A Leftist Reviews the Two Conventions

My leftist buddy Xerxes has reviewed the two American conventions, and declared the Democrats the winners based on having the right rhetoric. They, after all, kept using the keywords “respect, dignity, compassion… equality and justice.” 

This reinforces the general impression that leftist politics is fundamentally dishonest: all it cares about is the right rhetoric. Say you are for respect, and you can treat anyone you want disrespectfully, call them deplorable, call them racist, call them fascist; say you are for choice, and you can limit everyone’s choices everywhere; say you are compassionate, and you can kill babies; say you are anti-fascist, and you can be fascist; say you are for peace, and you can start wars, or smash and burn in the streets.

In short, current leftist politics is a con job.

While all politicians play with the truth, Republicans seem to resist such verbal tricks. When George W. Bush peddled the slogan “compassionate conservatism,” he got blowback from his party. One chooses one’s policy because one believes it is compassionate. That should go without saying. Anything more is deceit.

So too, obviously, with phrases like “I give you my word.” Xerxes is impressed that Biden is ready to give his word. If this does not go without saying, he is not an honest man. To be fair, Trump often uses a similar verbal trick, “Frankly…” As a good general rule, whenever anyone starts a sentence with either of these terms, you can assume they are lying, and accustomed to lying.

Of the Republican clambake, Xerxes writes:

“Everyone touted ‘law and order’ -- even as a law-and-order representative shot a black man in the back, seven times.”

This is a good example of a rhetorical trick. Or several. A non sequitur, and then a cherry-picking of details. The man was “shot in the back seven times,” true, but while resisting arrest, at the scene of the crime, struggling with police, carrying a knife that he refused to drop when repeatedly ordered to do so, and lunging into his car as if to grab something. He had already been tasered twice, without apparent effect. There is also the completely unsubstantiated implication here that he was shot because he was black. Otherwise why mention it?

In any case, our civic duty is to await a formal investigation before drawing any conclusions on the incident. Anything else is, literally, prejudice. Our shared rights and our community life depend on this; due process is of the essence of liberal democracy. Lynch mobs are not a moral option.

Xerxes writes, dismissively,

“Republicans see America as being under attack. By socialism. By vandals and looters. By pro-abortion lobbies. By mail-ballot fraud.

‘Don’t let them steal this election from you,’ Trump warned.

And, of course, under attack by fake or false news on the mass media.”

All this is true. Since Republicans believe it, and they account for fifty percent or so of the US population, it seems to me the perception needs to be addressed. What is the counter-argument? To simply assume no obligation to disprove the statement seems like profound arrogance. “Of course we’re here to take your guns.”

Rather than disagree with the Republican claim, Xerxes accuses Trump of lying in general, citing a Washington Post tally of “disprovable assumptions.” He ignores the obvious possibility that the Washington Post might be lying—other than from prejudice, why implicitly trust one witness, and not the other? One needs further evidence.

All politicians lie. Surely no adult can think otherwise. The obvious lie is that this is somehow peculiar to Trump. Trump actually stands out from that crowd for his relative truthfulness; perhaps because he is not a career politician. He has made a genuine effort, for example, to keep campaign promises; and a foundation of his appeal to his supporters all along is that he is inclined to say just what he thinks. The things the left exaggerates into “lies” are generally only exaggerations, matters of showmanship or salesmanship with no intent to deceive or likelihood of deceiving.

Xerxes cites as particularly impressive Biden’s promise to “listen to the science.” As if this distinguishes him from Trump, or any other politician. Science is our modern religion. Saying science is on your side is like saying God is on your side in older times. Everyone will do so as a matter of course, unless they’re honest. The claim is meaningless on several levels: first, because “science” actually asserts nothing; second, because anyone can claim anything to be “scientific”—Freud, Marx, Lysenko, or L. Ron Hubbard; third, because this is an appeal to authority, at best weak evidence, often an outright fallacy; and fourth, because any claim of “scientific consensus” is the ad populum fallacy. Scientists disagree.

That said, the Democrats and Biden clearly do not respect scientific consensus when it does not suit their agenda. They do not accept that a human embryo is both alive and human; they do not accept that there are biological differences, even at the cellular level, between men and women. They believe it is vital to wear masks and keep social distance at any Republican meeting, but not if you are demonstrating against the police.

Xerxes goes on, more absurdly, to claim Trump is against science, as if anyone is in modern times. Scientists are “Exactly the people Trump doesn’t listen to. Especially if they disagree with him on injecting oneself with household bleach or taking medications that delay COVID-19 recovery.”

Here are a couple of good examples of outright political lies. Not original to Xerxes; he is probably just another victim. Trump has never advised anyone to inject themselves with household bleach. Trump has never advised anyone to take a medication that delays COVID recovery.

I presume Xerxes means here his reference to using UV light as an internal disinfectant, something currently being studied by scientists. And to hydroxychloroquine, which, according to the most recent study, the largest yet, even when used alone reduces COVID-19 mortality by over 33 percent.

The definitive study on hydroxychloroquine, it is true, has for some reason not yet been done. Until it is, it is certainly at a minimum premature to say it delays COVID-19 recovery. That amounts to a falsehood.

Xerxes is impressed, as others have been, but Biden’s acceptance speech:

“Joe Biden’s acceptance speech at the end of the Democratic convention proved he could put together a series of sentences with a coherent message. Donald Trump’s two acceptance speeches, on the first day of the Republican convention and the last evening, proved that he couldn’t.”

Again, this seems an example of the left seeing only appearances, and not caring for substance. All that either speech demonstrated for certain was that the candidates are both capable of reading from a teleprompter. The rest may very well be up to the speechwriter.

Yet Trump is here again an exception. Unlike almost all other modern politicians, Trump is actually inclined to speak, at his rallies, if not here, extemporaneously, and at length. This proves him considerably more verbally adept than any other active politician you could name, let alone Joe Biden. His extemporaneous speeches turn out to be extremely funny; which is why people come out to hear them in such numbers. He is, in fact, a talented stand-up improvisational speaker, with an utterly distinctive style. His phrasing is well-crafted to be memorable and quotable: “fake news”—like everyone else, Xerxes picked up that one himself. “Crooked Hillary.” “Little Marco.” “Low-energy Jeb.” “Little rocket man.” “Make America Great Again.” These have been devastatingly effective.

Xerxes especially liked Biden’s closing: “love is more powerful than hate, hope is more powerful than fear, and light is more powerful than dark.”

He might have noticed, but didn’t, that Biden or his speechwriter cribbed it from Jack Layton.

Not the first time Biden has been caught plagiarizing.