A Lesson From McBride

In a posting that is supposed to be a rebuttal to an article by Gregory Stanford, McBride shows some classic maneuvers of McBride and her fellow right-wing squawkers when they are wrong on any given point. Mr. Stanford presents a brief and very general history of the relationship between the GOP and minorities and how the two sides became so estranged. Here are parts of her post and the corresponding strategy:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Greg Stanford has a lengthy column in Sunday's newspaper that essentially argues that Republicans are racists.

First strategy: Change the intent of the writer (or speaker) into a twisted version of the original, to make it easier to argue. It does not matter if the 'interpretation' is completely different than the original piece.

The problem with his column: It is long on conclusion, yet short on evidence. In otherwords, he never backs up his point. He goes into a lengthy historical analysis of how Republicans supposedly developed a racist strategy, yet he never provides a scintilla of evidence that they are actually racist. His main piece of evidence seems to be that some GOP candidates didn't attend some debates relating to minority issues. This is hardly evidence of systemic racism. Likely, they didn't want to get peppered with leading and biased attack questions by media folks like Greg Stanford.

Strategy Two: Deny a point, even when admitting it. This is evidenced by her stating that he went into a "lengthy historical analysis", but says he didn't prove his point.

Strategy Three: Never be satisfied. McBride's argument is that Stanford didn't prove his point because he did not provide a specific example. But if he had, she would have only argued that it was anecdotal and did not prove anything.

This is typical. If he actually tried to provide evidence, the falsity and simplicity of his argument would be exposed. What's racist about GOP policy? Is it that Republicans prefer social policies (like school choice and W-2) that empower minorities rather than patronizingly assuming they are destined to a life of perpetual government dependency? Is it that Republicans would like the rule of law enforced and greater border security rather than an open borders policy that is neither rational nor defensible in a post 9/11 world?

His opinions are also extremely generalized. (...)

Strategy Four: Play the victim card while attacking the other person. This is shown with her arguments about all the "good deeds" done by the GOP, and painting themselves as simply misundersood. At the same time, she is demonizing any and all who oppose GOP policy, making it easier for her and her ilk dismiss any arguments against their agenda.

The reader can play along and see how many times they can see these recurring strategies in McBride's ravings, or those holding a similar worldview.