As one of only two Democrats in my family, I've learned not to engage family members in discussions of anything important. You know, things such as disaster response, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, unfettered presidential power, energy policy, climate change, stuff like that. They all subscribe to the Bill-O school of debate: whomever shouts the loudest wins. They refuse to deal in facts, and I know they aren't the slightest bit interested in hearing anything that might contradict the right-wing talking points they so avidly consume, so I usually just keep my mouth shut (other than the occasional well-timed snort of disgust).
But I had the devil in me yesterday, apparently. There's more if you're interested...
My stepfather, a good and decent man, is a Foxophile. Every time I visit my parents, he has the TV in his den set to Fox, so I generally just stick my head in and say hi and go about my business. I never, never try to engage him in conversation about what's in the "news" unless it's to make fun of something like the hoohah over Anna Nicole or Paris Hilton.
Yesterday was different. I was reading up on the U.S. Attorney scandal, and I decided to call and see how he was feeling (he's not well and almost fell at my house on Sunday). He asked me whether I was watching the softball game, and for some reason I felt compelled to tell him what I was actually doing.
As a result, even though I don't (and won't) watch the Fake News channel, I can sum up the right-wing talking points they put forth on Abu Gonzo and crew: Clinton did it, too.
Now, that comes as no surprise to anyone who's paid attention the last 6 years, least of all to me. Clinton gets blamed for everything. What was curious was just how reductive (and desperate) their "rebuttal" is.
It all comes down to the list. Never mind the removal of U.S. Attorneys for questionable reasons. Never mind the admissions that political affiliation played a major role in hiring at the DOJ, or any of the other egregious offenses against justice in this country. Clinton dismissed 30 USAs, and there had to be a list.
For every point I tried to make about why we, as Americans, should be concerned with what's happening to our Justice Department, his response was basically, "Don't you think Clinton had a list? Can you remember 30 names without a list? They serve at the pleasure of the President."
Arghh. It's not just about the list! And no one ever said the president couldn't replace USAs; we just don't like the way he went about it.
After quite a bit of back-and-forth, I tried to hold him to the standard I use with my students: no straw man or red herring arguments allowed. I told him that I didn't consider "Clinton did it, too" as reason to disregard all the evidence of the obvious illegal politicization of the Justice Department. At that point he said, "Here's your mother" and handed off the phone. Which is pretty much how most political conversations in our family end: once I trot out a few facts or try to hold them even the slightest standards of proof, they don't want to talk about it anymore.
Perhaps the Fake News channel's analysis is more nuanced than this (though I doubt it), but the fact that all Dad could offer in defense was "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, list, list, list" suggests to me that this is the card FNC believes trumps all else. He certainly had no real rebuttal to any of the questions I raised.
His support of Bush notwithstanding, Dad's not stupid; he's actually quite sharp, and before Bush II took office, I used to ask his opinion about various matters (he's quite knowledgeable about the I/P conflict, for example). But no longer. Now he's got nothing to offer but right-wing spin and what seems to me a willful refusal to engage with the issue. Hell, any issue.
Of course, I already knew that all the right wing has "Clinton did it" and "serving at the pleasure of the president." That wasn't a surprise at all, but I am a bit disturbed: if my dad, who used to be a veritable font of factual information and serious critical analysis, has so bought into the spin, what about less-discerning viewers?
I came away from this exchange even more convinced that the Fake News channel is a very real threat to rational political discourse in this country. Their b.s. talking points make it possible for Bush supporters like my dad to rationalize and dismiss the obvious evidence that BushCo is engaged in a mission to end the rule of law and destroy the Constitution. It's all about emotion and knee-jerk reaction, never reason and critical thinking.
But I also sensed a bit of desperation (OK, maybe it's just wishful thinking), a grasping at straws. I wonder how my dad feels about having supported Bush, now that it's obvious to almost everyone that his misadministration has quite possibly damaged this country and our military beyond repair. I wonder how it feels to know that you backed the man who is systematically dismantling the Constitution. I wonder how it feels to know that, because of oversight (remember that?) finally creeping back into the picture, every day will bring a new revelation of how Bush has abused his position and violated his oath of office. I wonder how it feels to know, deep down inside even if you don't admit it, that your position is completely indefensible.
I hope it makes 'em all feel like shit. My dad included.