|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Politics Resource Center |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 18, 2002 Something to Think About
by Gordon Francis Corbett
Shortly after al-Qaeda's attack on 11 September 2001, Bill O'Reilly interviewed the Ayn Rand Institute's Dr. Leonard Peikoff. The discussion progressed curiously. For about the first two-thirds, Peikoff did well. He stated his points very plausibly, and O'Reilly did little to refute them. Then, O'Reilly began using what Ayn Rand called, "The Argument from Intimidation." "The Argument from Intimidation" is not really a formal debate argument. It is a psychological technique designed to deter someone from expounding an idea by saying, in effect, "Aw, you don't believe in THAT, do you?" It signals viewers that a particular idea is bad. It implies that we should disregard it, not because it is formally wrong, but because it is somehow unworthy. Further, it implies that only an unworthy person would offer it. It is not logical, but psychological. Peikoff apparently had expected much better of O'Reilly. Instead of attacking O'Reilly's stratagem directly, naming it and telling his viewers why it was wrong, Peikoff continued making his original statement. Later, I am sure, he realized how badly O'Reilly's dirty fighting had hurt him. Think of it in terms of the original "Star Trek" television series. Peikoff was playing the logical Mr. Spock; O'Reilly was playing the kindly, benevolent, and above all, humane Dr. McCoy. O'Reilly told Peikoff that we need to strike Afghanistan "surgically," to keep the loss of civilians' lives, and the likelihood for a consequent eruption of the Moslem world, to a minimum. Peikoff told O'Reilly that we should hit, not Afghanistan, but Iran, whose leaders, he believes, instigated the attacks of 11 September. (One sign that Peikoff may be correct: when the Gulf War started in 1991, most of Iraq's air force flew to sanctuary in Iran.) To continue: Peikoff stated that we should let, not our civilian leaders, but our Armed Services' experts, decide what weapons will help us best to defeat Iran. Should they favor them, that would include nuclear weapons. At this point, O'Reilly hooted, continuing his "Argument from Intimidation," "You're crazy! You're crazy, Doctor! You're like Dr. Strangelove! You're Dr. Strangelove out there in California, aren't you?" The standard by which to adjudge a political debate won or lost is whether a given side's total presentation helped the audience to support that side's point of view. O'Reilly reinforced viewers who desire neither to mutiny against their own leaders' limited-warfare policy, nor to give their moral sanction to total warfare. True war is a gruesome thing, and O'Reilly was ready to support only a "police action," dominated by diplomats and fought by fettered soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Peikoff reinforced other viewers, who desire not to "rally behind the president," but to demand that he avenge our dead, regardless of whomever such vengeance may offend, and despite whatever course their offense may take: to annihilate anyone responsible for 11 September's attacks, and, further, to erase anyone willing to side with their perpetrators. The discussion between O'Reilly and Peikoff could be compared to the first Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960. From the positive point of view, the television viewers liked the handsome, tanned, confident, and articulate Kennedy; the radio listeners liked the logical and seemingly honest Nixon. From the negative point of view, the television viewers saw Nixon's ill health and nervousness. The radio listeners heard Kennedy actually come out in favor of lying in international affairs. How does the first Kennedy-Nixon debate compare with Dr. Peikoff's segment on "The O'Reilly Factor?" Well, O'Reilly's voice is pleasant and well-modulated; Peikoff's is nasal and grating. O'Reilly looked calm, healthy, and benevolent; Peikoff looked nervous, gaunt, and intense. O'Reilly may not have known it, but he was taking L.B.J.'s role in favoring "limited" warfare. Peikoff was taking Goldwater's role in scorning diplomatic considerations, a fact that O'Reilly pointed out implicitly when he told Peikoff that General Curtis LeMay had wanted to use nuclear weapons on North Viet-Nam. Peikoff lacked the time to reply that handcuffing our men guaranteed our defeat. O'Reilly lacked the time to respond that keeping the war limited had precluded a thermonuclear holocaust. In the wake of 11 September, such an exchange might have kindled a blaze of its own in viewers still recovering from watching the fiery murder of thousands of innocent people. One lesson this program teaches is that, in this electronic age, our spokesmen should not only be skilled in debate, but should look good and sound pleasant, as Bill O'Reilly does. Dr. Nathaniel Branden comes to mind. Maybe thirty-five years ago, he appeared on Joe Pyne's television show to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy. Joe Pyne was conservative, conscientious, and humorous. He looked good and sounded better. He was fast on his feet, and had demonstrated many times that he could handle the ordinary guest. Nathaniel Branden's appearance was good; his manner was courteous; his voice was pleasant; and, his logic probably beat anything that we ever heard from the fictional "Mr. Spock." Joe never had a chance. Dr. Branden wiped the floor with him. Over thirty years later, on two occasions, I saw Dr. Walter Williams discuss things with Benjamin Hooks, who directed the N.A.A.C.P. Hooks was no fool, but he could not match Dr. Williams' smoothness, logic, or courtesy. The result delighted the eye and the ear. Drs. Branden and Williams set a high standard. If we want to persuade people who watch television, so should we.
Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events... Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine... |
|
Something to Think About Index |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.