How To Disagree Civilly…

Yesterday, John Hinderaker of Power Line posted that the terrorists in Iraq are rejoicing over the Democratic victory on Tuesday. In that post he made this comment:

I don’t think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. See, for example, this article by Aaron Klein. And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates.

Now, neither statement in that paragraph is objectively false. It is true that terrorists were pulling for a Democratic victory and had said as much. It is also true that the spike in terrorist violence was widely seen as the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet Offensive, which was designed specifically to influence the election.

You’d prove yourself prety ignorant if you disagreed with what is readily apparent.

What I think you could dispute is whether or not we should take the terrorists’ words as being indicative of what they really believe. Now, I happen to think they are. I think it’s pretty clear that Mr. Hinderaker is right because in this case the terrorists words match their actions.

But you could make a reasonable case in the other direction as did Ed Morrissey:

Some readers here rightly point out that the Democrats have spent the last few years trying to play down the idea of a war. I have no trouble criticizing Nancy Pelosi for that (sorry, can’t find the link at the moment). As I wrote, we need to be very vigilant about the efforts of Democrats in either fighting the war or not fighting the war, and I don’t counsel silence on that point. However, it seems exceedingly silly to point to a terrorist propagandist and take him at his word about people who haven’t even submitted their first piece of legislation in the majority.

That, and the rest of Morrissey’s post, is how you present a civil and powerful disagreement. I can see the nature of his reasoning, even if I don’t agree that his analysis is complete.

What you should not do is make a self-important ass of yourself as did John Cole:

The Democrats are not even in control, yet John has discerned the terrorists are happy. He has decided that the rise in violence prior to the election is “generally understood” to be an intentional act to persuade the election. Some preliminary thoughts:

It was generally understood by John Hinderaker that Terri Schiavo was a bon-bon and an espresso away from a walk, and it was “generally understood” by this Great Lakes buffoon that Iran is an Arab nation (wrong buffoon on the second one- like the breathless babble of a pre-schooler, the Powerline nonsense all runs together, and I confused Paul’s ramblings with J0hn’s. It is Saturday, and I am too lazy to find more of John’s silliness, so you can put in the comments for me if you so desire).

Suffice it to say, it is “generally understood” around here that John Hinderaker is a total idiot. The idea that the terrorists know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican any more than Hinderaker can think his way through the difference between Shia/Sunni is laughable.

Cole’s response is simply pathetic. He doesn’t even attempt to refute a single point of Hideraker’s argument. He basically claps his hands over his ears and shouts “You’re a poopyhead!” a few times and smirks, proud of his scathing rebuttal.

Then again, Cole’s come unhinged since Republicans, backed strongly by Democrats, took the super-controversial decision that a Federal court should check the work of a state court in a life or death matter. Since then, he’s become Andrew Sullivan without the writing talent and British accent, constantly on guard lest the “American Taliban” (i.e. garden-variety Christians) start killing gay people in the streets.

But did you notice how I managed not to use a single obscenity in my description of Cole? How I managed to get his last name correct? How I managed to ridicule his positions without impugning his basic character?

That’s how someone who wishes to have a reasonable debate, even on a contentious issue, conduct themselves. Flailing around like Donald Duck isn’t.

I’m sure it’s possible that Cole isn’t interested in a reasonable debate. I’m sure, based on my past dealings with him, that he’s far more intereted in name-calling and scoring a few cheap points by making fun of someone’s name. But that’s kid stuff.

Temper tantrums belong in the nursery. When Mr. Cole’s ready to be civil, the adults will be waiting.

No related posts.

Category: Blogs and Blogging, Fighting the Islamists, Our New Democratic Overlords