On Philosophy And Rhetoric: America Lobotomized

I could list many reasons why a person should hate America, and I bet on a good day I could list many of the things that are in fact wrong with America. But this must not be a good day, for I have found but one reason why any thinking person should hate what is considered right about America.

What follows is a perfect example of what is exactly wrong with this country. I promise you that it is almost platonic in its form; this example epitomizes the death of the American mind, nay, the human mind, like few others. If you must, ignore the context and content; it is the process that counts here, the manner and structure and logic of it all that shrinks the mind and wilts the soul.

_______________

While skipping through far too many channels on my television this past Friday night (March 23), I landed on a discussion (this word no longer has meaning, by the way) between four media personalities, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes (partners of Fox News' Hannity and Colmes) and radio talk show hosts Michael Reagan (son of President Ronald Reagan) and Leslie Marshall. The purpose of this gathering of the minds was to discuss actor Charlie Sheen's recently expressed doubts whether the events of 9/11 actually happened the way they've been documented; and this great consortium of intellects was to comment on Sheen's role as narrator of a "documentary" detailing how the United States government lied to us all about what we saw -- or thought we saw -- with our own eyes. The film is to be underwritten by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban; it is a new production of the internet film, "Loose Change," of which I have written before.

What follows is a transcript I hammered out from the video link found at the Hannity and Colmes website. I did the best I could considering how many times such great interlocutors interrupt and speak over each other. (For total impact, I urge you to watch it now.) This is not a full transcript, mind you. I purposely omitted the first and last minutes of the interviews; I promise that I have not left out a single important thing. The salient points are found right here.

I am first going to share all of Sean Hannity's interview with Ms. Marshall, and then make a few comments. Then, I will quote Alan Colmes' interview with Mr. Reagan. There is NO INTERRUPTION between the two interviews; everything that follows is chronologically contiguous.

Let me first note that up to this point NO ONE in the discussion has mentioned either suppressing free speech or the First Amendment.

(Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, March 23.)

Sean Hannity: What about you, Leslie, do you agree with Sheen?

Leslie Marshall: ...This is hysterical. Last time I checked, we’re all Americans here, the four of us and we are all entitled to the same rights that both Charlie Sheen and his father [actor Martin Sheen, a vocal Bush critic], called the First Amendment.

Sean Hannity: Hey Leslie, why don’t you try answering the question. We all agree that’s, uh, uh ... OK. Yeah. Now, do you agree with him?

Leslie Marshall: It’s a First Amendment, it’s a First Amendment issue, Sean. Now, do I agree with him?

Sean Hannity: Leslie, who asked you about the First Amendment? He has the right to be an idiot. I am not doubting that, I give him all the rope he wants. I am asking if you agree with him.

Leslie Marshall: But I don’t think somebody’s an idiot if they disagree with you or me, Sean. I believe that is what is wonderful about our nation, that we have the right to disagree with each other.

Sean Hannity: You know, I know, but he’s, he’s putting together these conspirathy [sic], these conspiracy thoughts and I am asking you if you agree?

Leslie Marshall: Do I agree --

Sean Hannity: Yes.

Leslie Marshall: -- that the president took down the towers?

Sean Hannity: Yes.

Leslie Marshall: No.

Sean Hannity: A lot of left l--

Leslie Marshall: But I think Charlie Sheen is allowed to say it, I don’t think he’s an idiot for expressing his mind --

Sean Hannity: You don’t think so?

Leslie Marshall: --and for disagreeing with you or me.

Sean Hannity: You think it’s a well-informed opinion that George Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time, this big conspiracy that the government did this?

Leslie Marshall: But you’re calling it a conspiracy theory, right, and that’s what conspiracy theories are. The last time I checked, there are a lot of people today in Dallas standing on a grassy knoll still disputing the single bullet theory and Arlen Specter is still in office.

_______________

Forgive me for insulting you with my comments. I know you see the fallacy here, for it is glaring. But let me highlight it a little more.

What Ms. Marshall committed in this Q&A can only be deemed a thought-crime; she committed the fallacy of switching the question: by switching the question from whether she agreed with Mr. Sheen to his right to say whatever he wants, Ms. Marshall used a red-herring to throw the discussion off course. Notice how Mr. Hannity tries to pull her back -- "Do you agree with him?" -- and how she avoids the question, even though she asks it back, twice -- "Do I agree?" Ms. Marshall does not want to discuss or debate the film or the veracity of Mr. Sheen's opinions; she wants to protect his free speech rights, rights that NO ONE is denying him. BUT...

Notice that she takes umbrage with Mr. Sheen being called an idiot. As we all should know, such rhetorical indiscretions are also fallacious; they are the fallacy argumentum ad hominem, or arguments to the person. She is right to take issue with this, at least for purely logical reasons. BUT ALSO ...

It should be noted that Mr. Hannity's first question -- Leslie, do you agree with Mr. Sheen? -- might be a type of either the fallacy of the complex (or loaded) question, or a fallacy of the false question. I will expand on the latter in a moment, but the former, the complex question, is perhaps appropriately applied to Mr. Hannity, for he may have put Ms. Marshall in the position of answering yes or no to a question that really demands greater exposition. If Ms. Marshall had answered with a terse yes or no, she may have incriminated herself, thus (perhaps) explaining her rush to throw in a red-herring. But I don't see how she could have been so fearful of saying "no" to Hannity's question, especially since she eventually said "no." I can only conclude that Ms. Marshall is guilty of evasion so she could defend a position other than what is being discussed. Now, back to the interview:

(The hosts switch roles)

Alan Colmes: Let me go to Michael Reagan. The fact of the matter is I don’t agree with Charlie Sheen --

Michael Reagan: Good.

Alan Colmes: But, you know, you’re way of dealing with it is to “Let’s denounce Charlie Sheen, let’s denounce Martin Sheen, let’s denounce Mark Cuban," rather than actually debate the issue and talk about just what’s going on here, you want to make it personal and go after the individuals.

Michael Reagan: Alan, Alan, wait a minute. You, you sit there and say, “let’s debate the issue.” What? That America did bring down the towers? That maybe, "when all the Jews left the building," maybe they knew something that we didn’t all know? Debate that? You’re out of your mind to debate that?

Alan Colmes: You, you, you’re missing my point. You’re totally missing my point. My point is--

Michael Reagan: That is your point!

Alan Colmes: --you take free speech which we all agree we all have and you meet that with other free speech. And that’s the way free speech works.

Michael Reagan: I am not saying he can’t say it. Nobody is saying he can’t say it. But what you’re saying is that I shouldn’t be able to react to his stupidity?

Alan Colmes: I didn’t say you shouldn’t be able to, I said you choose to make it a personal attack on the individual rather than deal with what the individual is actually saying which you could easily refute.

Michael Reagan: Where’s the personal attack? The personal attack is that I think he is out of his mind!

Alan Colmes (chuckling): I know you think he is out of his mind. That’s the way you want to deal with it.

(Overtalking)

Michael Reagan: I think people who support that are out of their minds. And I think people who support that are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy who want to kill Americans.

Alan Colmes: Yeah, ah, stop with the aid and comfort to the enemy. Michael, can we believe everything the government tells us?

(Pause)

Michael Reagan: What kind of a question is that, Alan?

Alan Colmes: A good one. Thank you for asking.

Michael Reagan: Alan, that's a lousy question --

Leslie Marshall: Or it could also be that the answer is "no."

_______________

Again, there is so much deadening rhetoric here that I can hardly revive my own heart. But sometimes we need to force ourselves to stare into the abyss. Let us stare together.

Note what Alan Colmes does to Mr. Reagan. If you do not see it, look again, for it is clear -- and shocking: Mr. Colmes denies Mr. Reagan his right to free speech.

How do I reach this conclusion? Simple. Mr. Colmes, turning a blind eye to the fact that Mr. Reagan is entitled to EVERYTHING he is saying about Mr. Sheen, nevertheless says this inanity:

"My point is you take free speech which we all agree we all have and you meet that with other free speech. And that’s the way free speech works."

This benumbing lesson on free speech is utterly self-canceling: Mr. Colmes DOES NOT SEE that Mr. Reagan is utterly FREE to say exactly what he is saying. If free speech is free, then there is no denying Mr. Reagan the right to attack Mr. Sheen personally, or to reason fallaciously, or to do whatever he chooses with his words. Mr. Colmes is both blind and deaf to Mr. Reagan's use of free speech to battle free speech; Mr. Colmes thinks that his interlocutor should say SOMETHING ELSE, something that is NOT PERSONAL. What vacuity!

And then, to cap it off, Mr. Colmes says this in the MIDST OF DEFENDING FREE SPEECH:

"Yeah, ah, stop with the 'aid and comfort to the enemy.'"

I am sorry, but did Mr. Colmes tell someone to STOP uttering whatever he wants to utter? He did. For shame!

Mr. Colmes also asks this fallacious question, "Michael, can we believe everything the government tells us?" Not only is this the fallacy of the false question, even the complex question, it is meant to trap Mr. Reagan, who sees right through it. For if Mr. Reagan answers no, then, of course, Mr. Colmes' rejoinder is that perhaps Mr. Sheen is right not to trust what the government is telling us about 9/11; if he answers yes, then Mr. Colmes' response will be to ask whether Mr. Reagan believes that there are still WMDs in Iraq or that his father, President Reagan, did not know what Oliver North was doing in the Iran/Contra affair. It is, in short, a sick game. And this from a man who claims he wants a debate about what could be "easily refuted."

Lastly, just note that while Mr. Colmes is apparently interested in purging a person's free speech of all personal attacks, he spends his entire Q&A arguing against the person of Michael Reagan: Alan Colmes never actually discusses either the veracity of Mr. Sheen's claims or the veracity of Mr. Reagan's assertion that Mr. Sheen is insane. The fact is that Mr. Sheen may very well be "out of his mind." Insanity is a real thing; insane people believe all kinds of paranoid and polluted things. But rather than disabuse Mr. Reagan of his mistaken belief about Mr. Sheen's idiocy, Mr. Colmes attacks Mr. Reagan's personhood: he suggests that Mr. Reagan is only capable of thuggishness, of obsessing over and denying Mr. Sheen's competence.

In closing, remember that this is supposed to be a discussion about the veracity and propriety of the conspiracy theories as perpetuated by Mr. Sheen and others like him. But both Ms. Marshall and Mr. Colmes drag the red-herring of "free speech" through the discussion, and then, as noble champions of free speech, turn and trammel free speech (what you can't see in my transcript is that Ms. Marshall nods in vigorous affirmation of Mr. Colmes' rhetoric).

If free speech is free, then indeed leave it be. Even illogic is free to run amok. In fact, it is running amok. It is logic that is corralled, awaiting death. And as illogic runs free, telling itself that it is what is "great about America," it calls itself Dialogue.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

For a great read about the future of democracy -- and the need for a rational populace -- read the United Kingdom blogger/writer, Stanley Rosenthal at the Progressive. This link -- The Thirty-eight Dirty Tricks of Argument -- from his site is also enlightening, and perfectly on point.