Michael Lind‘s piece, “The bankruptcy of the New Democrat Ideology,” employs the same logical fallacies used by the Right: mixing ad-hominem attacks with legitimate critique.  Far more insidious than Rush‘s “entertainment” (unsourced, illogical statements of anger, said to inflame those who fall prey to its overly simplistic worldview), when Liberals/Progressives/Democrats/Independents/Reasonable People do this to each other, we destroy any chance of positive political action*. This has got to stop.

Last week, Matt Miller wrote this Op-Ed for the Washington Post.

Here’s my question for American progressives: If you’re for the little guy, are you just for American little guys? Or are you for poor underdogs even if they happen to have been born in India or China?

. . . [T]he trade debate will bring special agony for progressives who see themselves as fighting liberals at home and as global humanists abroad. We’re at a hinge in history when it’s no longer possible to pretend there’s no tension between the two.

Whose side are liberals on? The American people? Or people?

Lind proceeds to argue that “Every practical system of morality . . . permits people to favor their relatives over their neighbors and their neighbors over foreigners.” And to make a reasoned economic argument, concluding that “Rejecting export-led development for domestic demand-led growth shared equitably with the workers in every nation is a win-win policy.”

My frustration with Lind’s piece is not about his argument. I think that Lind and Miller both make reasonable arguments that contribute to our national discourse. For that matter, I think that even Rush contributes on occasion. I may not agree, but I think that these are important perspectives that we ought to discuss.

My frustration is that 7 of Lind’s 13 paragraphs focus on branding Miller a false prophet, a Bush supporter, a person who can’t decide whether he is a progressive, liberal, or centrist.

STOP.

So the man finds that a single label does not describe him: I thought that diversity was one of our celebrated values. Such arguments conflating labels with policy are vapid and contribute nothing to the conversation. Just STOP.

Both Lind and Miller raise legitimate points through reasonable arguments. Overly-simplified, I understand Miller to argue that protectionist trade policies keep poor foreigners poor. Overly-simplified, I understand Lind to argue that a global focus would lead to “unworkable public policy,” and that pro-worker domestic policies will not be anti-foreign-worker policies in the long-term. This oversimplification increases the risk that my interpretations may be wrong.  We ought to have this discussion, because neither position is likely to be the absolute answer–though one position may prove more beneficial in the long-run than the other. **

I believe that both Miller and Lind think that we ought to ameliorate poverty. I know that they disagree over the proper scope and effectiveness of various anti-poverty programs. But by focusing on Miller’s inconsistency in self-labeling his political views distracts Lind from that very important argument. He wastes time and energy. Lind muddles his point. And this is not atypical behavior for those of us on the left or for political discussions in general.

Saying that someone isn’t genuine enough to belong to your club is logic that ought to be left on the playground because the only reasonable response is “I know you are, but what am I.” This is not to say that we should permit hypocrisy or deception. But Lind’s piece does not support the assertion that Miller has done either. At most, Lind argue that Miller is inconsistent; but as Emerson wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” And such a criticism waters down the legitimate policy disagreement between the two.

This has got to stop.

The challenges that we face as individuals, as nations, and as a world are simply too important for us to ignore. Disagreements over policy are essential to our experiment in democracy. Personal attacks may distract us with disastrous results.

*Ralph Nader did not use ad-hominem attacks. He made a legitimate critique of Gore in 2000. I don’t think that it was a reasonable critique. Did he win the election for W./Cheney? No. Absolutely not. But, had Nader continued talking but withdrawn from the ballot, America might be in a fundamentally better place today.

**Not necessarily: the success or failure of a particular policy tells us nothing about what the impact of the other policy would have been. And it can be very difficult to actually model all of the variables in play. For example, some researchers argue that the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression, while other analysts disagree. But it would be absurd to argue that every aspect was absolutely beneficial or the opposite. But that sort of nuance rarely captures the public imagination as successfully as a short, absolute statement. Unfortunate.