Well, the Saletan argument, as I read it, was that Cheney lacked evidence. And in its place he substituted tried and true spin tactics--moral thunderbolts, change the subject, denounce your opponents, etc.
Certainly not a way to persuade folk. I recall listening to a radio interview with Cheney in late March, when my wife and I were driving to the Outer Banks. We were whipping around the Washington Beltway at the time. He was very good, made arguments, offered evidence for arguments. You could, in contrast with Bush, actually argue with Cheney's position in a reasonable way. Bush's rhetoric by contrast has always been "you are for us or against us" and thus not meant as persuasion; just pumping the true believers up.
However, after reading the speech with some care--it was, incidentally, I thought a better speech than the newspapers quotes indicated--the basic strategy is a Bush strategy not a Cheney strategy. "You are a guilty of a willfull blindness if you don't agree with us" argument.
Your questions in your last paragraph are powerful ones. And they are ones people like me have to consider. But, unfortunately, they leave me in the same place. The costs of attacking, the more than potential negative outcomes, etc. are higher than the benefits. And, frankly, it will take someone with more credibility than Cheney to persuade me. Or a Cheney who elects to take my kinds of questions seriously.
Saletan, I repeat, is damn good. The notion of putting Sc and C side by side was brilliant. |
