WASHINGTON—The idea that “false choices” are distorting our politics is under attack. I want to defend the concept for both substantive and personal reasons.
The canary in the coal mine was my colleague Ruth Marcus’ column on March 31 in which she argued directly: “It’s time to retire the false choice.”
“As a rhetorical device, particularly as a political rhetorical device, the false choice has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any,” she wrote. “The phrase has become a trite substitute for serious thinking. It serves too often to obscure rather than to explain.”
While I empathize with Marcus’ frustration that false choices are sometimes invoked to evade choices altogether, I respectfully but passionately disagree with her. And she has company in her skepticism.
A few days after her column appeared, NPR’s Ari Shapiro offered a resolutely fair, balanced and entertaining piece about President Obama’s affection for calling out false choices. He included the views of Mary Kate Cary, a false choice critic and former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush: “It’s tempting for the speaker to distort the two extremes in such a way that it makes the critics angry and invites a response like, well, that isn’t at all what I said.”
Cary is right that the false choice idea is easily misused. My favorite recent rendering of what a classically false false choice—sorry about that—looks like was offered by my friend Hendrik Hertzberg on his New Yorker blog.
Praising Obama’s George Washington University budget speech earlier this month, Hertzberg said he was relieved that the president did not descend into the worst kind of false choicery. “I know it’s silly,” Hertzberg wrote, “but I was a little worried we might get something uncomfortably akin to ‘We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say we should.’ ” Me, too; I’m glad Obama didn’t go near that sort of thing.
But if there are false false choices, there are also real false choices. And here I should acknowledge my personal stake in this debate. Twenty years ago, I wrote a book called “Why Americans Hate Politics” arguing that liberals and conservatives often imposed a series of false choices on voters that prevented them from expressing their true preferences. Many voters preferred an intelligent “both/and” politics to an artificially constrained “either/or” approach.
The classic case for me was the phony division of Americans into “feminist” and “pro-family” camps. I noted that most Americans accepted the equality of men and women but were concerned about how new work arrangements were affecting family life.
“Women who take time off from their careers to care for young children are routinely ‘punished’ by having their opportunities for promotion reduced,” I wrote. “Is it ‘feminist’ or is it ‘pro-family’ to suggest that this practice is unfair? Is it ‘feminist’ or ‘pro-family’ to contend that this practice shows how little value society really places on the work that parents do?”
There were and are a slew of other paralyzing false choices in our political dialogue. President Bill Clinton wrote generously about the impact of my false choice argument on his own views in his memoir “My Life,” and then proffered an excellent catalog of false choices we needed to avoid. Among them: Between “excellence or equity in education”; between “quality or universal access in health care”; between “a cleaner environment or more economic growth”; between “crime prevention or punishing criminals.”
Unmasking false choices is especially important to progressives for whom the task of finding the proper balances—between government and the market, between greater equality and the need for incentives, between a respect for tradition and a commitment to individual freedom—is close to the heart of their political philosophy. In the current budget battle, the quintessential false choice is the core assertion of the House Republicans’ plan: that we have to choose either program cuts or tax increases. They go only for program cuts. Our purpose should be about finding the right balance between the two.
Marcus, Cary and other false choice critics can perform a useful service if they push politicians away from using the term either to caricature views they disagree with or to avoid making choices altogether. But we should not abandon the idea that battling false choices is essential to an honest framing of the choices we truly and urgently need to make.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
Lafeyette, obviously he’s not actually
baffled…maybe you should google a dictionary and
then actually think (as well).
You state, first by quoting:
“Dionne: Unmasking false choices is especially
important to progressives for whom the task of
finding the proper balances - between government and
the market, between greater equality and the need for
incentives, between a respect for tradition and a
commitment to individual freedom — is close to the
heart of their political philosophy.”
An then blithely add: so what is wrong with this?
1. Progressives do not and have not ever concerned
themselves with the “proper balances” which , by
definition (duh), were defined by the unsatisfactory
status-quo. How many ways can a guy say “duh”. Insert
all of them here.
2. When have we ever had “the market”? We never have.
“The market” both denotes and connotes a place where
people determine things…we’ve never had that.
(Giant “duh” for you).
3. Progressives have NEVER idolized “respect for
tradition” (or any so-called “balance” that cow-tows
to it) nor have they been committed to some fake-ass
“commitment to individual freedom” that screws they
themselves, either. Your puerile dichotomy is so
bogus. You state, in effect “Progressives strive for
that balance between the Dallas Cowboys and
Washington Redskins”. Moron, they DON’T. THEY STRIVE
FOR LESS FOCUS ON PRO FOOTBALL. They would like to
PROGRESS onward from that. You, like Dionne, are
trapped merely being castigated for being caught up
in the sport. You WISH it were something more.
What’s clear is that wouldn’t notice a piece of
“progressive philosophy” if it shredded your
intellectual body armor.
So, having clearly and precisely responded to every
sentence, what now? Where will you run to next? I
WILL quote my reply in your various evasions, so
evade well, rabbit.
gerard: What is so baffling is that the Executive branch is corporate owned
Difficult to imagine why you are baffled. The Supremes opened the flood-gates.
Ain’t nobody to blame but ourselves. We put up with it ...
I keep harping on that point because nothing will change until we change it at the grassroots. Congress tried to change the rules and failed miserably. The money has become ingrained.
What is so baffling is that the Executive branch is corporate owned, the Legislative is corporate owned.
The Judiciary is corporate owned. The press is corporate owned. The people have nowhere to turn for “redress of grievances” such as loss of jobs, of homes, of health care, of access to power, of adequate education, of the right to criticize.
Even when a huge gift like WikiLeaks comes along, the powers in control have no more sense of self-awareness than to try to shut the information down and put the informants in jail. They don’t even recognize the opportunity presented by the Leaks to self-correct because they don’t see or feel anything is wrong with busines as usual, in spite of an enormous amount of evidence. If this official blindness cannot be broken, democracy is a dead duck and there is no use to pretend otherwise.
RD: Your ad hominems are finme while others are not.
For your edification:
Ad hominem: attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering their argument. (Of an argument) personal rather than objective.
Saying someone is blind to the facts is not telling them that they are a “stupid-shit”.
Your comment was of a personal nature and therefore defamatory. Public defamation is illegal in some countries but, unfortunately, not in America. Where it is called “freedom of speech”.
In American-English, meanings are elastic and can be stretched to suit the circumstance?
Ahh, I see. Your ad hominems are finme while others are not. When you remove your head from your rectum perhaps youwill post more consistently and with less ignorance. Perhaps.
Dionne: Unmasking false choices is especially important to progressives for whom the task of finding the proper balances - between government and the market, between greater equality and the need for incentives, between a respect for tradition and a commitment to individual freedom — is close to the heart of their political philosophy.
You obviously did not read this part of the above article. It sums up the challenge before Americans today - and apparently you are blind to that fact.
Now, pray tell, how is it wrong? Or are you in this forum simply to stir the fumigating claptrap.
C’mon, let’s have a cogent reply ... it’s unlikely you have one.
Democracy is about leadership from the grass-roots level. We, the sheeple, abdicated that role long ago, thinking that we elect people responsibly in representational government. We’ve become fat, dumb and complacent - if not physically then at least in spirit.
And, it seems, we’ve not yet seen the folly of that misbelief. So, I ask (and I ask and I ask) who’s to blame? Those who game the political system or us for having elected the gamers?
If we want to clean out the Augean Stables, we shall have to do it ourselves. For which I suggest the formation of a new party called “Social Democrat”.
MY POINT
I don’t think Americans are ready to move away from its two party system that has given the US, more or less, stable government since the inception of the nation. But, as we have seen, the political system has become largely corrupted by BigMoney and its K-Street lobbyists (aided and abetted by the Supremes).
A Social Democrat Party that adheres to a Progressive Agenda would nonetheless fit nicely under the wing of the Democrat Party and perhaps give it a renaissance. But, that depends mostly upon its message and how it is perceived by the American public.
Achieving that objective is a massive undertaking and not for the faint of heart.
False choice: Dionne the shameless Obama-worshiping
intelligence asset vs. Dionne the shameless Obama-
hating intelligence asset. Who freaking cares? Why is
this “writer” still around? In all these months and
years wouldn’t at least ONE decent article have
resulted if ever one where going to? (A:Yes) Has there
ever been a positive set of comments under even one
Dionne “article”? (A:No). False choice: read Dionne and
hate it vs. read Dionne and merely laugh. After a long
and monotonous while, the “read Dionne” aspect
showcases itself as the spurious aspect.
The saddest thing of all is that our elections at present are doomed to be false choices: Either Republican or Democrat, when neither party can act in substantial disagreement with the “powers behind the throne”—meaning the wealthy elite class of corporation owners. managers, the bankers and money manipulators who operate mostly behind the scenes.
All may pretend (when it is convenient) that they are “democratic” and “feel the pain” of the poor, and intend to work for the common good, though in somewhat differing ways. All appeal to “the common man” and “law and order” and “national security” and “against crime” and “for freedom of speech” etc. etc. ad nauseum. The truth is they do not mean it.
By this late date in history most of us recognize that this is just talk, that the intentions of political power are anti-democratic and that money makes all the important decisions.
Yet we are taught to believe that this is not so, that we are a free people, and that voting is the hallmark of democracy.
The real choice is no longer the false “Vote Democratic or Vote Republican”. We can regain democracy by demanding meaningful (and necessarily more complicated) citizen participation in self-government (and the education to make that possible) or we can drift into simple-minded authoritarianism, give up our rights and betray our honor.
In all honesty, I have to admit that the actual situatioi demands much more than simply choosing one or the other; that neither form is pure and discrete. My statements are over-simplified. But at the same time, there is a recognizable element of basic dichotomizing at work in society today that can’t be denied.
By Kath Cantarella, April 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The ultimate goals are generally the same. People just disagree on how to get there, usually because some of them misunderstand causation.
If you can agree on the causes by applying credible evidence rather than false correlations and other distortions of statistics by interested parties, it’s then easier to agree on the solution.
Abortion is a case in point: the ultimate goal for the genuinely pro-choice is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies; anyone who is genuinely anti-abortion (not anti-choice, which is solely about restoring or preserving patriarchy) would agree.
Nothing changes because the discourse is manipulated by immoral people with personal issues and agendas, rather than a discourse designed to effect the ultimate social good of giving women more control over their fertility, and in the process making abortions unnecessary.
The reflexion cited above is both trite and pointless.
Pointless to you because the point stands in opposition to your political belief system, not because the citing had no merit. In fact it was aimed at another shit disturber entirely. You guys now speak for each other, do you? Which, I cannot help but wonder, is the sock puppet and which has the foul smelling hand?
That Virginia posted out of her/his rectum is nothing new around here, that s/he missed the point that Dionne never,ever bashes Obama and is, in fact an Obama loyalist.
But thanks for continuing to prove yourself as low in my esteem as I believed you to be.
felicity: However, to leave the reader with the notion that the in between is the right analysis, is to leave the reader with, more often than not, a patently false analysis.
I must disagree. There are some advantages, in terms of political analysis, of dialectic reasoning. Dialectics is the existence or action of opposing social forces, concepts, etc.
In politics, and especially at this moment, they are extreme and opposite points of view. But, having lived in both socialist and capitalist worlds, I am convinced that the truth is nether and therefore must be somewhere in between.
It is neither Unbridled Capitalism nor Dogmatic Communism that is best for society. Both economic extremes have their identical errors. Both fail to take into account the nature of mankind. The former because it denies that a society deserves an economic system that is fair and equitable. The latter because it denies an economic system with individual freedom of action.
By MThomas66, April 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Should it be a government working for the people or a government working for the rich people, the corporate persons only. Ask in that manner and you eliminate all false choices.
Reminds me of a proclivity among reporters to report
on an issue by citing at least two extreme analyses
of the issue and then implying to the reader (but
never actually stating) that the ‘right’ analysis
lies between the two extremes.
(Granted it lets the reporter off the hook, namely
she doesn’t have to research the actual right
analysis.) However, to leave the reader with the
notion that the in between is the right analysis, is
to leave the reader with, more often than not, a
patently false analysis.
As with other statements of position or policy, false choices are often couched in the “devil in the details” portion of the vast generalities and “not to be taken literally” verbiage so often spewed by politicians. What is abundantly clear now is the existence of wrong choices with none of those of the correct variety available. Case in point, democrat or republican! Can this be construed as two wrongs making a false?
Marcus, Cary and other false choice critics can perform a useful service if they push politicians away from using the term either to caricature views they disagree with or to avoid making choices altogether.
This too is a False Choice.
Ask yourself the question, “Why do politicians like to use this artifice?” The answer is simple.
Because voters are simple creatures. A “False Choice” argument it typically devoid of cogency but it is brief and understandable - two necessities to “get across” to an electorate that is generally fat, dumb and complacent.
Its usage won’t end. It is too useful an electoral tool. It distorts, by manipulation, the debate because its usage refuses to go into the dreary detail of most complex issues wherein lies the devil.
It’s time, as a nation, that we wake up from our Fast-Food reflex always looking for content-free answers to complex problems. Issues are complex and, accordingly, so are their solutions. Let’s have the courage to confront policy-choices and not sidetrack them.
This would require not only a better electoral constituency but a more courageous class of politicians. For better or worse, in a democracy, the political class is simply a reflection of its electorate.
A main problem is whether to consider all GOPer politicians extreme hypocrites, or just mark them down as raving idiots. And should Paul Ryan’s so-called ‘budget proposal’ be treated as the cruel fantasy of an irresponsible lunatic, or just the inadvertent release of a private, ‘TOP SECRET’ position paper ‘Wish List’ by the Koch Bros. and the Bohemian Grove’s directors?
Say ‘Hi-Ho!’ as They Strip-Search You
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
By DieDaily, May 2, 2011 at 4:02 am Link to this comment
Lafeyette, obviously he’s not actually
baffled…maybe you should google a dictionary and
then actually think (as well).
You state, first by quoting:
“Dionne: Unmasking false choices is especially
important to progressives for whom the task of
finding the proper balances - between government and
the market, between greater equality and the need for
incentives, between a respect for tradition and a
commitment to individual freedom — is close to the
heart of their political philosophy.”
An then blithely add: so what is wrong with this?
1. Progressives do not and have not ever concerned
themselves with the “proper balances” which , by
definition (duh), were defined by the unsatisfactory
status-quo. How many ways can a guy say “duh”. Insert
all of them here.
2. When have we ever had “the market”? We never have.
“The market” both denotes and connotes a place where
people determine things…we’ve never had that.
(Giant “duh” for you).
3. Progressives have NEVER idolized “respect for
tradition” (or any so-called “balance” that cow-tows
to it) nor have they been committed to some fake-ass
“commitment to individual freedom” that screws they
themselves, either. Your puerile dichotomy is so
bogus. You state, in effect “Progressives strive for
that balance between the Dallas Cowboys and
Washington Redskins”. Moron, they DON’T. THEY STRIVE
FOR LESS FOCUS ON PRO FOOTBALL. They would like to
PROGRESS onward from that. You, like Dionne, are
trapped merely being castigated for being caught up
in the sport. You WISH it were something more.
What’s clear is that wouldn’t notice a piece of
“progressive philosophy” if it shredded your
intellectual body armor.
So, having clearly and precisely responded to every
Report thissentence, what now? Where will you run to next? I
WILL quote my reply in your various evasions, so
evade well, rabbit.
By Lafayette, April 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment
Difficult to imagine why you are baffled. The Supremes opened the flood-gates.
Ain’t nobody to blame but ourselves. We put up with it ...
I keep harping on that point because nothing will change until we change it at the grassroots. Congress tried to change the rules and failed miserably. The money has become ingrained.
Money, money, money ... makes America go round.
Report thisBy gerard, April 28, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
What is so baffling is that the Executive branch is corporate owned, the Legislative is corporate owned.
Report thisThe Judiciary is corporate owned. The press is corporate owned. The people have nowhere to turn for “redress of grievances” such as loss of jobs, of homes, of health care, of access to power, of adequate education, of the right to criticize.
Even when a huge gift like WikiLeaks comes along, the powers in control have no more sense of self-awareness than to try to shut the information down and put the informants in jail. They don’t even recognize the opportunity presented by the Leaks to self-correct because they don’t see or feel anything is wrong with busines as usual, in spite of an enormous amount of evidence. If this official blindness cannot be broken, democracy is a dead duck and there is no use to pretend otherwise.
By Lafayette, April 28, 2011 at 4:08 am Link to this comment
For your edification:
Saying someone is blind to the facts is not telling them that they are a “stupid-shit”.
Your comment was of a personal nature and therefore defamatory. Public defamation is illegal in some countries but, unfortunately, not in America. Where it is called “freedom of speech”.
In American-English, meanings are elastic and can be stretched to suit the circumstance?
Report thisBy ardee, April 28, 2011 at 2:11 am Link to this comment
Lafayette, April 28 at 4:29 am
Ahh, I see. Your ad hominems are finme while others are not. When you remove your head from your rectum perhaps youwill post more consistently and with less ignorance. Perhaps.
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 28, 2011 at 12:02 am Link to this comment
TO: DIE-DAILY
You obviously did not read this part of the above article. It sums up the challenge before Americans today - and apparently you are blind to that fact.
Now, pray tell, how is it wrong? Or are you in this forum simply to stir the fumigating claptrap.
C’mon, let’s have a cogent reply ... it’s unlikely you have one.
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment
THE AUGEAN STABLES
True enough. But neither should we despair.
Democracy is about leadership from the grass-roots level. We, the sheeple, abdicated that role long ago, thinking that we elect people responsibly in representational government. We’ve become fat, dumb and complacent - if not physically then at least in spirit.
And, it seems, we’ve not yet seen the folly of that misbelief. So, I ask (and I ask and I ask) who’s to blame? Those who game the political system or us for having elected the gamers?
If we want to clean out the Augean Stables, we shall have to do it ourselves. For which I suggest the formation of a new party called “Social Democrat”.
MY POINT
I don’t think Americans are ready to move away from its two party system that has given the US, more or less, stable government since the inception of the nation. But, as we have seen, the political system has become largely corrupted by BigMoney and its K-Street lobbyists (aided and abetted by the Supremes).
A Social Democrat Party that adheres to a Progressive Agenda would nonetheless fit nicely under the wing of the Democrat Party and perhaps give it a renaissance. But, that depends mostly upon its message and how it is perceived by the American public.
Achieving that objective is a massive undertaking and not for the faint of heart.
Report thisBy DieDaily, April 27, 2011 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment
False choice: Dionne the shameless Obama-worshiping
Report thisintelligence asset vs. Dionne the shameless Obama-
hating intelligence asset. Who freaking cares? Why is
this “writer” still around? In all these months and
years wouldn’t at least ONE decent article have
resulted if ever one where going to? (A:Yes) Has there
ever been a positive set of comments under even one
Dionne “article”? (A:No). False choice: read Dionne and
hate it vs. read Dionne and merely laugh. After a long
and monotonous while, the “read Dionne” aspect
showcases itself as the spurious aspect.
By Lafayette, April 27, 2011 at 11:29 pm Link to this comment
AD HOMINEM
More name-calling at which you excel. Like a bully at a High School rec-period.
Borrrrinnngggggg.
Go away.
Report thisBy gerard, April 27, 2011 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment
The saddest thing of all is that our elections at present are doomed to be false choices: Either Republican or Democrat, when neither party can act in substantial disagreement with the “powers behind the throne”—meaning the wealthy elite class of corporation owners. managers, the bankers and money manipulators who operate mostly behind the scenes.
All may pretend (when it is convenient) that they are “democratic” and “feel the pain” of the poor, and intend to work for the common good, though in somewhat differing ways. All appeal to “the common man” and “law and order” and “national security” and “against crime” and “for freedom of speech” etc. etc. ad nauseum. The truth is they do not mean it.
By this late date in history most of us recognize that this is just talk, that the intentions of political power are anti-democratic and that money makes all the important decisions.
Yet we are taught to believe that this is not so, that we are a free people, and that voting is the hallmark of democracy.
The real choice is no longer the false “Vote Democratic or Vote Republican”. We can regain democracy by demanding meaningful (and necessarily more complicated) citizen participation in self-government (and the education to make that possible) or we can drift into simple-minded authoritarianism, give up our rights and betray our honor.
In all honesty, I have to admit that the actual situatioi demands much more than simply choosing one or the other; that neither form is pure and discrete. My statements are over-simplified. But at the same time, there is a recognizable element of basic dichotomizing at work in society today that can’t be denied.
Report thisBy Kath Cantarella, April 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The ultimate goals are generally the same. People just disagree on how to get there, usually because some of them misunderstand causation.
If you can agree on the causes by applying credible evidence rather than false correlations and other distortions of statistics by interested parties, it’s then easier to agree on the solution.
Abortion is a case in point: the ultimate goal for the genuinely pro-choice is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies; anyone who is genuinely anti-abortion (not anti-choice, which is solely about restoring or preserving patriarchy) would agree.
Nothing changes because the discourse is manipulated by immoral people with personal issues and agendas, rather than a discourse designed to effect the ultimate social good of giving women more control over their fertility, and in the process making abortions unnecessary.
Report thisBy ardee, April 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
The reflexion cited above is both trite and pointless.
Pointless to you because the point stands in opposition to your political belief system, not because the citing had no merit. In fact it was aimed at another shit disturber entirely. You guys now speak for each other, do you? Which, I cannot help but wonder, is the sock puppet and which has the foul smelling hand?
That Virginia posted out of her/his rectum is nothing new around here, that s/he missed the point that Dionne never,ever bashes Obama and is, in fact an Obama loyalist.
But thanks for continuing to prove yourself as low in my esteem as I believed you to be.
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
NEITHER NOR
I must disagree. There are some advantages, in terms of political analysis, of dialectic reasoning. Dialectics is the existence or action of opposing social forces, concepts, etc.
In politics, and especially at this moment, they are extreme and opposite points of view. But, having lived in both socialist and capitalist worlds, I am convinced that the truth is nether and therefore must be somewhere in between.
It is neither Unbridled Capitalism nor Dogmatic Communism that is best for society. Both economic extremes have their identical errors. Both fail to take into account the nature of mankind. The former because it denies that a society deserves an economic system that is fair and equitable. The latter because it denies an economic system with individual freedom of action.
Report thisBy MThomas66, April 27, 2011 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Should it be a government working for the people or a government working for the rich people, the corporate persons only. Ask in that manner and you eliminate all false choices.
Report thisBy felicity, April 27, 2011 at 8:16 am Link to this comment
Reminds me of a proclivity among reporters to report
on an issue by citing at least two extreme analyses
of the issue and then implying to the reader (but
never actually stating) that the ‘right’ analysis
lies between the two extremes.
(Granted it lets the reporter off the hook, namely
Report thisshe doesn’t have to research the actual right
analysis.) However, to leave the reader with the
notion that the in between is the right analysis, is
to leave the reader with, more often than not, a
patently false analysis.
By berniem, April 27, 2011 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
As with other statements of position or policy, false choices are often couched in the “devil in the details” portion of the vast generalities and “not to be taken literally” verbiage so often spewed by politicians. What is abundantly clear now is the existence of wrong choices with none of those of the correct variety available. Case in point, democrat or republican! Can this be construed as two wrongs making a false?
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 27, 2011 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
And, or course, you presume wrongly that Obama needs to apologize or have someone do so for him - which is how the Loony Left typically paint him.
The reflexion cited above is both trite and pointless.
Report thisBy ardee, April 27, 2011 at 2:11 am Link to this comment
TDoff, April 26 at 10:55 pm
This is not a case of GOP-wrong Democrat-right. You actually fail to see it is th esystem in need of repair.
Virginia777, April 27 at 2:02 am
That Dionne is one of the Obama faithful, and one of his chief apologists as well, escapes you, as per usual actually.
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 26, 2011 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment
FOR BETTER OR WORSE
This too is a False Choice.
Ask yourself the question, “Why do politicians like to use this artifice?” The answer is simple.
Because voters are simple creatures. A “False Choice” argument it typically devoid of cogency but it is brief and understandable - two necessities to “get across” to an electorate that is generally fat, dumb and complacent.
Its usage won’t end. It is too useful an electoral tool. It distorts, by manipulation, the debate because its usage refuses to go into the dreary detail of most complex issues wherein lies the devil.
It’s time, as a nation, that we wake up from our Fast-Food reflex always looking for content-free answers to complex problems. Issues are complex and, accordingly, so are their solutions. Let’s have the courage to confront policy-choices and not sidetrack them.
This would require not only a better electoral constituency but a more courageous class of politicians. For better or worse, in a democracy, the political class is simply a reflection of its electorate.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Report thisBy Virginia777, April 26, 2011 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
False choices don’t matter. We are what we choose.
Report thisBy Virginia777, April 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment
You, E.J. Dionne, Jr., have made a false choice in your penchant for Obama-bashing. Its getting very old.
Report thisBy TDoff, April 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment
A main problem is whether to consider all GOPer politicians extreme hypocrites, or just mark them down as raving idiots. And should Paul Ryan’s so-called ‘budget proposal’ be treated as the cruel fantasy of an irresponsible lunatic, or just the inadvertent release of a private, ‘TOP SECRET’ position paper ‘Wish List’ by the Koch Bros. and the Bohemian Grove’s directors?
Report this