I recall one of my very first posts here at Obsidian Wings. It was shortly after the Abu Ghraib story broke, and I said something like: “The Republicans have brought shame on this country.” And Moe (I miss Moe!) got very angry; if I recall correctly, his response began: I am a Republican… Now, I thought then that my post pretty clearly referred to the leadership of the Republican Party, especially since Moe and other rank-and-file Republicans were obviously not responsible for Abu Ghraib, and I didn’t exactly see the point of objecting to it. Nonetheless, it was his site, so I apologized and all was well.
Sometime around the time I was asked to join the site, I decided that I had been wrong, and that Moe’s rule (no generalizations about ‘the right’, ‘the left’, etc.) was a very good one. It avoided all sorts of pointless arguments, for one thing. It also seemed to me that making such generalizations was a form of intellectual laziness: when I was tempted to make them, I was not going to the trouble of actually figuring out who I was talking about, and it was therefore much easier for me to imagine stereotypical versions of my opponents than it would be if I had to actually say: I am talking about Sebastian or Von or Moe. I had always tried to avoid those stereotypes, but Moe’s rule forced me to.
This is all a preamble to the following question: when people talk about “the Left”, who, exactly, do they have in mind? I have no idea. And I suspect that the idea that there is something called ‘the Left’ which is large enough to be worth talking about is often simply a figment of the various writers’ imaginations, and that they can only believe this ‘Left’ to be a real, significant group because they do not force themselves to identify who they are talking about more precisely. If they were precise, they would (I think) have to conclude either that ‘the Left’ is a tiny group of people, or that much of what they say about it is not true. But because they are not, they can say all sorts of things about it without ever running the risk of being proved wrong.
Exhibit A: Instapundit‘s long post on the left from a few days ago. Here we learn that Ward Churchill is the ‘very image’ of the left. I find this odd, since I am on the left, and I have never heard of him. He sounds like a jerk. I’d bet that if I felt like it, I could probably Google around and find some obscure conservative academic who was just as vile. But so what? Why would that show anything except that the world contains idiots on both sides?
The answer, of course, is that Ward churchill isn’t just any old leftist; he’s the Left’s very image, the embodiment of everything about it. How do we know this? Well:
“When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is “screw ’em,” well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.
There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.”
For the record, I read Kennedy’s speech when Charles posted on it, and while I didn’t think it was the best speech ever and I thought its timing was lousy, I cannot imagine what in it could possibly justify the term ‘borderline-traitorous’. (If anyone can show me which part of it could conceivably justify a law professor making this extremely serious charge, please let me know.) I have never really understood why it matters who Michael Moore shared a box with. Barbara Boxer did not ‘endorse’ kos, and kos, for his part, did not say what he said about American casualties in Iraq, but about mercenaries. Moreover, he explained why he said what he did, and while I thought he was wrong, I understood it a lot better after his explanation. (For those who missed it, his explanation involved having grown up in a country where mercenaries were fighting a dirty war. So the fact that it was not about US casualties generally, but about mercenaries in particular, matters if you want to understand that episode.) Which is all to say: I find two of Instapundit’s “factual” reasons seriously misleading, and the third (Moore’s seating) laughable as some sort of barometer of the state of the left.
But that paragraph is a lot better than the next one. Who, exactly, is “a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy”? Would that be, oh, me and Edward? Katherine maybe? I will leave myself out of the picture for now, and just say that when Instapundit reaches Edward’s and Katherine’s level of moral and intellectual decay, he will be a very lucky man.
This, of course, is the point at which someone will say: oh, but Instapundit didn’t mean Edward and Katherine. Of course Edward and Katherine are perfectly reasonable and decent people. He meant Michael Moore and Ward Churchill and other influential political figures people. — This is why I think it’s really important to explain who, exactly, you’re talking about. When I use the term ‘the left’, which I usually try not to, I tend to mean, roughly, people who are clearly Democrats. Likewise, I use ‘the right’ to refer to people who are clearly Republicans, and ‘the center’ to refer to people who are not firmly in either party. (Unless, of course, they are clearly in some party to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the Republicans.) As I use the term, ‘the left’ is a large group of people. If this ‘left’, or most of it, were “”a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy”, that would be really important. But Instapundit must, I think, have something a lot narrower in mind. What is it? It’s awfully hard to say.
And that fact makes it impossible to challenge Instapundit’s claims. If I were to offer any counterexamples at all and say: look, here’s X, who is clearly on the left but not a seething mass of whatnot, he could just say: oh, they aren’t really on the left. Or: they are atypical in some way. Why? Because since he never bothered to give any content to ‘the Left’ in the first place, he can define and redefine it at will, and can therefore make any claim he wants to come out true, since there is always someone who does whatever idiotic thing he wants to say that ‘the Left’ does, and if need be he can shrink his definition of ‘the Left’ to that one person. (This, I think, is why he’s so confident that he knows what ‘the face of the Left’ looks like: the left, as he uses that term, is a creature of his imagination, so of course it looks however he says it does, just as what Robert Ludlum tells us about his characters is always true.)
Exhibit B (via Pandagon): Dennis Prager who writes, in a column called ‘The Left Is Worth Nothing’:
“Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.
There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.
It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as “worth nothing.” I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.
But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left — in America, in Europe and around the world — that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.
That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars “immoral” is a permanent stain on their reputations. (…)
Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left “does not know the difference between good and evil.” And that is why it is worth nothing.”
First, a note to my conservative readers: if you are ever inclined to think that “since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil”, it’s worth taking a minute to think about how bizarre that seems to those of us on the left who actually lived through the period in question. During the 1980s, for instance, a lot of people on the left were very upset about the fact that our country was supporting death squads in Central America. For many of us, this had nothing to do with supporting communism; it had to do with opposing death squads. During the 1990s, many of us supported intervention in Rwanda and Kosovo. In both cases we were ridiculed by people on the right for thinking that the US should be the world’s policeman (actually, most of the people I knew didn’t want us to be anything of the kind); for getting all bent out of shape about Guatemalan peasants and baby seals; and so on and so forth. Having spent those decades being caricatured as excessively concerned with the world’s distant and impoverished millions (billions?), it is very strange to learn that in reality, the problem with me at that time was that I was insufficiently concerned with evil.
As to the substance of Prager’s article: I won’t go through his claims in detail. (I would like to see evidence for the claim that “most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal”, the closest thing to a verifiable claim that he makes.) But note that according to Prager, ‘the Left’ not only hopes that America loses the war in Iraq but has actually tried to bring this about; has called for an American withdrawal; admires Mao; and does not know the difference between good and evil; and ask yourself how many people these claims are actually true of. As far as I’m concerned, ‘the Left’ he is talking about is either incredibly small, in which case he should have used a more restrictive term (like ‘the lunatic fringe of the left’), or a figment of his imagination.
Near the beginning of his article, Prager says that “since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence.” Oddly enough, I share this preoccupation, which explains my choice of career. One of the conclusions I have come to is that it is wrong to make serious accusations against other people without clear evidence. Possibly Prager doesn’t think that the things he says about ‘the Left’ constitute serious accusations. They are certainly very serious to me, as serious as Instapundit’s charge of borderline treason against Ted Kennedy. Possibly he thinks these are serious charges, but that it’s perfectly acceptable to make serious charges against other people without any evidence at all. In either case I would question his moral seriousness, and thus his authority to write on his chosen topic.
What seems to me more likely, however, is that, like Instapundit, he is writing about a ‘Left’ that exists in his imagination, and that he can characterize any way he wants. In that case he wouldn’t need evidence: since he’s talking about something he has made up, a character in his psychodrama, he can say anything about it he wants and always be right. The trouble is, of course, that some people might take him to be referring to actual people. And that would be a serious mistake.
I have picked on Instapundit and Prager because they were the pieces that set me off. But I wouldn’t have bothered if this sort of thing were restricted to them. It’s not: large chunks of the Limbaugh oeuvre, for instance, are devoted to this very theme. (In passing: the mere existence of Rush Limbaugh, not to mention Michael Savage et al, makes Instapundit’s claim that “the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots” very funny.) And it’s wrong.
Let me say that Republicans–all Republicans save a very few–by backing George W. Bush and refusing to clean their own house after Abu Ghraib *have* brought shame upon this country.
“all Republicans save a very few”
Prof. DeLong, I’m perhaps somewhat to the left of you and find this a harsh standard – do you think a similar statement could have been made about the let’s say post-WWII Democrats at any point? About the Republicans post-Nixon pre-Iraq War?
(applause)
When Moe blew up at me, the election hadn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to foresee Abu Ghraib in 2000, especially since at that time Bush showed no signs of interest in foreign policy. So I would clearly have been wrong about “Republicans” then.
As for now: I think that Republicans who didn’t vote for Bush (and I know some) are clearly not involved in any shame. I’d argue as well for those who sincerely believed that something else mattered more, but who took Abu Ghraib etc. seriously — to use Katherine’s example, the Republican analogs of Democrats voting for FDR after he interned the Japanese. (We can disagree later about whether the beliefs that make them the analogs of those Democrats are right; the point is that there are people who hold them in good faith.)
I do, however, think that those who don’t take torture seriously, who dismiss this as a partisan issue or a concern with coddling terrorists or something, have been Bush’s enablers, and that they have some share of the responsibility not for the fact that the various episodes of torture occurred in the future, but for the fact that no one at a senior level has been held accountable for them. And I think that this fact is to our shame as a country.
Ah, The Left.
It’s the vagueness that does it. The Amazing Left! The perfect addition to any warblog. It can grow large enough to include the 57 million American voters who voted against George W. Bush, and shrink small enough to be represented by Ramsey Clark and Ward Churchill–in mere seconds–and according to YOUR political convenience!
For a long time I told myself, oh, they’re not talking about me. But you know what? They pretty much are.
For the record: I have lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts for the past five years–the city where the socialist workers’ association’s office is right next to the Chamber of Commerce, and looks from the outside like it might be better funded. Maybe the largest city in America where Ralph Nader beat George W. Bush in 2000. I still see more Dennis Kucinich bumper stickers on cars here than Bush stickers. I go to one of those infamous liberal universities, my husband to another, and before that we spent four years at a third. Among our friends and family, Kerry voters outnumber Bush voters by maybe 20 to 1. People who have been to an antiwar protest or volunteered for a Democratic campaign outnumber Bush voters by about 5 to 1. I attend a synagogue where they use the word “heterosexism” in their sermons. I have worked mainly in non-profit summer jobs. When I’m not in Cambridge I’m most often in Park Slope. I am about as ensconced in the northeast liberal latte sipping New York Times reading yadda yadda left wing freakshow bubble as one can be.
I have never, ever, ever heard anyone say anything remotely resembling what Churchill said. I can’t imagine anyone I know saying it, and I can’t imagine how I would react. It is so utterly disgusting to me that I am having a hard time expressing it. Of all my family, all my friends, all my professors, all my coworkers at environmental NGOs, all my and my husband’s classmates, the number I can imagine agreeing with Churchill is exactly 0.
The number of people who were evacuated from their apartment for weeks: 1. The number of people who saw it fall in person: at least 5 that I know of, probably many more than that. Families who moved out of the city: 1. Families who thought about it: a lot more than that. Average degrees of separation between us and someone who was there: 2-3. (with many potential paths. Take me: sister’s coworker and coworker’s fiance on Flight 11. In-laws’ tenant, though he survived. Father-in-law’s work aquaintance’s son. Friend of family my sister babysat for.) Sisters of mine who were supposed to be on Wall Street that morning: 1. Sisters of mine who lived within a city block of an anthrax-contaminated post office: 1. Number of months it took to look at a plane, and NOT follow it with your eyes to make sure it wouldn’t crash into a building: 3-9.
It’s very hard to believe Reynolds doesn’t know that. Certainly he used to know it.
Just to add to Katherine’s post: I grew up in Cambridge MA, which is all she said it was and more. I am, heaven help us, a Harvard faculty brat. When I was nine, and watching the ’68 convention, the father of the friend at whose house I was watching it said something that made it clear that he was for Humphrey, and I was amazed, since it had never occurred to me that I would ever actually meet anyone who was for someone as far right as Humphrey. Nixon voters might as well have been hippogriffs or mermen as far as I was concerned. I then went off to another Ivy for college, moved to Berkeley, then to Sweden, then to Israel, and then back to Harvard again. Since then I have been teaching in what we all know to be the liberal academy. In between I have worked in a center for abused children, and spent five years working in a battered women’s shelter. I also did research for a commission headed by Olof Palme (a socialist!!!) on disarmament. I used to help my sister, who works in low-income housing and childcare, do surveys of abandoned housing in Boston for fun! My best friend, after getting her medical degree, went off and worked on a number of Native American reservations. I mean, I could go on and on. I know leftists.
And I have never heard anyone say anything like what Ward Churchill said either. Or, I take that back: I have heard of one person I know who said that, but he’s in another country, and more or less mad. (He supported Pol Pot too. Not a friend of mine.) Other than that, no one at all. Ever. I also don’t know anyone who hates America, for what it’s worth. Or wants Zarqawi/Baathists/whoever to win. Or any of that stuff.
hilzoy, are you a member of DSA?
And is it me or do many right-wing media elite sound like some other angry right-wingers?
principal accusation against the Jews within Nazi Germany was that they were urban, intellectual, bearers of a destructive corrupting “critical spirit.” The book bonfire of May 1933 was launched with Goebbels’s cry: “The age of extreme Jewish intellectualism has now ended, and the success of the German revolution has again given the right of way to the German spirit.” And when Goebbels officially forbade art criticism in November 1936, it was for having “typically Jewish traits of character”: putting the head over the heart, the individual over the community, intellect over feeling. In the transformed thematics of latter-day fascism, the Jews no longer play the role of defiler. It is “civilization” itself.
I know it is soooo bad to do the anology, but I couldn’t find the anti-critical stuff by Mussolini.
funny, the best word i can apply to Glennuendo is “fellow traveller”. some people in the administration, or their high-level advisors, are to me just plain evil. Grover Norquist, for example, honestly appears to desire a country where the poor know their place. Rumsfeld, who was so sure of his poor quality intelligence that he said, re the WMD, we know where they are. yet when he sent his army to war, there weren’t enough men to secure the KNOWN weapon sites.
many conservatives, including all those who post here, are as best i can tell honorable people who believe, among other things, that individual responsibility is a value which outweighs various notions of social justice, and that american exceptionalism justifies preventive warfare.
pretty clearly i think you’re collectively wrong. but the posters and commenters here deserve respect from us liberals for arguing fairly and legitmately for their beliefs.
glenn, and hindrocket, and lgf, and lileks, to the extent i read their “analyses” any more, are just plain crap. they are HATERS and COWARDS, and, what’s worse, they’re proud of it.
one of the nice things about being in the minority is that you don’t really have to worry about your fellow travellers. after all, we’re out of power. Michael moore is not a friend of the president.
the lewinsky scandal, by contrast, was embarrassing and awful. how could the president have been so damn stupid? I got to own, so to speak, the lewinsky scandal.
Republicans of all stripes now get to own Abu Ghraib, WMD lies and Soc Sec reform based on lies. Yet leading republican posters seem to focus on nothing but some mythological version of the left.
i certainly don’t agree with everything written at Orcinus. but i understand how he can feel that way. how much longer will the republicans with integrity, including those who post here, will include the liars, the cowards, and the thugs in their fold?
Francis
p.s. i’m bitter, angry, overworked, underslept and a little crocked. but i’m also profoundly worried that too many people are so focused on the substantive solution — be it soc sec reform or remaking the middle east — that they have forgotten that PROCESS matters just as much in a democracy.
pps: put simply — someday the wheel will turn.
ppps: how will republicans who post here feel about a democratic bill frist running roughshod over senatorial precedent in order to achieve the party’s goal? how many conservatives here have pointed out to their elected representatives that they are setting a profoundly dangerous precedent that most certainly will be used against the republican party the next time the opportunity presents itself?
Right-Wing critiques of Liberalism:
Type: Liberalism, in the search engine.
It seems, throughout history many “Nationalist Spirit” types didn’t care for Liberalism/Leftist
“how many conservatives here have pointed out to their elected representatives that they are setting a profoundly dangerous precedent that most certainly will be used against the republican party the next time the opportunity presents itself?”
fdl, are you and I going to be raising a ruckus when the wheel turns and Speaker of the House, uhh, Jesurgislac is running roughshod over Minority Leader Slart and justifying the Delayian tactics by saying it’s the Democrats’ turn to party?
NeoDude: Be very careful with that analogy. There are similarities between Hitler and all sorts of people, IF you overlook what made him Hitler. I imagine that he and I are similar in that we both believed that 2+2=4, for instance, and of course we’re both members of the human species, and both of us like art. This is of course an extreme example; but if someone said I was like Hitler, and then said “I mean, in that you both accept basic truths of arithmetic”, I would find that disingenuous.
Your example is less disingenuous, but for that reason more likely to be taken wrong. There are also various true claims of the form “Hitler attacked certain people as X, and I attack certain beings as X”. (He said that Jews were not full human beings. I think that rocks are not full human beings. I am right, and the fact that Hitler made a similar attack against a different group of beings and was profoundly wrong does not change that fact.)
Likewise, I suppose there are people somewhere who have a ‘corrupting spirit’. If I felt like going to the trouble of figuring out who I think this about, I might turn out to have this in common with him too. But this would overlook a lot of critical differences between us. Most notably: I do not wish to kill them. I do not wish to imprison them or deprive them of rights. I do not identify them as Jews, or as members of any other hereditary group. And I do not say that part of their problem is that they ‘exalt the individual over the community’.
Now: suppose, arguendo, that some conservative somewhere makes basically the claim I have imagined myself making about someone, call that someone X, but likewise does not want to kill X, want to imprison X or deprive X of rights, identify X as a Jew or as a member of any other hereditary group, or say that part of what’s wrong with X is that X exalts the individual over the community. You might argue that that conservative has something in common with Hitler. You might be right. But that would be a subtler version of the ‘both you and Hitler think that 2+2=4’ claim: true, but inflammatory unless you state it very clearly, since no one thinks that believing that 2+2=4 is the salient feature of Hitler. And because it’s subtler, it’s easier to mistake for the genuinely odious comparison.
Or, in short: you’re right, you shouldn’t make that comparison.
I agree that people shouldn’t be tarred with every ugliness that people who sort of agree with them on a couple of economic issues.
I am however really surprised to hear from both Katherine and Hilzoy that neither has personally heard anything as shocking. I am most definitely not on the left. I went to college in one of the more conservative cities in California (which I will admit isn’t saying that much). But on three completely separate occasions with three separate student leftists I have been personally (to my face)accused of being a supporter of apartheid because I don’t like affirmative action–a charge so ridiculous as to be almost funny to anyone who knows me since if anything I am so race blind as to possibly overestimate the ability of people not raised as I was to ignore race. On one other occasion I was accused of being a KKK member for the same reason–a charge which is in my mind almost precisely as bad as accusing me of being a NAZI. I had a Jewish friend who was told that having supported Reagan was like voting for a government that sent ‘his people’ to the gas chambers. On a number of occasions I have been informed by gay acquaintances that voting for Republicans made me a collaborator, and that such people would have been shot in a war. Bush is regularly compared to Hitler–and has been since before 9-11. Fighting against capitalism and free trade was explicitly used to ratify terrorism by all sort of members of the huge anti-globalisation movement during the 1990-2001 period. The concept that such ideas are difficult to find is rather surprising to me.
NeoDude: I forgot a crucial premiss in the above, namely: Instapundit does not want to kill liberals, want to imprison liberals or deprive them of rights, identify them as Jews or as members of any other hereditary group, or say that part of what’s wrong with liberals is that they exalt the individual over the community.
rilkefan: I’ll be there. I am bipartisan about stuff like that.
“On a number of occasions I have been informed by gay acquaintances that voting for Republicans made me a collaborator, and that such people would have been shot in a war.” Hmm, I should preview. That sentence started off with me about to share a sentiment that had been expressed by a number of gay acquaintances, but ended up reminding me of one really egregious one which is found in the second and third clauses of the sentence.
Sebastian: I was thinking of hearing liberals say, apparently with what’s-his-name (I really have never heard of him, and don’t want to bestow on him the effort needed to scroll up and find out his name. Ward whosis.) that 9/11 was justified. That is: I haven’t heard liberals talking the way Instapundit or Prager suppose that we do, or hold the views they take to be emblematic of “the left”. I have of course heard people on both sides malign their opponents in idiotic ways. (Lucky me was, in college, the only person I knew to oppose divesting from South Africa. I recall my roommate screaming at me: you just don’t CARE about the children of Soweto! Blah blah blah. Later, I gave up on actually doing things with Cambridge feminists, as opposed to working in the shelter and trying to do feminist things on my own, because I had one too many people hear that I was working on Kant and accuse me of being a tool of the patriarchy. Which would have been OK, if surprising, coming from people who knew me, but these were strangers I’d never met before, who had no idea about what I was like, for better or for worse. It got tiresome.)
So yeah, that, sure. But people actually conforming to the stereotype, no.
I should say that while I gave you liberals being silly, it is of course also true that I have been told, sometimes on this very blog, that I am aiding and abetting terrorists, do not care about the sufferings of Iraqis under Saddam, and so forth. Tiresome either way. I just ran into it once too often, and out popped this post.
This is all a preamble to the following question: when people talk about “the Left”, who, exactly, do they have in mind? I have no idea. And I suspect that the idea that there is something called ‘the Left’ which is large enough to be worth talking about is often simply a figment of the various writers’ imaginations, and that they can only believe this ‘Left’ to be a real, significant group because they do not force themselves to identify who they are talking about more precisely.
I believe that there is an element of that, but it’s not *always* the case. I’d be interested to know what you think of this post by Tim Burke, hilzoy.
“I have of course heard people on both sides malign their opponents in idiotic ways.”
Ok, but let’s look at the quote which caused the outrage:
Ward clearly sees those who support capitalism as his opponents. Really he is just maligning them in an idiotic way. The main difference between him and the gay acquaintance who was suggesting that I should be shot for voting Republican is that Ward was maligning people who were already dead rather than suggesting that I ought to be.
The concept that such ideas are difficult to find is rather surprising to me.
FWIW, I have heard such sentiments expressed… but never from American leftists short of the Communists down the street. [Europeans? That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame.] And when I say Communists, I mean dues-paying members of the Communist Party of the United States of America or whatever its official name is nowadays.
I know there are other wacko, fringey leftists here in Madison — they come out of the woodwork at inopportune moments like anti-war rallies — but you really do have to go out of your way to find them. They’re simply not as common as you might think, or as common as the news reports would have you believe.
And rilkefan, if it’s good enough for you and hilzoy, it’s good enough for me. I’m in too.
BTW, hilzoy, is this really what you meant?
Likewise, I use ‘the right’ to refer to people who are clearly Republicans, and ‘the center’ to refer to people who are not firmly in either party. (Unless, of course, they are clearly in some party to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the Republicans.)
To Josh: this quote from your posted article…
So if you want to know what libertarian-leaning conservatives think on a particular issue, you go and read Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, Virginia Postrel and Robert A. Heinlein.
…is simply wrong IME. Not that all four aren’t important voices in the conservatarian community, but you just don’t find that many doctrinaire libertarians out there who adhere to a name that most non-libertarians would recognize. The last pure Randian I knew was Arthur Silber of the Light Of Reason, who has since declared himself an anarchist/minarchist (IIRC) and a sort of Randian apostate.
[This is one of the things I find endlessly frustrating about debating against libertarians: it’s almost impossible to figure out what their policy positions are without a fairly exhaustive questionnaire, which means that every debate has to start at beginning every time.]
I can only conclude that your acquaintances are addlebrained from too much sun; you need to come east and north….
unless you’re talking about random people on the street trying to hand you pamphlets? I mean, I’m sure if I struck up with LaRouchies or ANSWER people or 15 year old faux-anarchists or that guy who screamed curses at Bush in Union Square all last summer I could find someone who said crazy stuff, but I could also get a pretty decent right of center analogue from the people handing out religious tracts or from flipping on my local talk radio station. It’s not hard to find at all…if you look for it, and actually engage those people in conversation instead of hurrying past. If you don’t, not so much.
I also see quite a difference between casually tossing off that a political opponent is an apartheid supporter(and believe me, I’ve gotten casually accused of supporting communism) or making an idiotic (and highly unimaginative) comparison of a President and Hitler (again, I have seen similar, though it’s as apt to be Stalin or Lenin or Pol Pot as Hitler when you’re talking about Democrats…the federalist society ditty about Lenin and Brennan comes to mind), and saying that an actual murder victim is a “little Eichmann” who had it coming. There is a world of difference between Clarence Thomas’ “Save America, Bomb Yale Law School” sign, and Ann Coulter’s statement that “my only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times Building”, because Thomas’ sign is clearly not serious, while Tim McVeigh actually murdered people.
“And rilkefan, if it’s good enough for you and hilzoy, it’s good enough for me.”
Depending on the state of the SCOTUS and the country at the time, it may be too good for me…
Funny because it is true. But really, what do you expect from people who are aggresively individualistic? A large group of things they have in common?
???
I think I would have mentioned that. Sheesh.
I don’t think telling a Jewish person that voting for Reagan was like voting for a government that would send his people to the gas chambers counts as “casually tossing off” and neither does telling me at a birthday party that I deserve to be shot as a gay Republican. But if you don’t think there is a distinction I honestly don’t know what to say.
Josh
Thanks for that link to Tim Burke. I would counter that point by noting this
I found some of the emails and bulletin board postings that I thought were good examples, and forwarded them with identifiers stripped off. These, commented my acquaintance, were just lunatics and fringe elements. I countered with a number of published pieces by intellectuals on the left, most notably Chomsky. He’s unrepresentative, shrugged my acquaintance.
This made me angry then and still irritates me somewhat as I think back on it. I felt this was an attack on my integrity. However, since that time, it’s become clear to me that there is a much, much deeper problem of perception involved.
At the risk of making this another thread about someone who no one seems to have read, it’s relatively important to note that the background of people’s opinions. How they got there rather than where they happen to be. Tim wants to take Chomsky as representative of the left, but his position in relation to the left is similar to Nader’s position to the Dems. Anarch points out the elisions made with libertarians.
And I have to say, if you are hearing these arguments a lot, Seb, I would guess that you are engaging in a fair amount of knock down drag out fights. I recall Andrew Sullivan’s anecdote of how they bought champagne and had a party celebrating the arrival of US nukes to Europe when he was at Oxford. If you do something like that, you may expect to attract people who say stuff like that.
” The main difference between him and the gay acquaintance who was suggesting that I should be shot for voting Republican is that Ward was maligning people who were already dead rather than suggesting that I ought to be.”
Bingo. I doubt your acquaintance actually meant it, and if you had actually been shot by some radical gay activist as a collaborator, I really, really, doubt that he would have said, even several years later, that it was in any way justified. (It’s possible, of course; I’ve never met the guy. But I’ve never had the misfortune of having a conversation with someone who was that big an a**hole about politics.)
For other examples of “they don’t actually mean it”: I don’t think Fred Barnes actually would defend the Bush administration if it actually criminalized even extreme anti-Iraq-war speech.
I don’t think Stephen den Beste really meant it when he said that, “when I’ve read news reports lately about some kinds of obnoxious protests, I have mused to myself, “Perhaps it’s time to issue shoot-to-kill orders to security guards.” Perhaps if some people who made grandstanding protests ended up dead, it might cause others to start really thinking about the consequences of their behavior.” I don’t think Glenn Reynolds actually means it when he states that “And here’s a question: Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point?”
If the press actually was being censored, though, or non-violent protesters really were being shot, though, I would conclude that they DID mean it.
I should also add, I have a rough scale of depreciation of statements that goes something like this.
Anything spoken comes in a lot lower than anything written, and for written it’s
blog comments
Ouch, the less than signs didn’t work. Duh.
Something written and published as a book
Something written in a more time sensitive medium
front page post on a blog
a public email exchange
a private email exchange
a blog comment
Last post before I go to bed. (Note to self: reform sleep habits. Term has started.)
Josh: I basically agree with the post that you cited — at least with its main point. I don’t know how to find “typical” leftists. I do tend to think that if I don’t know anyone who holds a given view — e.g., if (as is the case) everyone I know was transfixed with horror on 9/11, and never thought for a moment that we “deserved” it — that it can’t be typical. (I am just going to leave out, for the duration, the non-American supporter of Pol Pot, who is, trust me, not representative of anything.)
I disagree with his assessment of Chomsky (great linguist, not so great writer on politics, has the sort of following that Ayn Rand might have had if she had never tried to build up an organization and never had money to build it with); ANSWER (got play only because they were holding practically the only demonstrations against the war that there were, and because sometimes people go to a demonstration because they oppose what’s being demonstrated against without checking out the sponsor), postcolonial theory (big in the early 90s among lit professors, has been in eclipse for some time, AFAIK; but then, how many lit professors are there?) etc.
I was basically just offering my sense that while I am sure there are people who hold those views (or virtually any other; best I can tell there’s almost no view so odd that someone, somewhere doesn’t believe it), they are not standard. Also, that I think that Instapundit (for instance) trades on ambiguity about who he has in mind. I am willing to be disproved.
Sebastian: Good point. I tend to think, about conversations, that lots of people can say idiotic things, and I should wait for a trend to develop before holding things against them. (The roommate who said I didn’t care about the children of Soweto was very nice, normally.) Books are different, and blog posts should be different, at least in this sense: you should be willing to stand behind what you write, and unlike conversation, you do have the opportunity to preview and revise before posting. I also tend to cut people a bit of slack on issues that affect them deeply, and that they take very personally. (Not enough slack to think that it’s OK for someone to suggest that you should be shot. I think that’s just out.) But there’s a reason I focussed on published, or quasi-published, stuff.
Anarch: People in parties to the left of Democrats, or who waver between such parties and the Democratic party: left. (Greens. The SWP.) People in parties to the right of Republicans, or etc.: right. (Libertarians, Natural Law party, etc.) Centists: people who waver between Dem and Rep, or who are not clearly in either, where ‘clearly’ is construed to include, say, my relation to the Democrats, despite the fact that there are issues on which I disagree with them.
And by ‘in a party’ I didn’t mean ‘a registered member’. Independents who would obviously be Democrats if hey did: left. Etc. (Zell Miller: Republican.)
General note: what bugs me about, say, Instapundit’s post is that I think that he regards his accusations against ‘the Left’ seriously insofar as it underwrites his view of ‘the Left’ generally, but not seriously in whatever sense would make him stop and think before he said such things about people. The loose way he writes suggests that he doesn’t think that his accusations are that serious; the ensuing venom, by contrast, suggests that he does.
I think this is exactly the reverse of the way it should be. You should always consider the seriousness of any accusation you make before you make it. This just follows from the idea that people should be responsible, and hold themselves to standards. You should also be hesitant to draw conclusions about someone’s character based on what you say (where ‘hesitant’ doesn’t mean: never willing to no matter what, but rather: mindful of the possibility that you might have got it wrong.)
Or, in general: the point of morality is first and foremost to govern your own conduct, and only as a distant second to point fingers at other people and find them wanting. To make serious criticisms of other people’s moral character without fulfilling your own obligation to speak responsibly gets things precisely backwards. IMHO.
okay, then I’m going back to the addle-brained from the sun hypothesis. And what I mean by “casually tossing off” was not that you should take it casually or that it was any less insulting, but that it was not really thought through. I don’t know the circumstances obviously but–I don’t think Charles really believes that Ted Kennedy’s will is what prevents us from winning the war in Iraq, and I don’t think that Timmy really thinks we’re comparable to Walter Duranty, and I don’t think that my law school acquaintance was seriously suggesting that Hillary had hidden Vince Foster’s body, or that I cared more about the terrorists’ rights than my family’s safety, and those are all conversations where there was NOT alcohol involved. I think further that if you get into “someone said something appalling to my friend”, rather than just to me, we could do this indefinitely.
hilzoy,
your point is taken.
However, it is hard to ignore the similarities, when my political theory/ideology gets maligned in similiar fashion. Accusations of treason and questions conserning my moral health are hard to ignore.
I don’t think it’s as simple as believeing 2+2=4. It’s more like group A believes 2+2=4 is simple math, while group B believes 2+2=4 is the first step to the divine.
I could remark, “Wow, group B sure sounds like Pythagoras and his followers.”
Yes, it would be more responsible to investigate fully and be intellectually fair and flesh out how group B may have very little in common with the Pythagorians (how many times do folks remind us that the NAZI were socialist…they were right-wing socialist).
But we are fed a steady diet from the right-wing media elite, that fault Liberalism/Leftist for everything, much like German Nationalist did their Liberals/Leftists. They lump all ideologies outside of the Party as lacking good German character, foriegn to the German Spirit.
And by the way…if one reads Leo Stauss long enough, one can get the feeling that his only real beef with German Nationalism was its anti-Semitism. If the Nazis could have been more inclusive, “a bigger tent” if you will, one beleives he would have joined.
anyway…I’ll try to watch it.
I was radicalized by a bunch of old Zionist Labour types and LAUSD Feminists, so I can be a bit more agressive and obnoxious.
It’s very odd. My recollection is, that the very first jerks to say that America had “deserved” 9/11, had “brought it on themselves”, weren’t anywhere near “the Left” (however “the Left” is defined): they were a pair of fundie-Christian right-wing jerks, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
It would seem, in a rational universe, that we ought to be able to agree that only a jerk would say, to people who never supported al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s ideals/goals/principles/whatever you like, “You are responsible for this!” just because these people don’t share the jerk’s politics.
And we can also agree, in a rational universe, that jerks exist of all stripes and politics.
“I think further that if you get into “someone said something appalling to my friend”, rather than just to me, we could do this indefinitely.”
The whole point of the early posts in this thread seemed to me that we could not do this indefinitely because two people who were deeply involved in the left had never heard of such things.
And I pointed out a number of things which were said to me, and the ‘sending your own people to the camps’ thing was personally witnessed by me. It isn’t as if I’m spouting off third-hand friend-of-a-friend-of-an-uncle stories.
Do we really think Ward meant it either? He is a university professor who clearly likes being outrageous publishing in one of the numerous university periodicals where it is highly fashionable to be anti-American. Maybe we shouldn’t be offended by him either.
Do we really think Ward meant it either?
We don’t really know, do we? We only have a secone hand report from Instapundit to go on. So, here goes
bio
Well, what do you know? He’s a Native American, which might put some of this in context, mightn’t it?
I’m sure that Ward “means” it. But as I said, if you look at where he came from to get to where he is, (which is not where most people on the Left are, Chomsky and Fisk both made unequivocal statements condemning the 9-11 attacks, right?) you might not simply take his place of employment as a metric for where he stands on the political spectrum.
if you were there I apologize. I was not there when, for example, my sister in law was asked where her horns were (she’s Jewish) or my husband’s roommate was disowned for his sexual orientation. And I don’t say I’ve never heard of such things. I’ve heard OF them, but I have not heard them firsthand from anyone except a wacko pamphleteer or “street theater” artist, so to call them “the true face of the left” is an appalling, indefensible slur and I don’t know why every weblog in creation feels compelled to link to him. I was not saying you should not be offended, simply saying that I considered what Churchill said MORE offensive.
And yes, I think it is worse to suggest that people deserved to be murdered after they actually are murdered. Do you remember the thing I wrote a while back, “Failures of Imagination”? Usually we need a certain level of abstraction & disconnect to say idiotic, offensive, indefensible things, and the fact that someone was actually murdered, or raped, or tortured is enough to cut through the bullsh*t for enough people, and when even that can’t do it, then I think they are further gone.
If you can say in some abstract sense that AIDS is God’s just punishment for homosexuality that’s awful. If you see a human being in front of you actually go through that horror, and think or say “this is God’s just punishment for homosexuality”, that’s worse. If you defend torture warrants based on an abstract hypthetical and maybe a 24 episode or two, that’s not good. If you defend it after reading detailed accounts of what has actually happened, to possibly innocent people, that’s worse. It’s awful for anyone to concoct some theoretical justification of suicide bombings. It’s worse for them to stand there over smoking ruins and bleeding bodies and tell themselves it was justified.
In September 11, we saw a mass murder of innocents in one of our own cities–either live or over and over again on T.V. It was as concrete, as close to home as it is possible for such a thing to be. (It was especially close to home if you’re from the New York area, or to a lesser extent the D.C. or Boston areas–so it’s possible that things are a little different on the West coast or in Denver. But considering how much of THE LEFT is in the northeast…) It required very little imagination to realize that such a thing could never be justified or excused, and there were very, very, very few people who were willing to try to excuse it.
Sebastian: And I pointed out a number of things which were said to me, and the ‘sending your own people to the camps’ thing was personally witnessed by me. It isn’t as if I’m spouting off third-hand friend-of-a-friend-of-an-uncle stories.
So, since Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also said that Americans deserved 9/11 and had brought it on themselves, can we say that it’s typical of “the Right”?
Hilzoy, I read your very well thought out post and pondered a response. Then I read the first farcical comment and thought my leg was being pulled but I felt I would go along with the gag, which must have been designed to bait newbies like me. Is this a genuine effort to elicit comments from the right or a BushBashFest?
For the record, here is Churchill’s essay that forms the basis for his talk. Also, here is his statement on the controversy and what’s currently happening now
This point is not new. I would point you to Camus’ _Les Justes_
whenever i catch someone saying “the left” is bordering on treason, i tell them they should alert their local law enforcement at once. failing to do so would be to allow it to continue and that would make them… complicit in the crime.
I’m coming into the thread rather late, but I do have a few comments to make. The first is that, I’m going to agree with those who are pretty sure that this Churchill guy is a poseur. Rachel Corrie was willing to die for her beliefs; this Churchill fellow runs around posing for absurd photographs.
The other thought is that I think that to some extent that one can get a rather screwed up impression of the political left because the people who shout the loudest get the most attention. This was especially acute during the anti-WTO protests and the run-up to the Iraq unpleasantness. After all, whose going to get more attention: the PTA member who happens to believe that his government not leap headlong into a foolish policy, or a rasta-Aryan (my ex-roommate’s neologism to refer to white people with dredlocks) Marxist with a huge paper mache puppet?
I would maybe even be willing to cut a professor some slack. If you’re in academia, the political spectrum generally runs from Marxists and Post-Colonial theorists on the left to DLC style Democrats on the extreme right. If you spend enough time in such a fishbowl, you might eventually come to the conclusion that the Marxists, and particularly the loud and stupid ones, represent the face of the left. Though I am perhaps giving Glenn Reynold’s too much credit.
Your comment “I have never really understood why it matters who Michael Moore shared a box with.” is the point that says it all.
Firt off, the problem was who Carter (a recognized leader of the Dem party, chose to elevate to a prominent position.
If Bush had invited a KKK clansman to sit next to him (advocating racism – but only excersising his “right” to free speech) what would have been the perception?
But when the Dem Party – elavates a contraversial anti-american using questionable data as fact…. the perception is we are being picked on and classified ans “lefties”….
You don’t get it. Smooth writing and clever lines do not sway most americans who know it doesn’t feel right… and thus reject what you are selling.
Gnacdak: If Bush had invited a KKK clansman to sit next to him (advocating racism – but only excersising his “right” to free speech) what would have been the perception?
You’re surely not equating Michael Moore to a KKK clansman?
Kite and the tail. Hilzoy, exhibiting an absence of self awareness that only seems to appear when one discusses their political position on the spectrum, peers out into the void and wonders why one would think such things about certain pockets of liberals. Then, the tail of the kite comes wafting by in the form of her loyal commenters proving Mr. Reynolds is only responding to what he’s hearing day after day, defeatist comment after coment. Thanks for the show everyone, Wednesdays are pretty dull otherwise.
This is all a preamble to the following question: when people talk about “the Left”, who, exactly, do they have in mind?
Me!!!
I voted for Nader in 90 & 2000. I believe that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and just plain stupid. I also believed the same about the first Iraq war. Now that we have invaded a foreign country, it is my hope that we have another Vietnam style humiliation on our hands, not because i want to see tons of Americans die, but because if we succeed in Iraq we will attempt to do the same in Iran and get even more people killed.
As for 9/11, it’s long overdue payback for all the countries whose goverment we have overthrown and where our policies have caused endless misery and death (Philipines, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia ,Chile). What goes around comes around.
PS. I truly think that the apple doesn’t fall far from the three, and in this case Shrub is a good fascist like his grandfather and that most of the leadership of the Republican party are neo-fascist whose sole goal is to get power and keep it using any means possible.
Blogbuds: peers out into the void and wonders why one would think such things about certain pockets of liberals
So, in your view, “the Left” means “certain pockets of liberals”? Which pockets? Which liberals?
Then, the tail of the kite comes wafting by in the form of her loyal commenters proving Mr. Reynolds is only responding to what he’s hearing day after day, defeatist comment after coment
Oh, good grief. Do respond to what people are actually saying, rather than to what you think people ought to be saying.
BTW, Hilzoy, if you ever do a button “Loyal Commenter”, I’ll wear it. 😉
Then, the tail of the kite comes wafting by in the form of her loyal commenters proving Mr. Reynolds is only responding to what he’s hearing day after day, defeatist comment after coment.
bbm
Anarch, Jes, rilkefan, and me (and katherine, though calling her a loyal commenter of Hilzoy is a bit odd) have commented. Like Jes, I’d be happy to have a button (or a t-shirt, for that matter). But exactly what point(s) did we make that are anyway similar to ‘the 9-11 victims were like good Germans’? There is a tail here, but it ain’t us…
So “Don Quijote” is opposed to the killing of innocents in other countries, but not in New York City, and that some busboy or bond trader or copy editor was just getting some “long overdue payback.” Noted.
Anyway, I do my best to avoid those kind of generalizations about left and right, particularly because I get it from both sides. Because I support relatively unrestricted private gun ownership, generally lower taxes, a significantly smaller Federal government, and free-er markets, a lot of liberals tend to react to me as if I’m a country club Republican. Because I’m anti-death penatly, pro-legalization, hate the FCC, and an atheist, a lot of conservatives react to me as if I’m Abbie Hoffman. So I try to restrict my argument to the person, but more often than not fall short of the target.
liberaljaponicus: Anarch, Jes, rilkefan, and me (and katherine, though calling her a loyal commenter of Hilzoy is a bit odd) have commented.
I think calling Sebastian Holsclaw a loyal commenter of Hilzoy’s is even odder. But maybe that’s just me.
Jesurgislac, I am what I think you think I am.
You’re Eminem?!?
Blogbuds: Jesurgislac, I am what I think you think I am.
Not being telepathic, how can I argue with that?
So “Don Quijote” is opposed to the killing of innocents in other countries, but not in New York City, and that some busboy or bond trader or copy editor was just getting some “long overdue payback.” Noted.
In 1954, the CIA overthrew the Arbenz goverment in Guatemala, as a consequence of said event a civil war occurred which killed approximatly 200,000 Guatemalans. What did those people do to deserve having their goverment overthrown and a civil war unleashed upon them?
On 9/11/1970, the CIA overthrew the Allende goverment in Chile, as a consequence of said event, thousands were tortured and hundreds were disappeared. What did those people do to deserve that?
3000 thousand Americans and it’s a disaster and I agree. Tens of thousands of Iraqis die and it’s collateral damage, too bad shit happens.
I don’t know if I’m on the left; I do notice that the people whose views I tend to agree with are usually labelled as being leftist. But I come to my views by examining my conscience and weighing it against my (limited) life-experience.
As for 9/11, it’s long overdue payback for all the countries whose goverment we have overthrown and where our policies have caused endless misery and death (Philipines, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia ,Chile). What goes around comes around.
Not “long overdue payback” but inevitable karma, maybe. In the old testament sense where the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. It’s wrong that innocent people were killed on 9/11. And it’s wrong that they are being killed in Iraq. But its precisely the decisions of the governments and powerful entrenched interests to perpetuate injustice that enable violence. The sad thing is that it is always the innocent who suffer. The perpetrators of violence, by and large, they get away with it. The thieves, they use their stolen wealth to protect themselves. It’s not them who pays. It’s us, it’s us.
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.
You are more polite than I might be.
Wonderful post hilzoy. This should be required reading for all bloggers.
I’d bet that if I felt like it, I could probably Google around and find some obscure conservative academic who was just as vile.
You wouldn’t have to google that far. We had an example right here a while ago and although quite a few sites picked up on it, noticeably absent among them was Mr. Reynolds. Not that he reads this blogs, but that story made it to quite a few of the more popular blogs and Reynolds never mentioned it as far as I know. Did anyone at the time try to paint Dr Kozloff as the true face of the right?
We Think the Price Is Worth It
I’d bet that if I felt like it, I could probably Google around and find some obscure conservative academic who was just as vile.
Done.
@ Sebastian
just an idea: do you think it possible, that being male, heterosexual and (presumably) white might play into this? Arguably the civil rights movement has been fighting “people like you” (in the loosest sense) and hence your positions might provoke extreme responses from people “to the left”.
I on the other hand remember lots of borderline racist and anti-gay comments and remarks from people around me, but, given that I’m male, white and heterosexual these were not directed at me. Of course I can’t tell whether these people would have said the same had I belonged to the “them” side of these remarks.
Admittedly this may be just a crackpot idea, but taking into account whether you fall into the “traditionally friendly” or “traditionally opposed” category might help explain differences in what one gets to hear.
Hilzoy,
“Who, Exactly, Is This “Left” About Which I Hear Such Strange And Dreadful Things?”
Interesting that you asked and answered your own question. I think it’s safe to say that the “Left” answered, but I’m not sure you heard them. Maybe, a few people who aren’t on the left posted, but the majority were on the left.
Some said:
“brought shame upon this country.”
“and that they have some share of the responsibility not for the fact that the various episodes of torture occurred in the future”
Despite the fact that the people who did those things are pleading guilty.
“glenn, and hindrocket, and lgf, and lileks, to the extent i read their “analyses” any more, are just plain crap. they are HATERS and COWARDS, and, what’s worse, they’re proud of it.”
“Republicans of all stripes now get to own Abu Ghraib, WMD lies and Soc Sec reform based on lies.”
“I truly think that the apple doesn’t fall far from the three, and in this case Shrub is a good fascist like his grandfather and that most of the leadership of the Republican party are neo-fascist whose sole goal is to get power and keep it using any means possible.”
I could go on and on just from the posts here, but why bother. It’s really quite simple, for the face of the left just read the majority of the posts here.
I’d just like to thank Professor DeLong for offering the flipside of “The Left” fallacy for our enjoyment and edification.
Smlook: It’s really quite simple, for the face of the left just read the majority of the posts here.
Were you including my first comment on this thread (February 2, 2005 03:20 AM) in “the majority”?
Oh, and one more thing: I think it’s just silly to claim that failure to repudiate someone in any way implies support for that person’s comments. There are plenty of people across the spectrum whose remarks I don’t comment on, mostly because I don’t find them worthy of any sort of civil commentary. And since I’ve sworn off the invective for Lent, I must be in support of them, no?
Churchill did write a swell textbook on Complex Variables, though. Didn’t he? I think I’d much rather review that.
Slarti: And since I’ve sworn off the invective for Lent
You have? I congratulate you.
Maybe, hilzoy, an attempt to answer your title question would have to start by looking at who it is that is doing the characterization of “the Left”, and to what end.
It is one of the oldest tricks in the book to try to discredit one’s ideological/political opponents by selective citation of extreme or offensive views, even if by a lunatic-fringe (or in the case of Ward Churchill, an individual) and then tarring the whole “other side” with those ideas (unless, of course, specifically and apologetically disavowed).
The major difference nowadays, though, is that we have an Internet and blogosphere to further distort the dialogue.
To cite Glenn Reynolds for ANYTHING is, IMO, a waste of time, since his position as some sort of major opinion maven rests solely on his running a popular blog: a blog which, despite his grandiose claims (clever cloaked as self-disparagement) exhibits, in a nutshell, every negative factor about the rise of the Internet blog as a forum for social/political opinion. In his own admission, InstaPundit is his own creation, his property, and a forum for his own opinions: not necessarily the Prof. himself all the time,but a carefully selected assortment of fellow-travellers; all diligently linked, and carefully edited, and the majority of them leading the reader round and round in a combination funhouse/echo-chamber of (usually) right-wing fulmination on whatever issue he feels like pushing.
This is no more or less typical of the blosphere as a whole (and, yes, folks, ObsidianWings IS a glaring execption) – and one of the biggest challenges for anyone not “on the Right” will have to face: how NOT to let one’s ideological/political position be defined solely by the most negative stereotypes of one’s opponents. Tall order; no easy answers.
Well, that was just a little device. It’s been so long since I’ve regarded myself as a Catholic that I don’t even know if Lent has begun yet.
Still, I try. I’m hoping it’s contagious.
BTW, I read Instapundit daily. I don’t agree with everything Glenn says, but I think Jay C.’s characterization of him is just wrong.
Glenn’s anything but carefully edited.
Slartibartfast: It’s been so long since I’ve regarded myself as a Catholic that I don’t even know if Lent has begun yet.
Begins a week today – 9th February. (Not Catholic either, nor never was: I just googled for Shrove Tuesday.)
Still, I try. I’m hoping it’s contagious.
It’s certainly a splendid thing to give up for Lent. *grin* Though you know you’re allowed to quit your Lenten fast on Sundays, so you could give us the benefit of your invective on Sundays only for the next six weeks?
Then again, maybe our arguments are proving hilzoy right. Edward nibbles at it “Did anyone at the time try to paint Dr Kozloff as the true face of the right?”
(by the way Edward, you got some serious google time with that one) Who is “anyone”? Come on Church Lady. Could – it – be – the – Press!! Why is this Churchill character even worth a second thought? There are thousands that represent each tip of both ends of the purple bell curve. The Press decides who gets their 15 minutes of fame. And nine times out of ten, all you have to do is listen to them for a minute and you quickly figure what lunatic fringe they attract. It’s almost an inverse affect. The Press provides face time for entertaining individuals that espouse elements of the liberal left and tend to shy away from their mirror images on the right. (Moderates need not apply) So, then, therefore, when the public and those that like to argue to the contrary, are exposed to these rambling testimonials and their lunaticity, the pidgeonhole is defined. If the Professor Kozlov’s of the world could capture more Prime Time us true moderates would garner far more respect. Well, my ADD keeps me around 200 words. D’rather talk about Buddy Holly anyway.
Slarti:
Not to want to turn this thread into an InstaBash, but:
JFTR, I read InstaPundit every day as well: Glenn Reynolds’ blog was, in the pre-9/11 long-ago, my introduction to the blogosphere, and for a long time, my principal blogroll and connection to non-MSM links to many different and differing sources of opinion. Prof. Reynolds himself is obviously intelligent and articulate, and, even in my skewed opinion, not much of an “extremist” (well, except when he gets into Gun Boy mode, but never mind).
I just find it irksome that for a blogger who has made a pet project of castigating the “Mainstream Media” for their “hopeless [liberal] bias”, he holds himself out (or mostly lets himself be held out) as an alternative model for dissemination of news and opinion – when what he seems to be about, and made his blog about, is not a commitment to objectivity or lack of bias, but merely a shift of bias to conform to whatever conservative cant is the current talking-point.
Markus:Don Q.: Can you let me know how the dishwashers at the Windows On The World restaurant were involved in those CIA actions? Thanks.
Let me say that Republicans–all Republicans save a very few–by backing George W. Bush and refusing to clean their own house after Abu Ghraib *have* brought shame upon this country.
Quality control indeed, DeLong. Using your logic, I could just as easily say (and wrongly say, I might add) that Democrats–all Democrats save a very few–by backing Bill Clinton and refusing to clean their own house after the genocide in Rwanda *have* brought shame upon this country. You have shown yourself to be the liberal version of Dennis Prager with comments such as those.
Now that we have invaded a foreign country, it is my hope that we have another Vietnam style humiliation on our hands, not because i want to see tons of Americans die, but because if we succeed in Iraq we will attempt to do the same in Iran and get even more people killed. As for 9/11, it’s long overdue payback for all the countries whose goverment we have overthrown and where our policies have caused endless misery and death (Philipines, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia ,Chile). What goes around comes around.
Color me speechless. This is, sadly, no different from Falwell’s “we had it coming” soliloquy. I condemn that line of thinking no matter who utters it. Bin Laden didn’t launch terrorist attacks on our soil because we violated international law, as Ward Churchill tried to suggest.
See, hilzoy I read smlook’s and other right-winger’s stuff (comparing Moore to their David Duke, talk about relativism) and my first intellectual impulse is to say, “Where have I heard stuff like this before?”
Liberalism tore down the structures that held races and peoples together, releasing the destructive drives. The result was economic chaos that led to millions of unemployed on the one side and the senseless luxury of economic jackals on the other. Liberalism destroyed the people’s economic foundations, allowing the triumph of subhumans. They won the leading role in the political parties, the economy, the sciences, arts and press, hollowing out the nation from inside. The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols and so on, resulting in the decay and decline….We have seen firsthand where Marxism leads people, in Germany from 1919 to 1932, in Spain and above all in Russia. The people corrupted by Liberalism are not able to defend themselves against this Jewish-Marxist poison.
From:
Racial Policy
German democracy was always a particular playground of European liberalism. Its innate tendency towards excessive individualism was foreign to us, which lost it any connection to real political life after the war. It had nothing to do with the people. It represented not the totality of the nation, but turned into a perpetual war between interests that gradually destroyed the national and social foundations of our people’s existence.
From:
Goebbels Speech at the 1933 Nuremberg Rally
Blaming Liberals for a war they should never have been involved with.
We offer the youth the freedom to develop their nation, even in the case of smaller nations. We offer them room for creative fantasy, the opportunity to transform great thoughts to reality outside the lecture hall. We offer the realization of dreams on a world scale, a common Germanic will, a common European will. We fill the spiritual vacuum left by liberalism with the magic of a worldview that draws self-confidence and meaning to life from race and the blood of one’s ancestors.
From:
The Danger of Americanism
Their critique of America? To liberal, and urban!
So if they can compare Moore with Duke, then I can compare American Right-Wingers with German Right-Wingers, or American Nationalist with German Nationalist.
Using your logic, I could just as easily say (and wrongly say, I might add) that Democrats–all Democrats save a very few–by backing Bill Clinton and refusing to clean their own house after the genocide in Rwanda *have* brought shame upon this country.
Do you draw no distinction between wrongful acts committed by agents of the US Government and wrongful acts committed by foreigners that were not prevented by the US Government. (To be clear, I think we were very wrong not to intervene in Rwanda, but calling the two situations equivalent seems bizarre to me.)
I continue to believe that people like this Churchill fellow and that Coulter woman are the 5% on either side of the spectrum that sometimes manage to convince the other 45% of folks on their side that the other 45% of the other side is just like the 5% that think like Coulter or Churchill.
OW is where I go to see the 90% prove them wrong.
NeoDude: I was nice and thorough the first time. You are right to say that among the various Nazi critiques of their opponents was that they (opponents) were too liberal. You are wrong to think that it follows that people who criticize liberals are like Nazis in any but a trivial sense (see earlier arithmetic example.) Among the salient features of Nazism was advocating, and then carrying out, the murder of its opponents on the grounds that they were ‘impure’ and by their mere existence contaminated the German state. Unless you plan to argue that Glenn Reynolds, for instance, shares this feature, please do not make this analogy.
“If they can do X, then so can I” is an argument we should leave behind us when we graduate from second grade.
NeoDude: to be clearer, don’t make the analogy here. You are of course free to think whatever you want. (As if you needed me to tell you that.)
The left and liberalism are not synonymous. But I guess for the sake of simplicity we’re all going to pretend that the left, liberals, the right and conservatives do not exist and are straw men.
Oh, please, this is all standard playbook stuff.
Right now, the GOP has some momentum; they won a 51-49 squeaker, so now the game is to rebadge that win as the leading edge of a strong historical shift. The point of this is to make the just-under-half of the country that doesn’t like Bush, or, at least, liked Kerry or Nader better, feel that their political choices associate them with lunatics.
The GOP wants to consolidate the impression that the country is surging rightward, and hopefully set up a stronger majority showing in ’06. Notice the constant portrayal in Reynolds’ post of “the left” as an ideology whose time is past, and of leftists as mired in a lost yesterday. Clinton did the same thing, making the middle feel that voting for Bush or Dole was tantamount to putting Jerry Falwell in the white house, and rolling back the clock to the cro-magnon era. It’s all very standard, and all very scripted and intentional. Repellant? Certainly. It is shockingly irresponsible for Reynolds and his ilk to associate 58 million people with the belief that 9-11 was justified, and imply that only Bush voters were angered by the attack. But surprising? Not so much.
By the way, I always find it funny to read people who talk about how Reynolds used to be better and describe him as a libertarian. Please. Reynolds’ schtick is only confusing until you recognize him as a dyed-in-the-wool partisan Republican.
Jes,
My apologies. The majority of your posts are from a conservative/Republican perspective.
Does that make you feel better?
Hilzoy,
From neodude:
“So if they can compare Moore with Duke, then I can compare American Right-Wingers with German Right-Wingers, or American Nationalist with German Nationalist.”
There’s that face you’re looking for. That’s the face that lost the election.
The left and liberalism are not synonymous. But I guess for the sake of simplicity we’re all going to pretend that the left, liberals, the right and conservatives do not exist and are straw men.
Not that they don’t exist, but that their exact denotation is wildly unclear and shifting. Therefore, if you’re going to say bad stuff about a large group of people, it’s misleading and unpleasant not to define that group more accurately than ‘the Left’ or ‘liberals’.
I have a pretty clear understanding of ‘left’ as a political direction — I know who I’m to the left of, and who I’m to the right of (although even this is on a “I know it when I see it” basis).
I’m to the left of more than half the Democratic party. I’ve never been a member of a Stalinist, or other Communist, identified group; while I sympathize with the broad goals of most leftist gender/sexual orientation/racial-issues activists, I don’t have too much trouble finding things that I can’t accept or find silly in those camps; and I do very little that could be described as activism, although I believe I should do more. I don’t know if that makes me part of ‘the Left’.
‘Liberal’ is even worse. First, you run into the libertarian “we’re the real liberals” argument, which while it may be historically sound is just confusing in modern terms. Second, there are two very contradictory meanings within the left side of the political spectrum: from a Republican, and generally from people without a strong sense of political vocabulary who have picked up the Republican usage, it means “far to the left within the Democratic party”; from a seriously political leftist, on the other hand, it generally means “not far enough left for me — talks a good game, but votes with the center when you don’t watch them.”
This doesn’t mean that these words are unacceptable or off-limits, just that it’s wrong to use them as if they unambiguously (or even anywhere near unambiguously) designate a group of people.
Thanks crionna.
Sebastian, I want to apologize–I think I was expressing myself poorly in a way that made you think I was saying what people said to you wasn’t so bad, or I didn’t believe you. I didn’t think either of those things, but I didn’t phrase my posts as carefully as I could have, and they might have given that impression.
I do think that Churchill was worse, for reasons I think I finally got around to stating in the last post before this one.
I don’t agree with DeLong’s statements early on in the post. On the other hand, I think you are less responsible for the statements of a loony academic, or a loony talk radio host, or an overrated blowhard of a movie director, then you are for the actions of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the undersecretaries of Defense, the White House Counsel, the Office of Legal Council, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, every Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary committee, and (so far) Senators Specter, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, Hutchinson, Martinez, Kyl, Gregg, Chambliss…and I’m sure to have many more names for that list by the end of the day.
And Charles, I do share some of Clinton’s responsibility for Rwanda. (Well, I was too young to actually ever vote for Clinton but close enough.) However, I had no reason to anticipate it in 1992, and in 1996 and 2000 both candidates opposed doing anything in Rwanda. In 2004 my two favorite primary candidates and my party’s nominee all had a different policy on intervention to stop a genocide. And there is a very big difference between sins of omission and comission.
OT–my fellow members of The Left ™: Durbin (my future Senator Dick Durbin!) apparently gave quite a speech on the Senate floor just now. I’m off to go search the C-Span website.
Once again, Smlook, I conclude it’s not worth trying to continue this conversation.
In other words, if some of the other guys can be illogical, then so can I!
“Sebastian, I want to apologize–I think I was expressing myself poorly in a way that made you think I was saying what people said to you wasn’t so bad, or I didn’t believe you. I didn’t think either of those things, but I didn’t phrase my posts as carefully as I could have, and they might have given that impression.”
No problem. If you were always perfect, we would resent you. 🙂
Oh, and crionna:
Your first paragraph: absolutely. The rest, I can’t take any credit for.
I’m going to argue, I guess, that Glenn Reynolds likely has a notion of “left” as a political direction and comments referring to the “left” apply to those people.
We can all argue about who is left and who is not; who is liberal, whatever. That’s fine. But just because people have different ideological maps of politics doesn’t mean you’re not able to critique people on the basis of them.
Right-Wingers do share quite a bit in common. Especially, Western Right-Wingers.
I accept being compared to German Social-Democrats.
Charles says: “Democrats–all Democrats save a very few–by backing Bill Clinton and refusing to clean their own house after the genocide in Rwanda *have* brought shame upon this country.”
Yes, given the way the Republican leadership and rank and file took up Rwanda as a cause, and fought furiously with the Clinton Administration, demanding intervention in Rwanda, failing only due to the Administration’s firm opposition, and the lack of any Democratic Congressional support, it is entirely reasonable to praise the Republicans for their noble adherence to humanitarian interventionism, and blame America’s failure in Rwanda on the Democrats.
There is no doubt that the blame goes to Democrats. Let’s praise the Republicans. Could you post a link, though, Charles, to the Republican Senate Leader’s inspiring speech calling for American intervention in Rwanda? Or the Republican Speaker of the House’s fantastic speech echoing that call? They were great, I remember, but I’m having trouble finding the links.
I’m so glad to see the Republicans given the praise they deserve for their moral leadership in Rwanda, and the Democrats given the sole blame. That’s the only possible honest description, isn’t it?
Anyone who would say that blaming just the Democrats is, well, being completely dishonest, well, they must be a loony leftist, and wrong, right?
“…Color me speechless. This is, sadly….”
…a moronic troll you are responding to; why respond to a troll, Charles?
NeoDue says: “So if they can compare Moore with Duke, then I can compare American Right-Wingers with German Right-Wingers, or American Nationalist with German Nationalist.”
Could I suggest making Godwin violations a violation of the posting rules?
No, but we do try to stress, here, that dismissing arguments purely because of who uttered them (and various descents into that person’s personal hygiene, political affiliation, etc) isn’t quite as effective as flaying that argument using fact and logic. Or at least, with something more than a token attempt at logic.
You’ll have no quarrel from me on this point.
Actually, Don Q is a fairly regular commentor, here, although he skates rather nearer the brink of posting rules violation than I’d like to see. So you, Gary, are in violation of a posting rule. Feel free, though, to flense Don Q using fact and logic, though, as mentioned above.
Saturn Begins Eating His Children
Speaking of Churchill and the, well arguably, true face of the Right, read this rant against O’Reilly on The Anti-Idiotarian Rottwieiler. Caution, it’s not at all civil.
Love will tear us apart…
Oh, and I second Slarti…let’s not call folks “moronic trolls” here please.
I’m tired, hilzoy and the gang wore me down, I give….I give…I’ll stop making the analogy…sheeesh…my mind is tired.
I don’t even read Misha anymore, Edward. I kind of used to be a regular, but there’s only so much invective that one person can take. Isn’t there?
I kind of used to be a regular, but there’s only so much invective that one person can take. Isn’t there?
Essentially why I stopped reading a whole spectrum of blogs (left and right). Not good for the blood pressure, you know.
I’m going to argue, I guess, that Glenn Reynolds likely has a notion of “left” as a political direction and comments referring to the “left” apply to those people.
I think I was unclear here — when I said direction I meant it in the sense that west is a direction. Saying that India is to the west of China doesn’t meaningfully identify India as “the West”. You are almost certainly politically to the left of someone — does that mean that you are a member of the Left?
We can all argue about who is left and who is not; who is liberal, whatever. That’s fine. But just because people have different ideological maps of politics doesn’t mean you’re not able to critique people on the basis of them.
No, but it does mean that you should be clear about what map you’re using. There are two (well, many more, but at least two) possible meanings of the Left. You could mean a very small group of activist academics, or you could mean everyone (or almost everyone) who votes Democratic. Reynolds’ post, calling Churchill the face of the Left, is in my opinion wrong, but at least arguable/not blitheringly insane if by “the Left” he means a very small group of activist academics. If he means, by “the Left”, most people who vote Democratic, he’s a slanderous nutcase for claiming that Churchill represents them.
What he seems to be doing, consciously or unconsciously, is using the very narrow definition to justify his post, but then using the broad definition to smear everyone that he disagrees with politically. This is a very different thing from simply arguing at the margins about who does or doesn’t fall into a reasonably well-defined group.
Yeah, I think that “radical Left” or “fringe Left” would have been a better choice (although, probably, still not perfect). Equating someone like, say, Joe Lieberman to Churchill as inadvertent fallout from an endeavor to create guilt by association is probably not what Glenn intended. I’m sure that one could find some equally guilty party on the Right and make the same sort of error. If one hasn’t, already. I do believe I’ve been thrown in with the likes of David Duke on more than one occasion, although not so much here at OW.
Slarti: Churchill did write a swell textbook on Complex Variables, though. Didn’t he? I think I’d much rather review that.
You bastard, Slarti. Of course, you knew that I’d get sidetracked the moment you uttered that sentence, so I’ve had to spend almost five whole minutes hunting it down! Five minutes that I could have productively spent, well, doing something!
[As a matter of fact, no, it was a different Churchill. Bastard.]
BTW, I cannot believe that after all this no-one has actually gone to the horse’s mouth. I mean, Katherine put a trademark after “The Left”, but did she bother to mention who had trademarked it? Of course not.
Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado: The Left.
[Here’s one of the sequel posts, btw, that, um, fleshes out the image. There are further entries in that vein but I leave their discovery to you, gentle reader.]
Perhaps then the ambiguity here depends on your familiarity with Reynolds. I have a good idea what map he uses from reading him for years, therefore I can guess what he’s getting at. Not particularily precise – but I don’t think we can expect bloggers to preface any critique of political factions with a lengthy and precise taxonomy.
I have no reason to believe that he does.
“…So you, Gary, are in violation of a posting rule. Feel free, though, to flense Don Q using fact and logic, though, as mentioned above.”
I apologize, and withdraw my statement. I’ll rephrase: “…a valueless trolling argument you are responding to; why respond to such a worthles, trollish, argument, Charles?”
Sebastian: I think that the remarks you described were uniformly vile. And I agree with you that they’re relatives of the sort of thing Churchill said, and also of what I was complaining about with respect to Reynolds and Prager: namely, a willingness to make extremely serious accusations against people without really thinking about what you’re doing. I think this sort of thing is ugly in all its forms. Nonetheless, I still think there’s a difference between — well, I won’t talk about the people who made the remarks you described, since I don’t know them, but the people who made similar remarks about me.
There are a lot of cases where we can say: here’s a fairly common (ugly) impulse which many people act on to some extent; here’s its logical conclusion, which is far uglier. Here’s suspicion and dislike of people who are unlike you; there’s its endpoint, killing them. Here’s the impulse to abuse any power you have over other people, and to try to protect your ability to do so; there’s the KKK. But a lot of people who share in the first impulse in each pair will stop far short of the latter, in my experience. Someone who says that you might as well be a member of the KKK, or that you should be shot, has gone some way along a path that leads from the general inclination not to really think about one’s opponents as people, and to try to understand what they are saying, to some horrible endpoint. Any steps along that path are too many. But someone who goes into print saying that the people who died in 9/11 deserved it has gone a lot further. And that tells us something about him: that while for all I know the people who have made various fairly serious charges against you or me might, for all we know, stop long before they made a whole career out of that stuff — might really be brought up short, as Katherine says, by the actual literal murder of the people they might have talked about, or might have thought more before they published than before making a vile remark — the person who says that those who died on 9/11 deserved to die is not one of them. Whatever it might take to make him realize that words have meaning and accusations are serious, apparently 9/11 isn’t enough. And that’s a lot more than I know about any of the people who have said hateful things about me. Which is why I treat them differently. (None of this is meant to say: the remarks you described were not vile. They were.)
This is related to what I object to about, say, Instapundit’s post. It’s the willingness to make really serious claims about, for instance, “the Left’s” moral and intellectual decay without bothering to make it clear who he’s talking about, that bugs me, especially since I think, as I said, that the people it’s true of are not that numerous, while calling them “the Left” makes it sound as though they are.
I mean: for me, listening to Rush Limbaugh, say, is exactly like spending time with the sort of person who would say, oh, you obviously are just like a KKK member, except that (a) I don’t know how consistently your acquaintance says such things, while Rush has made a career out of it, and (b) your acquaintance does not have gazillions of listeners who are inclined to believe him or her. Alternately, it’s as though I decided that the Right is epitomized by some of the more revolting Freepers, or the hateful Prof. Kozloff (sp? the one Edward referred to), and decided to keep insisting on that, to your face, while dismissing every counterexample you brought up as either not a ‘real conservative’ or an aberrant one. I could do that and never be proved wrong, exactly. But all I’d be showing you, really, was what my imagination looks like, and also that I don’t have the character and decency not to make serious accusations against large groups of people without being able to back up what I say with something more than, ‘well, there’s this idiot somewhere who said X, and he’s on the right.
Don Q: I think it’s wrong when people say that it’s OK for Americans to do something that they’d condemn if it were done by anyone else, on the grounds that, well, we’re Americans. I also think it’s wrong when we say that it’s OK for non-Americans to do things that we’d condemn if Americans did them. (Excluding cases where nationality is actually relevant.) One standard for all, that’s my view, though that standard can take local differences into account. (E.g., I think it’s wrong to be gratuitously rude to one’s hosts. What counts as gratuitous rudeness obviously varies from one culture to another.)
I think it’s wrong when we harm innocent people without some very compelling reason. (Example of compelling reason: if X is genuinely necessary to win World War II, and will predictably result in some harm to innocent civilians.) I also think it’s wrong when Osama bin Laden does this. He may think it’s in a good cause, but then, cleverly, I also believe it’s incumbent on anyone who is going to invoke the ‘genuinely compelling reason’ exemption above to think very hard about whether they actually have such a reason, one compelling enough to make the sacrifice of innocents even remotely bearable. I also think it’s incumbent on them to do what they can to minimize possible loss of innocent life. If you object to, for instance, the US’ support of various appalling groups in distant civilwars, groups that have death squads and kill people and reduce their country to ruins, on the grounds that it is, among other things, needlessly careless with other people’s lives, how can you possibly say that 9/11 was anything other than completely horrendous?
I accept the nomination. My thanks to the academy, my family who supported me during (and indeed, contributed to) my metamorphosis from Nice Guy to Bastard, and thanks lastly to my father, without whose National Review subscription I wouldn’t have been the Bastard I am today. Thanks once again!
Of course I knew that. It’s on my bookshelf.
About the last post: at the end of the first para., I meant to say” differences between those people and Ward whosis.
Wow, long comment train and I’m at the end of oblivion.
Hilzoy, it’s pretty obvious where this stuff comes from: Confirmation Bias. And lawyers are professionally trained to exploit this confirmation bias. Everyone has it, and it’s pretty darn hard to get rid of it or mediate it. But lawyers! Heck, they swimit’s their job.
Take, for example, our very own Sebastian Holsclaw. This is the guy who bitch slapped the ACLU for speaking out about torture in Gitmo way before it became popular to do so. And he’s also the guy who bizarrely pulled out a comment from Crooked Timber as proof that the left physically threatens people just like the right does.
And this is a guy we all think is a reasonably righteous dude.
I know that one can only point out the confirmation bias of others – by definition. I’m quite sure I have my own problems with it in spades. But it’s pretty clear what the answer to your question is.
Confirmation bias rules.
Internal Memo
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has given me an idea:I recall one of my very first posts here at Obsidian Wings. It was shortly after the Abu Ghraib story broke, and I said something like: “The Republicans have brought shame on…
Ahh, good old Hal. I don’t think it exactly qualifies as ‘bizarre’ that I responded to your statement “Haven’t seen any physical threats yet from the left, nor even threats intimated but not outright expressed.” (Which is well on its face ridiculous as if you have never read Pandagon) with a specific example from the very same day that you made the statement. The comment I quoted was on CrookedTimber (a major blog) by abb1 (a frequent commentor) who suggested that it might be funny to take another commentor’s email and submit it to the FBI as a terrorist in the hopes that that commentor could get tortured. It was one that I had run across just minutes before reading your post, so it leapt to mind. You are quite certain that it was a joke. I, having read abb1’s comments for almost a year, am fairly certain it was not.
BTW, I was annoyed with Amnesty International in the post you quote, not the ACLU. They are rather different organizations. You can tell I’m talking about Amenesty International and not the ACLU by the term I use to refer to the group–Amensty International. 😉 I have long been annoyed by AI’s inability to distinguish between war crimes e.g. their classic press release expressing moral equivalance between the US bombing of the official Iraqi propaganda TV station and the Iraq army using women as human shields. I have also been irritated by their constant comparison with death penalty protections in the US as being similar to that of China (where they can actually kill you in the back of a van one minute after the sentence is handed down). I don’t have that particular problem with the ACLU, which is a useful if not sometimes short-sighted institution
“Amensty”?
Sebastian, having been a member of Amnesty International now for some years, I can’t say I’ve ever seen them saying anything like what you describe:
their classic press release expressing moral equivalance between the US bombing of the official Iraqi propaganda TV station and the Iraq army using women as human shields. I have also been irritated by their constant comparison with death penalty protections in the US as being similar to that of China
If you actually have a link to a press release where they say there is no difference between the war crime of bombing a TV station because it’s broadcasting propaganda, and the war crime of using civilians as human shields (both are war crimes, as I trust you know) then why not cite it?
Ditto your claim that they “constantly” compare the death penalty in the US with the death penalty in China. If you’re going to routinely badmouth an excellent international organisation, you really should be able to back your claims up with cites to their website showing they do what you said they do.
Further, this has nothing really to do with the point that you were wrong to dismiss the allegations of torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and Amnesty International were right.
JHCORFC, Sebastian. Okay, it was AI, not the ACLU. I was typing in a hurry. I’m sure that tiny mistake on my part justifies your irritation.
WRT abb1’s comment, I suggest that others weigh in on this.
BTW, I really loved your comment on that thread
Yes, it’s the classic leftist style to be openly inciting acts of violence.
You keep saying this is a wide spread phenomena on the left and you can’t produce jack. You fall back on the old saw of “everyone” knows and “well, you obviously haven’t been reading X”, without a shred of proof to back it up. . .
“No, my ears are really burning. I wanted to see inside, so I lit a Q-tip.”
Thanks for the props, Anarch. I respond to the Perfesser’s scandalous lack of research into The Left here. It’s got a picture of Pikachu head-butting Mario, so there’s something for everybody.
why respond to a troll, Charles?
Well, excuse me for not knowing the composition of commenters here, Gary. Could a new guy get cut that much slack? Critiquing the Rwanda analogy is beside the point. I could’ve picked another in response to what DeLong wrote.
hilzoy, this gives me a good opportunity to respond to your comment from my blog:
Actually, although Glenn’s post wasn’t incredibly specific, my post was very specific. Can anyone reasonably doubt that Norman Thomas and the American Socialist Party was “the Left”? And, for those who actually took the time to read my post rather than getting their backs up, that that was what I was talking about?
“I also note that abb1 in classic leftist style seems to be openly inciting acts of violence against those with whom he disagrees.”
Look at the date. I was a much ruder person back then. 🙂
Look at the date. I was a much ruder person back then. 🙂
Fair point! 😀
Jesurgislac, I would have sworn I’ve linked this one before, but here it is . The press release in question is:
Things to note. Press releases are a very standardized format. You know the news service won’t quote the whole thing so you strictly put the most important things on top. Also note the 5 long paragraphs on the bombing of the Ba’ath-run TV station. Note then invocation of ‘total war’ spurred by that bombing. Then note the rushed through cursory mention of three of the most serious non-genocide war crimes possible.
I never know what to do with accusations like that of ‘drawing a moral equivalence’, in a context where there is no statement of the form ‘X is just as bad as Y’. What I want to do is nominate you for a Carnac award — I can think of good reasons for structuring the press release as it was structured other than to “draw a moral equivalence”.
Most obviously, it appears that the bombing of the TV station was the concrete news event to which the release responded, and that the mention of Iraqi-committed war crimes was to provide balance, even in the absence of a simultaneous and equivalently well supported Iraqi-committed war crime story. I can’t show that AI wasn’t purposefully softpedaling Iraqi-committed war crimes, but I don’t believe that this pres release shows that they were.
So were they accidentally softpedaling Iraqi war crimes? Because they certainly were softpedaling them. And frankly this press release exhibits a typical (for AI, I won’t say the left) conflation of types of crimes. You can talk about genocide as a crime and you can talk about jaywalking as a crime. But if you talk about both in the same couple of paragraphs, it is highly misleading to just lump them together as ‘crimes’. Bombing an Iraqi government propaganda outlet is almost certainly NOT a war crime. The classification of a Ba’athist TV station being regularly used by the government to transmit information and propaganda as an off-limits ‘civilian’ target is suspect to the say the least. This is in direct contrast to placing your military installations next to schools, shelling civilians to sow confusion, and hiding behind women and children for an ambush. The fact that AI doesn’t bother to notice the difference in severity of the claims–and in fact downplays the more serious ones–does not do the organization credit in my mind.
So were they accidentally softpedaling Iraqi war crimes? Because they certainly were softpedaling them.
Not if the press release was occasioned by news about the bombing to the TV station, and there was not similar news about bad Iraqi acts (that is, the references in the release seem to be general “Iraqis have been known to do this kind of thing”, rather than “This just in!”). To make the argument you’re making, you would have to show that Iraqi acts about which there was similar information available were reported differently, and you really haven’t shown that — you have to assume bad faith to get there.
I’m not expecting to convince you. I recognize that this press release screams bias on its face to you. I’m just noting that, without a prior belief in AI’s bad faith, it does not demonstrate a drawing of moral equivalence to me.
DQ: Congratulations for far and away winning Worst Obsidian Wings Comment Ever! Door prizes will be given out.
Generally I consider it a fairly liberal idea — in all political senses of the word — that when you want to punish someone for committing a heinous act, you should punish the people actually responsible, instead of, say people that look like those responsible or people born into the same society but not an active supporter of the actions or all people named “Dave,” or what have you. Further, hey, a lot of genuine liberals tend to think that it’s a bad idea for someone to decide that they have the authority to decide to kill even someone directly responsible for atrocity. But thanks for the notion that people who tried to kill a bunch of people I know (and succeeded in a few cases) were justified.
You know, a lot of things the Belgians did in the Congo really piss me off. I think I’m going to go shoot Jean-Claude Van Damme. Hmm… maybe not the best example as that has the ancillary benefits of no more Van Damme movies.
Moe’s Rule
I am going to adopt Moe’s Rule for my posts at Dean Nation…
“Not if the press release was occasioned by news about the bombing to the TV station, and there was not similar news about bad Iraqi acts (that is, the references in the release seem to be general “Iraqis have been known to do this kind of thing”, rather than “This just in!”).”
Look at the date. If AI knew there were cases of Iraqis doing the three things they noted during the war, they didn’t have a lot of time to find out before this date. So it was either ‘just in’ or completely made up.
Sebastian: Bombing an Iraqi government propaganda outlet is almost certainly NOT a war crime. The classification of a Ba’athist TV station being regularly used by the government to transmit information and propaganda as an off-limits ‘civilian’ target is suspect to the say the least.
You’re entitled to make that argument, but you need to make it with the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (specifically, the section dealing with the RTS bombing.
I would recommend reading the report; the judgement on the RTS attack is found on paragraphs 75 and 76: “For the station to be a military objective within the definition in Article 52 of Protocol I: a) its nature, purpose or use must make an effective contribution to military action and b) its total or partial destruction must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. ….. As indicated in paras. 72 and 73 above, the attack appears to have been justified by NATO as part of a more general attack aimed at disrupting the FRY Command, Control and Communications network, the nerve centre and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power, and also as an attempt to dismantle the FRY propaganda machinery. Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable.” [Para 76] “Disrupting government propaganda may help to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces, but justifying an attack on a civilian facility on such grounds alone may not meet the ‘effective contribution to military action’ and ‘definite military advantage’ criteria required by the Additional Protocols (see paras. 35-36, above).” ….. “While stopping such propaganda may serve to demoralize the Yugoslav population and undermine the government’s political support, it is unlikely that either of these purposes would offer the ‘concrete and direct’ military advantage necessary to make them a legitimate military objective. NATO believed that Yugoslav broadcast facilities were “used entirely to incite hatred and propaganda” and alleged that the Yugoslav government had put all private TV and radio stations in Serbia under military control (NATO press conferences of 28 and 30 April1999). However, it was not claimed that they were being used to incite violence akin to Radio Milles Collines during the Rwandan genocide, which might have justified their destruction (see para. 47 above). …. The committee finds that if the attack on the RTS was justified by reference to its propaganda purpose alone, its legality might well be questioned by some experts in the field of international humanitarian law. It appears, however, that NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milosević in power.”
In short, NATO got away with bombing a civilian TV station in Kosovo because it was able to claim that the intent was the concrete military goal of knocking out a military communications system: it has never been established (indeed, the committee said “it is doubtful”) that knocking out a TV station because it broadcasts propaganda can be justified as a concrete military goal justifying the killing of civilians.
Or weakly supported — after all, look at them: the first, shelling civilians in Basra, is just weird. Why would the Iraqi army be shelling Iraqi civilians? (Yes, yes, causeless malignity, but if they wanted to kill Iraqi civilians, they could do that anytime, rather than waiting for a war. Do you know anything about this incident other than this release?) The second, placing military targets near civilians, is a huge judgment call — after all, the Iraqi army was fighting a defensive war in a country full of civilians. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they did criminally shelter behind civilians, but differentiating between a war crime and a response to the exigiencies of the situation in any specific instance is clearly non-trivial, and I’m not surprised if AI didn’t have what they felt to be a reliable enough incident to report in detail, rather than broad-based accusations (which, don’t get me wrong, were likely to have been true). And the third, again, is something that I can easily see as a topic that would generate a lot of reports, but that it might be very hard to substantiate.
I don’t mean to say or imply that the Iraqi Army did not commit more, and more severe, war crimes than the US Army. They easily may have. I am merely noting that the press release you complain of is mostly devoted to reporting one concrete incident, and the ‘softpedaling’ may simply be the result of weaker factual support for the Iraqi crimes than for the American.
“Bombing an Iraqi government propaganda outlet is almost certainly NOT a war crime.”
It lacks meaning to discuss an assertion without referent to what it is being judged against.
Put another way: according to who? Which authority one chooses to cite as controlling will determine the answer one desires.
If anyone wants to debate, for instance, what is and is not a war crime, it is necessary to first establish a mutally-agreed-upon authority and framework. Whom do you regard as the final authority in this, Sebastian? And you, Jes and Lizardbreath and anyone else?
If anyone wants to debate, for instance, what is and is not a war crime, it is necessary to first establish a mutally-agreed-upon authority and framework.
The Geneva Conventions seem like a good place to start. In the specific instance Sebastian is referring to, I already cited a committee who spent some time deciding whether another instance of the US bombing a civilian TV station was or was not a war crime.
Jesurgislac, please note the huge non-confirmation language in such phrases as “its legality might well be questioned by some experts” or “may not meet”. I also note that the ties to Ba’athist government were closer than the ties to the Yugoslavian government, and in the Ba’athist case it had been controlled and censored by the military for decades. The idea that destroying government controlled radio or television stations is a war crime or that they ought to be counted as ‘civilian objects’ is at best a recent innovation, as opposed to the idea that using civilians as human shields is a war crime, which is pretty much a given.
And even if I accept that bombing the TV station is a war crime (which I do not) comparing it to just randomly shelling civilians is pathetic. At worst the TV station inhabits a grey area on the border of the law. Random shelling of civilians violates the core part of the rules. Hiding behind civlians for ambush is a violation of the core of the law. Putting civilian installations in danger by putting military targets in hospitals and schools is a violation of the core of the law. Focusing on the grey side issues while downplaying the clear black issues is ridiculous. And that last sentence is my response to Gary too.
“US bombing a civilian TV station was or was not a war crime.”
I note that you assume the very question when you formulate it as ‘civilian TV station’. The sections you quote are for civilian targets. A station completely run by a dictator’s government used for the purposes of having his military personnel talk to the population is not self-evidently ‘civilian’.
And ONCE AGAIN Amensty International is focusing on a maybe/maybe not ‘crime’ while downplaying the definite, obvious, clear crimes which go to the very heart of the civilian protections. And that is pathetic.
Interesting that according to Opinion Journal, Instapundit’s source of information on Churchill,
“his [Churchill’s] screeds usually attract little notice outside obscure Marxist Web sites and the like.”
This is Reynolds “image of the left.”
What nonsense. It’s hard to know whether Reynolds or Churchill is the larger jackass. The thought that they both are teachers makes me shudder.
Hamilton College cancels address by Churchill under duress.
Slarti: A station completely run by a dictator’s government used for the purposes of having his military personnel talk to the population is not self-evidently ‘civilian’.
Depends. Is that the station’s sole purpose – having no civilian functions? Are all the broadcasters and all the personnel who work there military? The key point to the Kosovo committee was: “Does it serve a concrete military purpose” and they didn’t count propaganda as such.
“Focusing on the grey side issues while downplaying the clear black issues is ridiculous. And that last sentence is my response to Gary too.”
Hokay. You and Jes have a good time talking past each other, then. Jes will cite the Geneva Conventions, which are not human authorities, and which anyone can interpret as they wish, and the UN, which I’m entirely sure Sebastian grants is the ultimate and unquestionable authority. Sebastian will cite his own opinion.
This will be entirely productive, and you’ll both have gained a lot from the discussion, I’m sure. My own point that unless you agree upon a controlling authority you won’t agree is clearly wrong. My bad.
Actually my point is that under any normal understanding of war crimes, the TV station is at very best a border issue while shelling Basra is clearly a breach of the core of the concept. This point, as yet entirely unaddressed, is not particularly dependent on finding a perfect arbiter of the idea of war crimes.
“Actually my point is that under any normal understanding of war crimes, the TV station is at very best a border issue while shelling Basra is clearly a breach of the core of the concept.”
I, myself, think there’s a fair case to be made for that, but my personal opinion is not really relevant to convincing anyone else, and I rather suspect that neither is anyone else’s personal opinion, be it your’s, Jes’s, or anyone else’s.
“This point, as yet entirely unaddressed, is not particularly dependent on finding a perfect arbiter of the idea of war crimes.”
Fortunately, I didn’t suggest such an unobtainable authority of a “perfect arbiter” but simply pointed out the need to agree on a common arbiter. Anyone (more likely an institutional body) at all will do, you know.
Don Q.: Can you let me know how the dishwashers at the Windows On The World restaurant were involved in those CIA actions? Thanks.
can you tell me how this
little girl supported Saddam?
If you are a US citizen, you are responsible for the foreign policy of the US. Since the US citizenship did not throw out all the goverments that backed all of the coups and started all those civil wars one must assume that the majority of US citizens approved.
Since Shrub got reelected, one must assume that Americans approve of Abu-Grahib, Gitmo, the Iraqi & Afghan Invasion.
what you get for not previewing…
can you tell me how this little girl supported Saddam?
DQ: Can you tell me how two or more wrongs make a right?
Sure, if one were a complete ass.
From the way it’s being discussed, I’m thinking everyone else is familiar with the story, but I’m not having any luck finding it on Google (‘shelling’ and ‘Basra’ don’t narrow it down much). What happened with the Iraqi army shelling civilians in Basra? Why were they shelling Iraqi civilians?
Sure, if one were a complete ass.
At least 51% did!
I never heard a follow up on why they were shelling Basra. When the story was originally reported I remember someone speculating that they were trying to force the US soldiers to deal with a mass of refugees herded at them.
Fortunately we don’t even need an institutional body because my point about the relative location of ‘bombing a TV station’ and ‘using human shields’ on a probability chart of core war crimes vs. maybe/maybe not crimes remains for almost anyone who wants to use the term ‘war crimes’ in any useful way.
“Bombing a TV station” is at the very very worst right on the edge of the border-zone between acceptable and unacceptable. The Iraqi practices were clearly with in the core definition of unacceptable. Discussing them as both ‘war crimes’ and focusing on the former rather than the latter is as useful as talking about both jaywalking and stabbing your mother’s eyes out in front of her grandchildren before removing her liver while her blood was pooling and feeding it to the neighbors as both ‘crimes’.
Don Q, let me be more clear:
You are in violation of the posting rules. I don’t know what language you speak over there in Hicksville, NY, but I’ll say it slowly and clearly: knock it off.
Sebastian said: “‘Bombing a TV station’ is at the very very worst right on the edge of the border-zone between acceptable and unacceptable.”
And yet I’m quite sure I can find people who disagree. I’m quite sure I can find people with good credentials on international law and war crimes who disagree.
And I’m really pretty sure that they won’t accept your citing yourself as an object, neutral, agreed-upon, arbiter.
I could be wrong, though.
But if you really think the way to convince someone is not to first mutually agree upon a standard or authority, but simply to keep asserting that one’s own opinion is incontrovertibly correct, carry on, and may it serve you well.
Slarti cites this as the posting rules: “http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2003/12/the_longawaited.html”
However, if one clicks on “Posting Rules,” these “rules” are not found. I repeat for the third time: “posting rules” that are not, in fact, prominently posted, posted on the template, posted as “Posting Rules,” are not posted posting rules. I ask, again, that if the above are the Posting Rules, that they be posted as the Posting Rules. Where it says, you know, “Posting Rules.”
I really don’t think this is much to ask, and I am absolutely baffled that there are “posting rules” that aren’t posted on the template, but hidden amongst tens of thousands of comments posted on this blog; it’s one of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever seen a blog do. How, exactly, do you folks expect people to know about these rules-in-the-comments?
Let me be clear of what I’m speaking: where’s all the stuff about how any blog-owner — a still secret category, insofar as the template speaks to it, save that Edward, Von, and Hilzoy recommend some blogs — can ban someone, and what the appeal process is, in the posted rules?
Gary:
Is “be reasonably civil” too ambiguous for you? Maybe they’re more like posting guidelines, but we’re a little casual, here. Smlook (on the other thread) and Don Quixote here stepped rather further from civility than we like. Also the note forbidding abuse of fellow posters for its own sake.
You’re welcome to attempt a swag at clarified posting rules, but I rather like the ambiguity we currently employ. If we had exact guidelines, we’d have a great many people delicately skirting them.
Hmm — when I clicked on ‘Posting Rules’ (on the right, under the search field), it pulled up ‘The Long-Awaited Posting Rules’.
I’ll repeat: “…where’s all the stuff about how any blog-owner — a still secret category, insofar as the template speaks to it, save that Edward, Von, and Hilzoy recommend some blogs — can ban someone, and what the appeal process is, in the posted rules?”
That’s what I’m asking; I’m not asking for more finely honed rules so that people can game them. Where’s a simple list of who has the right to ban? How is a newcomer to know?
I know perfectly well no one is deliberately trying to keep it a secret who the posters here are — again, I don’t mean Real Names, I simply mean a list of who the posters are under their chosen handle — but no one seems to have noticed that you’ve wound up effectively making this simple thing secret information to be ferretted out only by time and deduction if you’re a newbie here. That’s not terribly fair to them, is it?
I also think that Edward was taking point on this and as he is getting ready to go to Spain, he should be punished severely for doing something as enjoyable as that and hence, should be berated for not getting them up. (;^)
I’d also note that the new rules on banning came up after a rather painful thread for all involved, so I can imagine that they might at least want to let a scab form before doing the mechanics of updating it.
Clearly, Edward should be spanked.
You are in violation of the posting rules. I don’t know what language you speak over there in Hicksville, NY, but I’ll say it slowly and clearly: knock it off.
A. It’s Westchester, NY
B. It’s English, French, some Spanish and a smattering of Breton.
So now let’s us make believe that I am extremely thick, and tell me in which way I have violated the posting rules.
So now let’s us
Don, I say this as someone who thinks that the question of responsibility and action is not as clear cut as some here do, but the above phrase suggests that you are at the ‘trembling fingers’ stage, and you should really step back for a bit and take a break.
1. There actually is a Hicksville, New York.
2. Behold: the authentic face of The Left. Well, not really–there is no one authentic face. But he is the second highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate.
“And yet I’m quite sure I can find people who disagree. I’m quite sure I can find people with good credentials on international law and war crimes who disagree.”
You think you can find people who will say that bombing a TV station is not dramatically further from the core ideas AND specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions than shelling people’s homes in a city?
I officially challenge you to find that.
“I officially challenge you to find that.”
I officially decline, thanks. You’re welcome to believe no such people can be found. Not even at Amnesty International. Even though their existence was your point. Neither could it be possible to find any European practioners of international law, or any American practioners, or anyone at the UN, who disagree with your interpretation. I’m sure you agree they don’t exist, because you find it impossible to believe such people could be found at the UN, or in Europe, or at liberal law schools. Do I misunderstand?
“Do I misunderstand?”
As usual. Yes.
Sebastian: “Bombing a TV station” is at the very very worst right on the edge of the border-zone between acceptable and unacceptable.
No, not really. When attackers bomb a TV station, unless everyone there is military personnel (which I don’t believe was the case) they are deliberately killing civilians who are just doing their civilian jobs. To argue that they’re entitled to do that because civilian jobs include spreading propaganda against the US invasion and against the US, doesn’t appear to sit right with the Geneva Convention against harming civilians in time of war.
As an argument, it amounts to “Propaganda is dangerous! It must be stopped!” And I wouldn’t argue that propaganda isn’t dangerous – but it’s not the kind of danger attackers can stop with bombs.
Well, physically, of course, it is: bomb a printing press, and that press can’t be used any more to print propaganda: smash a computer, and that computer can’t be used any more to research/write material for propaganda: bomb a TV station, and that TV station can’t be used any more – etc. The difference is, of course, that while there are usually more than one printing press available, and generally another computer, there often won’t be more than one TV station.
The fact remains, though, that killing civilians who represent no direct physical threat to US soldiers – who are not armed and not physically attacking US soldiers – was almost certainly a war crime. As noted by the committee that investigated the bombing of the Kosovo TV station, that was legally justified because the TV station was also a nexus for communications; it was never legally justified because an attacking country is entitled to kill civilians in order to knock out the defending country’s propaganda.
We’ve kind of veered off the point, though. My point was originally that Amnesty International was justified in pointing out that the bombing of the Iraqi TV station was a war crime. Amnesty International is an even-handed organization that will point out war crimes by both sides, but here’s a point: no one press release can say everything. AI did a press release on the war crime of bombing the Iraqi TV station: they were justified in doing so, pointing out war crimes is one of the things they do. To show they are biased, you would have to research all their press releases. Do you want to do that?
“it was never legally justified because an attacking country is entitled to kill civilians in order to knock out the defending country’s propaganda.”
This TV station was attacked at night when it was not broadcasting. Does that change your opinion at all?
Distinctions
This post was partially sparked by my co-blogger Hilzoy’s post on the often unhelpful-to-conversation category know as "the left". It is a constant source of frustration that in political discussions (and generally in life) people use d…
Sebastian: This TV station was attacked at night when it was not broadcasting. Does that change your opinion at all?
How many civilians were killed when it was attacked?
can you tell me how this little girl supported Saddam?
No, I can’t. There, see what answering a question looks like?
If you are a US citizen, you are responsible for the foreign policy of the US.
For the record, I was three years old in 1971, and thus am fairly certain that I was not responsible for much of anything. As for the Bush government, I voted against it. Twice.
Nice attempt at dodging, though. Now will you answer my question? Once again, in what way were dishwashers at WotW restaurant responsible for the aforementioned CIA actions? And, further to the point, how and why were 19 Saudi Arabian airplane hijackers and suicide bombers the proper parties to dispense “long overdue payback” to these evil dishwashers?
Don Q: Since Shrub got reelected, one must assume that Americans approve of Abu-Grahib, Gitmo, the Iraqi & Afghan Invasion.
Actually, no, one must not assume that. (Not even of those Americans who voted for Bush.) I understand (I think) where you’re coming from, but as a recent post by Charles Bird demonstrated, even Americans who wholeheartedly supported Bush had their limits – they may have taken a long time to discover that yes, Bush endorsed torture, but that doesn’t mean they endorse torture, or that they are willing to support Bush’s endorsement of torture.
I find many Americans inexplicably (to me) determined to think well of their government. But I think it is wrong to assume that “determined to think well” means “supporting it even when it does wrong”. I do my best 🙂 to disabuse Americans, here and elsewhere, of their presumption that the Bush administration can do no wrong. But I try not to confuse that exasperating presumption (which is not wrong, just exasperating) with wholehearted support for Bush & Co’s crimes.
Which leads to me to:
As for 9/11, it’s long overdue payback for all the countries whose goverment we have overthrown and where our policies have caused endless misery and death (Philipines, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia ,Chile). What goes around comes around.
No, it’s really not. No more than the Al-Qaeda attack on Madrid was “long overdue payback” for the genocide committed by Spaniards in their conquest of South America. You were wrong to say this, and I wish that rather than attempting to defend yourself, you’d just apologize and back off. Really.
Clearly, Edward should be spanked.
Oy…this is a family blog*…link to Banning Policy has been added under search.
*got that covered, actually, but thanks all the same. 😉
“No, not really. When attackers bomb a TV station, unless everyone there is military personnel (which I don’t believe was the case) they are deliberately killing civilians….”
Oh, look, it didn’t take very long at all to “find” someone who disagrees with you, Sebastian. Imagine that.
For the record, I was three years old in 1971, and thus am fairly certain that I was not responsible for much of anything. As for the Bush government, I voted against it. Twice.
As a US citizen you get the benefit of the US constitution, the wealth of the country and all the other good stuff that goes with it, but you also get all the sins of the country from Slavery to Iraq. You can’t have one with out the other.
The Dishwashers like the little girl were at the wrong place at the wrong time, collateral damage.
And, further to the point, how and why were 19 Saudi Arabian airplane hijackers and suicide bombers the proper parties to dispense “long overdue payback” to these evil dishwashers?
Who is the single largest backer of the Saudi Royal family, or that of the Egyptian Goverment?
I ‘ll grant you that it would have been far more poetic justice if the suicide bombers had been guatemalans or Chileans.
jes,
Actually, no, one must not assume that.
It was common knowledge before the election, as was the fact that ther was no WMD in Iraq! and having looked at these numbers we can safely say that he wasn’t elected on his economic record, or on the glory of having captured OBL.
You were wrong to say this, and I wish that rather than attempting to defend yourself, you’d just apologize and back off. Really.
A bully who pushes people around is going to get the shit kicked out of him sooner or later, it may not be the victim of the bullying who will do it but someone will.
Don Q: It was common knowledge before the election, as was the fact that ther was no WMD in Iraq! and having looked at these numbers we can safely say that he wasn’t elected on his economic record, or on the glory of having captured OBL.
Sadly, it wasn’t common knowledge before the election. The information was available, yes – we knew that the US military had been torturing people at Bagram Airbase in 2002, and Amnesty International had concerns about prisons in Iraq since 2003 – but you cannot assume that, just because the information is there, that people will (a) have seen it (b) believe it.
A bully who pushes people around is going to get the shit kicked out of him sooner or later, it may not be the victim of the bullying who will do it but someone will.
But you can bet on it, that the 3000 people who were killed in the WTC were not among the bullies. No, Don, you’re not going to change my mind on this one: when innocent people are killed, whether in New York or Madrid or Baghdad or Kosovo or Kabul, it’s a tragedy. I do not support “payback” – whether it’s the US attacking Afghanistan or Saudi terrorists attacking the US.
I do not support “payback” – whether it’s the US attacking Afghanistan or Saudi terrorists attacking the US.
But I do, it’s the only thing that keeps the greedy bastards that run the world in check. Do you really believe that if Iraq had the means of dropping a Nuke on NY that we would have invaded?
Do you believe that the US would start a war with a country that had the means to project forces in the Continental US without thinking about it twice or thrice?
As far as Torture is concerned, the old adage “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” applies, but if republicans want to convince me that they don’t aopprove of torture, it’s easy, start the Impeachment proceedings against GWB. If you can impeach a president over a BJ, I think you should be able impeach over state sanctionned torture.
But I do, it’s the only thing that keeps the greedy bastards that run the world in check.
So then you approved of the US invading Afghanistan? Or do you only approve of “payback” against innocent Americans?
As a US citizen you get the benefit of the US constitution, the wealth of the country and all the other good stuff that goes with it, but you also get all the sins of the country from Slavery to Iraq.
Sorry, I reject moral culpability for things that happened 200 years prior to my birth. That ain’t the way the world works.
I assume at this point I’m talking to some sort of Turing program set to imitate a very sick person, right?
But I do, it’s the only thing that keeps the greedy bastards that run the world in check.
The kind of indiscriminate revenge on the weakest which you appear to be supporting in these comments never hurts the “greedy bastards who run the world”. It wasn’t President Bush who was harmed by the attack on the WTC: nor was it Osama bin Laden who was harmed by the retaliatory attack on Afghanistan. I support neither, and for the same reason – murdering innocent civilians is a reeking crime.
start the Impeachment proceedings against GWB. If you can impeach a president over a BJ, I think you should be able impeach over state sanctionned torture.
Sure. But it’s hardly the rank-and-file Republicans who can do that: it’s Congress, and ordinary Republican voters like Bird cannot do more than urge their representatives to do so.
“As a US citizen you get the benefit of the US constitution, the wealth of the country and all the other good stuff that goes with it, but you also get all the sins of the country from Slavery to Iraq. You can’t have one with out the other….Who is the single largest backer of the Saudi Royal family, or that of the Egyptian Goverment? I ‘ll grant you that it would have been far more poetic justice if the suicide bombers had been guatemalans or Chileans.”
Don Quijote: You have no clue. Really, no clue. “Far more poetic justice”–which implies there was some degree of poetic justice in what happened. “Long overdue payback.”
Are you American? If so, would it be poetic justice or overdue payback for someone to burn down your house with your wife inside it, or bomb your child’s school?
Even if you’re not American, I can pretty much guarantee you that your country has, at some point during its history, been responsible for the death or enslavement of innocents. Maybe it was longer ago than 1973. But I can’t see how you’re any less responsible for it than I was for something that my government did in secret five years before I was born, which I would have opposed strongly if I’d had the power to travel back in time. So, again: poetic justice? long overdue payback?
It’s not as if all the people murdered on September 11 were U.S. citizens either of course. 717 of them were born in some other country–here’s the breakdown:
United Kingdom 53
India 34
Dominican Republic 25
Jamaica 21
Japan 20
China 18
Colombia 18
Canada 16
Germany 16
Philippines 16
Trinidad and Tobago 15
Guyana 14
Ecuador 13
Italy 13
Ukraine 11
Korea 9
Poland 8
Russia 8
Haiti 7
Ireland 7
Pakistan 7
Taiwan 7
Cuba 6
Yugoslavia 6
Others 143
Some of them are presumably naturalized U.S. citizens but a lot of them weren’t. I’ve only been inside the WTC once, and one of the most vivid memories is of hearing all the different languages spoken in the lobby. Not that this ought to matter.
I’m sure you scorned the people who supported the Iraq war as a form of revenge for 9/11. I did too. But most of them are preferable to you. Most of them were honestly misled about whether Saddam Hussein had helped plot the attack against us. You know quite well that none of the people killed on 9/11 helped engineer the 1973 coup in Chile or the United States’ support of Reza Pahlavi.
Their primary target was Saddam Hussein, who has murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands. True, they were not the ones who had suffered at his hands–but then, Muhammad Atta was never tortured by SAVAK or Pinochet, did not lose any family members in the 1973 Chilean coup, was not held as a slave in the antebellum South. If he can avenge those crimes against people who didn’t commit them, why can’t we avenge Saddam Hussein’s crimes against the genocidal dictator himself?
Most of them honestly believed that we would save more Iraqis from being killed or tortured or imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, than would be killed or tortured or imprisoned in our invasion or its aftermath. Since you know Americans’ murderous, bullying, imperialist national character so well, surely you realize that there was no way on earth that September 11 would lead to fewer U.S. human rights abuses against Muslims.
Most of them honestly want to create a democratic government in Iraq. Are they stupid and naive to believe the Bush administration will do that? Maybe. But it’s a hell of a lot less stupid and naive than thinking that Bin Laden and Zawahiri want to create democracies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt once they throw off America’s yoke. The governments that Al Qaeda has been allied most closely with are the Taliban, and the Sudanese regime that is currently murdering tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
You mentioned the Constitution. You ought to read it. One of the founding ideas of this country, something that came even before the bill of rights, is the statement that even treason–the worst crime they thought it was possible to commit–“shall work no Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” The convicted criminal’s wife and children–who might have benefited from or acquiesced in his crimes, much more directly than anyone in the World Trade Center for any of the things you list–were not to be touched.
two more quotations:
“…the characteristic of the world we live in is just that cynical dialectic which sets up injustice against enslavement while strengthening one by the other. When we admit to the palace of culture Franco, the friend of Goebbels and of Himmler–Franco, the real victor of the Second World War–to those who protest that the rights of man inscribed in the charter of UNESCO are turned to ridicule every day in Franco’s prisons we reply without similing that Poland figures in UNESCO too and that, as far as public freedom is concerned, one is no better than the other. An idiotic argument, of course! If you were so unfortunate as to marry off your elder daughter to a sergeant in a battalion of ex-convicts, this is no reason why you should marry of her younger sister to the most elegant detective on the [ex-convict] society squad; one black sheep in the family is enough. And yet the idiotic arguments works, as is proved to us every day. When anyone brings up the slave in the colonies and calls for justice, he is reminded of prisoners in Russian concentration camps, and vice versa. And if you protest against the assassination in Prague of an opposition historian like Kalandra, two or three American Negroes are thrown in your face. In such a disgusting attempt at outbidding, one thing only does not change–the victim who is always the same.”
–Albert Camus, 5/10/53
Kieran Healy recently introduced me to a new word for this: “whataboutery<". Here's an excerpt from the description he linked to:
*short for Northern Ireland
**short for newsgroup
While I find the discussion of thinking that the 9-11 deaths as collateral damage sickening, I will admit understanding the idea that there is ‘payback’ involved (though I think votermom‘s formulation 9:12 AM of ‘inevitable karma’ is a much better way of putting it), at least in choice of targets. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, and I’m not saying that dishwashers are valid targets, just as refugees in Dresden, villagers in Korea, Iraqi families driving after curfew ‘deserve’ it. Katherine’s comment reflects my feelings about the way that you have put your argument DQ
But setting aside questions of who deserves what, I think that if one accepts that there is ‘inevitable karma’ floating around, one has to acknowledge that destructive power is more readily available. The fact that individuals have more power than ever before is a relatively clear fact, and while we can try to control things (track people who buy large amount of ammonium based fertilizer, say) we cannot prevent them if they are completely committed to causing destruction.
When the world was faced with this at the turn of the century, the destructive power was much more limited, and it was possible to ostracize anyone related to that point of view, though it took nearly a half century (see this Slate article on anarchism, though the notion that Ayn Rand was an individual anarchist is truly bizarre)
Because we don’t really have another half century, and we cannot as effectively control the levers of propaganda as we could 70-100 years ago, I think that as a practical matter (separate from the question of what is morally right), it is not possible to get things under control. It has been noted that not only that Al-Qaeda started out as an organization that was uniquely difficult to penetrate, it has evolved into an even more diffuse organization. To root out everyone who feels disaffection with the West and modern society would require such an overwhelming security apparatus, and the act of rooting them out would only create more who would spring up. We can’t wall off our borders (especially since globalization requires relatively free passage of people and merchandise), we can’t check everyone who cannot be immediately vouched for, we can’t spend our lives in fear of something happening. I have relatives and friends who live in the DC area, and their discussion of the time during the sniper attacks leads me to wonder, if two people driving around with a high powered rifle can create the kind of dread and uncertainty they did, what would happen if this was multiplied by a factor of 10 or of 100?
That we haven’t reached that point is a good sign that we haven’t reached the point of no return, but I don’t like the fact that we have people pushing us towards a point where something like that could happen.
If that argument makes sense, then it is clear that steps need to be taken to understand and address the problems that are generating opposition and make true efforts to deal with global poverty and the like. Yet, from the trashing of Sontag’s post 9-11 essay to the massive over reaction to Churchill’s talk, I don’t think that this is what is happening. I would agree that Churchill is not the best person to be presenting this position (though as a Native American, it is different aspect to his presenting such fact), but the core of the idea, that there is gap between the haves and the have nots in the world and something needs to be done, and that 9-11, in a sense, emerged from this gap, shouldn’t be treated as the unspeakable.
One could argue that the 9-11 hijackers were not from the people suffering, but were western educated, who created some faux identification with those being oppressed, and took it upon themselves to revenge them. Ignoring the moral dimensions of that question, unless we try and set up some sort of gated community that checks 3rd world students who come to study and participate in the 1st world, and we are able to effectively weed out the ones who would make that identification, as a pratical matter, we can’t stop them.
We could argue that OBL doesn’t speak for these people, and I agree, he doesn’t. But the fact that he can emerge suggests that there is a space there that needs that needs to be eliminated. The west’s refusal to take responsibility for the collapse of Afghanistan, used as a proxy against the Soviet Union needs to be understood as part of the problem.
One could argue a Huntington sort of thesis and say that we have to defeat Islam. Granting the thesis (which I don’t) it is highly unlikely we can ‘defeat’ Islam, as Islam flourishes under persecution (just like Christianity), and attempts to completely eradicate it would result in the radicalization of more youth.
I believe that this is the same argument that DQ is making, hopefully shorn of the accusatory tone and the idea that punishment for responsibility can be done in a way that is correct. I personally think that trying to assign responsibility in this case needlessly confuses matters and I find that people pull this out not when they want to convince others, but when they want to appear morally superior. My apologies for the harsh statement, DQ, but I do feel this way. If you are really interested in trying to convince rather than prove that you are better than us, I think this would be a good place to start.
Katherine puts up Camus, who, in my opinion, is the person who came the closest to getting it right. I often wonder if things might have been different in Algeria had he lived or would he have been marginalized as well. In some ways, _the First Man_, while talking about the problems of Algeria, could stand as the shape of a solution not only for Iraq, but other places as well.
I ‘ll grant you that it would have been far more poetic justice if the suicide bombers had been guatemalans or Chileans.
So there was “poetic justice” to 9/11? I’ll leave it to the arbiters to decide which is less reasonably civil: your belief that 3,000 mass-murdered civilians was “poetic justice” or mine that you’re a extremist whack job. I will gladly accept a one-day ban if so judged. Maybe it’s just me, but I see no poetry in the mass murder of the innocent, and I see no reason that those who were slaughtered on 9/11 were “collateral damage”, or that we bear and share the eternal unforgiving guilt of the sins of our forefathers. If that were the measure, I take it that you support dropping a nuke on Berlin, no?
and I see no reason that those who were slaughtered on 9/11 were “collateral damage”,
I really really really hate the term ‘collateral damage’ for people killed, no matter who the people are. It is so utterly disrespectfull; it dehumanizes the victims.
I wish it could be banned from vocabulairy.
If that were the measure, I take it that you support dropping a nuke on Berlin, no?
Not that I’m trying to take DQ’s back on this, but that’s a pretty silly comparison: we already conquered Berlin. I believe, though I’m not sure, that there was talk in the Manhattan Project of doing exactly that if the war went on too long; certainly, it’s what we ended up doing to Japan and I doubt you’re arguing that that was the wrong decision.
DQ’s point, if I may be so bold, is that Guatemalans and Chileans have a right to seek restitution and retribution from the US precisely because the US screwed them over and they were unable to retaliate. I disagree that 9/11 was a legitimate form of retribution — if for no other reason than those who were killed had nothing to do with the crimes against which the Guatemalans or Chileans would be seeking revenge — but your focus here should be on the immorality of “collective punishment” and “outright murder of civilians” rather than the particular political configurations of this dance.
So there was “poetic justice” to 9/11? I’ll leave it to the arbiters to decide which is less reasonably civil: your belief that 3,000 mass-murdered civilians was “poetic justice” or mine that you’re a extremist whack job.
Considering that you have been an enthusiastic supporter of an invasion that has at least killed at least 15654 civilians, I am not sure I would be anywhere near as judgemental as you are.
or that we bear and share the eternal unforgiving guilt of the sins of our forefathers. If that were the measure, I take it that you support dropping a nuke on Berlin, no?
African-Americans are on average poorer the White Americans, a consequence of past Racism, Affirmative action is an attempt to take responsability for past sins.
German Corporations are forced to pay restitution to Jewish survivors, I am sure that the people running said corporations today had nothing to do with the Nazi Party, Germany has some of the toughest hate speech laws on the books all a consequence of Germans taking responsability for past actions.
jes,
Sure. But it’s hardly the rank-and-file Republicans who can do that: it’s Congress, and ordinary Republican voters like Bird cannot do more than urge their representatives to do so.
Bird, Sebastian and all the other right-wing blogs (LGF,Red State,Tacitus,InstaPundit, etc) could all post articles on their blogs calling for the impeachemt of GWB, leave the party or refuse to financially support it. I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Sorry, I reject moral culpability for things that happened 200 years prior to my birth. That ain’t the way the world works.
but you are willing to take all the benefits that flow from things that happened 200 years prior to your birth.
Are you American? If so, would it be poetic justice or overdue payback for someone to burn down your house with your wife inside it, or bomb your child’s school?
I am an American. You are confusing people and polity,most Americans are fairly nice,pleasant and agreable people.Amercans acting as a polity are amongst the most ruthless people on this planet.They have probably killed or caused the death of more people in the last half century than any other polity, and definitly invaded more foreign countries than any other.
I’m sure you scorned the people who supported the Iraq war as a form of revenge for 9/11. I did too. But most of them are preferable to you. Most of them were honestly misled about whether Saddam Hussein had helped plot the attack against us.
It’s not my fault that they were unwilling to inform themselves avbout something as important as war and peace.
Their primary target was Saddam Hussein, who has murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands.
You mean the guy Don Rumsfeld sold weapons to in the eighties while knowing full well that he was a murdering monster.
Most of them honestly believed that we would save more Iraqis from being killed or tortured or imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, than would be killed or tortured or imprisoned in our invasion or its aftermath. Since you know Americans’ murderous, bullying, imperialist national character so well, surely you realize that there was no way on earth that September 11 would lead to fewer U.S. human rights abuses against Muslims. Most of them honestly want to create a democratic government in Iraq. Are they stupid and naive to believe the Bush administration will do that? Maybe.
Amazingly naive and stupid, the administration ideal scenario would have been the installation of a nice Saddam lite puppet to run the country on their behalf. As to what is going to happen I really don’t know, but I seriously doubt that we will see anything that looks like a democracy at anytime in the near future in Iraq.
But it’s a hell of a lot less stupid and naive than thinking that Bin Laden and Zawahiri want to create democracies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt once they throw off America’s yoke. The governments that Al Qaeda has been allied most closely with are the Taliban, and the Sudanese regime that is currently murdering tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
The agents of change are rarely nice people, and those two are particularly vile. OTOH they seem to have quite a bit of support in their countries. Since most of the opposition groups have been either destroyed or emasculated only the most extreme manage to survive.After the Shah suppressed all opposition, The only people left standing were the theocrats, it’s very likely that we will see some replay of the Iranian Revolution in the not so far future.
“They have probably killed or caused the death of more people in the last half century than any other polity….”
With all due respect to our impressive record, you might also want to look into those of China and the Soviet Union/Russia, particularly if we extend the time-span to eighty years; also take note of the contributions of Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and France, in both World Wars, particularly the 1st; lastly, don’t forget the influenza pandemic of 1918. Really, I’m quite sure we could have done far better if we’d only tried; say, by following the organizational lead of the Soviet Union, Germany, and China. Still, credit where due.
“I believe, though I’m not sure, that there was talk in the Manhattan Project of doing exactly that if the war went on too long….”
The entire reason the Project began was out of fear of the German nuclear project (which came to naught, but that’s another story); the intent was always to use it against Germany; as you say, however, the project didn’t reach fruition until after the German surrender. If it had been available in, say, 1943 or 1944, I think there’s no doubt it would have been used.
I will gladly accept a one-day ban if so judged.
Err, Chas, you are one of the ObWi security council now, so if you feel that DQ is going over the line, you should contact Edward or Hilzoy and consider a temp ban. You should not seek to match invective with invective, IMO. This is not claiming that you have no point, but you are not a commentator, you are part of the management of the site. If you want to goad DQ into crossing the line (and sadly, a number of ways spring to mind), that is your choice, but suggesting that you are willing to be banned makes no sense. I agree with Anarch’s point and I would ask DQ to reflect on the irony of quoting JFK on peaceful change, especially in light of the problems you list with US actions.
(I’d also note that Ward Churchill attributed it to MLK quoting Robert Kennedy, which I think is completely wrong)
The entire reason the Project began was out of fear of the German nuclear project (which came to naught, but that’s another story)…
So, what did you think of Copenhagen? 😉
the intent was always to use it against Germany…
This I’m not so sure of. I know there was intent to use it against the German military (presumably the Wehrmacht); I’m not sure whether there was intent to use it against Germany proper. I’m not disagreeing, I hasten to add, just that I don’t remember the details of the early Manhattan Project that well.
hilzoy, skipping over all of the comments, if the “liberal establishment” showed a great (well some) concern for the genocide which is occurring in the Sudan (or Kosovo for that matter) or the failure of dealing with the long standing problem of the North Korean refugees or the sex slavery trade which impacts so many young women in the world today, I believe you would have a very good point.
I just don’t see it. Rather (and this maybe unfair) I see the blame America refrain over and over again and eventually when you bang that drum long enough, I turn it off.
Haven’t seen Copenhagen, though I’ve read a bunch of articles about it. Posted about some of the relevant documents here, about — my, how time flies — three years ago. WWII, and a considerable amount of 20th Century history, are among the subjects I feel some slight ability to speak about. 🙂
In fairness, although it’s been a while since I looked closely at the subject, I’m not sure there was anything vaguely resembling detailed strategic planning on how to use the Bomb against Germany, beyond just considering it a special variant of the strategic bombing campaign underweigh for years; many in the limited number of the military who were aware of the Project were utterly convinced the Bomb couldn’t ever work; yet more were somewhere between dubious and highly skeptical; and, of course, even on the project there was some degree of uncertainty, until the actual test in New Mexico. But I’m not aware of any reason the planning would have or did change when the target switched from Germany to Japan. And, after all, for all the scale and brutality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and although there are some notable differences, such as the effects of radiation sickness, the small “h” holocausts of firestorms we dropped on Tokyo and other Japanese cities weren’t drastically less ghastly than the results of the a-bomb.
TWD,
let me let you in on a little secret
Conservative Republicans are in control of all three branches of goverment. I have yet to see them do anything about any of the problems you have mentionned, OTOH they seem to be doing a fine job destabilizing the ME and getting various Countries to band together to counter the US.
Timmy
If you’d like to understand why North Koreans still cling to their repressive government rather than rise up to be just like us, you may want to check out this link
I’d also point out that if you skip over all the comments, there’s not much point in having a discussion, is there?
Don and liberal, quickly try to change the subject. First, refugees have rights under the UN Charter, the North Korean are being ignored (it does help to read what I wrote). Second and related, genocide requires action by the UN. If you were paying attention, there is a lot twisting and turning going on in the UN to avoid the g-word, apparently blood for oil is in the mix.
I skipped over all the comments, in order to just make a comment to hilzoy on her post. Is there a rule against that? Just asking.
I’m not sure there was anything vaguely resembling detailed strategic planning on how to use the Bomb against Germany
That’s because it was successfully tested in July 16, 1945, and VE day was May 8, 1945. They had no concrete idea of the bomb’s magnitude (at one point, calculations suggested that it might cause a chain reaction with the atmosphere and destroy the planet) or an effective means of delivery. They also had no way of gauging Russian progress or the actual status of the “Alpine redoubt’ strategy.
Timmy
Given your self-professed ignorance of the comments, the charge of subject changing is interesting. The notion of invoking the UN charter from you is also fascinating, and I thank you for your post. It fills a vitally needed gap in the discussion.
if the shoe fits
Gary: Haven’t seen Copenhagen, though I’ve read a bunch of articles about it. Posted about some of the relevant documents here, about — my, how time flies — three years ago. WWII, and a considerable amount of 20th Century history, are among the subjects I feel some slight ability to speak about. 🙂
Nice. I saw the original production at the National in London which I quite liked, dubosity about the history or the physics aside. My folks just saw it again, though, and they said that [even after modding out for the fact that this was a local company in NC versus a professional cast in London] it wasn’t nearly as good the second time around. I’d be interested to hear what other people think.
Seeing you mention it (I remember reading about it, but we don’t get a lot of plays here in Kyushu), I found that there was a TV adaptation. Wow, Stephen Rea as Bohr.
Timmy: It would probably be a good idea to try to find out whether “the liberal establishment” has, in fact, shown some concern for the issues you mentioned before announcing that it hasn’t. I don’t actually know who you mean by ‘the liberal establishment’, but In ten minutes I have found the following links that might help: the Center for American Progress’s Africa page, listing seven articles on Darfur in the last eight months of so. (The CAP is the most important liberal think tank.) By far the best journalism on Darfur has (in my opinion) been done by Samantha Powers, a liberal academic: a sample of her work is here. I would also note that Nicholas Kristof has written extensively about darfur, e.g. here. If you’re more interested in politicians, here are statements by Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold. I could have gone on, but at this point I thought, why not just let Timmy do his own research?
As far as DQ, I can only echo what everyone else has said. Especially Katherine. And say that the fact that this thread has not degenerated into a complete free-for-all is a credit to everyone who responded to him. IMHO.
I could have gone on, but at this point I thought, why not just let Timmy do his own research?
The possible ranges of response to this encompass vast tracts of land which are better served by hewing to the letter of the posting rules. :>
Catsy, you beat me to it 😉
vast tracts of land
heh. Though in the interest of accuracy, it’s “huge tracts of land”, if you had that reference in mind (and you probably didn’t)
hilzoy: It’s amazing what you can’t see when you aren’t looking.
Though in the interest of accuracy, it’s “huge tracts of land”, if you had that reference in mind (and you probably didn’t)
Actually, I did, but I decided to mix it up a bit lest hilzoy think I was making an inappropriate and unintended anatomical comment.
Me? Think? Never!
Don’t forget Dr. Howard Dean, Richard Durbin, and Wesley Clark on Darfur.
While I’m posting this sort of thing, here are Harry Reid’s, Barack Obama’s, (former Army Ranger & huge law geek) Jack Reed’s, and Patrick Leahy’s statements about the Gonzales nomination. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold’s are also really worth reading but aren’t yet on their website’s. Byrd and Kennedy, too, if fire and brimstone are more your style (they’re not mine).
Durbin’s, which I linked to above, remains my favorite–no doubt partly out of gratitude for actually phrasing the question about rendition to Gonzales clearly enough to actually get a straight answer, and for the amendment forbidding inhuman and degrading treatment that got stripped out in conference last year, and for wanting to filibuster.
Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld has “no regrets”, because “What was going on in the midnight shift in Abu Ghraib prison halfway across the world is something that clearly someone in Washington DC can’t manage or deal with.” Ah, personal responsibility. Also, Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell aren’t saying the Democrats are racist for voting against Gonzales–they’re just smarmily insinuating it.
In general, I’ve always thought that if you want to see an approximation of the “authentic face” of The Left or The Right, you should look less to obscure, fraudulent wackjob academics than to the people they actually choose to represent them and lead them–their presidential candidates, congressional representatives, senators, governors and cabinet secretaries.
oh, and Copenhagen is maybe the best play I’ve seen live, though I think it was thrown off slightly because the actor playing Heisenberg was so good he made the character too likeable. And Democracy is nearly as good.
Boo, hiss, Copenhagen.
I hereby pledge that the next time I am reincarnated, I promise only to do it in a sinless nation. I also pledge that the next time I travel backwards through time, I will vote against any CIA actions that appear on the ballot.
Let the nation without sin cast the first throne?
Don Q: Bird, Sebastian and all the other right-wing blogs (LGF,Red State,Tacitus,InstaPundit, etc) could all post articles on their blogs calling for the impeachemt of GWB, leave the party or refuse to financially support it.
Well, Bird said he wanted house cleaning. It remains to be seen whether he’ll actually follow through on this, here or on RedState, but we should give him the chance to see if he will before we decide that he won’t, right?
Moderation, labeling, and the decline of discourse
Without being nearly so polite and moderate about it, I’ve been trying to say something like this guy just did. I guess it’s just too much fun to hurl the occasional turd, but it really doesn’t encourage progress or understanding very much.How do I wi…
I just got caught up on this thread, and I want to say that I think the post by liberal japonicus on February 3, 2005 11:46 AM is spot on.
The Right’s Leftist Chimera
The different thing about Limbaugh and Savage, compared to any leftist media figures, is that they have armies of dittoheads who are their proud followers. The dittohead phenomenon makes me wonder if the reason the right thinks that there is a huge m…
I finally read Ward Churchill’s essay (and discovered for the first time that he’s “one of the most outspoken of Native American activists”, which would tend explain where he’s coming from: Native Americans don’t have any historically good reason to regard the US as in any way a good thing…)
Also read his response to critics of his essay. Worth reading: a couple of points he makes answer critics of his essay here –
I also pledge that the next time I travel backwards through time, I will vote against any CIA actions that appear on the ballot.
If you go far enough back in time, could you also do something about that Slavery thing and that American-Indian genocide.