frank rich has a lower credibility index than bigfoot. he's still hinting broadly that loughner shot giffords because of sarah palin. it's very typical of him to gloat about falling poll numbers or ratings or ticket prices for glenn beck or palin; this argument would of course have constrained him to despair when they were riding high, and will constrain him to despair when they're riding high again. if people he liked were polling low, would he think that refuted their positions? no, he'd argue that people's opinions were manipulated by demagogues such as palin and beck, an argument which he'd buttress by their high ratings or ticket prices. really, there just is nothing there. it's precisely as if he can't think.he is unable argue at all or doesn't think he should bother; it's pure propaganda aimed at people who already agree with him, and of course discourse like that has no purpose or use.

this is what people need to understand: merely strategic political speech, and our tendency to accept it from our own side, just discredits us. that you and rich agree on every piece of political ideology - that you both endorse the entire democratic platform, let's say - should make you no likelier to accept that these are good arguments. indeed, your agreement might could make you examine them more critically, lest you be seduced by that agreement into endorsing a chaotic skein of jive. you want to argue for your own position in a way that really should convince someone that it's true; the point can't be just to work on them psychologically with keywords or whatever. this is what our politics needs depolluting from; this is where our self-examination needs to set in; this is where we need just that bit of honesty or rigor that makes the difference between no reasons for anything and some reasons for some things.