I started a post the other day about the Jerome Corsi anti-Obama book, after Roger Kimball posted a blog entry mocking the New York Times for examining the lies and distortions in the book, thereby helping to make the book's allegations part of the national conversation. Kimball, a conservative intellectual, seems to think this is grand. I think it's depressing, and a sign of conservative decadence. Take, for instance, this line by Kimball:
And more to the point, notwithstanding any local errors-when exactly did Obama stop taking cocaine? When exactly did he repudiate the loathsome views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright?-the real question is whether the book's overall thesis is correct. And that thesis is? The Times puts it well: that Obama is "a stealth radical liberal" who would be a disaster as president. Whether Mr. Corsi is also right that Obama maintains but has "tried to cover up 'extensive connections to Islam' " is an interesting question very much worth looking into-Mr. Corsi has begun but certainly has not finished with that task-but Barack Hussein Obama's possible connections with Islam is only one of the mysteries that the public deserves to learn more about.
Well, let's take this polemical standard further: Do we really know for sure that John McCain was not driven insane by his captivity, and is a mental case that's two tics away from a breakdown? Do we really want to take that chance with him in the White House, his finger on the button, threatening Russia? The mental state of John McCain emerging from years of torture in North Vietnam is a subject the public deserves to know more about. After all, is the overall thesis of a putative anti-McCain book -- that McCain is a radical conservative whose presidency would be a disaster for the country -- incorrect? Because by Roger's rules, if it is, then any half-truth or innuendo served up in support of that thesis is ethically defensible. Winning, see, isn't the most important thing; it's the only thing.
Anyway, I got distracted at work and never finished the post, but now that Ross Douthat has written on the matter, I want to associate myself with his commentary, most especially this:
It isn't just that Corsi himself is a conspiracy theorist and a crank, or that his best-selling farrago of innuendo and outright smears exemplifies everything that's wrong with a certain sort of right-wing publishing, or that David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama demonstrates that it's perfectly possible to write an anti-Obama book without descending into the fever swamps. It's that this is an election where conservatives need to be very, very conscious about the importance of line-drawing: If the Right is going to resist the ongoing attempts by Obamaphiles to define various sorts of normal political elbow-throwing (cutting ads making fun of Barack Obama's political style, calling attention to the controversial public utterances of Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright, etc.) as inherently racist and hatemongering, conservatives need to be very clear about where the line actually is, and what sort of attacks are actually beyond the pale and worth condemning.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm always grateful for the chance for further education afforded by the political use of scripture, and not least for the chance to test my body's no-U-turn policy with a given day's rations.
Type "curse of Ham" at Google sometime, and have a look at the Wikipedia entry, the Straight Dope, and especially, if you can take it, the comment thread at the Brownbackophile Wordpress blog near the top. Posters there make Rod's worst combox nightmares seem like hail-fellows-well-met. I can't imagine agreeing to babysit for such people, or sharing a beer or backyard barbeque. That doesn't make me an elitist - just a human being whose tolerance in one direction finds itself strained somewhat less, I hope, than that shown in another by people whose equality at the ballot box has helped copperplate my allergy to democracy all my adult life...
Conservatives who protest the likes of Corsi are trying to break a very old habit among their ideological brethren. Conservatives and Republicans have consistently attacked Democrats' personal integrity and patriotism for generations.
Don't be naive. Liberals have long done the same thing. It's an American tradition! More than that, it's in the nature of the political beast. The idea that one side is pure and the other is purely venal is simply not true.
There is nothing wrong with attacking the personal integrity and patriotism of a candidate; the problem comes in when the messenger has no personal integrity. If we support Corsi, how long will it be before the Obama supporters start throwing back his "research" about McCain in our face? Corsi's a buffoon, who only got noted because he helped John O'Neill edit Unfit for Command. The guy is a regular on Coast To Coast AM, and Alex Jones; in fact he is supposedly going to be reporting for Alex Jones on the Republican National Convention.
If his information is wrong, attack the information. But don't attack the person.
Rod, you might want to follow this advice yourself. If Corsi's information is wrong, attack the information. But don't attack the person.
Knowing the origin of a piece of information is an important part of how we assess its reliability, whether it is a historical document, a piece of academic research, or a political attack.
Jerome Corsi is anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc., etc. Nothing but poison spews from his mouth, and he pollutes conservative campaigns. Corsi is toxic, and conservatives need to keep well away from him, however much some GOP operatives love to use his work.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/573429/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090654/posts#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925436/posts?page=424#424
However, it is very easy to criticize the "facts" which he parades in his attack on Obama, because he is unable to avoid lying through his teeth, as in everything else he has ever written. Knowing the answer before he reads, he does not need to comprehend the words before him. Like some other polemicists, he expects no one to check his footnotes against the original material.
One can perhaps gain some insight into Corsi's motives for his current campaign, which deviates from his recent anti-Hispanic nativism, by looking at the company he keeps. He has appeared on a white supremacist talk show and a conspiracy theory talk show to promote his book.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/blog/2008/08/08/political-cesspool-to-host-new-york-times-1-author-on-sunday-august-10/
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3973
However, I'm not sure that anyone paid him to link McCain to "Mexico First" policies, George Soros, organized crime, and support from al-Qaeda, stopping only when McCain clinched the nomination.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=45737
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=57354
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57678
I was going to run through my copies of Obama's autobiography and Corsi's book, providing examples that I had noticed, but I find that there are many detailed analyses on the Web. Here's a very full one from the Obama campaign and a shorter one from Media Matters.
http://obama.3cdn.net/a74586f9067028c40a_5km6vrqwa.pdf
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005
It may be hard to criticize an attack on Obama that's No.4 in the amazon.com non-fiction list. It must be done. If an election cannot be won honestly, it's not worth winning.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.