In my last post I made reference to a previous post, only noticing after the fact that though I’d written it, I had never pressed “post”. So, here it is, out of sequence, but what can you do:
After I read this article about Obama chastising Democrats for opposing the corporate takeover of the world’s legal system, I did a bit of googling to see if the term “false choice” was, as I thought, shorthand for a rhetorical device Obama appeared to be using.
Indeed, it was, and oddly enough, it’s a device, I find from my search results, that Obama often criticizes others for using:
President Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech in Oslo on Thursday featured one of his favorite rhetorical devices: the false choice.
“Within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists—a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world,” he said. “I reject these choices.” Instead, he went on, it is in America’s interests to encourage human rights and democracy in other countries. Helping them helps us.
…
The device works well for Obama because he revels in nuance. Rejecting false choices allows him to toss out the paradigm—the “old battles,” as he likes to call them—and show people a new, third way. That tic is also an explicit rejection of his predecessor’s rhetoric. It’s hard to find a starker—and falser—choice than “You’re with us or against us.”
via Slate
Well, the fact that Obama “revels in nuance” doesn’t stop him from deploying false choice rhetoric when it suits his needs. Consider this:
With the cutting tone he usually reserves for his Republican adversaries, Mr. Obama said liberals who are fighting the new trade accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, were “just wrong” and, in terms of some of their claims, “making this stuff up.” If they oppose the deal, he said, they “must be satisfied with the status quo” and want to “pull up the drawbridge and build a moat around ourselves.”
Actually, he rarely uses a cutting tone for his Republican adversaries, since he’s only recently given up trying to reach grand bargains with them. But, back to the main point. It’s harder to find a better example of a false choice argument than Obama’s: if you don’t agree to my trade deal, you must be for building a moat around the country. If the trade deal really were progressive, protective of worker’s rights and respectful of national sovereignty, then it wouldn’t be kept under wraps so we can’t look at it, and our Congresspeople who are allowed to look (but not copy) would be allowed to tell their constituents what’s in it. It’s called a pig in a poke, though I have no idea what a pig in a poke is.
Obama loves nuance, but not this time.
I’ve noticed a few things since I became politically aware back in the 60s. One thing I’ve noticed is that you should always run for cover when something (other than naming a post office) passes Congress unanimously or near unanimously. I’d add this to that observation: if Republicans line up behind Barack Obama, hold onto your wallet, put your money under the mattress and throw away your copy of the Constitution, because you won’t be needing it anymore. We can only hope that there will be a sufficient number of Republicans whose inveterate Obama hatred overcomes their desire to serve their corporate masters, thereby enabling the majority of Democrats to stop this travesty.
