CT Blue

According to Thinkprogress, Joe Scarborough has taken John McCain and Lindsay Graham to task for criticizing Obama’s hands off approach to the Iranian situation:

SCARBOROUGH: All we would do is undermine those people in the street, who the second that they are attached to the United States of America, the country after all that’s been known in Iran as the great Satan since 1979, we will undermine their cause … It’s so shortsighted I find it stunning. […]

What would John McCain and Lindsey Graham specifically have the president say? All of those people that are emailing in and telling me that I’m being liberal? Oh really? I’m being liberal? No I think it’s called restraint. Showing a little bit of restraint. Looking at the battlefield in front of you and not just running up Pickett’s Charge and getting gunned down. If you want to feel good about yourself — and you can only feel good about yourself by screaming about the evils of Iran — fine do that. But our leaders in Washington don’t need to do that because people will be routed in the street the second they are identified with the United States of America.

With all of which I heartily agree. But this post is not about Iran, it is about a somewhat irrational implied argument.

Now, Thinkprogress is a “progressive” site. Normally, it disagrees with Joe Scarborough. But the implied argument here is as follows: We normally disagree with Scarborough. If even he agrees with our position we must be right.

Now, this is something we all do. Left or right, it makes no difference. If a conservative finds him or herself on the same page as Teddy Kennedy, they will cite that agreement as proof positive of the justice of their position. For, after all, if even Teddy Kennedy (or Joe Sarbourough) can see the light….

In truth, this line of argument is totally illogical. If I believe that Joe Scarborough is usually wrong, then it stands to reason that I should re-examine my position if I occasionally find myself in agreement with him. After all, if he is usually wrong, there is a high probability that when he agrees with me, it is my position that is wrong, and not he that is right. But no one thinks that way. If we find ourself with a position in common with an ideological foe, we trumpet that fact as proof positive of the correctness of our position.

I should hasten to add that Scarborough happens to be right in this particular situation, not only in his position, but in the reasons he gives for his position.

For those with doubts, recall a little American history. Just before the 2004 election, Osama bin Laden issued a stern warning to the American people, warning them not to re-elect George Bush. The pundits, like the idiots they are, interpreted this as an endorsement of Kerry. The CIA, and the Bush people knew better of course. Osama, who is depraved but not stupid, knew that an attack on Bush would help Bush’s re-election campaign. Since Bush was the gift that kept on giving as far as Al Qaeda was concerned, and since Osama knew that his words would be taken at face value by the stupid American media, Osama made his endorsement in the way that he did. Obama doesn’t have the luxury to play the reverse psychology gambit, since the Republicans would skewer him at home, and because the government of Iran is very likely not as stupid as the American people or the American media. But an outright endorsement of the protestors would be seized upon by the Iranian government in just the same way as Osama’s “endorsement” of Kerry was seized on by the Republicans, except that it would be used as an excuse to not just discredit, but to oppress, the opposition. It’s not logical to argue that if even Joe Scarborough can see that, it must be true, but if even Joe Scarborough can see that, it must be true.