Deligitimizing Debate

Wretchard at Belmont Club links to an article over at the Volokh Conspiracy about the way in which an opposing viewpoint is not refuted, but delegitimized. Volokh takes his example from an article in Slate quoting President Bush.

Here's today's Slate's Bushism of the Day:

"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" -- Showing German newspaper reporter Kai Diekmann the Oval Office, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

Here is the context for that quote:

That's George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting? People say, so what? Well, here's the "so what." You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone. If they're still analyzing the presidency of George Washington -- (laughter.) So Presidents shouldn't worry about the history. You just can't. You do what you think is right, and if you're thinking big enough, that history will eventually prove you right or wrong. But you won't know in the short-term.

Volokh comments:

Without this context, Bush's quote seems mysteriously inarticulate, and understandable only as an unintentional self-parody of his own unintellectualism. Why would he say that it's interesting that he read three or four books about Washington this year? Mystifying.

Wretchard adds:

It may be that President Bush is a dunce, chimp and idiot. But if so then a cherry-picked quote would not even be necessary to prove the point. It is characteristic of chimpanzees that even if you print their remarks in full they still sound like chimpanzees. The actual point of the the George Washington remark appears to be that history often delivers a judgment different from that of contemporary journalism. This assertion could be legitimately disputed by Slate, which often has wonderful articles. But in this unfortunate instance they've chosen to simply dismiss it as the babbling of a retarded Harvard Business School Graduate and ex-fighter pilot who happens to be President of the United States. There are precious few journalists who can claim as much; and while neither being a Harvard alum, fighter pilot or US President is proof of any particular genius, people having those accomplishments should not normally be presumed illiterate or mentally retarded unless there is compelling proof to the contrary. And the proof, as the full Volokh citation shows is not only absent but suppressed, possibly because it is not proof at all, unless it is proof of the writer's bias.

Exactly right. Dishonest journalism is despicable and often harmful. I'm tired of journalists and publications that selectively edit quotes, lead good news stories with dour headlines or under-report good news altogether, quote "experts" with a political ax to grind without revealing their bias, assume bad faith or intentions on behalf of those they perceive to be their ideological opponents, editorialziing in their "reportage," etc.

Obviously, journalism is reflective of society. Unfortunately, much of the mainstream press is entrenched with leftists, although it is admittedly becoming more balanced over time (or should I say "fair and balanced?"). Nevertheless, the alarming growth of Anti-Americanism abroad over the past few years has been abetted by leftists in the American press who hate conservatives, Christians, and traditionalists--in other words, those whom are personified by Presdient Bush.

Saying that President Bush is an idiot or that he sounds stupid is simply intellectual laziness by those who want to deligitimize his policies as a way to mollify their feelings of hatred toward him and what/whom he stands for. I don't agree with everything the man says, nor do I think he is a good communicator. But, honest debate about the extremely important issues of today requires a fair look at both sides of the issues, using objective truth to make informed decisions, and allowing the best ideas to prevail. Unfortunately, much of what passes for political dialogue today is nothing more than each side trying to deligitimize the other.