The Push and The PushBack

The Push and The PushBack:Chris Wallace and Barney Frank
On Sunday, Mar 15, Congressman Barney Frank appeared on Chris Wallace'Fox News Sunday with Senator Bob Corker and Mark Zandi, chief economistat Moody's Economy.com .Here is the transcript of the discussion from foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509315,00.html

Early in the discussion, Chris Wallace raised the "second stimulus":"Mr. Zandi, ... you have raised ... the probability of the need for a second stimulus ..." There was some back and forth discussion around this with Wallace, Zandi, and Corker. Then from Wallace: "Gentlemen, I want to move on..." at which point from Congressman Frank:"... Chris, ... can I respond to Bob Corker's partisan attack ... ? ... nobody in the administration or on our side in Congress is focusing on the second stimulus. We only answer that when we are asked ..." An argument ensues:Frank: "I do want to rebut a false charge ..."Wallace: " ... I was trying to stay on substance ..."Frank: " ... if you want to, then don't let political attacks go..."Wallace: " ... Go ahead, Senator Corker. Do you want to talk about the budget or do you want to get in a food fight?"

This last remark exemplifies an epidemic and important problem.His use of "food fight" is totally inappropriate while carrying a powerful emotional message.On the one hand, it is a clear criticism of Mr. Frank's "Push Back" against the distracting and potentiallydeceptive effects of the "second stimulus" comments.More than that, it introduces a vivid and emotionally charged image from outside the realm of the conversation.For some, it will resonate with their awareness of Mr. Frank's body habitus, which is overweight.For some, it will resonate with their homophobic disgust and revulsion for Mr. Frank.Because of the striking and over-the-top inappropriateness of the comment, I suggest that this lastapplies to Chris Wallace himself.

The important point, though, is that the comment provides a powerful "Push" against the weight andcredibility of Mr. Frank's comments.It is intensely personal, unfair, and very difficult to "Push Back" if only due to the lack of time.The one who made the remark is in the preeminent position of power.His voice is that of the moderator, the "House."

But there is another way to "Push Back" against this.Mr. Frank's comments leading up to it are a good example of a "Push Back" at the top.He speaks and argues directly against an intellectual point and his arguments will havesome sway as heard by the many who are listening.But for the unanswered and emotional "Push," the best potential "Push Back" would comefrom recognition and comprehension by each individual listener of the importance of ChrisWallace' "food fight" comment.

This would be a true "grass roots" PushBack.It can be enabled by education alone.We must educate ourselves to at least recognize the presence of "The Push" in what we are told.And we can, rather quickly and easily."The Push" takes many forms but they all fall into just a few categories: - Intellectual. If the facts are true and the logic is true, it can be convincing. If the facts are false, the logic is confusing or fallacious, it can fail to convince or be deceptive. - Emotional. If what is said includes dogma, bigotry, or a sexual or hateful element, it can be powerfully convincing and/or deceptive.

But recognition by the listener of attempts to deceive or manipulate powerfully undermines the capabilityof a speaker to effect our thinking.That recognition instantly eliminates the credibility of the speaker.It eliminates any inclination to suspend our critical thinking, our trust, and thereby protects us frombeing bamboozled.