The case against Cindy Sheehan: Deconstructing the arguments
There are currently three lines of attack against Cindy Sheehan, sometimes used individually and sometimes in combinations. Each deserves examination:
1. She is a traitor. This is the hard line taken by people like Bill O'Reilly. In political terms, a traitor is someone who cooperates with the enemy or whose actions undermine her own government. Whenever there is a war protest, the protesters are said to be helping the enemy's cause. The illogical presumptions behind this argument are many:
a. That our government is always right
b. That there is only one enemy
c. That the government has correctly defined the enemy
d. That freedom of expression is forbidden during a war
If Sheehan is a traitor, then I am a traitor, too, for I write against the war, talk against the war, and intend to vote against those who support the war. I did not consider Iraq an enemy of the U.S. until we invaded it. Yes, the Saddam Hussein regime was an enemy of what the United States stands for, but so is the Bush administration.
2. She is a tool of the Democratic Party. That one is funny, in a way. The Democratic Party, as far as I can tell, doesn't have enough cohesion to make someone a tool, not to mention that its members do not seem to be especially outspoken against the war.
A reader of this blog speculated that the Demoratic Party is funding Sheehan's stay in Crawford. Actually, people like I are funding it, through small donations. Unlike the Democratic Party, we are against the war and don't have a problem saying that it is a complete sham, created for the purpose of making Halliburton et al wealthy beyond belief.
But there is a more important element to this argument, and that is that it implies that Cindy Sheehan is naive and stupid. And yes, I have to wonder if that criticism would be as popular if Sheehan were a man. Perhaps.
Finally--worst case scenario: that Sheehan is a tool of the Democratic Party. Well, at least the party picked a woman who is cognitively functional to be their tool, and not someone who is brain dead and lying in a hospital bed in Florida.
3. She is a grieving mother whose expression of grief has taken an inappropriate turn.
I won't dance around that one: It is out-and-out sexist. There is no way this criticism would be hurled at a man if he were grieving over his son. The "grieving mother" image gives conservatives an opportunity to express their "compassion" while bashing Sheehan at the same time.
The insults against Sheehan will increase as the number of her supporters in Crawford increases. As she becomes more of a threat, look for her personal life to be dragged through the mud, and for everything she has ever said to be taken out of context. And all of this will be reported by the news media, who has yet to mention that Bush is a lying, cheating, stealing, amoral killer. Oh yes...and a tool of PNAC.
1. She is a traitor. This is the hard line taken by people like Bill O'Reilly. In political terms, a traitor is someone who cooperates with the enemy or whose actions undermine her own government. Whenever there is a war protest, the protesters are said to be helping the enemy's cause. The illogical presumptions behind this argument are many:
a. That our government is always right
b. That there is only one enemy
c. That the government has correctly defined the enemy
d. That freedom of expression is forbidden during a war
If Sheehan is a traitor, then I am a traitor, too, for I write against the war, talk against the war, and intend to vote against those who support the war. I did not consider Iraq an enemy of the U.S. until we invaded it. Yes, the Saddam Hussein regime was an enemy of what the United States stands for, but so is the Bush administration.
2. She is a tool of the Democratic Party. That one is funny, in a way. The Democratic Party, as far as I can tell, doesn't have enough cohesion to make someone a tool, not to mention that its members do not seem to be especially outspoken against the war.
A reader of this blog speculated that the Demoratic Party is funding Sheehan's stay in Crawford. Actually, people like I are funding it, through small donations. Unlike the Democratic Party, we are against the war and don't have a problem saying that it is a complete sham, created for the purpose of making Halliburton et al wealthy beyond belief.
But there is a more important element to this argument, and that is that it implies that Cindy Sheehan is naive and stupid. And yes, I have to wonder if that criticism would be as popular if Sheehan were a man. Perhaps.
Finally--worst case scenario: that Sheehan is a tool of the Democratic Party. Well, at least the party picked a woman who is cognitively functional to be their tool, and not someone who is brain dead and lying in a hospital bed in Florida.
3. She is a grieving mother whose expression of grief has taken an inappropriate turn.
I won't dance around that one: It is out-and-out sexist. There is no way this criticism would be hurled at a man if he were grieving over his son. The "grieving mother" image gives conservatives an opportunity to express their "compassion" while bashing Sheehan at the same time.
The insults against Sheehan will increase as the number of her supporters in Crawford increases. As she becomes more of a threat, look for her personal life to be dragged through the mud, and for everything she has ever said to be taken out of context. And all of this will be reported by the news media, who has yet to mention that Bush is a lying, cheating, stealing, amoral killer. Oh yes...and a tool of PNAC.
posted by Diane at 2:54 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The illogical presumptions behind this argument are many:
a. That our government is always right
b. That there is only one enemy
c. That the government has correctly defined the enemy
d. That freedom of expression is forbidden during a war
I think you left out the one about how dissent against the war president is like a jolt of caffeine and steroids and happy pills all at once for the enemy.
I really, really find it difficult to believe that the Iraqi insurgents get all super-motivated every time someone over here says bad things about the war. And I certainly don't think it affects their actions.
By
Eli, at
11:51 PM
Two additional parallel smears are developing: she craves celebrity/is a media whore and she intends to make a profit by exploiting her son's death. (If you can stand the insanity, just visit Free Republic or Moonbat Central for proof).
When I came across these allegations my first thought was: Jon Walsh, the man who responded to the hideous murder of his young son by lobbying for better laws and police organization. And yes, along the way, he became a celebrity, got his own TV show, and made money. As far as I know, he wasn't hit with smeary accusations that he was only out to exploit his son's death. He seem's to be generally well regarded.
So what's the difference? Well, the murder of a child is one thing. The death of a soldier in an increasingly unpopular war is another. And the insistent questioning of a dead soldier's mother is more than a minor irritation -- it is a big danger. So the pushback is going to be correspondingly nasty.
By
Grace Nearing, at
12:59 AM
Eli--right you are.
Grace, I thought about Walsh, too, and almost included him in my post.
By
Diane, at
10:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home