Suzanimal
02-12-2015, 11:31 AM
Michael Gerson, who boasts the résumé bullet point of chief speechwriter under George W. Bush, recently began a column bashing Rand Paul by arguing that the Kentucky senator’s actions had fallen into a pattern.
Let me humbly suggest that the pattern is on the other side of the table. Nearly every hawkish opinion columnist has written at least one think piece about Paul, and at this point they’ve become a tad predictable—almost like they’re working off a template.
Now, for the first time, and after much rigorous research, I’ve distilled that template into four handy steps.
Not every anti-Paul manifesto follows these rules to a T, but if you’re planning to write such a piece, this is about as comprehensive a style guide as you’ll find.
As always, I exist only to serve.
First, begin by expressing curiosity about Paul
You might concede that Paul is “interesting” or “thoughtful,” “an alternative,” someone who is starting a “necessary” or “inevitable” foreign policy debate on the right. Bonus points are awarded if you mention the “war-weary” American public, whose sentiments Paul is channeling.
This establishes you as a neutral arbiter of the conversation, rather than a zealous ideologue who winces every time a fistfight breaks out in the Middle East without an American response. Your tone is prodding, curious, willing to consider Paul even if you’re secretly pining for his electoral annihilation.
Second, denounce as crazy one or two genuinely concerning statements Paul has made
The most common and effective examples here are Paul’s equivocating on mandatory vaccinations and his implication that Dick Cheney invaded Iraq to enrich Halliburton, the first of which is controversial and the second of which simply isn’t borne out by the facts.
These are statements that worry even his supporters. Questions about them are absolutely fair game, and Paul will have to put them to bed if he wants to win the presidency.
Third, denounce as crazy one or two entirely normal foreign policy statements Paul has made without skipping a breath
This is the linchpin of your column and it requires a good deal of finesse to pull off. Having established that Paul has said a couple controversial things, you now need to transition to Paul’s noncontroversial statements while still employing the tone of one marveling at clinically psychotic UFO convention attendees.
You’ve opened the umbrella of the fringe; now you need to shove the entirety of Paul’s foreign policy underneath it.
Many novice Paul detractors trip up by using a formulation like this:
You know, Rand Paul sounded non-committal on mandatory vaccinations.
Yeah, I heard. I don’t agree with that.
And he said Halliburton influenced Dick Cheney’s decision to invade Iraq.
I know. An unfortunate choice of words.
Also he thinks blowback might be real.
Um, so? Doesn’t the CIA believe that?
A rookie mistake! You might think blowback is an unutterable anti-American slur, but no one outside your group of friends seriously believes that.
Bret Stephens made a similar error in his anti-Paul screed in the Wall Street Journal last year. Stephens skipped step one—always a risky gambit—and dove straight into step two. He denounced the Halliburton statement and then, after the awkward halt of a paragraph break, condemned Paul’s declaration that “9/11 became an excuse for war [Cheney] already wanted in Iraq” as the province of “every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind.”
You can almost hear the computer mice clicking away. Me? A conspiracy theorist?
We already know that Donald Rumsfeld started drawing up plans to attack Iraq five hours after the Pentagon was hit on 9/11. And even if you still think Paul’s line is wrong, it’s hardly outside the mainstream. Nearly three quarters of Americans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. Contra Stephens, it’s no sacred cow.
The key to avoiding Stephens’ fate is by admitting to yourself that you’re letting your freak flag fly. You’re imputing radicalism to an opinion that most people regard as perfectly reasonable. Only the most chary rhetorical gymnastics will result in success.
Fourth, call Paul an “isolationist” or a “neo-isolationist”
But isn’t this blatant dishonesty? Isn’t someone like Paul, who supports punitive action against Russia and war against ISIS, transparently not an isolationist?
Shut up and quit moaning. This isn’t all about you, okay? Of course Paul isn’t an isolationist. The very idea is patently absurd.
But if people read something enough, they start to believe it. For goodness sake, Stephens wrote an entire book about “the new isolationism” and we still can’t figure out what the hell he’s talking about. The point is, it doesn’t matter. We’re trying to nudge readers into thinking Paul is a nut and we’ll be damned if you’re going to make some self-indulgent little stand.
Write that he’s an isolationist. Write it!!
Also one last bit of advice for your column: for God’s sake, don’t bring up the war in Iraq. Ever.
Read more at http://rare.us/story/how-to-write-an-anti-rand-paul-attack-piece-in-4-easy-steps/#xmc7MpLL5mHKbl7i.99
Let me humbly suggest that the pattern is on the other side of the table. Nearly every hawkish opinion columnist has written at least one think piece about Paul, and at this point they’ve become a tad predictable—almost like they’re working off a template.
Now, for the first time, and after much rigorous research, I’ve distilled that template into four handy steps.
Not every anti-Paul manifesto follows these rules to a T, but if you’re planning to write such a piece, this is about as comprehensive a style guide as you’ll find.
As always, I exist only to serve.
First, begin by expressing curiosity about Paul
You might concede that Paul is “interesting” or “thoughtful,” “an alternative,” someone who is starting a “necessary” or “inevitable” foreign policy debate on the right. Bonus points are awarded if you mention the “war-weary” American public, whose sentiments Paul is channeling.
This establishes you as a neutral arbiter of the conversation, rather than a zealous ideologue who winces every time a fistfight breaks out in the Middle East without an American response. Your tone is prodding, curious, willing to consider Paul even if you’re secretly pining for his electoral annihilation.
Second, denounce as crazy one or two genuinely concerning statements Paul has made
The most common and effective examples here are Paul’s equivocating on mandatory vaccinations and his implication that Dick Cheney invaded Iraq to enrich Halliburton, the first of which is controversial and the second of which simply isn’t borne out by the facts.
These are statements that worry even his supporters. Questions about them are absolutely fair game, and Paul will have to put them to bed if he wants to win the presidency.
Third, denounce as crazy one or two entirely normal foreign policy statements Paul has made without skipping a breath
This is the linchpin of your column and it requires a good deal of finesse to pull off. Having established that Paul has said a couple controversial things, you now need to transition to Paul’s noncontroversial statements while still employing the tone of one marveling at clinically psychotic UFO convention attendees.
You’ve opened the umbrella of the fringe; now you need to shove the entirety of Paul’s foreign policy underneath it.
Many novice Paul detractors trip up by using a formulation like this:
You know, Rand Paul sounded non-committal on mandatory vaccinations.
Yeah, I heard. I don’t agree with that.
And he said Halliburton influenced Dick Cheney’s decision to invade Iraq.
I know. An unfortunate choice of words.
Also he thinks blowback might be real.
Um, so? Doesn’t the CIA believe that?
A rookie mistake! You might think blowback is an unutterable anti-American slur, but no one outside your group of friends seriously believes that.
Bret Stephens made a similar error in his anti-Paul screed in the Wall Street Journal last year. Stephens skipped step one—always a risky gambit—and dove straight into step two. He denounced the Halliburton statement and then, after the awkward halt of a paragraph break, condemned Paul’s declaration that “9/11 became an excuse for war [Cheney] already wanted in Iraq” as the province of “every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind.”
You can almost hear the computer mice clicking away. Me? A conspiracy theorist?
We already know that Donald Rumsfeld started drawing up plans to attack Iraq five hours after the Pentagon was hit on 9/11. And even if you still think Paul’s line is wrong, it’s hardly outside the mainstream. Nearly three quarters of Americans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. Contra Stephens, it’s no sacred cow.
The key to avoiding Stephens’ fate is by admitting to yourself that you’re letting your freak flag fly. You’re imputing radicalism to an opinion that most people regard as perfectly reasonable. Only the most chary rhetorical gymnastics will result in success.
Fourth, call Paul an “isolationist” or a “neo-isolationist”
But isn’t this blatant dishonesty? Isn’t someone like Paul, who supports punitive action against Russia and war against ISIS, transparently not an isolationist?
Shut up and quit moaning. This isn’t all about you, okay? Of course Paul isn’t an isolationist. The very idea is patently absurd.
But if people read something enough, they start to believe it. For goodness sake, Stephens wrote an entire book about “the new isolationism” and we still can’t figure out what the hell he’s talking about. The point is, it doesn’t matter. We’re trying to nudge readers into thinking Paul is a nut and we’ll be damned if you’re going to make some self-indulgent little stand.
Write that he’s an isolationist. Write it!!
Also one last bit of advice for your column: for God’s sake, don’t bring up the war in Iraq. Ever.
Read more at http://rare.us/story/how-to-write-an-anti-rand-paul-attack-piece-in-4-easy-steps/#xmc7MpLL5mHKbl7i.99