because we can kill them anyway!"
"Hey, Hitler can gas Jews because we had a gas chamber at Leavenworth!"
Shorter version: As long as somebody else does something stupid, we can do it, too!
I've noticed many of Obama's critics resorting to strawman arguments. It basically goes "Obama supporters think that if we elect Obama, all our problems will be solved". If they have even less shame, they might allege that Obama himself believes that nonsense.
This is, in itself, a straw man argument -- you've pointed to something that hasn't been said. Then again, straw men are the order of the day, especially in this election. Consider Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech, in which he alluded to the wild predictions of the shadowy "they". False attributions are a time-tested, effective and divisive tactic designed to whip up fear in the undiscerning.
This is, in itself, a straw man argument -- you've pointed to something that hasn't been said. Then again, straw men are the order of the day, especially in this election. Consider Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech, in which he alluded to the wild predictions of the shadowy "they".
-----------
riiiight, because nobody was seriously skeptical about Obama's chances in the Iowa caucuses.....
The best retort to O'Hanlon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ&eurl=http://www.thismodernworld.com/
O'Hanlon's second point is that pulling our troops out of Iraq too quickly will lead to increased violence and instability in Iraq. Obama counters that he would send troops back into Iraq if genocide or other forms of mass violence commenced. This would of course lead to fighting the same battle a second time and trying to gain back ground that had previously been lost, at an immense cost in lives and treasure.
Facts are facts: Obama needs to present a more robust plan of action for Iraq if he is going to beat McCain on national security and Iraq in the general election.
Comments closed February 28, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
After all, you'd have to be extraordinarily dumb to adopt the straw-man view that O'Hanlon's attacking here.
Indeed, and I'm not sure what it means that hordes of folks who read the WSJ are likely to believe O'Hanlon.
Posted by Jake | February 14, 2008 1:20 PM