When you see a headline like this: “Trump
must keep the heat on China and ignore its 'red lines'”, what comes to mind
immediately is the way that the author must have structured his argument. You
anticipate that the discussion will progress in 4 steps like this: Here is the
current situation. Here is what's wrong with it. Here is how things should be.
And here is what must be done to get there.
Whereas this approach would have been useful,
as it aims to widen the discussion and bring into it new insight and new
perspectives, Jed Babbin who wrote the article, had something else in mind. In
fact, he had only one thing in mind. It is this: Keep the heat on China for its
own sake regardless of the consequences. You can see this as you go through the
article and analyze what's said and what's meant. In fact, the article also
came under the subtitle: “China tries to bully president including
'interference' in Honk Kong and Taiwan.” It was published on July 3, 2020 in
the Washington Times.
The article is almost 900 words long. It
begins with the two words, “President Trump,” and ends with the sentence,
“there is no better time to keep the heat on China.” But by the time you've
read the entire article, you'd have realized that “keeping the heat” is also
the bottom line on the mind that's behind the article. You conclude that to Jed
Babbin and all those who stand proudly on the right side of the political
spectrum, playing the game is not a means to an end; it is the end. In short,
to these people, playing the game is the endgame.
Having determined that reality from your
observation, you try now to understand how and why those who call themselves
hawks, such as Jed Babbin and many others in the Washington Beltway, came to be
the way they are. Luckily, you find clues in the Babbin article that help you
discover what you're looking for.
After much reflection, it becomes clear to
you that these people are the victims of a self-perpetuating regime of
indoctrination by osmosis. That is, the culture they inherit and in turn
perpetuate, is the sea they soak-in like spongy creatures that eat what they
produce, and reproduce what they eat. In this vein, you recall what happened
the first few days after the pandemic made its appearance in America. Here it
is:
In one form or another, in one style or
another, every self-designated hawk wrote something to the effect that America
and Israel are in this together. They are at the forefront of the battle to
defeat the pandemic, and they'll win it for the human race because they are
free nations that refuse to do what the no-good regimes do, which is to
institute lockdowns or force people to wear masks or practice social
distancing. Now that time put in its final word, look how dangerously ignorant
these people look, exhibiting criminal insanity at its most extreme!
Having recalled these moments of infamy,
you go through the Jed Babbin article to see what other infamies he is
inflicting on his readers. You find that he uses several tricks to achieve that
goal. One trick relies on the use of adjectives, which turns out to be an
economical way to advance a full-blown editorial while retaining the option to
deny that he is editorializing. You see at least two such examples in the first
paragraph of Babbin's article.
One, speaking of Donald Trump's economic
relationships with China's Xi Jinping, Babbin writes this: “He wants to revive
the moribund trade agreement...” Thus, with the single adjective, “moribund,”
Babbin has opined that the trade agreement is dead and should stay that way.
Two, further down the first paragraph, Babbin speaks of, “China's aggression
which is destabilizing much of Asia.” Here again, using of the adjective
“much,” has turned China from being a first-time aggressor into being an
unrepentant serial aggressor. And so it goes with the use of adjectives
throughout the article.
Another trick used by the hawks to
indoctrinate their readers, is that of imagery. Rather than spend a thousand
words to say what a single picture can tell, the hawks use the single image
technique to paint as hideous those whom they dislike. For example, you see
Babbin speak of Bashar Assad who used chemical weapons against “his own
people.” There is also the Chinese attempt to limit American conduct as a way
to “demand appeasement.” And there is Barack Obama's, “empty threat that
diminished American credibility”.
And so it goes with Jed Babbin and all
those like him, people whose purpose in life is restricted to playing the game
as a means to achieving an illegitimate end; that of denying to others the
right to play the game as a means to achieving their legitimate ends.