Separating the method from the message
by Jack GrantTwo different bloggers that I find insightful have posted links to the same article in Slate by Christopher Hitchens on the protests of Ms. Cindy Sheehan.
The key passage from that article:
Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring “a knack for P.R.” and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan’s side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead “must not have died in vain.” I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.
Since I am in France, I haven’t been subjected to the media overload that accompanies any “news” which has a “human-interest angle” along with being related to the big story of the day, the continued conflict in Iraq.
Because I’m not suffering from the same overexposure (although the international outlets are starting to pick up on this, CNN International had several multi-minute pieces on it today, when they had given it a mere 30 seconds or so during their news reports on the US up until now), I feel I can offer a relatively abstract view on the matter.
In inverse order of time, I present what was posted that caught my eye.
Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog posted today in part:
I have heretofore avoided commenting on the Cindy Sheehan situation, but after a while these things become nearly impossible to avoid. I have compassion for Ms. Sheehan’s grief and recognize that I cannot fully grasp her feelings. Still, she has allowed her grief to translate not only into a political opinion, but she has clearly made herself into a public figure. And, since the media have decided to cover the story ad infinitum, I find myself with thoughts on the subject.
Some thoughts (some more developed than others):
* I am not big on stunts and this is a stunt-and made moreso by Ms. Sheehan’s supporters (and by politicians).
* What, exactly, does she hope to accomplish? What will meeting with the President do for her? I sincerely would like to know what it is she thinks she is going to accomplish.
Although I will only address a few points he makes here, please read his entire post.
Even though it has turned into a media circus, and even though I am no better than the next person at reading the hearts of those whom I have never even met, somehow I doubt Ms. Sheehan had intended this to be a “stunt”. Her recent remarks make her appear (to my eyes, at least) a wee bit unhinged; however, it is difficult for me to believe that any remotely rational person would expect the kind of “stunt” that this has turned into.
In other words, it may be a “stunt” now, but I doubt it was intended to be so at the beginning by Ms. Sheehan.
The more critical and key point regards the accusation of “ventriloquizing the dead” as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it.
Before I write more on this topic, however, I should present the first place where I saw link to the Slate article, where John Donovan at Castle Argghhh! wrote his opinion on the matter (John, since Dr. Taylor uses his “Dr.” handle on his weblog, I’ll be happy to use your rank here, but I don’t know what it is!!! Let me know by email and I’ll update). Read what John had to write, here is a short excerpt:
I’m from a military family, I don’t really think I’d have that problem… but I was prepared, nonetheless.
The few times I was ever sent to places where people might conceivably wish me harm… I left instructions for the family, left with my soldier father to be opened in the event of “The Visit”.
In the event I have been captured or killed:
1. Please don’t talk to the press.
2. If you must: Remember I was a soldier, and a volunteer. I went willingly, eyes wide open.
3. I believed in the mission - even if you may not.
4. Do not put words in my mouth that I cannot refute: I forbid you that, above all else. Say what you will of your own opinion, but beyond 2 & 3, do not presume to speak for me. My actions say all that is needful.
5. Lastly, please don’t be mad at me - I really *did* mean to zig, but apparently I should have zagged.
There was lots more sentimental stuff, depending on what my point in life was, but that was all that’s applicable here.
I do not want to quote out of context, so please read everything that John wrote, then read the comment I left:
John, this indirectly touches on my objection when the Bush campaign ran ads early in the Presidential race last year showing a dead fireman being carried away from the rubble of the World Trade Center. It was a way of “ventriloquizing the dead”. The situations are not identical, but the underlying methods of gaining credibility by using the dead are very similar.
I believe the anti-war crowd that is using the situation with Ms. Sheehan are just as wrong as the Bush campaign was.
In response to my comment, Beth wrote:
But Jack, No one said that the fireman believed this or that or had this or that political opinion - it was a strong and valid reminder of what happened on 9/11 - I don’t think the two are at all related.
I’ve been round and round with this, trying to compose a response that will not ignite a pointless conflict but instead try to explain fully the point I was trying to make.
I have not come up with something that I find satisfactory to meet the requirements I have imposed upon any reply, so I must ask those who read this to take in the spirit intended rather than in the emotional response that an issue of this nature will inevitably engender on such a political matter held close to so many hearts.
You see, I believe that while there are many surrounding Ms. Sheehan who are cynically manipulating the situation for momentary political gain, I want to believe that at least in the beginning Ms. Sheehan was honest in her intentions, no matter how unrealistic they were.
Having said that, I must point out that those surrounding Ms. Sheehan are practicing the same cold, politically calculated emotional blackmail that I perceived in the early advertisements by the Bush campaign in 2004 that used images from the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.
Beth wrote, “… No one said that the fireman believed this or that or had this or that political opinion - it was a strong and valid reminder of what happened on 9/11 - I don’t think the two are at all related.”
While I readily admit that I have not had access to all that Ms. Sheehan has said, I have yet to read or hear anywhere that she has said, “Casey believed” whatever.
So… The argument that “No one said that the fireman believed this or that or had this or that political opinion,” is rendered invalid, because both Ms. Sheehan and the Bush campaign used similar tactics, raising specters of the dead to say, “If you don’t listen to their message, there will be more of me.” In other words, threatening that there will be more of the dead to haunt us.
I am saying that we need to separate the message, which you may or may not agree with, from the methods used to deliver the message.
BOTH the Bush campaign in 2004 and Ms. Sheehan now have used the specters of the dead in an emotional blackmail of “this might happen again if you don’t listen to me” to get their message out.
If you are willing to separate the message from the method, I am sure you will see the similarities.
It is a common trait, a human trait, to let the message and our view of it affect our opinion of the method used. That tendency is seen every day, in blogworld and in the larger real word. Methods that are decried when used by opponents are applauded when used by “our side”.
I say that we must divorce the message from the method, and evaluate each independently.
If the method is unacceptable, regardless of how much we approve of the message, we must condemn the method.
If the message is unacceptable, regardless of the source of the message, we must condemn the message.
In this case, with Ms. Sheehan, just as in the case of the Bush campaign in 2004, the dead are being used as a source of credibility, and this is unacceptable, in BOTH cases.
As I condemned the Bush campaign in 2004 for their use of the imagery of a dead fireman to give credence to their message, I condemn those cynically using Ms. Sheehan now to give some kind of legitimacy to their message.
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
