Is Obama Playing the “If-By-Whiskey” Game?

[grahamhgreen]

It’s not like they all don’t do it. But when we elect someone to change the tone in Washington, one of the core principals we expect is honesty.

Without honesty, one can not have an effective government that legitimately reflects the will of the people. Let me rephrase that: we are all sick of the lies that come out of our representative’s mouths.

There is a new game afoot, and it’s all the rage, it’s been around since the 50’s and it has a name, it’s not exactly a lie, but it’s not the truth: it’s called “If By Whiskey”.

By using the whiskey game, politicians can cleverly make one hear what you want to hear in their words, while failing to actually state their position on an issue. It works like this:

In 1952 there was a debate raging in Mississippi over alcohol legalization. Soggy Sweat, Jr, a state legislator decided to take a stand. Here is what he said:

“I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.
"If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

"But, If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

"This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."

He did not compromise.

Those who were against whiskey heard he was against it, those for it heard he was for it. It was the beginning of the current modus operandi entrenched in American politics – few of our elected officials will take a stand on anything. With Obama, I hoped this would change – but maybe that’s only what I wanted to hear.

I was an advocate for Single-Payer, Medicare for All. Something I thought Obama was for as well. I was very excited to hear HCR would be his first big challenge, and I was willing to go along with Obama’s desire to compromise, and settle for a public option. If I had only known about if-by-whiskey.

In August 2009 Obama said: “We said we need to have insurance reform, and that's going to include things like preventing insurers from dropping people because of pre-existing conditions. We said that we are going to need to expand coverage, that an insurance exchange that would provide people a menu of options was an important mechanism to expand choice and help to deliver help to people who didn't have health insurance or were underinsured. We talked about the need for a public option as part of that health-care exchange. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1913746,00.html#ixzz0w4KrKItR

Now, if you are a progressive you heard that the President was advocating for the “need for a public option as part of that health-care exchange.” In other words – he’s fighting to bring us a public option as a compromise to Medicare-for-All.

But if you are an insurance executive you heard, “we are going to need to expand coverage… to people who didn't have health insurance”. In other words – we are going to force people to buy over-priced insurance from your company!

Could this be if-by-whisky all over again? Perhaps he read about it at Harvard.

Then we saw him take this uncompromising stance on Iraqistan June 4, 2009:

“No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”

If we apply the if-by-whiskey fallacy we can hear him say, “No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.” For those of us who want to hear that he is ending the wars, we think we have heard just that.

But at the same time he states, “These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” In other words, for those that want to hear we will continue these wars, he has stated that as well.

Here’s his Iraqistan argument in a nutshell:

“That is why we fight -- in hopes of a day when we no longer need to.” Obama, Arlington National Cemetery, Nov. 11, 2009

I.E. We are having a war in order to not have a war. Both sides are soothed into hearing what they want.

Finally, let’s take a look at the argument du jour – gay marriage.

Obama: “I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation…. What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed.… I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.”

If you are for gay marriage you think he’s stating he is for it. But if you oppose it, you’re sure he is against it.

Or as his senior adviser David Axelrod said, "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples”.

Equality would be gay marriage, and nothing short of it. “Separate but equal” is not equality.
So, let this relativistic fallacy enter our hive mind and our lexicon: let’s recognize these if-by-whiskey arguments when they happen and not be satisfied by pouring over such remarks with endless commentary and speculation on what they mean – in the end they are meant to clarify nothing except what it is you want to believe was said.

We need to pin the administration down on what it is they mean, when they say it, and not attempt to divine meaning in the ricochet of obfuscations.

Actions have meaning. Legislation has meaning. Words, not so much.

We can only know who this man is by what he has accomplished, what he has done, and what he is doing – not by what he is saying. That said, most politicians play the if-by-whiskey game; but with Obama, we all know he can and will do better. Let us help him leave the legacy we elected him to create.

In sum, we need a president who will take positions, not take us for a ride, especially not if it’s by whiskey.

Please list any other if-by-whiskey arguments you have seen made.

“I have not come for what you hoped to do, I have come for what you did” - V

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. A politics without politicians....

...the eternal DU dream.

[jtuck004]

2. Kick. Great Post. n/t

[katandmoon]

3. K&R. But you don't have to pin Obama down on anything. His choice of COS says it all.

[sendero]

4. I'm a little frustrated ..

... with all of the "you heard what you wanted to hear" arguments. The record is quite clear on several subjects, the public option being one of them.

There was no parsing, no "if by whiskey" there was a clear and unambiguous statement of position. Now if you are going to argue that a politician's position might well have nothing to do with his actions, that is a whole other argument.

Bottom line, there is what is right and what is not. It doesn't matter about "the votes" and it doesn't matter about "the promises", a leader either takes you in the direction of progress or he doesn't.

Obama doesn't. Unless you are a bankster or an insurance company.

[pennylane100]

5. While I definitely think he could have done better,

I think he did a lot working with a difficult bunch of repugs and blue dogs.

He must do better during the next two years and I believe he will. He is, certainly still a breath of fresh air compared to the Bush crowd.

,

[nc4bo]

6. Wow, never heard of this Whiskey Game until now and boy does it sound familiar.

I'm not so good at composing. My life's super complicated and has been for a couple years and direct quotes or exact examples of incidences can get gray but, I do vaguely remember words to the effect that Wall Street should not take precedence over Main Street, same with Too Big Too Fail banks destroying our economy, CC companies, mortgage companies, Big Pharma and the health insurance industry.

Did I leave any one out?!

I know one thing, I'm sick and tired of being played with.

I, nor are our fellow Americans, toys!

Signed,

So sick of this shit.

[grahamhgreen]

17. Great points!

Thanks!

[Radical Activist]

7. Almost but no.

Obama has a rhetorical style that starts with framing the debate. He'll describe principles he agrees with and ones he disagrees with. Sometimes he describes competing principles, all of which he shares. Then he lays out the course he wants to take in consideration of those things.

It means you have to pay attention to what he says. Out of context sound bites can't be used to describe his position on most issues.

You wrote:
"Actions have meaning. Legislation has meaning. Words, not so much."

Yet, you don't apply that standard to his quote on gay marriage, which is that everyone should have equal rights but with a different word for it. Your position is fine but I noticed the logical inconsistency. In that case words matter to you, even if everyone has the same legal rights.

[grahamhgreen]

9. Perhaps I should have said

Speeches not so much.

The complex nuances of his statements lead us all down various paths of deliberation as we try to clarify what it is he is saying.

In the end, it is what he has done that gives definition to his words. Or what he is failing to do.

[Barack2theFuture]

8. and they called Clinton "Slick..."

[johnaries]

10. NO. Obama "gets it". He realizes that there is no "black or white"

and that there are many sides to any issue. There are positives and negatives in any policy in varying degrees. Obama likes to discuss both the positives and negatives so that we can maximize the former and minimize the latter.

Now, let's take your quote regarding gay marriage.

"Obama: “I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation…."
Yes, many people believe this whether factually it is true or not.

"What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed.… I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name."
Technically, isn't any marriage performed outside of the church a "civil union"? What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And Obama is saying that he supports GLBT having the same rights as everyone else, no matter what you choose to call it.

"And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.”
So, if Republicans are going to get all upset over semantics, let them. Don't play their game. The important thing is the GLBT's civil rights, no matter what you call them.

If you can't pass "Gay Marriage" but you can pass the same thing just by changing the name, why not change the name?

[grahamhgreen]

11. There is black and white. That is a fact.

You seem to be arguing that there is no difference between separate but equal.

We know from history that when you have separate laws they are never equal.

Look at HCR - we got Health insurance reform, that will mandate trillions to big insurance, instead of Medicare for all, that would have given trillions back to the people in the form of health care savings.

Without the same classification under law for gay marriage, the laws will be continually manipulated to grant rights to married couples that gay couples as domestic partners will not have.

[piratefish08]

12. best post I've read in weeks!

K+R

[Steely_Dan]

13. Excellent Post!

For the most part, I think you nailed it.

[rusty fender]

14. Excellent analysis! K & R

Another way to doublespeak. Very sophisticated. When you know what Obama is doing, he is very transparent.:think:

[bigtree]

15. I don't think he's making these circular arguments to keep things in place

I really believe he's playing this predictable and established political game of saying what folks want to hear to effect his modest agenda of the reversal of many of the Bush-era constructions and to effect their replacement with his own. The President expects for the cumulative effect of all of that politicking to provide him room and opportunity to disarm his republican opposition and co-opt them into advancing his decidedly moderate agenda. It's a reflection of how radical and objectionable the republican's own ambitions are, however, that Pres. Obama's centrism is regarded as any substantive change at all.

[grahamhgreen]

16. The biggest danger faced in using if-by-whiskey is

there is an equal chance of people believing you are against their position, rather than for it - something we now see coming from the progressive wing of our party. In fact, it might be argued, using these tactics show a blatant discourtesy towards your constituents.

And the question remains is he really effecting a reversal of Bush era policies, or is he just entrenching them by making people believe that they've been reformed when they haven't.

[bigtree]

18. yeah

It takes a step back to see that many of his defenses of old Bush policy serve to codify planks of it when we know most all of it was corporate-contrived bullshit.

I do think that there are many more fixes and reversals actually achieved and planned than there are capitulations. That won't matter, though, if your own interests aren't being addressed or are ignored. I understand that.

[grahamhgreen]

19. Thanks bigtree. nt