An Example Of MoveOn’s Practice Of Intellectual Dishonesty

Slate’s Chris Beam notes an interesting exchange between former Obama advisor Samantha Power and MoveOn.org’s Tod Matzzie on the subject of withdrawal from Iraq.  Matzzie’s approach fires me up for several reasons as I will explain below.  First, the context:

During her presentation, Power had spoken about the need to acknowledge that withdrawal could get ugly. Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, objected to her “framing.” Here’s the whole exchange (cleaned up a bit for readability):

Tom Matzzie: The question is really about framing, and about building the story about what withdrawal means. The human consequences are something you have to consider, but we can’t help the right build the frame that disengagement is going to have negative humanitarian consequences. … The war’s already a tragedy, you know? That’s why you don’t want to get into them, they’re tragedies. So I’d be interested about how you can revise your language to help not build that right-wing frame. …

Samantha Power: I don’t feel inclined to revise my frame out of deference to this manifestly moribund discourse that the administration and its supporters inflicted upon us in the course of the last few years.

By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.

I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that? …

[Then we say], there are always risks, there are always consequences that are unknowable. Here’s what we’re going to do to address the concern. I think that’s a much more effective approach than to say, Oh , just because all the violence followed us into Iraq it’s going to follow us out of Iraq. I think it’s insulting to the American voter, the American people who know that certain things are unknowable. … That kind of belief that it’s all or nothing is in its own way analogous to the old one that was in this administration.

Beam goes on to wonder out loud what the significance is for Obama.  I don’t think that’s the biggest takeaway and I’m really not sure where he was going.  Rather, I think the takeaway is just how off the rails MoveOn can be at times as well as how quick they are willing to resort to tactics used by the Bush Administration (the principle source of their criticism…oh irony).

Matzzie’s suggestion to Power represents nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.  Certainly, I understand the politics involved.  And, I understand MoveOn’s desire not to feed into a narrative that is being used to pursue policy objectives that are completely antithetical to their own.  So, I am sympathetic to Matzzie’s (and presumbaly MoveOn’s) desire to shape the narrative in terms that are more favorable to them.  That said, it’s simply the wrong thing to do…

• First, they may not like to hear this, but the simple reality is that refusing to acknowledge the repercussions of withdrawal (and the corollorary of not even accepting the possibility/liklihood) is nothing short of what MoveOn consistently criticizes the Bush Administration for - misinformation.  The mere fact that MoveOn believes it is doing so to support “good” ends, does not excuse or justify misinformation or presenting incomplete information.
• Secondly, they may think that it is strategically smart to pursue that path and atempt to stifle people like Power, but they are wrong.  Whenever I give a lecture on effective public speaking, one of the first things I talk about is the need to accept the drawbacks of the position that you are advocating.  This is necessary and useful for a few reasons.  1) It helps establish your credibility with the audience.  If people know that you are willing to tell them the drawbacks to your position, then they are more likely to accept the benfits as true.  2) It also allows you to control/shape the discussion surrounding the weaknesses of your position.  Why let the person opposing you have the ability to discuss your drawbacks, when you can do it yourself and frame it in a way that supports your position.  Power’s response seems to acknowledge the necessity of paticipating in this kind of debate.  And, it is troubling to me, that MoveOn somehow thinks that its better to ignore reality or present misinformation in order to support their cause.  I’m unclear why people are supposed to accept their criticism when the Bush Administration does similar things, but people are supposed to support them when they do it.
• Third, it’s just another example of MoveOn simply contributing to the problem with our political discourse.  Yes, I understand that there are awful GOP groups out there and that the left needs the ability to fight back.  On the other hand, there’s no need to fight back with the same silly tactics.  In my opinion, reason will prevail, so long as it is being explained in an effective way.  MoveOn has made it clear that it is not interested in enhancing the political debate, but just serving as a counterbalance to silly right wing groups.  If that’s what they really want, then fine.  But, people need to stop taking them seriously then.  Just like people, including conservatives, should stop respecting/supporting silly right wing groups too.

I respect Power’s response.  Whether or not I agree with her positin is irrelevant.  What I do agree with and applaud is her ability to intellectually honest, even about the disadvantages of the position she supports.  A Democracy such as ours is predicated upon the fact that people vote with useful information in mind, not public relations tricks or misinformation.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s an obligation for any campaign or organization that advocates as position to be as honest as possible.  Afterall, if you’re advocating something, then it is assumed that you really believe that it is for the best.  Instead of trying to constantly trick people into siding with you, why not convince them?

So, in conclusion, shame on MoveOn and hooray for Power.