Does George F. Will Argue Like a Weasel
Recently George Will wrote a column as to whom Mitt Romney might choose as his Vice President. Within the context of exaggerated hyperbole Will proposes Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Thus this aging crank spent more time with blatant labeling of Obama (and the "entitlement state") rather than making much of a case for either of his choices. If cartoonist and author Scott Adams wrote a book on politicians then George Will's writing could easily inspire several chapters. What blowhard has written with more insinuation, illusion of spin logic, confusing sophistry, guilt by association, and whimsical vagary than this pretense of intellectual firepower? His political biases are almost always more prevalent than an ability to write clear and rational arguments.
Does George F. Will Argue Like a Weasel
By Gusty Gail
April 11, 2012
Recently George Will, of a now more shoddy Washington Post newspaper and Writer's Group, wrote an opinion column as to whom Mitt Romney might choose for his Vice President. He started his column with this sentence:
"Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy—his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth—should no longer startle. It should, however, influence Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate."
Within his McCarthyist context of exaggerated hyperbole and accusation—alleging Obama "flagrantly" misrepresented Supreme Court decision Citizens United; misrepresented Ryan's budget; and defended "reactionary" liberalism; id. est., that is equating to meretricious claims and dereliction of duty—Will proposed Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
Thus this aging crank spent more time with the Washington Post style of attack dog blatancy and demagogy labeling of President Obama (and the "entitlement state") rather than really making much of a sound case for either of his choices. Even a convict on death role could gain a few compliments by the average wordsmith.
"The ambitious man grasps at opinion as necessary to his designs; the vain man sues for it as a testimony to his merit; the honest man demands it as his due; and most men consider it as necessary to their existence." Marchese di Becarria
Yes, George Will, "superstar" pundit of the ever degenerating Washington Post, who over the years, has continually posed to have so much "... intellectual firepower ... to explain complex policy issues" (his stated reason for Paul Ryan—although, according to George, supposedly Ryan has not quite honed his rhetorical skills) as expected in the imperial city. Well guess this ain't classical Rome or Greece?
"It is not only arrogant, but profligate, for a man to disregard the world's opinion of himself." Cicero
If cartoonist and author Scott Adams wrote a similar book on politicians, along the same lines of his enlightening insights on business practice (Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel), there is little doubt George F. Will's writing style could inspire several chapters. What blowhard has written with more insinuation, illusion spin of logic, confusing sophistry, guilt by association, and whimsical vagary than this pretense of intellectual firepower? His political biases are almost always more prevalent than his ability to write rational arguments the average good, habitual reader can grasp.
One of Will's favorite tactics is to pile on esoteric historical references or a lot of factual baggage to suggest how well grounded he is in research and background knowledge. In this recent example of his he uses several inches of valuable column space naming 16 presidents (since World War II) who have become President even though they each lost the nomination of their own home state. This verbiage substituted for really making the case as to why his choices are so worthy—which amounted to a few brief generalizations). How truly relevant was this "esoterica" to support his picks he says can explain complex issues to people? Ambrose Bierce in his The Devil's Dictionary defines "esoteric" as: very particularly abstruse and consummately occult."
Even many people who surpass a "loutish" state of intellectual awareness, such as judges on the Supreme Court bench, make poisonous "political" decisions, based on "corrupted" attitudes—that is while couching their decisions in deflection of expository power. Perhaps it should be appropriate here regarding Citizens United to quote Cicero: "No liberal man would impute a charge of unsteadiness to another for having changed his opinion." Intelligent people could know the word "argue" in Latin originally meant to "clarify" one's position—but many news people, politicians and even Supreme Court justices don't practice this semantic nicety.
But then this presumes one changes one's opinion to a better and more enlightened opinion. Nor can it be the case "all" news pundits, politicians, and judges would fit Joseph Joubert's epithet: "Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love the truth" but some certainly do?
If any group of people have assumed a kind of "entitlement status" over the years it has been newspaper owners, editors, opinionated columnists, and other mainstream media weasel-like pundits, who think they are entitled to manipulate peoples' opinions just because they work for big, corporate, media.
Well maybe Mr. Will shouldn't take his cocktail to mess with his geriatric medication before he writes his God-like diatribes?
One really has to wonder how any republican pundit could point fingers at a democratic President with accusations of psychopath, loutish indifference to truth, and habitual misrepresentation, when these are precisely the qualities many republican candidates and legislators exude in abundance? No hypocrisy here George?
Or is he suggesting the Republican Party has been faithful to truth and reality—such as when debating bile about ObamaCare? Oh heck why should we think the Washington Post Writers Group to be of any caliber better than other media prostitutes like Rush Limbaugh? They are all corporate lackeys.
No new era of accusational McCarthyism now? No labeling of "liberal sympathizers" and demands to clean house of the unpatriotic and the derelict?
The most common tactic of the right-wing and any fascist state is to accuse the opposition of every form of scurrilous attitude, intellectual pretense, and criminal propensity one's own group flagrantly exhibits in themselves—such as in their own party—or personality characteristics one's own has mastered? Maybe Karl Rove and his ilk are the straightest shooters in the business?
Still as Wonder Will explained it Barack Obama is "... not weighed down by a ballast of scruples". Imagine that? Oh how the world turns, as soap opera entertainment, for the so-called "professional" media—that is respecting those "elitist" bastards who smugly presume too much on their own intelligence capacities and personal integrities!
Obviously we, as a nation, have spending and debt issues? Are we supposed to believe that just because people have strong opinions on economic priorities they are infallible?
"The obstinate man does not hold opinions—they hold him." Joseph Butler
Neo-liberalism and harsh austerity measures have failed around the world. Joseph Stiglitz's Freefall and Nouriel Rubini's Crises Economics (both available in audio format) clearly show the Washington Consensus was wrong. More importantly they show who really is the "entitlement state" such as bankers and corporate investors—Mitt Romney's kind.
"It is false opinions of things which ruin us." Marcus Aurelius
Granted, Obama has not delivered well on many his campaign promises; and he has compromised far too much (like "most" of today's DC insiders). One could realize he seems to have lied to people (or have questionable tendencies (what politician or political pundit tells the truth all the time—certainly not republicans))?
Yet the idea Windbag Will, especially from a supposedly prestigious newsgroup, is making such allegations of Obama-the-punching-bag as if, even if true, stood "outside" the status quo of the beltway is beyond the pale.
What Will was really saying is that Mitt Romney needs to get some intellectual capacity and reality-based sensibility behind his ticket because he, as a Etch-A-Sketch flack, of questionable ethics (irrespective of religious cover), doesn't have the wherewithal to carry the day. Isn't that more like how to decipher the code?
It is too bad we did not have more political parties with clout to take on the mediocrity and criminal corruption of both the democratic and republican parties?
Although I disagree with some of Ron Paul's economic opinions, and his emphasis on taking on the Fed rather than the Police State of NSA spying on Americans, I hope he runs as a third party candidate.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion