Obama, strawmen and the triangulation model of rhetoric

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

I wrote a comment on Orange and thought it was worth saying here.  I first became aware of this tactic from reading David Sirota and Big Tent Democrat in late 2006, when Obama was first talking about running.  I resisted in my understanding, however, because I wanted to believe.  It involves binary oppositions, strawmen and triangulation.

It’s the triangulation model of rhetoric.  President Obama does it a lot, again today.  He posits two extremes, well meaning, but wrong, and then places himself in the pragmatic middle.  It’s an easy rhetorical game.  You define the extremes in such a way that your position, no matter what it is, is the “reasonable” one.  Often the postions are mischaracterized, i.e., strawmen created, so that the middle position is obviously better than the well meaning but wrong headed “extremes.”

It’s very effective, but it is a rhetorical game.  Obama today:

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…

Obama’s been doing it for a long time.  It works, so long as no one critically analyzes what he says.  For example, was the Bush program really “anything goes”?  As bad as they were, they had some limits.  Granted, their limits were pretty damn low.  But I don’t see evidence of electricity applied to genitals, etc.  Bush did leave office.  I opposed Bush totally, but what he did was bad enough on its own.  See it for what it was.  He should have been impeached during his first term.  

Do the critics of Obama’s moderation on these issues really NEVER put national security over transparency?  That’s many of the people here he’s characterizing.  

Those are strawmen and Obama knows it.  

More, after the fold.  

The first diary I ever wrote on Daily Kos in January 2007 addressed this issue.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

This is my first diary and I picked a topic likely to cause some controversy.  I just watched Obama on Face the Nation.  He was okay, but that was it.  He did not endorse Senator Kennedy’s bill.  He did not oppose it, but said he and Senator Levin supported Kennedy’s aims.  Obama sought a “bipartisan approach” between “immediate withdrawal” and the failed “stay the course” with a surge.

Obama was a strong opponent to the invasion.  He continues to oppose the war.  He seems wedded, however, to a methodology of decision-making on issues in which he tries to find middle ground.  So, he is for bringing some troops home within 6 months.    

That’s good, but not good enough.  We need to pull opponents of the war in the Senate to Kennedy’s position.  This is why we need a strong left wing of the Democrat Party.  If nothing else, it moves the center for which Obama seems to search to the left.

snip

We need to build a strong movement for immediate withdrawal. If nothing else, it will pull the center toward more and faster withdrawal.

I agree with President Obama on policy choices more than with any President in my lifetime.  I was too young to have opinions about Eisenhower or JFK.  (I was 8 when JFK was assasinated.)  On many things, I agree with President Obama.  Probably as much as 70% of the time.

But I will do what I told my daughter to do when she was just a little girl: critically analyze statements.  The rhetorical triangulation is fun, but I prefer thinking for myself.

As for the content of Obama’s speech today, it was good, very good.  I understand why he is making choices he has regarding justice for the criminal Bush adminstration.  I don’t agree, but I don’t expect to always agree. And when I don’t, I say so.  It’s okay to disagree with the President.  This President tries to follow the Constitution:

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights – through World War and Cold War – because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn’t always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Update: McJoan at Orange sees the same thing:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.  On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

To this, I have an extreme objection. That is a strawman and is nonsense. Accepting and forwarding the Republican frame that those who are arguing for accountability would sacrifice national security is damaging. That’s accepting the canard that transparency aids and abets the enemy. On behalf of the ALCU, the CCR, the EFF, every organization that has worked diligently for the past eight years to let Americans know what the Bush administration did in our names, I reject the characterization.