Not even trying to be truthful in communication
Michelle Malkin’s recent book In Defense of Internment supports the US decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II. The review which I have linked above says that her argument is sound because at the time, ” FDR and the generals could not see into the future. Theirs was not an immoral choice that stemmed from “wartime hysteria” or “racism” (at least primarily), but a responsible action based on solid intelligence, constitutional legality, and tough deliberation.” Yes, of course, none of our past leaders could look into the future and know that future generations would find such racist policies reprehensible. At the time, Jim Crow laws were acceptable and it was our national policy to turn a blind eye to outright racist policies. But that doesn’t mean that we should return to such racist policies. And if interning the Japanese during World War II was not done out of racism, then why were German Americans not sent to these camps, their property confiscated?
But this isn’t really why I am bothered by Malkin, as disturbing as I find it that the daughter of Filipino immigrants would favor racist government policies. However, it was her performance on Hardball yesterday, her claim that Kerry shot himself to get sent home a hero in Vietnam. Keith Olberman & Chris Mathews comment on hardblogger. This crosses an unacceptable line in strategic communication …where she blatantly lied to try to spread a powerful meme to cast doubt as to Kerry’s capability as a war veteran. People who have never gone to war, even when they were required to by draft and found convenient ways out of it, seem to find it very easy to accuse the actions of soldiers in a war. It is disturbing that our Commander-in-Chief, himself never having fought in combat seems to be playing out his fantasies now, treating American soldiers like they are the little green plastic army guys little kids play with.
So what would Habermas say? Malkin’s communication was not meant to create any kind of understanding (as all of this discourse on political shows like Hardball is about). The exchange was meant as a strategic action, to 1) try and vindicate what she perceived as an “interrogation” by Chris Mathews toward one of the authors of the book who claim that Kerry’s war service was not honorable and 2) to cast doubt on Kerry’s fitness as a leader. Where she failed is because Mathews flipped that communication into communicative action and questioned the veracity of her statements.
As her blog entry regarding her appearance on Hardball indicates even further, finding the truth is not the objective of that exchange. She really wants to put forth that Kerry’s wound in Vietnam was “self-inflicted” for her own strategic aims.
And just to make sure we are clear about the exchange that occurred, here is the relevant section of transcript. Her claims on her own blog that said she never tried to insinuate that he “shot himself.” You decide. The entire transcript is available here:
BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?
MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?
MALKIN: Did you read the book…
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers…
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the…
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say…
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
MATTHEWS: Tell me where that…
MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.
MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these…
MATTHEWS: Give me a name.
MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).
MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan…
MALKIN: These people have…
MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?
MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not…
MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.
MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book…
MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.
MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying…
MATTHEWS: Why did you say?
MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.
MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?
MALKIN: On.
MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: In the February 1969 — in the February 1969 event.
MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.
MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.
I haven‘t heard you say it.
MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?
MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.
MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?
MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.
August 20th, 2004 at 6:57 pm
We listened to Rush Limbaugh’s interview of M. Malvin and his re-playing of the above CM interview. We felt that his angry rudeness prevented MM from answering more than a few words. We thought she did not answer that JFK did NOT shoot himself because she was trying to be a transmitter of information rather than an originator. She was trying to bolster her case that JFK has not been truthful by quoting the Vets making the charges. In this case, CM was trying to destroy the credibility of the Communicator rather than ascertain the truth of the charge. MM was trying to insist on the facts, as seen by the Vets. We do think she should have said, “I do not charge him with shooting himself”. However, he gave her almost no time.
August 23rd, 2004 at 4:47 pm
Ms. Malking was attempting to leave a negative impression by playing word games. She had ample opportunity to simply say “NO” Kerry did not shoot himself but may have been injured by an errant grenade. Instead she attempted to stake out a position “self-inflicted wound” that left the impression of causing injury to self on purpose. The more she was challenged, the harder she fought to defend this position and even went so far as to finally state that others in the book have questioned whether or not Kerry purposefully injured himself.