Pudding Regurgitated

by tristero

I was thrilled, via Digby, to read Rick Perlstein’s brilliant answer to the LA Times’ bizarre question:

Is the American left now a movement of economic issues and nationalism, of identity politics and social justice, or something else? How do the New Democrats fit into the contemporary left?

It warms the cockles of my heart that Perlstein’s answer was to dispute the very premise of the question, a rhetorical tactic I have been advocating for years and one that is crucial if we are serious about re-creating an intelligent public discourse.

To pose a question is to define the space of acceptable answers. My classic example, “So, would you rather that Saddam stay in power?” restricts the set of possible answers to equally bad, and unreasonable, choices. If you answer “no” then the inevitable follow up is, “Then you can have no serious objections to removing him, as the president wishes.” If you answer yes, then you’ll get, “So, you don’t care at all about the enslavement of the Iraqi people.”

The phrasing of the question – a deliberate, cunningly crafted partisan stinkbomb – compels a particular kind of intellectual stupidity and debased reasoning. The only proper answer to, “So, would you rather that Saddam stay in power?” is to strenuously object to the nature of the question itself. But that was never done when it would have mattered. Even today, I can all but guarantee that at least 4 or 5 commenters will “rise to the challenge” and answer eithert yes or no, failing to recognize that the question is a setup.

So kudos to Rick Perlstein for refusing to play the modern version of the game. It is far too much to expect that the LA Times will get what Rick was doing. But at least some of the Times’ readers certainly will. And that’s a terrific start.