In Reply: Rolling Heads Stuck on Sticks (Erik Loomis, metaphor, partisanship; National Review)

In reply to: Poor Erik Loomis - By George Leef - Phi Beta Cons - National Review Online, and the following piece, in particular:

"Some academics are mounting a defense of Loomis, as if he had transgressed no boundary of civility. I think he did. It’s bad enough to blow your lid and blame someone you dislike for a tragedy he had nothing to do with, but unacceptable for a professor to suggest, even rhetorically, that violence is warranted."
---

Dr. Loomis "blew his lid?"

No, I'm pretty sure Dr. Loomis doesn't even have a lid.

See, that's a metaphor for something else; being very angry and reacting inappropriately. Generally it's only non-native speakers who take a metaphors literally, and when they do, miscommunication runs rampant. (Well... not literally rampant.)

Wanting someone's head on a stick? A metaphor for wanting that person to be publicly punished for something they did, thus made an example of. To (willfully or otherwise) misunderstand that fairly common idiom as a call to violence and “eliminationist rhetoric” is, well, kind of transparent.

I would think having too many writers at National Review who consistently took metaphorical statements literally would cause heads to roll. (though not literally, one hopes.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted (for real, this time) 12/20/12, 5:20 PM (or so)
(Thought I saw that it had posted over there while I was finishing this post here. Either I was mistaken--the guess I'm going with for now--or it was moderated away after the fact.)

Throwing Red Meat Bombs at Our Foes, to Impress Our Friends

In reply to the following comment at National Review Online:

repsac3

So is Mr Kurtz throwing bombs, red meat, or maybe it’s a meat bomb?

Isn’t labeling him a rhetorical bomb thrower, well, labeling him?

Look, I see nothing wrong with using labels to describe people, canned goods, file folders, politicians etc., as long as the label is fact based and accurate. Mr. Kurt’s research supports his label and passes my sniff test. On the other hand, Mr. Frum seems to be someone in search of his lost relevance since leaving National Review, and failing miserably in his quest.

For a fact-based analysis of my labeling him "irrelevant", check the numbers on his latest book sales. -- 12/06/10 13:34

Dollar Bill

To whatever extent Mr Kurtz is using his labels to stifle debate by dismissing his opponents, he is throwing red meat bombs, I'd say... Those who've read his book, however, suggest that he's actually making a case, rather than just tossing these labels around... Once I've read it, I can say more...

Yes, calling rhetorical bomb throwers rhetorical bomb throwers is in fact labeling them. As you say further in your comment, labels can be useful, as long as they actually apply. Some who've read his book seem to believe he does actually make his case. Once I read it, I'll be better able to form and then express an opinion on that. But with all respect due Mr Kurtz and those who agree with him, I don't see the authoritarian socialism of the USSR, or even the more benign socialism of much of Europe, being advocated by much of anyone in the Democratic party. Perhaps after reading his book, I'll feel differently.

Anyone whose actually trying to make a case for the labels they're trying to affix onto those with whom they disagree isn't simply labeling them, and to my mind anyway, isn't the target of the No Labels campaign. Rather it's those who don't make any case--either treating their chosen label as "common knowledge" that doesn't need substantiation, or using it to end debate "you're just a fascist, so why should I bother trying to discuss anything with you?!?"--who seem to be the real targets of the campaign. And sadly, there seem to be more of those sorts of labelers around than the ones--perhaps including Mr Kurtz--who actually try to make a case and thereby increase the dialog.

As for whether one's relevance to the debate can be determined by how many books one sells, I can't rightly say, though I tend to doubt it... As to whether those book sale numbers, or for that matter, "relevance" is any indication of intellectual value or sociopolitical or moral correctness, however, I really don't believe they are. -- 12/06/10 14:55

In Reply: Fascist, Socialist, Racist, or Nihilist; Labels get in the way of discussing issues

In reply to: David Frum, Speech Policeman - Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online
---

I don't know, kids... It seems to me that most of the labeling is done to dismiss others and to avoid discussing the specifics of issues, rather than to further clarify them.

Whether the term is fascist, socialist, racist, or nihilist, it doesn't get anyone any closer to the meat of the issue. I don't care what you want to call the President (whether that President is Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, or Obama). Saying he's a Nazi or a Stalinist or a smirking chimp doesn't really say anything, making it pretty much a waste of time, except as bomb-throwing rhetorical red meat for those who already agree with you.

All I need to know is what you think about some specific thing an elected official is doing, and why you believe as you do. In that regard--and looking at both the WaPo article and the No Labels website, I'm pretty sure their intent is to get past the labeling and onto specifics, rather than to police anyone's words--I believe Frum and Galston are correct. Allusions to Stalin or Marx, Mussolini or Hitler (or the political ideologies they represented) are meaningless, because no one here in the US is advocating anything close to what they once did. We are all Americans, and if we cannot come together at least enough to recognize that 99% of everybody here--including the folks in the "other" party--loves America just like you do, but has different beliefs about what has and will continue to make this country great, we're not going to get anywhere. There's a real difference between disagreeing with another person or group's political views and seeing that person (those people) as an enemy. - 12/06/10, 12:19 PM

Besides, we're all referees of American political debate, and like Mr Kurtz, Frum and Galston are puting their thinkin' into the arena. Some folks'll agree with 'em and some won't (just as with Mr. Kurtz and his ideas), but they're really not doing anything different with their article than Mr Kurtz is doing here with his; criticizing the discourse of those with whom they do not agree.

Kurtz is free to call Obama a socialist, Frum and Galston are free to suggest that such labeling is over the top, and Kurtz is free to in turn label them as wannabe referees of American political debate... It's all speech, and it's all good, just as it will be when someone comes along and says Kurtz's labeling of Galston and Frum is over the top, too.

In short, I don't see anyone limiting anyone else's speech. I just see more speech, which is as it should be... -- 12/06/10, 12:34 PM
---

William A. Galston and David Frum - A No Labels solution to Washington gridlock?
No Labels
Facebook | No Labels