So much for "the blame game"

This is from "The tyranny of petty coercion", by Marilynne Robinson [Gilead] in "Social Research" for March 22, 2004:

Here is an instance:[of intimidation by consensus] for some time the word "bashing" has been used to derail criticism of many kinds, by treating as partisan or tendentious statements that are perfectly available to being dealt with as true or false. To say that the disparity between rich and poor in this country exceeds any previously known in American history (putting aside the marked economic disparity between plantation owners and slaves) is to say something falsifiable-that is, for practical purposes, verifiable, and in any case arguable. But such criticism is called "Bush bashing" and also "class warfare." In other words, a statement that is objectively true or false can be dismissed as the slur of a hostile subgroup. It is interesting and germane to note how effective this tactic is. Perfectly sensible people flinch at the thought that they might have been a trifle Jacobin, and they are shamed out of saying what they believe to be true in the plainest sense of the word true. Nor, I believe, is it the critics alone who lose their bearings when these strategies are employed. Those who identify with the group toward whom the criticisms are directed-in this case the present administration-can hear irrational attack where they might otherwise hear a challenge to their values or to their theories and methods.

So the exchanges political life entirely depends on, where in good conscience people speak and listen, attempting to establish practical truth and then candidly assigning value to it, simply do not take place. This is a failure of courage on both sides. I assume many apologists for the administration would find it painful to say that radical economic polarization is a good thing. So they are relieved to learn that they are only being "bashed," and therefore need not consider the issue on its merits.