Bro-gressive Values Revealed: Attacking the Messenger By Any Means Necessary
Continued from previous page
Quashing any doubt that his misrepresentation was unintentional, Sirota follows that up with this:
Setting aside the snide disregard (“paranoid”) for those who don’t like the idea of a violent police state...
That’s Sirota cherry-picking a single adjective from my piece and applying it to a much larger group of people (to which I belong) than those to whom I applied it -- specifically, Rand Paul’s survivalist-minded base. If it is unfair to describe doomsday-preppers as paranoid, I apologize for any hurt feelings.
And it didn’t help that in what Salon editors describe as sequence of errors, the original version of Sirota’s screed appeared to misquote me entirely.
Lying By Omission
But the more insidious lie is the way in which Sirota, throughout his piece, asserts that any progressive who dares to part company with him in his laughable extolling of Rand Paul as an honorable gent is a “hypocritical” “partisan hack[ ],” and/or “Democratic Party operative[ ].” You’d never know from reading Sirota’s attack on me that in the very first paragraph of my post, I say that Brennan, the CIA nominee, "should be ditched."
Or that I wrote this in the same post:
Or that I applauded Paul’s highlighting the “stellar journalism” of two writers who ask “ hard questions about the Obama administration’s claim that it has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens -- even on U.S. soil -- in particular circumstances.”
Big, Bad Bro-gressives
Having no principled defense of his embrace of Rand Paul, Sirota resorts to a false equivalency, a tactic that is typical of his attacks on other progressives. It’s all part of the bro-gressive* culture exemplified by a small group of big-mouthed guys who describe themselves as progressives, but seek to advance their careers through the taunting strategies they learned on the grade-school playground. (So much easier than organizing!)
In an unwitting act of self-parody, Sirota asserts that in not signing on, as he did, to the opening act of Rand Paul’s presidential bid, I commit the equivalent of opposing the kind of deal-making done by Democrats with Republicans in order to pass legislation. I have never opposed compromises between the parties that result in decent legislation.
So where, exactly, is the deal with Democrats that Rand Paul sought to forge in his filibuster? Oh, right -- none was ever intended. So what, then, were Sirota and the bros cheering when they threw in behind Rand Paul?
Sirota contends that people who oppose progressive fawning over the woman-hating Paul “never want to think of themselves as anything but 100 percent pure haters of every single thing a Big Bad Republican stands for” -- as if Rand Paul were typical of the average Republican, and my opposition to his support of Paul’s publicity stunt stems merely from the fact of Paul’s membership in Grand Old Party.
Far more troubling to me than Rand Paul’s place in the GOP is his friendship with the Constitution Party -- the right-wing, political arm of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, whose ultimate aim is to replace the law of the land with the law of the Hebrew Bible (you know, the stoning of adulterers, the execution of gay men, the death sentence for insubordinate children).
*h/t Megan Carpentier