When is a Debate not a Debate?

Georgia Representative Jack Kingston's questioning of Robert Greenwald on his film Iraq For Sale and Jeremy Scahill on his book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army during a session of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense is a frightening case study in the core tactics and practices that are employed in debates by conservatives these days.

There are a few basic tenets that are to be employed as soon as the questioner/debater senses that the direction of the dialogue is turning against them or their cause.

1. Question the opponents' loyalties or beliefs:

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, no. I mean, I think, first of all, Blackwater is a company that has very deep connections in US intelligence, in the military. It does indeed have political connections to the White House. I do think it also has -- it’s viewed, I think, in some official circles as being a very forward-thinking company that provides very innovative services. I think it's a combination of the political connections of the company and the kinds of services that it provides. Mr. Prince likes to refer to Blackwater as the Federal Express of the national security apparatus.

What I find concerning is the fact that not only is Mr. Prince a significant contributor to several of the campaign causes of Republicans who are in influential positions, particularly in the years of the Republican-controlled congress, as well as to the White House, but he has deep connections to some of the religious right organizations that have come to a position of prominence in this country. I think this is a company that embodies a lot of what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address in 1961.

REP. JACK KINGSTON: Let me ask you now, being a conservative Christian, there’s a problem with that?

Followed quickly on the heels of that by

2. Interrupt the opponent repeatedly:

JEREMY SCAHILL: No. There's no problem with being a conservative Christian. The problem --

REP. JACK KINGSTON: Well, you said now -- you said -- I mean, you're saying he gives money to the Republican causes, and then you say to the religious right, and I’m having trouble connecting that.

JEREMY SCAHILL: OK. Well, let's unpack that a little bit. I have an issue --

REP. JACK KINGSTON: I want to give you an opportunity to -- when you say a guy’s secretive, which is, you know, derogatory. “Multimillionaire who bankrolls the President” is derogatory. And then you put that he’s a conservative Christian. I want to just, you know, give you an opportunity to explain yourself.

and

3. Change the subject abruptly (ideally putting the opponent on the defensive):

Robert Greenwald: No, let me be very clear, these films are not about maximizing dollars, so I go out and I spend three quarters of my time trying to fundraise. Iraq for Sale- 3,220 people, patriotic Americans, gave $25 and $50 each because they wanted the story of war profiteering told- they wanted to get that out. Similarly, with Wal Mart, we raised money from all kinds of sources, people- and by the way, Republicans and Democrats-

Jack Kingston: But- if I could reclaim the time here. But are you saying, and I want to make sure here, that profit is evil?

Robert Greenwald: No--

Jack Kingston: But I mean you accept that-- for example, how much would you charge if I-- and you're obviously a bright guy-- if I said to you, "Bring me a gallon of gas in Baghdad." What would be the market value? Four Dollars a gallon? Fifteen Dollars a gallon? What is it?

These practices of misdirection and patronizing in the form of non compliments ("You're obviously a bright guy") are meant to throw the opponent off balance and give the appearance of confusion and unpreparedness on the opponent's part to observers. It's no lees a form of bullying than the finger pointing and shouted interruptions that occur several times every minute on shows like O'Reilly's and Hannity and Colmes, not to mention any program where Coulter makes an appearance to debate a point with another guest.

Admittedly, Colbert and Stewart engage in this practice but in the case of Stephen it is merely a parody of itself, and Stewart doesn't seem to be deliberately malicious even when he is at his most forceful (it seems to come from a constant state of incredulity that he finds himself in to some degree or another- I can definitely relate).

As much as I loathe Kingston for his stance in the hearing and his attempts to discredit and marginalize Greenwald and Scahill, I do admire him for his tenacity and dedication to the craft of predatory non debate debate. With so many like him eager to attack the people who want to talk about the issues because they want to talk about the issues (whatever the issues may be) instead of defending their side of the issues it's no wonder that the mainstream media loves to cover them. It's just another form of celebrity cat fight, except in this case the stars aren't as glamorous. Politics is, of course, show business for ugly people...