Author: denialism_bv2x6a

You should all be familiar with this tactic–poisoning the well. You know the trick: provide derogatory information about your opponent to undermine her arguments.

And here’s a great example: In defending Channel One, Jack Abramoff’s lobbyist Dennis Stephens proposed that Peter Ferrara pen an oped that “hammered the ‘anti-technology’ crowd:” “When I talked with Peter this morning, he was planning to draft a press release hammering the “anti technology” crowd per Jeff B’s request and will also be distributing Grovers nice piece on Channel One. A nice balance, a positive piece on the good guys and a hit piece on the bad guys. Sound good?”

Find this and other illuminating documents on Jack Abramoff here: Senate Finance Committee Minority Report on Jack Abramoff (PDF) (2005).

Two more tactics for those of you who want to be an industry lobbyist, or for those who want to recognize their two-bit tactics.

With nit picking, the denialist finds one problem with a fact asserted or the proposal for reform, and then harps on the problem incessantly. A variation on the 8 of Clubs (red herring) is “muddying the waters.” This is where the denialist brings forth any information, whether specious or not, to confuse the issues.

“Duh!” is one of my favorite lobbyist tactics. I’ve seen it used many times.

With “Duh!,” the denalist deliberately misunderstands, misinterprets, or plays dumb when presented with others’ questions or proposals. One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until they’re asked a question they don’t want to answer!

In the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandal, this exchange between Rep. Eshoo and Fred Adler, a company investigator, is an excellent “duh” moment:

ESHOO: …If you say no, then I’ll accept your answer.

ADLER: OK.

ESHOO: You said no?

ADLER: No in regard to what?

ESHOO: Well, you know what, you have to be smart to play dumb. So I think I’ve been pretty direct about my questions. I asked you if rusing has been used. And you asked me to define it. I give it to you, and then…” House Hearing on the Hewlett-Packard Pretexting Scandal, CQ Transcriptions, Sept. 28, 2006.

Okay industry lobbyists in training, you’ve started just making up arguments to confuse everyone. That’s a method of confusing issues. Now you should start confusing individuals’ roles in the policy process. It’s time to start playing government officials off each other.

If you don’t like what the federal government is doing, say that it is a state issue. Of course, if the states are active on the issue, you should argue that it is a federal issue, and that state action will create a “patchwork” of conflicting requirements. The “patchwork” argument is also an effective tool to broaden opposition to a measure.

(more…)

Now, the debate starts to get fun. This group of Denialists’ cards are all about spreading confusion. The more that one muddies the waters, the harder it is for anyone to do anything.

And so, the place to start is with the Red Herring.

The “red herring” argument is a frequently-employed and efficacious tool to confuse everyone. A red herring is a specious argument–one that sounds cogent, but isn’t really responsive to the issue at hand. Just make something up that sounds good. My favorite example of this is in the financial privacy sector. A few years ago, when California was trying to establish opt-in (affirmative consent) requirements before a bank could share personal information, banking industry officials claimed that it would cause the ATM network to break. Why? Because the complex process of dispensing cash would be interrupted by having to ask the consumer for her consent! This was a bogus argument because the legislation in question clearly allowed information to be shared in any circumstance where a consumer requested a specific service.

This pair should sound familiar. Industry lobbyists love the idea of individual responsibility. And so they will argue that individuals should be responsible for addressing a problem (paired with the 4 of Clubs or the 6 of Clubs). But in other contexts, accountability goes out the window. They need total immunity from lawsuits.

(more…)

The trick to using the “Jobs” card is to totally over inflate the size of your industry and the number of employees it has. It’s quite a compelling argument, and sometimes it’s true. But I’ve seen many cases where a regulation creates new jobs and economic development.

A great recent example of the 7 of Hearts was occurred in the debate surrounding adoption of the federal Do-Not-Call Telemarketing Registry. The telemarketing industry claimed that they employed 6 million Americans, and had $668 billion in sales. But the economic census showed that telemarketing only accounted for 500,000 jobs and $8 billion in sales. A closer look at the numbers showed that the telemarketing industry’s figures were grossly inflated–they included both in-bound telemarketing (like when you call Delta to buy a $2k ticket), and telemarketing sales among huge businesses (like when Delta calls Boeing to order a plane) in the $668 billion figure. Neither of these types of sales are affected by Do-Not-Call legislation.

Many cards in the Denialists’ Deck allow one to make a bogus argument no matter the situation.

So, with the Six of Spades and the Seven of Clubs, you use one card if your industry is highly regulated, and the other if it isn’t.