|
August 31, 2004
Smearing off the cuff
Eugene Volokh is outraged over Dennis Hastert's comments on FoxNews: Here in this campaign, quote, unquote, "reform," you take party power away from the party, you take the philosophical ideas away from the party, and give them to these independent groups. Volokh's response: Hastert's substantive criticisms of campaign finance may be legitimate -- but the suggestion that Soros might be getting money from illegal drug distributors, even as a hypothetical example, is pretty reprehensible. (Imagine that, say, Ted Kennedy said "I don't know where Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are getting their money, if it comes from overseas or from neo-Nazis"; I take it that we'd be pretty appalled, even if Kennedy was just giving a hypothetical example.) And while "drug groups" may be slightly ambiguous in other contexts, where it might refer to pro-drug legalization groups, in this context it pretty clearly does suggest drug criminals, partly because Hastert didn't deny the connection when Wallace raised it and partly because the pro-legalization groups are funded by Soros, not the other way around. But that's not the case at all. It was Wallace, not Hastert who used the term cartel. Hastert's phrase was drug groups, and he was careful to emphasize the point that the funding for independent groups is largely unknown. After Wallace asked whether he meant cartels, Hastert said it 'could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know.' Was this a calculated attempt to smear or a careless answer to a question? And is it reprehensible? It seems to me too close a thing to appearance politics when a response to a question in a live interview is put under the microscope and evil machinations are imagined. If we want to begin calling such comments reprehensible we're soon ready to censure, and we reinforce the current climate in which every misstep pours outrage from all quarters and leaves only the bland and overly cautious on the stage. The fallacious analogy doesn't hold either. The Swift Boat Vets are not to Naziism as the legalization advocates are to the drug industry, and that comparison could only have been chosen for high rhetorical effect. Of course singling out George Soros was stupid, and of course Soros is right that criminalization does more harm than good. And it's clear that Hastert disagrees and sees him as a threat. But should he be roasted over this? posted by Dennis on 08.31.04 at 07:03 AM
Comments
I'm trying to figure out George Soros. Why does he give his money to socialist causes? As far as I can figure it, it can only be either: 1) as Ayn Rand would see it, he is motivated by altruistic guilt. He apologizes for being rich and for being a Jew and finances his own destroyers, those who would rob him of his wealth in the name of "equality". He is the classic case of "the sanction of the victim" as Rand described so eloquently in "Atlas Shrugged". It is time for him to withdraw his sanction, to go on strike. or: 2) as the John Birch Society sees it, he is one of the "Insiders" promoting more government controls and socialism, gun control and One World government, in order to eliminate competition and establish a monopoly of total control. But, why then, does he advocate legalizing drugs, which means less government control? A "fuzzy" liberal of contradictory premises? Hmmm.... Dawn and Norma argue that drugs are part of the Communist conspiracy to dope us into submission and drain us of our precious bodily fluids, our sacred blood. Interesting questions.... The _styles_ of the Right.... Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · September 2, 2004 03:26 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Whether Hastert resorted to innuendo or not, it's hard to believe that any thinking person would conclude that illegal drug cartels would be interested in legalization of drugs!
Such a thing would put them out of business. Drug laws maintain high drug profits. (A form of subsidization by artificial interference with the market.)
Why, if I were a big drug kingpin, I'd want Soros shot!
Forgive my reprehensibility!