Legal Commentary

Paul Horowitz' post about conservative protesters is consistent with a summer long theme on the political left. The point seems to be to talk about the nature of the debate rather than the issues being debated. There is no obvious inconsistency between supporting - or using - government provided infrastructure and concern over the administration's proposed increases in the role of the state. But there is, at times, an inconsistency between rhetoric and reality. The President is not a communist or a fascist. He is not a socialist by most uses of that term. Joe Wilson's outburst was uncivil (as he himself recognized) even if the presidential speech contained a number of assertions that were either false or highly implausible.

Of course, one could have made the same points about criticism of President Bush who was also not a fascist and not a war criminal. Still, I think the point is worth making from time to time. I share Paul's exasperation at overwrought rhetoric and there is nothing wrong with calling out silliness.

But what also bothers me is the assumption that the intemperate conduct of some folks on the other side somehow characterizes your political opponents and their arguments. I certainly don't accuse Paul of that, but people like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman have made it into a cottage industry this summer. We read that the "GOP' or "conservatives" are racist or violent or fellow travelling with those who are. This is just as irresponsible as portraying the President as Goebbels. (If you like, pick out conservative commenters who have done the same thing.)

Most public debate is, of course, oversimplified. The average person does not have the time or inclination to explore the nuances of public policy questions. That is why political advertising - on both sides - is almost always undertaken in bad faith. It is why democracy can be ugly. People who know better - like Krugman and Rich  - should do better.