Grace Notes

While not exclusive to one side or the other, there seems to be a much greater tendency on the left to engage in ad hominem attacks, while mainstream commenters on the right tend to refrain from such. Two examples illustrate: the smears, and now attempts to have her removed, of Miss California, and the calls for prosecution, or at least disbarment, of the lawyers who provided guidance on the enhanced interrogation methods. It seems that there are two sets of rules here, and the conservative side has agreed to be more constrained.

That doesn’t seem right. There are important principles at stake here. Trying to destroy or publicly humiliate someone with whom the you have a policy disagreement is to change the game. The would be destroyers ought to at least risk consequences proportionate to what they are attempting to do. Seek to disbar an attorney as a way to shut down debate is maybe to risk a significant financial or other judgment. Attempt to publicly disgrace someone; risk your own public disgrace. The issues matter and need to be debated on the merits, and not have things decided by who is the nastier name caller.

By playing by a set of Marquess of Queensberry rules we are unnecessarily handicapping ourselves. Those who engage in personal destruction and public humiliation cannot be accorded the status of those whom we simply disagree with and with whom we can reason together. They’ve already demonstrated that reasoning together is just a tactic to gain advantage at some later time. It’s time to realize that they are not opponents, but rather enemies.

[Update]

As I think about this, I do not believe that direct turnabout is right. For example, pusillanimous bullies who descend to school yard smears, that bear no relation to the truth, or who try to expose potentially embarrassing details, should not then likewise be villified and investigated with an eye to unearthing their embarrassing histories. Rather, I believe that such behavior should be confronted directly.

Also, there should be a way to mitigate harm. One example is that scurrilous claims are sometimes made to intimidate or tie someone up in legal proceeding and costs (e.g. Sarah Palin). When baseless charges are made, the target should be made whole. His legal fees should be reimbursed, and he should be compensated for time and trouble.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.