Who are the actual "crazy" people in American politics?

[Jefferson23]

Thursday, Mar 4, 2010 09:05 EST

By Glenn Greenwald


(updated below)

My Salon colleague, Mark Benjamin, writes about last night's Larry King Show -- featuring a debate between Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson and GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann -- and does so by repeatedly branding Grayson as "crazy" in the same way that Bachmann is. Beginning with the article's headline ("Bachmann and Grayson: A diary of crazy") to his sarcastic description of "these two towering intellects" to his claim that Grayson and Bachmann are "the Candy Stripers of Crazy of their parties," Benjamin denigrates Grayson's intellect and mental health by depicting him -- with virtually no cited basis -- as the Democratic mirror image of Bachmann's rabid, out-of-touch extremism. This view of Grayson has become a virtual Washington platitude, solidified by The New York Times' David Herszenhorn's dismissal of Grayson as "the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut."

There are so many things wrong this analysis. To begin with, it's a classic case of false journalistic objectivity: the compulsion of journalists to posit equivalencies between the "two sides" regardless of whether they are actually equal (since I'm calling a GOP member of Congress "crazy," I now have to find a Democrat to so label). Benjamin cites numerous Bachmann statements that demonstrate her penchant for bizarre claims (and there are many he omitted), but points to only one Grayson statement: his famous floor speech in which he claimed: "If you get sick in America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly." One could reasonably object to that statement as unduly inflammatory rhetoric, but Grayson was one of the only members of Congress willing to forcefully connect health care policy to the actual lives (and deaths) of American citizens. There's nothing crazy about dramatically emphasizing that casual connection; far crazier is to ignore it.

But more important, Grayson has managed to have more positive impact on more substantive matters than any House freshman in a long time (indeed, he makes more of a positive impact than the vast majority of members of Congress generally). He has tapped into his background as successful litigator and his Harvard degrees in law and public policy to shape public discussion on a wide range of issues -- from his highly effective grilling of the Fed Vice Chair regarding massive, secretive Fed activities and aggressive investigation of the fraud surrounding the Wall Street bailout to his unparalleled work exposing defense contractor corruption, his efforts to warn of the unconstitutional underpinnings of anti-ACORN legislation (a federal court proved him right), his creative (if not wise) legislative proposals to limit corporate influence in politics, and his successful, bipartisan crusade to bring more transparency to the Fed. What conceivable basis exists for disparaging as "crazy" one of the few members of Congress who is both willing and able to bring attention to some of the most severe corruption and worst excesses of our political establishment?

remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/04/crazy

[opihimoimoi]

1. KnR..." Who is Crazy???" Its them Republicans of course...

[winyanstaz]

2. They are attacking him because they are afraid of him.

Time for all us Democrats to fight back and stand up for him.
He is a good man and stands up to the Republican bullcrappy.

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Yup. And Dean's angry, Kucinich is woo woo, and Gore is a pathological liar

The most effective politicians receive the nastiest smears.
Congratulations, Rep. Grayson. You're in the big leagues.

We're at Stage 2 of the Gandhi rule.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

[Jefferson23]

4. Yea, that pretty much sums it up. I appreciate Greenwald taking on

one of his own at Salon to address this crap we hear about the "crazies" in our party.

[philly_bob]

5. ... and Spitzer is an adulterer and ... (nt)

[yurbud]

8. I'd heard the Gandhi rule before, but for some reason, it was inspiring today.

Thanks.

[Lost Jaguar]

11. Ditto.

I had the very same sensation as I read it. I'm gonna do me some diggin' on Ghandi today.

[DirkGently]

6. "False equivalency"

Is a particularly relevant point in recent times. It gets to the heart of what went wrong with, for instance, jouranlism leading up to the Iraq war. Facts and opinion (and, as with Bachman, insanity) are treated as though interchangeable, and no one is willing to make a *qualitative distinction.* Rachel Maddow hit on this point well a while back, and it can't be said enough.

Purporting that Bachman's suggestion, to name a milder bit of her nuttery, that members of Congress need to be investigated to see who is 'anti-American,' does not equal Grayson's factually supportable, if hyperbolically stated suggestion that Republicans are simply against any kind of healthcare reform. It's ridiculous and irresponsible to even suggest it.

Weiner did a good job with this idea on Fox News the other night. One of the Fox talking heads *immediately* started responding to his critique with something about "that's your opinon," as though that somehow applied to Fox's wholesale embrace of the ludicrous "death panel" talk for months on end.

That response was telling. What we saw there was the articulation the precise brand of fatuous illogic that allows people to support Fox News' overt, outrageous lying as some kind of "balance" (thus "fair and balanced") against the supposed "liberal media bias." It's likewise applied to the idea that people's intuitive and religious thoughts about Creationism should be taught as the scientific equal of the theory of Evolution. Now we're hearing that government deficit spending to try to pull our economy out of a nosedive is the height of Washington incompetence, while two questionable trillion-dollar wars and massive unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich were apparently unquestionable necessities.

We've got to get past this notion that facts are now merely a matter of belief, which is often based on 1) wishful thinking and 2) how well the listener likes the speaker. That kind of belief doesn't provide answers or solve problems, because it is unassailable and unresponsive to contrary facts. In fact, we are told that belief in something against contrary facts is a virtue. It's not, and we're paying for that misapprehension daily.

Well done, once again, Mr. Greenwald. Please keep it up.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Great post! n/t

[DirkGently]

12. Thanks for that!

[Dr.Phool]

7. Me

[nashville_brook]

9. it's even worse than that -- Benjamin is promoting the "mycongressmanisnuts" movement

here in Florida which is trying to unseat Grayson. The people running the mycongressmanisnuts website are long-time Central Florida right-wing direct mail political operatives. They're engaging in a primitive political game which is when you can't beat them with facts and reason, then impugn the other's rationality.

The old-time Republican machine here in Central Florida is really offended and frightened by Grayson because he's actually siphoning lots of swing voter support away from potential challengers with his vocal support of auditing the Fed, and his straightforward no-holds-barred rhetoric on healthcare (Don't Get Sick). He's also led the fight against fraud and abuse in military contracting and been a fierce advocate for NASA. This is the sort of thing that the good old boys HATE: a real old-style Democrat who speaks his mind and fights for the people. A populist by any other name.

Since they can't beat him with facts and they're going after his intellect, which is like picking a fight with Mike Tyson on the grounds that he is a wuss. Behold his bona fides:

Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York and grew up in the tenements. He graduated from Bronx High School of Science and worked his way through Harvard University graduating summa cum laude in three years. He was also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He worked as an economist for two years and returned to Harvard for graduate studies. Within four years, he earned a law degree with honors from Harvard Law School, a masters in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government and completed the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in government.

Want to impugn Grayson's intellect? Have at it. It's going to be a short discussion.