“Your question is a Republican talking point.” That’s a reply from Bernie Sanders in July, asked by Jake Tapper about whether the poor polling of his costly “Medicare for all” proposal might cost him the election if he’s nominated. The best evidence suggests it would make him less likely to defeat President Trump. But Sanders had an easy dodge. Calling it “Republican” allowed him to put the question out of bounds.
Sanders is a fan of this rhetorical strategy. “Open borders? That’s a Koch Brothers proposal,” he famously said, dismissing an idea that has in fact gained clout among the leftist intelligentsia as well as some elements of the libertarian fringe. But I don’t mean to beat up on him. Of all the politicians running for the presidency, he’s certainly not the one who’s most evasive about his views and policies. At least he’ll own up to what his healthcare policy actually is and whether tax hikes for the middle class will be necessary to fund it.
But the more ideological parts of the press and much of the field of presidential contenders have started using this “talking point” talking point a lot lately, as political communication takes on that familiar propagandistic election year quality. The Daily Kos dedicated an entire article to dragging Pete Buttigieg for his willingness to “regurgitate Republican talking points.” His transgression was saying he’d like the Democratic Party to be perceived as fiscally responsible.
I find this a depressing rhetorical development. Maybe it’s that I don’t have a party, but it seems like a sort of rhetorical device that is supposed to suggest an obvious answer without suggesting one. There’s a reason you don’t have to supply the answer when you ask a canonical rhetorical question, like, say, “Is the pope Catholic?” And with “that’s a Republican talking point,” (or “that’s a Democratic” one, for that matter) I guess if your brain is partisan enough, it’s supposed to work the same way. Pope implies Catholic, and Republican implies bad faith and wrong.
Trouble is, a lot of the time, someone is evading a question with a rhetorical trick because they know they can’t really answer the objection. They know the objection is a valid one, in other words. Sure, there are bad and dishonest Republican talking points; I’ve heard Rudy Giuliani’s news hits. But are either Republican or Democratic points bad points by definition? If you dismiss objections because you think they’re the other side’s talking points, you’re admitting that you basically just think in your side’s talking points. Which is a way of saying you don’t think.
How about, I don’t know, actually taking issues point by point? “That’s the other side’s point” doesn’t have quite the same rhetorical ring to it. And as well it shouldn’t.
