Republican Strategy of Avoidance #136

Deflecting the conversation away from its intensions.

The Republican playbook has an overt strategy of distraction, misrepresentation, and inappropriate disrespect for the rules of civilized debate. Not only do they not stick to the discussion areas, they are more than willing to shift the agreed-upon terrain midstream, pretending like that was the plan the whole time (Iraq was going to kill us, no, we wanted to free them, no, we want to democratize the Middle East, no, we need to root out the terrorists and smoke ‘em out of their holes).

But the true test comes in any of our debates.

Debate example 1:

Democrat: The president has not only deceived the American people, but he has broken the law by illegally wiretapping phones inside the country. There are provisions that must be followed that are reasonable, and the president didn’t follow them. He blatantly broke the law of the United States.

Of course there are many responses that can be made to this, and I’m not suggesting that defensiveness isn’t one of them. Of course I expect the president and his “handlers” to defend those actions. The problem is what comes next.

Bush: I needed to wiretap to get the terrorists. You don’t want to die, do you? The law is silly. It’s a bad law. I don’t like it. It restricts my ability to get the terrorists, see, so we need to get rid of it. Let’s write a new law. Make it legal.

The issue isn’t that he defended himself, but he deflected the talk from the issue (Bush broke the law) to a tangential issue (the merits of the law). This isn’t how proper debate is handled, nor is this how civil matters are resolved. Let’s play an example for the example: if I were charged with murder, the court examines the evidence against me as it relates to the law of the land. If I admit that I killed the other person, it would be up to the court to determine the tenacity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. Yes, debate would no doubt go into self-defense territory or accidental death (really anything to keep me out of jail). But the point of the convening court was to try me for the crime I committed. Merits of the law happen after the sentencing.

So in my first debate example, the issue on the table isn’t the merits of the FISA courts, it’s the severity of Bush’s crime and what an appropriate punishment should be. After the president is reprimanded for his crime, then we can decide the appropriateness of the law.

Debate example 2:

Democrat: First, the civilian leadership in the Pentagon is inept and poorly planned and executed the invasion and occupation of Iraq AND the occupation of Iraq is a disaster AND we were lied into war, therefore we must change course and extract our forces from Iraq as soon as possible.

There are many defenses thrown up for this one, but I should pick the most common and least helpful one.

Republicans: If you’re so smart, where’s your plan?

Aside flashback (Bush): “I’m the decider. I decide what we do.”

The issue on the table is not about future plans, per se, but about what has gone on up until now. The above argument clearly states that things must be changed and that the way YOU handled it is bad. The implication from the statement is, that since Bush is “the decider,” the Administration falsified intelligence brought before Congress, and the Republicans ramrodded a war authorization through Congress, the minority never expected a say. You made the mess, how are you going to clean it up?

In deflecting the issue from the foundation of the war—the very roots that not only made it happen but gird it and keep it intact—and onto a weak minority that has little say in the execution of the war, Bush and the Republicans not only sidestep their own persecution, but use that weakness to further persecute the Democrats in Congress.

This technique that I have shown you is not only bad argumentation, but it distracts the process from getting done what needs to be done. Right now, instead of helping people find good work and building up our economy, Congress has to debate whether or not to rebuke the president for being a jackass. This means that the work is being tied up for a week, just so a public statement can be made that nobody supports the president’s agenda in Iraq. Instead of having honest and proper debate over the last five years, we have had tyranny and irrational deflection.

Be on the lookout for this dangerous technique! It is as seamless and shifting as the sands of the desert!