By the same token, an honest person will always show that he is honest by taking into account contextual considerations that run counter to his own view of the matter and therefore must be acknowledged, either to be explained away or to be admitted as reasons for doubting himself.
It will come as no news to most readers that, in the media environment as we know it today, the numbers of such honest persons are vanishingly small. On the contrary, the manipulation of context to advance their own political agenda is increasingly the media’s stock-in-trade.
No one is likely to suppose that this representation of “Republicans” as the bullies who are attacking helpless corporations and threatening them with “consequences” is accidental, but anyone with the slightest knowledge of the context of these “attacks” will instantly recognize it disingenuous to the point of outright falsehood.
But then “Republicans defend themselves against corporate attacks” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
Republicans here, that is, are allowed to be the ones being subjected to “pressure,” but in that context, of the multiplying “restrictive voting bills,” the “pressure” may be presumed to be more legitimate than the GOP’s resistance to it.
By going back more than half a century to find the context in which they prefer to see the new law, the media must not only ignore the quite different context of the present—which is allegations by both sides of irregularities (to put it euphemistically) in recent Georgia elections—but they imply that the Georgia of the Jim Crow era is no different from the Georgia of today.
All the same, he goes on, the Republican denial of the comparison cannot be accepted because it “asks us to ignore context and extend good faith to lawmakers who overhauled their state’s election laws because their party lost an election.”
In other words, the Jim Crow context is relevant after all—because the one proposed by the Republicans themselves cannot be believed.
This is a further refinement of the argument from context which most of those who invoke the name of Jim Crow merely assume to be valid, but it makes some assumptions of its own. In particular it assumes that the election was not only “lost” but lost fairly and without any fraud or attempt at fraud on the part of the winners.
No, no, no, says Mr. Bouie. Since the context of voter fraud may be presumed not to exist, the context of Jim Crow, however diluted of some of its lethality, may also be presumed to remain valid.
Once again we can see that, in democratic debate, the denial by one side to the other of the presumption of good faith—that they really mean what they say and not something else—can only produce reciprocation by the other side.
It is the nuclear option that brings all debate to an end in the rhetorical devastation of Mutually Assured Destruction of all credibility.
But the Democrats and the media have for so long seen politics as nothing but the exercise of raw power that I sometimes wonder that there should be anyone left on their side of the aisle anymore who, like Mr. Bouie, even bothers to go through the motions of assigning context by rational argument.
Perhaps they have a bad conscience about it.