Quantcast

The New PC

A few years ago I would have been absolutely certain that an article titled “The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism” would appear in a right-wing magazine. No left-wing magazine would dare touch that.

But The Nation just published it.

Roger L. Simon does a fine job tackling it, and I only want to add one thing.

The Nation is suffused with political correctness. That’s annoying, but I’ll take it any day of the week over the deliberate whitewashing of racism on the rise. Jews just aren’t protected by political correctness anymore. Who would have thought, before September 11, that this would happen? Certainly not me.

Liberals in Iowa

I’ve been awfully hard on the Democrats lately, and the Iowa caucus (or the Iowa Carcass as Tim Blair calls it) has restored a bit of my formerly warm feelings for them.

Those who fear and loathe the left, but who also know they could be a little more understanding, would do themselves a favor by reading the new column by David Brooks in the New York Times.

It takes a great deal of integrity to write about the opposing political party the way David Brooks does it. My hat is off to him. This is great work.

A Friend Makes the Big Time

David Hogberg, an Iowa political blogger who writes Cornfield Commentary, is an old friend of mine. He must have been born conservative. I don’t think I’ve once heard a liberal peep from him. But, hey, he’s a good guy all the same, and he published his first National Review Online piece yesterday. It’s about (who else?) Howard Dean. Congratulations, David!

Remixed Dean

This is just precious.

James Lileks remixes Howard Dean on mp3.

I’ll be impressed, I mean really impressed, if Howard Dean has the cojones to play this song at a rally in New Hampshire and dance to it.

(Via Jeff Jarvis.)

UPDATE: Dean’s Screech as interpreted by Lileks made MTV.

Upset in Iowa

I am very surprised.

Six months ago, I wouldn’t have been. But today I really am.

John Kerry took Iowa. And John Edwards took second place.

Dean trailed a distant third. He earned that.

I’m not a fan of John Kerry’s. I wouldn’t say he’s Dean-lite, but on the most important question of our time, he’s a fish. He flip-flops all over foreign policy. He’s incoherent, indecisive, and I flat-out don’t trust him. Would he stand down a ruthless dictator? I doubt it. And I don’t like that. At all.

John Edwards, though. He came in second. And he isn’t a foreign policy goof. If all the energy spent in the last year on anti-war fervor were spent instead on promoting John Edwards, my entire blog output would have been radically different than it is.

I am not going to try to predict who will ultimately win the Democratic primary. I figured all along it would be Dean, and recently thought it might be Clark.

If it turns out to be Edwards, I will significantly revise my recently revised opinion of the Democratic Party. And if it turns out to be Kerry, I’ll revise it by half.

(My view of radical leftists, however, won’t budge an iota.)

The only thing (at this point) that worries me about an Edwards victory was spelled out last week by Mickey Kaus:

As a non-Bush-hating centrist, I’m suddenly worried that a candidate I like, John Edwards, will win Iowa and the nomination. Why worry? Because Edwards will probably still lose the election, which will enable the hating left-wingers to say “See, you ran another Clinton and he lost.” If the Democrats are going to lose anyway, they might as well run a paleolib hater and let that wing of the party have nobody to blame.

(But you didn’t say if you would vote for John Edwards – ed.) Well, lately I’ve assumed I would have no choice but to split my ticket and vote for Bush and a Democratic Congress. But if it turns out to be Edwards, let’s just say I’ll have to rethink that.

UPDATE: James at Outside the Beltway says, in response to my considering a vote for Edwards:

I wouldn’t go quite that far

Well, I am a registered Democrat. I didn’t vote for Bush last time, and I haven’t exactly been jazzed about voting for him this time either. I’ve defended him against asinine charges, but I’m not his cheerleader.

UPDATE: Nathan Hamm feels more or less the same way I do about this.

UPDATE: Anne Cunningham says me too.

Hate Pundits

There’s an awfully big market these days for cheap political hack screeds. Michael Moore, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter have all cranked out polarizing polemics against the Bad People.

It looks like Sean Hannity decided to try his hand at the genre.

I hate to review a book by its cover, but look at that title. Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and…Liberalism?

I’m sure it’s fun to lump dictators, terrorists, and libruls™ together into one happy and convenient evil ball. It’s got to be even more satisfying to ask the Lord to come down and deliver us from such a horror. My far-left friends know all about it. You know – Republicans hate black people, adore Hitler, throw Muslims into concentration camps, and kill Arabs for oil.

From the looks of these books you might think we’re gearing up for our own American version of the Spanish Civil War. It’s the commie-loving Democrats against the jackbooted GOP.

Millions of people buy into this line of thinking. These books are best-sellers.

I admit to not having read Hannity’s book, and perhaps he “clarifies” his position on the evil of liberalism in its pages. He does sit there every weekday for an hour on his Fox News show with his liberal counterpart Alan Colmes. They seem to get along well enough, better than if his co-host were Charles Manson. But he is playing the evil card to get people to buy his book. Right-wing hate works as a sales pitch whether or not that’s what the book is really about.

We are not going to have a civil war. Yet at risk of seeming to undermine that sentence, I do want to say something about this mentality.

Writing off your political opponents as evil isn’t just stupid and rude – it’s only a step away from yearning for tyranny.

Sean Hannity, at least on his cover, equates liberals with dictators and terrorists. And here’s the problem: If you ask me what’s the best way to deal with terrorists and dictators, I’ll tell you straight up to put them in a cage or put them in the ground. Sometimes dictatorships reform themselves under pressure: witness Chile and South Africa. Other times you have to wait them out: See Soviet Union. For the most part, though, as far as I’m concerned, the answer is revolution or invasion. Dictators have no right to exist.

Terrorists? Jail ’em or shoot ’em. That’s it. Negotiating, cutting deals, appeasing, or feeling their pain only enables them.

So if liberals belong in that same nexus of evil…what’s to be done about liberals?

The answer, of course, is nothing. Liberals aren’t evil. They aren’t guilty of treason. Unless Hannity reverses himself in the text, the premise of his book is bogus on its face. He doesn’t mind using hate as a marketing tool either way.

It isn’t nearly good enough to acknowledge that the other political party isn’t evil. In a liberal democracy (there’s that word again) with two major parties, each party, each overall governing philosophy, brings something to the table and gets some things right. They balance. Liberals are the gas, and conservatives are the brakes. (Or is it the other way around this year?) Yin, yang, Venus, Mars, and all that. And each party gets some things flat out wrong. It’s just not possible to split a reasonably healthy political culture into halves and end up with one side completely right and the other side utterly wrong.

If you’re a partisan for one side and you truly believe in your bones that the other side is evil or wrong on all counts, it really does logically follow that you’d prefer a one-party state. If the other party has no merit and causes nothing but trouble, everything would be solved if everyone became a Republican. Or a Democrat. Or whatever. And so democracy, from this point of view, is pointless and even dangerous.

If our hate pundits followed their logic to its conclusion, they would demand that we cancel elections.

Liberal Hawk Watch

Here is a new blog by a fellow left-to-center traveler like myself. And hey, he lives in Portland too. Welcome to the blogosphere, Peter.

Liberal Reconsideration

Two days ago I quoted Thomas Friedman in Slate’s mini-series Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War.

British liberal Oliver Kamm joins the discussion on his own web log.

I am a liberal; I have reconsidered my support for the war in Iraq; and I have to tell my readers that I was right in every respect.

Jerks (Updated)

Sigh.

ATLANTA – Hundreds of people pushed past Secret Service barricades Thursday to protest President Bush’s visit to the tomb of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on what would have been the civil rights leader’s 75th birthday.

“When I heard Bush was coming here I couldn’t believe it. I was outraged and disgusted, and I just think it’s a photo op. It’s so transparent,” said Kathy Nicholas, a flight attendant from Atlanta.

Look.

The left won this argument. Martin Luther King Jr. won this argument.

A white Republican from Texas paid his respects on Dr. King’s birthday. Okay?

It’s progress. Got it? Comprende?

It’s not that hard.

UPDATE: Perhaps it’s a mistake to assume that because something is obvious to me that it’s also obvious to most other people. After reading the comments, I can see that some people don’t understand my point here.

So. To clarify: It would not be an improvement if only Democrats paid respects to Martin Luther King Jr. I don’t want to live in a country where that’s how it is, and I’m glad I don’t.

UPDATE: If those of you reading the comments section wonder what’s up with today’s mob, they came from Troll Headquarters.

Troll Headquarters doesn’t have a comments section, and I can see why. It does, however, have this self-description:

This blog is for bad thoughts, cruel putdowns, and nasty hit-and-run attacks…

I’d say that’s about right.

The Wrong Stuff

I made a mistake.

Several months ago I signed a Draft Wesley Clark petition on the Internet. When asked to submit a comment along with my signature, I wrote “Please help save the Democratic Party from itself.” I really thought he could do it.

I’m still on the mailing list, but I can no longer bring myself to open the emails.

Chris Suellentrop at Slate compiled some oddball quotes from the general’s campaign in New Hampshire. I must say he misrepresents the first, and the second is no big deal. But here are the rest.

The president was not and has not been held accountable yet for misleading the American people. He is continuing to associate Saddam, Iraq, and the problem of terrorism. Yet the only terrorists that are in Iraq are the people that have come there to attack us.

As if the only reason Iraqi Baathists are in their own country is to attack us. As if Abu Nidal only moved to Baghdad for the rent and the cheap eats. As if Saddam’s brazen financial support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad didn’t qualify him as a state supporter of international terrorists.

Now, there’s one party in America that’s made the United Nations the enemy. And I don’t know how many of you have ever read that series of books that’s published by the Christian right that’s called the “Left Behind” series? Probably nobody’s read it up here. But don’t feel bad, I’m not recommending it to you. I’m just telling you that according to the book cover that I saw in the airport, 55 million copies have been printed. And in it, the Antichrist is the United Nations. And so there’s this huge, ill-informed body of sentiment out there that’s just grinding away against the United Nations.

As if the Christian Right even has 55 million members in the first place. As if the only criticism of the United Nations is that it’s Satanic. As if I and plenty of other people didn’t learn all about the perfidy of the United Nations from liberals in the 1990s when the UN sat back and watched Bosnians and Kosovars get massacred by Slobo. Surely the general knows something about that.

Young men in an Islamic culture cannot get married until they can support a family. No job, no marriage. No marriage, unhappy young men. They get real angry, they feel real frustrated, they feel real powerless. And a certain number of them are being exploited in the mosques by this recruiting network.

Actually, it’s the well-educated people who are most likely to join terror networks. Not the unemployed who can’t get a date. But don’t take my word for it. Read all about it yourself in The Guardian.

Newsweek magazine says he’s [Osama bin Laden] in the mountains of western Pakistan. And I guess if Newsweek could find him there, we could, too, if we wanted to.

Ah, my favorite. Bush doesn’t want to catch Osama bin Laden. It’s just like in Jim Treacher’s Moveon fantasy ad:

And instead of a rubber duck in the hot tub, he has an Osama Bin Laden doll which he hugs and kisses like a little girl hugging a baby doll.

“I wuv woo, ‘Sahmmy!”

The Osama Doll is dressed like Mrs. Beasley.

I’m of the opinion that Osama bin Laden is DNA on rocks. But who knows? I could be wrong.

What I’m not wrong about is that Wesley Clark is nuts if he thinks Bush can’t see the upshot of nabbing bin Laden in an election year.

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon reminds me of the reasons I liked Clark in the first place, and shows that Clark’s current campaign has all the integrity of lime jello.

ABC Smear Piece

Andrew Sullivan links to an article at ABC News that he calls a vile little smear story about Howard Dean.

A state trooper named Dennis Madore is apparently a domestic abuse case. He was also in charge of Howard Dean’s security.

I read the entire piece very carefully. And I can’t for the life of me find any evidence that Dean did a single thing wrong.

Just below the headline, in typical Watergate fashion:

What Did He Know About Abuse Allegations; When Did He Know It?

According the article, Dean didn’t know anything. It’s guilt by association.

Vile little smear piece indeed.

Quote of the Day

Dennis Miller:

I’ve always been a pragmatist. If two gay guys want to get married, it’s none of my business. I could care less. More power to them. I’m happy when people fall in love. But if some idiot foreign terrorist wants to blow up their wedding to make a political statement, I would rather kill him before he can do it, or have my country kill him before he can do it, instead of having him do it and punishing him after the fact. If that makes me a right-wing fanatic, I will bask in that assignation.

Via Glenn Reynolds.

Why We Went to Iraq

Some say we went to Iraq to get Saddam Hussein’s weapons. Others say we’re there to establish a foothold of democracy in the Middle East. A smaller number say it was our exit strategy from Saudi Arabia.

All those reasons are valid. A good decision is rarely right for one reason alone. Good decisions can be justified on all manner of different grounds.

Still, there is one over-riding reason we went to war in Iraq, and it’s the one reason hardly anyone wants to talk about. It isn’t even remotely politically correct or nice or diplomatic. But that’s just too bad. Life isn’t a game of Model UN.

The real reason can be explained in two ways. First, here is Banagor (via Winds of Change).

The reason we are fighting this war is not because nineteen hijackers crashed into a burning building and a handful of others cheered, but because the entire Muslim world not only cheered, but then turned around, pointed at “The Jews” and said that it was their fault, denied they ever did it, denied that it ever could be them, screamed that they hated us anyway, danced in the streets, printed up posters about the heroes who did the deed all while denying they ever really did, and then increased their threats to tell us that if they didn’t get more capitulations that it would happen yet again.

And here is Thomas Friedman in Slate.

The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst what I would call the “terrorism bubble,” which had built up during the 1990s.

This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as “martyrs,” and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it’s not very diplomatic—it’s not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.

Yeah, I know. This is dangerous bloodthirsty warmonger stuff penned by everyone’s favorite New York Times punching bag. That doesn’t make it not so. Some things are true even if Thomas Friedman believes them.

We have Gaddafi capitulating over weapons of mass destruction. The Iranian mullahs and the nutcase in North Korea are backing down (at least in public) on their own weapons procurement. And now via Roger L. Simon we learn that Syria’s Bashar Assad splits with Hezbollah and offers to negotiate with Israel without preconditions.

It isn’t at all likely that Boy Assad would suddenly cave if Saddam Hussein had successfully stood down America.

Fighting a war in Iraq may very well prevent us from fighting other wars someplace else. Getting tough gets results.

And as Dennis Miller recently said on CNN:

I feel more politically engaged than I’ve ever felt in my life because I do think we live in dangerous times, and anybody who looks at the world and says this is the time to be a wuss—I can’t buy that anymore.

Tilting At Blandsville

When I was a teenager in sleepy Salem, Oregon my friends and I (who are still my friends today) stirred up trouble to break the ennui.

We rigged up complicated traps for cars in our residential neighborhood. They involving fishing line, beer cans, and a lawn sprinkler. (Don’t ask.) We dismantled street signs (I know, I know) and tore up the rival school’s football field with the parents’ Thunderbird.

I can’t do stuff like that anymore. Well, I can, but I’m married, have a professional job, and live in a house with a yard and two cats. So I try to act like an adult whenever that’s possible.

Sometimes I miss the days when I could get away with being a prankster. We were busted by cops for every above infraction and more, but not much ever happened to us. I wouldn’t go back, but still.

Christopher Hitchens likes to go back. In his own way.

Is Fun City turning into Blandsville? So says rumpled Vanity Fair scribe Christopher Hitchens, who laments the mayor’s quality-of-life initiatives as the product of “the tiny Bloombergian mind.”

Hitchens, a British-born gadfly and barfly who once penned a takedown biography of Mother Teresa, spent a recent afternoon trashing all sorts of city and state laws, an account of which appears in the issue available Wednesday.

Wearing a disheveled suit and shades, Hitchens squatted on a milk crate in the subway, rode a bike without his feet touching the pedals, fed Central Park pigeons and puffed his way across the city in wheezy protest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s smoking ban.

For all this lawbreaking, he received nary a warning.

Bloomberg’s staff shot back that most of the laws Hitchens ridiculed were passed before the mayor took office in 2002.

“This current Niagara of pettiness and random victimization may well be Bloomberg’s attempt at a wannabe reputation as heroic crime-fighter and disciplinarian,” writes Hitchens. “One of the world’s most broad-minded and open cities is now in the hands of a picknose control freak.”

Some people will probably look at this and think Hitch is just getting attention. I think he does it because it’s fun.

UPDATE: Michele Catalano has more on the Bloombergian mind.

Mainstreaming the Fringe

Wesley Clark is supposed to be the alternative to Howard Dean. He’s the man with a military uniform who projects an image – an image – of credibility on national security.

Here is Jay Nordlinger:

In a recent column, I attributed the following comment to [Wesley Clark]: that President Bush “is more concerned about the success of Halliburton than having a success strategy in Iraq.” The Associated Press reported that Clark had said it; Reuters reported that his spokesman, Chris Lehane, had said it. It seems that it was Lehane.

Either way, the remark is in perfect harmony with current Clarkian rhetoric.

The general has told us, “I’m one of those people who doesn’t believe in occupying countries to extract their natural resources. I think you buy them on the world market.”

I agree with Wesley Clark. We should never occupy countries to extract their natural resources. I mean, for crying out loud, what kind of person could support such a policy? Thank goodness I’ve never heard a single person say they do, never read a single column by any writer supporting anything like it.

The problem, of course, is that Wesley Clark is obviously implying that some people do think we ought to invade other countries to steal their resources. And we all know who that is. Iraq was all about ooooooil. According to Wesley Clark.

But let’s not photoshop a tin-foil hat onto the general just yet.

I don’t believe for a minute that Wesley Clark has bought what he’s selling. This is a cynical Say-Anything-To-Get-Elected moment. He’s trying to siphon votes from Howard Dean.

That’s what politicians do. But he’s mainstreaming the fringe while he’s at it.

Try to imagine mainstream Republican candidates ranting about Satanic Darwinists on school boards and black helicopters in Montana. The moderate middle would scramble to the left as fast as you can say boo!

The 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston was really something. This was where Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan declared a fundamentalist Culture War on America. Blame Ross Perot on Bill Clinton’s ’92 victory if you want to. But that turkey show in Houston kept me and a lot of other people out of the GOP for a decade.

Wesley Clark and his rival Howard Dean are doing what the Republicans did twelve years ago – stirring up the fringe for votes and attention. They are letting loose forces that will not soon vanish, that cannot be accomodated, that will be their own undoing.

I know of so many people who have never supported Republicans who are shaken and disillusioned by what is happening to the Democrats. I don’t know of a single person, anywhere, who is moving the other direction.

The damage will last a long time.

UPDATE: Mithras says I took Clark’s quote out of context. Here is the full context. Okay, so Clark was referring to the occupation rather than the invasion. Still, saying we are occupying Iraq to extract resources is hardly less batty than saying we invaded Iraq to extract resources. Either way, I still don’t think Clark believes what he’s saying. He’s pandering. And he’s pandering to the fringe.

Oliver Willis thinks that because I found Clark’s quote from Jay Nordlinger my entire argument is invalid.

Michael Totten masters alchemy in the act of extracting the idea from stone that Democrats are becoming extremists – get this – from a National Review story…Newsmax says Tom Daschle eats baby’s brains. It must be true.

The same quote can be found at clark04.com. Oliver, you may not like National Review but they aren’t in the habit of making up quotes from scratch.

UPDATE: Nathan Hamm and Randal Robinson comment.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Michael J. Totten's blog