THE TYRANNY OF CLICHES by Jonah Goldberg, 2012
326 pages. $16.00
Written by Rich Rogers
So you’re having a discussion with someone–a friend, an acquaintance, the waiter at Chilli’s–and you’re on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You’re conservative, and this person is liberal. You hit a certain point in the discussion, and this person, rather than responding with facts, and/or logic, says, “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
And the conversation ends.
What just happened?
Simple, the person you’ve been discussing an issue with has resorted to a cliché to end the conversation. Clichés never help to understand a person’s point of view. Rather they give the person using them a way out of a conversation that sounds intelligent, but instead is rather vacuous, and has no meaning, meat or substance. It’s a way to avoid arguments, not make them, i.e., you’re not making a case for your side of things this way but rather changing the subject.
And, according the Jonah Goldberg, syndicated columnist, member of the American Enterprise Institute, member of the Board of Contributors of USA Today, commentator on Fox News Channel among a laundry list of titles, too many clichés have entered our national discussions today. Instead of talking about things and actually getting to the facts, discussions are sidestepped in favor of clichés that avoid the real issues behind things.
“So it’s an expression born in glibness–defined by vanity, not courage–and it remains so to this day.
“This is only one example of the problem. I started to notice that the same thing happens in writing, on TV, in books; people invoke these clichés as placeholders for arguments not won, ideas not fully understood. At the same time, the same sorts of people cavalierly denounce far more thought-out positions because they’re too ‘ideological.’ Indeed, in America, we train people to be skeptical of ideology. College students in particular are quick to object with a certain gotcha tone: ‘That sounds like an ideological statement.’
“Such skepticism doesn’t bother me. Indeed, I encourage it. The problem is that while our radar is great at spotting in-bound ideological statements, clichés sail right through. People will say, ‘It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail’ and then stop talking, as if they’ve made an argument simply by saying that. They will take the slippery slope at face value. They’ll say ‘Diversity is strength,’ as if it means something, and ‘Violence never solved anything,’ as if that were not only plausible but so true that no further explication is required (Pages 3-4).”
From that point on, Goldberg takes on the clichés he believes the left and liberals are using to avoid actually having to talk about things. For example, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” supposedly uttered by Thomas Jefferson. Only he never said it. Not even close (Page 123). Or there is Marie Antoinette’s famous comment “Let them eat cake” blathering. But once again, she never said it (Chapter 15). It’s used as a mantra for those who believe that rich conservatives are out of touch with the common man. “To be sure, there are many wealthy and politically conservative individuals who are out of touch with the hardships of poverty. But the obvious inheritors of the cocooned arrogance and self-indulgence we associate with members of the monarchal courts of Europe are to be found not in boardrooms, but among the most celebrated liberals of American life: Hollywood celebrities.
“Few CEOs surround themselves with courtiers the way your typical diva does. If you’re lucky enough to witness one of these movable feasts in person, it becomes immediately apparent that the otherworldly opulence of the denizens of the pages of Us Weekly and People Magazine dwarfs that of even the greatest of our captains of industry.” (Page 174)
Other clichés on his hit list–“Violence never solves anything,” when necessary it solves a lot of problems (remember that Hitler guy with the toothbrush mustache?); social justice, like many of these clichés, it’s modern meaning is 180 degrees from the original, originally it meant to keep the government out of everything and let societies do what they do best; social Darwinism, once the one of the most cherished doctrines of the liberals and progressives, now used as an epithet toward conservatives; and the whole ten guilty men argument–those guilty men left loose in society are costly and deadly.
Goldberg takes on everything and does it with elegance, erudition, and humor. His assessments are on point and spot on. He goes to the source of things and gives you the whole story. He meticulously notes all of his sources, including the day, date, and time when he downloaded information from the net. The Marie Antoinette bit comes complete with a lesson in French economics of the late 18th century, so you understand the comment completely. He uses the originals and the great books as he gleefully skewers the left, and puts it all in context. He’s every bit as funny as P.J. O’Rourke or Greg Gutfeld (a stablemate at FNC), but drier and more deadpan, but just as scathing and cutting. This is the perfect field guide, instruction manual, and reference book to give you the information when you have those discussions that get ended with clichés.
Rich welcomes questions and comments from readers. You can reach him at [email protected].
