In recent weeks, we’ve seen Howard Dean cause some consternation from those on the establishment wing of the Democratic party with some tart remarks, first about Tom DeLay (”[he] ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence") and then about Republicans’ attitudes towards voting rights ("The idea that you have to wait on line foreight hours in Florida to cast your vote – there’s something the matterwith that… . Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lotof them have never made an honest living in their lives.").
In addition, we’ve seen Amnesty International get some attention and criticism — not just from the administration and ‘wingers — for using the word "gulag" to compare conditions in America’s new extra-legal prison camps (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and beyond) to the old Soviet system.
Well, hyperbole is obviously dangerous for all involved, but there’s a difference between hyperbole that obscures or needlessly inflames, and that which illumines.
- Hyperbole can compare two similar situations that are different only in degree, but whose similarities need to be made blindingly clear. Unequal is not necessarily dissimilar.
- There is also the hyperbole of the unpleasant and rarely-said truth; In fact, this is not hyperbole at all, but it can upset conventional wisdom, which makes CW’s protectors a bit prickly.
I think that Dean’s remarks about Tom DeLay actually go under #2: Is it really just out of the question, beyond the pale, to suggest that Tom DeLay might serve jail time for the stuff he’s pulled? Dan Rostenkowski served jail time for mail fraud … is the Abramoff business any less rotten? Or the Texas redistricting shenanigans? (I’m genuinely curious — anyone who specifically knows the laws involved can chime in.)
Dean’s remarks about Republicans "not making an honest living" have to be qualified, of course — Of course he wasn’t referring to Joe Average Republican Voter. The remarks must be heard in context: he was making a point about standing in line for eight hours to vote. Anyone who doesn’t have a problem with that either 1. doesn’t care about disenfranchising people, which is un-democratic and frankly un-American, or 2. is too ignorant to understand there’s a problem. Ironically, Dean is doing Republicans a small favor by attributing their indifference to ignorance and not malice. Stupid is as stupid does: A person who makes an honest living would understand that you cannot wait eight hours in line on a Tuesday and get your ordinary business done.
As for Amnesty International, don’t believe the hype or the headline writers: The "gulag" label is going to stick to BushCo — finally. They can’t get off citing AI reports one year as justification for their ends, and then say they lack credibility the next. That sets off everyone’s BS meter.
So let’s take this on the substance of the charges. The US has set up detention camps where:
- People are held incommunicado, without access to lawyers, family, anyone who might help them or who might be looking for them.
- There is no reliable due process system — the innocent are treated just as badly as the guilty.
- There is systematic torture and humiliation.
- People are murdered.
Is it too much to say that Gitmo et al are of the same family of things as the Soviet gulag? Of course we don’t have as many, or as murderous — we’re not the worst of the worst, yet. Should AI wait until we get to that point to make the comparison?
I don’t think so. The word "gulag" hurts the architects of torture quite a bit, as we’ve seen from the weak reaction of BushCo. The comparison exposes their ruthless and unprincipled (and ineffective) tactics. A little bit of sunshine got into the darkness last week — for that we should be grateful.
We should feel free to be blatantly true, extravagantly honest, spendthrifts with the truth.
Update: See H.D.S. Greenway’s column in the Globe for the same point on the gulags.
Another update: Liberal Oasis says Amnesty is winning.
Even yet still another update: The blogs are circling the wagon$ for Dean.
You are right Charley, but…….Just because a person is right in saying something doesn’t mean he should.Case in point…Howard Dean. As the chairman of my party I don’t want him making sta tements which a reasonable person would expect to draw attention to issues other then the task at hand.These unnecessary and avoidable distractions have a negative effect.This is not a sign of leadership.
Maybe it’s my nitpicky legal training, but in a way the comment that bothers me the most of the three you mention is the one about DeLay. Sure, Rostenkowski served time – he (1) was indicted, (2) pled guilty, and (3) was sentenced. DeLay hasn’t even gotten to step one. So no, it’s not beyond the pale to suggest that DeLay might serve time for what he supposedly did, but that’s not actually what Dean did – he spoke as if it’s a foregone conclusion that DeLay will serve time. Most people aren’t yet talking about Finneran “serving his sentence,” and just so with DeLay. I think it weakens what should be a very strong card for the Democrats to jump the gun like that. (In related news, a federal 3-judge court in Texas has rejected constitutional challenges to DeLay’s gerrymander.)On the other comments, though, I do think the reaction is wildly overblown. The “honest living” comment, while inflammatory, made perfect sense in context, and I don’t have a problem with being inflammatory now and then. Similarly with the gulag stuff. And, gosh, like the Republicans have never engaged in the occasional overstatement or exaggeration.
David, I think we’re proving the point a little bit: we’re talking about DeLay and what he did or didn’t do. He’s the story, not Dean. Dean’s comments, while intemperate and premature, are not wildly off-base. I also was at the convention — I think it was a little bit tongue-in-cheek: acidic stuff, to be sure, but I felt like it was a little red meat for us true believers, and we all laughed. Context is important.Troll, I actually agree with you to some extent: When I first saw Dean at a rally in NH, I was struck by his passion and anger, and not so much by his vision. Anger is OK: if you’re being treated badly and you feel that your country is being led the wrong direction, anger is a rational reaction. However, anger is not enough by itself: It has to be harnessed and redirected towards your vision of where you want the country to go. Dean’s got the anger thing down, and insofar as that goes, that’s good. He needs to work on the vision thing, and really give people a good reason to vote for Dems, other than that we’re not Republicans.BTW, see PatrickA’s comment in the previous post: that’s how I would prefer to do politics.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for talking as much as possible about DeLay and what he did or didn’t do. But to the extent that Dean says things that can fairly be described as (in your apt words) “intemperate and premature,” Dean makes himself the story, and that hurts the Dems. The story should be DeLay, and not Dean. Much better to talk about what DeLay, Abramoff, and the rest of the gang have actually been doing, than to give anyone any basis to talk about how Dean is jumping to conclusions and treating DeLay unfairly.
As Chairman of Party he is not a candidater. It is a different role