On National Review, Jeremy Carl demonstrates how to keep the base in an uproar by mixing good advice with dubious claims. The principle characters in his little drama are Judge Kavanaugh, as the hapless victimized hero, Rep. Keith Ellison (R-MN), candidate for MN Attorney General and all around bad guy, and the Democratic Party as the morality-free mob:
[Karen] Monahan, an active Democrat, and her son seemingly have no motive to lie about Ellison’s behavior, and three friends of Monahan and her work supervisor also said she confided Ellison’s abuse to them at the time it is alleged to have happened. She has provided medical records showing that she discussed the alleged abuse (and her fear of retribution from Ellison, who is named in the medical record) with her physician and her work supervisor.
The unstated problem with his contentions? None of these were brought to the attention of law enforcement. Worse yet, he’s either naive or glossing over the point that Monahan’s base motive may have easily been revenge, as I’ve discussed here. Later, he references an earlier complaint by Amy Alexander, but a judge did not find her credible. And, finally, some of the information he references is only available from conservative web sites such as The Daily Caller; I could not find information from real news sources such as the local StarTribune, which would be far more motivated to find the real news and report it. The fact that I didn’t find it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen, but those references are a strong blow to his credibility.
But nuance and strength of source doesn’t do in a myth-reinforcing screed such as Carl’s, as we’ll see later.
The real problem with his big ol’ bucket of mud, though, is this:
Despite knowing of the allegations, the Minnesota Democrats endorsed Ellison for the office of attorney general, giving him over 82 percent at their recent convention. As attorney general, he’d be responsible for enforcing domestic-violence and rape laws.
Now, I’m not a Democrat, but even so, you would think such allegations would have come to my attention, since Ellison is a prominent politician and represents part of the Twin Cities, where I live, albeit not my district. But, until the Monahan allegations, and its highly suspicious timing, broke, I hadn’t heard of them. To accuse the members of the Democratic Party of voting for Ellison despite the knowledge of the allegations is dubious, at best. An allegation of 13 years ago that was dismissed, and then Monahan’s refusal to produce the tape that would prove her allegation. These are credible? Not yet. Not yet.
Perhaps those Democrats aware of the allegations are simply tired of anti-Muslim bigotry (such as this) and chose to vote for the guy who attracts what appears to be baseless allegations. Sure, he might be guilty. If Monahan really wants to protect the public and the Republic from the depredations of a domestic abuser, then she should produce that tape, take it to the police, and get him locked up. She’d be worthy of applause, now wouldn’t she? I’d certainly think so.
But, given the timing of her claim, and her refusal to cough that tape up, she’s hard to take seriously. Given the importance of her claim to Carl’s essay, and his attempt to gloss it over into some sinful knowledge on the part of the Democrats, it all falls apart for him when these facts are considered.
And it’s all a bit of a shame, because in the midst of this waterfall of stirring up the faithful, he quotes a fine point from Michelle Malkin:
But Michelle Malkin had it right: “Rape is a devastating crime. So is lying about it. It’s not victim blaming to get to the bottom of the truth. It’s liar-shaming. Don’t believe a gender. Believe evidence.”
That is something I can get behind. In fact, I’ll recommend it to Mr. Carl to think about. Where’s your evidence when it comes to Ellison? You threw a lot of shit at the wall, but hardly any stuck.
But, again, the point here wasn’t to make a fine-tuned argument. It was his turn to reinforce the message to the GOP faithful that the Democrats are evil. I do not exaggerate, he’s telling the base that their fellow Americans are the spawn of the Devil. After all, he mentions Bill Clinton, supposed rapist, and Ted Kennedy, who surely must be guilty of something, since he had a car accident and hardly acted heroically afterwards, as heroes of the Democrats. Surely they must be evil, no?
It really makes you wonder if Carl understands that when we say we’re Americans, it means we have a basic level of trust in each other, that we all have ethical systems that are mostly shared, and that we all have the best interests of America at heart. Sometimes methods differ.
And if the Democrats did vote for a domestic abuser, they didn’t do so because they approve of that. They did because the evidence (reference Malkin above, hey) simply isn’t there. Again, Monahan provides it, then the game changes and maybe we put Ellison away, rather than in the AG’s seat. But she hasn’t done so, and we can’t really play into the game of maybe he did …
Similarly, Kavanaugh gets the same standard, as modified by the fact that he’s been nominated to a lifelong post, while Ellison is running for an elective, time-limited post. But what will Kavanaugh’s accuser, Professor Ford, bring in addition to a simple accusation? That, in an honest Congress, will determine his fate. In this Congress? Both sides are at full screech, and I misdoubt the motives of both. My inclination, minus any strong supporting evidence, is that her accusation will not be enough on its own.
But back to Carl. At the end of his essay, he gives away his game, and how little respect he has for Malkin, with this simple passage:
They’re the party that screams about Haven Monahans who don’t exist while ignoring Karen Monahans who do. And for decades, continuing to this very day, they inveigh against the GOP’s alleged “war on women” while they cover for the own abusers in the highest places, at times inventing nonexistent rapists and fake sexual-assault statistics when it serves their political interests.
Does that make you absolutely furious?
Me Too.
Furious, as in so angry you’re red in the face – and the most important facet of a human being, the intellect, is turned off. Mr. Carl doesn’t want the reader to be thinking, to question his assertions, to find alternative, perhaps more reasonable interpretations. He wants their emotional reactions going on high speed, propelling his readers into that swirling fog of emotion so they accept every one of his assertions as if they’re gospel truth, which we already know in some cases are not, and sweep that conservative reader off their intellectual feet and into Carl’s great net of voters.
Because that’s all this really turns out to be. Give the reader no reason to feel a connection with the Democrats, to see that they share the same desires and thoughts as do their “political opponents.” Instead, make them build the walls that won’t let the hated invaders in, because that’s how they capture those voters and keep them safely locked in their vault.
And that’s the whole point of this essay. To be fatally divisive. So much for America, when it comes to the conservative vote.
