Kieran Healy

Oh Not Again

We all have our vices, I suppose. Dan Drezner has a weakness for empty arguments of the form “Why are liberals less x than conservatives?” where x is any virtue you choose. “Fun,” for instance, or “incisive” or “tall” or, in the present instance, “cosmopolitan.” As vices go, it’s a small one. I mean, it’s not as if Dan is giving lectures about the need to curb our appetites, pocketing his $50,000 speaker fee, and then sneaking off to Atlantic City.

Dan links to this piece by Michael J. Totten. The premise is that “liberals and leftists are bored by the outside world.” Totten quotes Gary Farber’s diagnoisis:

One problem I see is that only some leftists I know have actually engaged in a years-long course of education in the history of international politics (no, Howard Zinn isn’t sufficient), or long study of military theory and history, or even, in many cases, long study of political history that isn’t simply doctrinaire propaganda from a similar didactic point of view.

Now my first reaction to this was, this is trivially true and it cuts both ways. I for one have not engaged in a years-long study of military theory. But that is because I was engaged in the years long study of something else. Similarly, only some of the rightists I know have actually engaged in a years-long courses of education in these subjects, often for the same reason. Closer inspection, however, reveals that the last clause of Farber’s sentence—“that isn’t simply doctrinaire propaganda from a similar didactic point of view”—transforms it from a banal empirical observation into a self-confirming piece of ideological nonsense. If I produce a hundred liberals with Ph.Ds in history or international politics, Farber will assert that their years of study were filled with “simply doctrinaire propaganda.” So his generalization is immunized. QED.

The quality of the argument goes down from there. It’s the usual combination of confident generalization followed a few paragraphs later by “of course there are many exceptions”. For instance, Totten asserts that liberal magazines “rarely feature articles about what happens in other countries.” Oh yeah, except “The New Republic and Dissent both publish excellent analyses of international relations and foreign policy.” Similarly, “If you want to find a person who knows the history of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition of India and Pakistan, you’re better off looking to the right than to the left.” Now, earlier conservative argument may have convinced you that the history and political science departments of American universities are filled with liberal professors. Might some of these know anything about, say, Nazi Germany? Aha, you have forgotten the “simply doctrinaire propaganda” clause I mentioned earlier.

Gathering speed, Totten goes on to assert that

The far-left says Republicans are Nazis. And the far-right says Democrats are socialists or even Communists… but the reason it happens is very different for each side.

Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.

Far-right conservatives have the opposite problem. They understand Lenin perfectly well. It’s the Democrats they don’t understand.

Why didn’t I see this before? For years I had thought that phrases like “Feminazi” were cheap pieces of political abuse thrown by conservatives who knew nothing of Nazism, or indeed feminism. But now I see that this term has its origins in Rush Limbaugh’s deep knowledge of Lenin and his writings, no doubt obtained after “a years-long course of education” undertaken while avoiding military service in Vietnam.

So the piece further disintegrates into a contrast between “builders” (liberals) and “defenders” (conservatives). Builders are concerned with “the immediate surrounding environment” whereas defenders “are on the lookout for threats,” which makes them interested in foreign countries and history. Applying this disctinction to Scenes from the History of U.S. Foreign Policy is left as an exercise to the reader. Begin with the Marshall Plan. Years of study await you.

What’s happening here is that Michael is looking For A Nice Angle. You know, like the ones those clever writers for the New Yorker or the New Republic are so good at coming up with—vaguely provocative, challenging of the conventional wisdom, and just plausible enough to sustain a 750 word column. Michael’s Angle is, Conservatives are the True Cosmopolitans. Unfortunately, there are far more Nice Angles than good arguments. Just because you think one up doesn’t mean its remotely plausible.

This is a typical argument made by both sides. I’m sure I’m guilty occasionally as well.

While I tend towards conservatism-ibertarianism, and indeed have a PhD in international politics concentrating on security policy and played Army a little while, I would think the greater percentage of IR scholars are lefties. That’s certainly true of the average ISA meeting. Now, the security studies subdiscipline is much more dominated by conservatives—and men, for that matter—for reasons of natural interest. Which, conversely, at least partly explains why the academy as a whole is skewed left.

Both sides also use Nazi, Fascist—and, of lesser problem but more frency—”extremist” far too easily.

And that Gray guy made a mint on his silly Mars-Venus thing. Surely, you can let DD have his builders and defenders?

Man, I need to spell check these things.

Translation key: “ibertarian” = libertarian “frency” = frequency

And that Gray guy made a mint on his silly Mars-Venus thing. Surely, you can let DD have his builders and defenders?

No, because John Gray got his Ph.D by mail order from Columbia Pacific “University”, whereas Dan got his by hard work from Stanford. So I apply higher standards to Dan.

Sweet, but the best mail order degrees are from Patriot University

Actually, I never used the word cosmopolitan. My point is that conservatives are more interested in the history of foreign countries than liberals are. Daniel Drezner used the word cosmopolitan, not me.

I assure you I’m not looking for an “angle.” It has bugged me for some time now that my fellow liberals are more likely to have a shallow understanding of history. Yes, this is a huge generalization, and of course there are plenty of exceptions. You might be one of those exceptions, and if so there is no reason to take offense. You write and think well, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I never cited Rush Limbaugh as an example of a historically-informed conservative, and I’d like to make that clear for your readers who don’t follow your link to my piece. He’s a right-wing jackass who apparently reads no history at all (like Ann Coulter) and is primarily interested in invective and name-calling.

“insisting that his $50,000 speaker fee be paid in quarters”

You stole that joke from The Daily Show! Pah!

Kieran,

I had not seen your page until you linked my piece. I see now that you are an assistant professor. So in the comment above where I gave you “the benefit of the doubt,” well… I realize that may come across as insulting. Sincere apologies. Pretend I am able to edit it out.

Michael

Michael,
Since there’s no comments section on your blog, I’ll post this here. Kieran’s point doesn’t seem to me to be that you’re saying ‘Conservatives are the true Cosmopolitans,’ but rather that you have no actual argument in your post. And if that’s what he is saying, he’s right. One post at Indymedia, the filtered set of conservatives on your blogroll, your intuitions, an assertion by Gary Farber, and the contents of two liberal magazines do not make for evidence, especially given that you just as easily cite two more liberal magazines for which your comments are not true. (And I’ve just noticed ‘The Atlantic Monthly’ essays cited on your page…)
The structuwre of your argument seems to be ‘I think x,’ and these people agree with me, therefore it’s true. There may be a germ of truth in what you’ve said, but it’s completely unproven in your piece.

Sorry—last post is from me.

I find this whole “conservatives are interested in foreign countries, liberals aren’t” to be a whole load of hooey. Maybe it’s true with some individuals, but as a whole, I find it not the case. I find the conservatives to be entirely myopic – unable to see the world outside of their own domestic prism – witness the inability of the Right in 1998 to consider Clinton’s bombing campaigns against Saddam as anything other than “wag the dog”. To then turn around and have these people lecture us that they are the true internationalists is kind of mind-boggling – but then so much is in this looking-glass world of the 21st century.

You stole that joke from The Daily Show! Pah!

Actually, I don’t have cable—I don’t even own a TV —so I didn’t hear it on the Daily Show. It’s an obvious joke, I think, but maybe I should change edit it out, seeing as no-one will believe me that I came up with it myself :)

Michael – rpc732’s point is right. My beef with the piece is that there’s no argument at all. I’m sure you believe you’re right and, reading your comments, that you’re sincerely asking the question. But there’s no argument or real evidence. I could write a post just as plausible as yours arguing the opposite view if I was prepared, as you are, to rely on a couple of anecdotes. It’s not good practice to make a really strong generalization and then, when people (or you yourself) start pointing out counterexamples, to say “OK, that’s another exception, but I’m still right.” After a while, the exceptions just build up to the point where you have to throw away the generalization and start again.

The assertion that people on the right tend to understand pre-war Nazi Germany better than people on the left is also belied by a common thread of current conservative journalism: that every international dispute with an evil or untrustworthy adversary is a replay of Munich in 1938. In addition to being misapplied (does anyone really think we have a viable war option in N. Korea?), such arguments also sometimes assert that WWII could have been avoided entirely as late as 1938, which is pretty ridiculous. One can criticize the appeasement of ‘38 and come to the most reasonable conclusion—that France and Britain should have gone to war over Czechoslovakia in ‘38 as they ended up doing anyway over Poland in ‘39—without making wild assertions about how the war would have been prevented at that late date.

Well, I for my part maintain that the hundreds of millions of people on the right all ride bicycles. Of course, there are some notable exceptions, as in much good science. The hundreds of millions of people on the left, on the other hand, all ride unicycles.
Does anyone else have some insightful generalizations to offer about the hundreds of millions of people on both sides of this debate? It’s fun! It’s fat-free!

Wait wait wait – I’ve got another good one! All Capricorns are boring. Every time I meet a Capricorn, they’re boring. Well, except for one or two of them. But there’s definitely something in astrology.

I know that generalizations can annoy the heck out of people, and I make generalizations cautiously. But, come on. I never wrote anything like “All Capricorns are boring.”

I did not write, and never would write, “all” liberals or “all” conservatives do or are anything.

There is a difference between generalizing and totalizing. “Democrats tend to be liberal” is a generalization that is true. “All Democrats are liberal” is demonstrably false.

Michael: I read your piece, and I think what you reall want to say is “Liberals or leftists who don’t know any real history are incredibly annoying.” Which we all can agree on.

I dont buy it. When Rush Limbaugh talks about Feminazis, he’s doing it to get a rise out of feminists. When these mooks on the street scream about Bush being Hitler, they seem to be serious. I tend to agree, they have a better understanding of Bush than they do of Hitler. A valuable question might be why have so many liberals supported or ignored the most horribly brutal regimes (conservatives have as well, but pragmatically not for a lack of understanding what they are)? My answer is that they refuse to recognize what these police states really are like. They do this because it might very well shake too many of their articles of faith.

Michael, you write:” My point is that conservatives are more interested in the history of foreign countries than liberals are.”

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’m reading Guns of August at present, I’ve finished a few books on South African history after a recent visit, I’m also halfway through a biography of Australia’s Ned Kelly. I’ve read a 700 page history of India, another one on China. After 9/11 I read Bodansky’s bio of bin Laden as well as re-read about half the Qu’ran and a representative selection of Hadith. Because of a work I did on Jeanne d’Arc, which was extensively researched, I’m quite knowledgeable about 15th century France. Because of another project I’m working on now, I’m also very knowledgeable about Freud’s Vienna, especially the years 1895 – 1905. Because I love Finland, I’ve learned quite a bit about the country. I’m also a subscriber to Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Economist. I know there’s more: this is just off the top of my head.

Here’s the kicker: I’m a musician, not an historian, for heaven’s sake. I read this stuff out of interest, not professionally.

I don’t read a book because of its ideology. I read a book so I can learn something.

Unfortunately, right wing propaganda is so ubiquitous in the US these days, it’s impossible to escape, even on the sports pages.

I can point to dozens of other counter-examples to your arguments among my liberal pals. If your “fellow liberal” friends are a bit shallow in foreign affairs, I suggest you seek new ones who aren’t; they are not hard to find.

Your argument is entirely without merit.

My point is that conservatives are more interested in the history of foreign countries than liberals are… I assure you I’m not looking for an “angle.” It has bugged me for some time now that my fellow liberals are more likely to have a shallow understanding of history.

And once again, I must quote Prof. Healy’s words on another occasion:

“That’s a seductive rhetoric for embattled liberals. You’re on the side of truth. You are being realistic. The conservatives like you. I’m all in favor of facing unpleasant truths, being a social scientist and all. But what’s so unpleasant about what seems to be the truth here?”

It’s pretty amazing just how often these remarks of Prof. Healy’s are apropos.

Regarding the bicyclist split above, I think it’s somewhat true that roadies would be more leftie than mountain bikers. See, for instance, this post, which links to a comparison between hikers and (downhill) MTBers: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000228.html

As far as feminazi is concerned, I don’t think Rush was actually comparing them to Nazis, so much as saying that their behavior had certain aspects in common with the Nazis, such as the desire to tell everyone else what to do.

Compare that with some of the signs I saw and photographed at “peace” protests: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000389.html#000389

Lonewacko:

I’m confused here. Are you saying that because Santorum, Scalia and Bennett “desire to tell everyone else what to do” they are feminists?

Or do you mean they are feminazis?

Or did you mean to imply they were comparable to Nazis?

I always thought that they were just jerks.

rpc732 and Healy:

Of course Michael’s piece has an argument. It runs something like this:

1. I’ve noticed A, B, and C.
2. A, B, and C suggest D.
3. Therefore, the possibility that D is true is worth thinking about.
4. E and F could explain D.
5. Therefore, E and F are worth thinking about, too.

He might need to insert a tacit premise to bolster the significance of premise 1,

6. I make reliable inductions from a broad set of data.

But what about this is “not an argument”? You can, of course, disagree with each of these premises. But it’s totally uncharitable to say that his argument isn’t an argument because it isn’t airtight. It’s anecdotal; it’s thought-provoking.

To tristero:

Your response, on the other hand, while an argument, is a bad one. Here’s how it goes:

1. You say A.
2. I say not-A.
3. Therefore, not-A.

Your counterexamples are interesting, though since Michael’s original argument allowed for the existence of counterexamples, they don’t show much. But an argument just like yours could be used to establish the flatness of the earth:

1. You say the earth is round.
2. I say the earth seems pretty damn flat to me – just take a look out the window! Does that look round to you?
3. Therefore, the earth is flat.

” my fellow liberals”

Is he a liberal? I checked his bloglist on the left and I found that Little Green Football is listed but not Atrios. Also, the list includes many conservative academic (professors) bloggers and very few liberal academic (professors) bloggers.

ST,

I’m more or less a moderate but in foreign policy I am definitely in the conservative camp. I don’t know about Totten, but myself, I prefer to read the slightly more liberal media because if I read the conservative media its all more or less stuff I already know or agree with. Reading the opposite viewpoint gives me something to think about and consider. I’m relatively new to blogs so I’ve started out in the conservative sphere, but I’m starting to read a lot more of the well-written liberal blogs.

Face it, Healy (do the kids call you “prof”?), the “there are two kinds of people in the world” joke is alive and taking over your blog.

You know, I’ve always thought of engineers as ‘builders’…

I think it’s somewhat true that roadies would be more leftie than mountain bikers.

Interesting choice of hobby. I spend much of my spare time mountain biking. Our club members have a range of political views.

As far as feminazi is concerned, I don’t think Rush was actually comparing them to Nazis, so much as saying that their behavior had certain aspects in common with the Nazis

Um, explain to me the difference between “comparing them to Nazis” and “saying their behavior had certain aspects in common with the Nazis”.

Face it, Healy (do the kids call you “prof”?),

Yeah, they do. In fact, they have to call me that. Otherwise they fail the class. Smarter students call me “Mr Doctor Prof, sir.”

“There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t. I don’t.”
With thanks to Busybusybusy.

Geoff: you reductio my argument ad absurdum by saying it’s of the form

1. You say A.
2. I say not-A.
3. Therefore, not-A.

which is not at all what my post says. My argument is

1. A > B (Michael’s observation)
2. B >or = A (My observation)
3. Therefore A not >B

Where A= foreign history knowledge of most right wingers
B= foreign history knowledge of most liberals.

As you say, we are both arguing from anecdotes.

In my defense, I would never bother, except Michael’s rhetoric is boilerplate “I’m above it all” right wing rhetoric, which asserts an unearned and falsely based objectivity. From this snooty perch the right winger then sanctimoniously bashes liberals all the while claiming to be impartial.

Since Michael says he’s a liberal, I merely told him to find more knowledgeable friends. On a different blog, I added that he should not make the mistake of assuming that those who are least sophisticated in their analysis are representative of liberals. To compare Krugman to, say, an inarticulate college student holding a hastily made sign is a canard.

With his jones for history discussions sated, then Michael as the thoughtful liberal he says he is, can get back to something which is far more clearcut and serious than bitching about his old buddies:

The Bush administration is by any unbiased standard the harbinger of a new form of homegrown American fascism. We must do everything legally possible to prevent Bush from getting elected in 2004.

God, you people are scary. You go after each other like…hell, I don’t know, like a mother eating her young. Each of you people believe that your own intelligence is far superior than the one before you. God forgive us if anyone with the same views as you preside over this country. I’ll pray long and hard that that never happens.

Tristero;

To compare Krugman to anyone is a canard—to the comparee. He’s a smart guy; he doesn’t need to lie so much.
With respect 2004; if Bush or isn’t elected the pendulum will swing back. It always does and that’s the neat thing about this country.
Further, I would submit that your first post on this board/topic partially corroborates Totten’s broad thesis.

Jason:
Amen. Scary, ain’t they…

“I spend much of my spare time mountain biking. Our club members have a range of political views.”

I would tend to think that that range would be more to right than that within a group of roadies. Or, at least within a Critical Mass group.

“Um, explain to me the difference between “comparing them to Nazis” and “saying their behavior had certain aspects in common with the Nazis”.

Well, the Nazis believed in a lots of things: finding the holy grail and the location of Avalon, Freya, book burning, Thor, regimentation, Wagner, Loki, the Big Lie, killing lots and lots of people, keeping the sky blue and the grass green and not the other way around, Wotan, etc. etc.

Whereas the Feminazis only believe in some of those things, generally those not involving Norse myth. One definition said it had to do with abortion, another said it had to do with the Big Lie.

Okay… so I’m not sure if this was meant as a joke, or some kind of satire, but Tristero said-”The Bush administration is by any unbiased standard the harbinger of a new form of homegrown American fascism. We must do everything legally possible to prevent Bush from getting elected in 2004.”

Way to prove Totten’s point. I suggest you do some studying on REAL fascism, and you won’t embarass yourself with absurd statements like this one.

Jason, “Each of you people believe that your own intelligence is far superior than the one before you…”

Clearly you don’t.

“To compare Krugman to anyone is a canard—to the comparee. He’s a smart guy; he doesn’t need to lie so much.”

Examples?

“Further, I would submit that your first post on this board/topic partially corroborates Totten’s broad thesis.”

What an original putdown! I might start crying.

Bill,

You’re right. I wrote that the Bush administration is “the harbinger of new form of homegrown American fascism.” On second thought, I’m really embarassed that I said something so foolish.

Please strike “the harbinger of” and replace with “a.”

I apologize for my foolish error and thanks, Bill, for bringing it to my attention.

I would tend to think that that range would be more to right than that within a group of roadies.

I could see this going either way, empirically. On the one hand, mountain biking might be more common in more right-leaning states. On the other hand, mountain biking might tend to be taken up by people with lefty politics in those states—Boulder, Colorado types or whatever. I’d need to see some data. But that’s the point.

(kh >) explain to me the difference between “comparing them to Nazis” and “saying their behavior had certain aspects in common with the Nazis”.

(lw >) Well, the Nazis believed in a lots of things: finding the holy grail and the location of Avalon, Freya, book burning, Thor, regimentation, Wagner, Loki, the Big Lie, killing lots and lots of people, keeping the sky blue and the grass green and not the other way around, Wotan, etc. etc.

Whereas the Feminazis only believe in some of those things,

You’re being obtuse. Drawing a comparison between two groups doesn’t mean asserting they’re identical. But if, as you say, they have little in common with the Nazis, then why call them feminazis? The answer, obviously, is that toads like Limbaugh want to tar feminists with the brush of Nazism, ie to associate them with the 20th century’s paradigmatic example of evil.

Incidentally, I have little patience for anyone who seriously thinks the term ‘feminazi’ is some kind of valid comparative device rather than a rhetorical smear of the lowest order.

I think tristero is really Michael J. Totten, trying to strengthen his own case. Seriously, even if you want to call what the Bushies are doing “fascism”, how exactly would you compare it to, say, the Palmer Raids on the fascism scale? Or to Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus in the middle of prosecuting an unpopular war? Or to COINTELPRO? If you set the bar for “fascism” low enough that the Bush administration’s (admittedly scary and clumsy) tactics qualify, then there’s been “homegrown American fascism” off and on for the last 150 years, so you should at least drop the “new” part. I have some problems with Totten’s argument, but tristero is just yapping to hear himself yap.

I suggest you do some studying on REAL fascism, and you won’t embarass yourself with absurd statements like this one.

Fortunately, David Neiwert already has done the legwork on this one, in a long series of meticulously researched and supported posts entitled “Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism” (he has the links permanently installed on his left margin, so go here and follow the links).

His verdict?
today’s context, Nazism specifically and fascism generally are most often cited by partisans of both sides not with any reference to its actual content but merely as the essence of totalitarian evil itself. This is knee-jerk half-thought. Obviously, I don’t agree that the mere reference to fascism, let alone a serious discussion of it, automatically renders a point moot. But a reflexive, ill-informed or inappropriate reference—which describes the bulk of them—should suffice to invalidate any argument.

Without question the worst offenders are those on the left. It began back in the 1960s, when antiwar radicals came to refer to anyone from the Establishment as “fascist,” particularly if they were from the police. This bled over into the later view that identified fascism with a police state. The confusion is alive and well today with peace marchers who blithely identify Bush with Hitler and compare Republicans to Nazis. The purpose of these analogies is to shame conservatives, but they instead only give their accusers the appearance of shrill harpies willing to abuse the memory of the Holocaust for cheap political theater.

Most of all, such comparisons obscure the reality of what’s taking place. The genuine proto-fascists—namely, the anti-democratic extremists of the Patriot movement, and their thuggish cohorts among the ‘Freeper’ crowd—are identified with mainstream conservatives instead of being distinguished from them. That in turn gives their coalescence a kind of cover instead of exposing it.

My choice of quote – he certainly might disagree or refine the statement, but I think that pretty much gets it. When the left calls everyone on the right a fascist, all they do is give the genuinely dangerous, proto-fascist elements that in fact do dwell on the fringes of the Republican party political cover.

Agree with it, don’t agree with it, whatever. But the one thing you can’t say, afer reading the series, is that it’s poorly researched, or indicative of a lazy attitude towards history.

Prof. Healy wrote:

Now, earlier conservative argument may have convinced you that the history and political science departments of American universities are filled with liberal professors. Might some of these know anything about, say, Nazi Germany?

********

I’m a grad student who works on a military history topic (West Pointers during the US Civil War era) and I think I can confidently say that American history departments are filled with liberal professors who know lots about lots of different things, including Nazi Germany. Do they know much about military history or military affairs beyond the strongly held (and not necessarily erroneous) belief that war is bad along with a few tidbits about Vietnam? Probably not. There are of course many different kinds of history, and no single “historian,” much less someone with a day job doing something else, can know everything about history, but ask the average military historian with a PhD, and he or she will be an unhappy camper about the marginalization of military history in the academy. I define “military” history as knowledge about operational issues, i.e. the actual business of killing: how it works, how it’s done, what methods are more effective than others, who’s better at doing it and who’s worse.

To take my own field as an example, the only two tenured Civil WAR historians at first-rank research universities who wrote a dissertation on military history topics are Dr. Gary Gallagher (one of my advisors) at UVA and Dr. Mark Grimsley at Ohio State. I went to Yale, which has preserved military history in its faculty much to its credit, but I didn’t take a US Military History course because of stories from my friends that clearly indicated I would’ve known more about the subject than my TA (although the supervising Prof did know her stuff), which says light years more about the indifference of Americanist grad students at an Ivy League university than it does about my state of knowledge as an undergrad.

I actually found Mr. Totten’s argument more or less unpersuasive, probably because I think his point is basically impossible to prove, although I make no bones about being a “conservative.” The somewhat related point I’d make is that people on the Left are people, and like everyone else they have their peculiar intellectual blind-spots. One of those is a reluctance to look at a war in a manner other than one of righteous (and frequently justified) condemnation. There’s of course nothing inherently wrong with this. But when people on the Left start intoning about how a war should be conducted or about the larger role of war in a country’s foreign policy, a lack of practical knowledge about how wars tend to work, which requires some knowledge of a specific type of history, problems can occur.

Thanks st (not the one above) for pointing to Dave’s research, which I’ve been reading for a while now. I posted about it on another blog:

About as bad. But the Bushies are better at hiding their tracks. Mike Hawash is visible ‘cause he has so many white friends. We don’t hear of the others unless one goes seriously scrounging. But Jason Halperin recently had a run in. I’m too lazy to google it but you can. Try google news, too.

Oh, no! You’re not gonna bring up that old saw, are you? Not comparable.

Hoover had been working on it for years and years and years. These clowns are doin the same, fer sher, but they’ve only had two years. In Denver recently, they were collecting info on dissidents who were actually members of something like a birdwatching group. Again, I’m too lazy to find the article and have to run out soon. Please find them yourself, cause if you leave it up to me, I’ll do a bunch of research, link to hundreds of things, big and small and really embarass you. And I don’t want to do that.

>

Nope. Bush represents a radical break with at least the past 50 years of presidential leadership. He is a radical right wing extremist. He is also incompetent, which is not surprising.

Sorry you disagree. Hey, it was a free country.

I touched on some of this in an old post on NGOs and the Iraqi War aftermath over on Winds of Change here:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003210.html#003210

A better way of looking at the Democratic base is to assume it is mainly “Jeffersonian” to borrow a label from Walter Russel Mead’s “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy And How It Changed The World.”

Jeffersonian’s are highly anti-war and very domestically oriented in American politics. Americans, even activist Democrats, are not all one of Mead’s labels, but they can be predominently of that one label. This most definately seems to be the case here.

As always, if you say something conciliatory on a comment board, you never get any response. Since I think the only purpose of human communication is to draw attention to yourself, let me rectify the error I made in my previous post:

Michael J. Totten is Adolf Hitler. You can look it up.

The real problem I have with the argument is that to make it work, you have to carefully draw the lines around who counts as a “liberal” and who counts as a “conservative” for the argument to work? For example, do Rush’s listeners count? NPR listeners? Do Rushs’ listeners know more history than NPR’s? I doubt it. All you can really say is that the writers for the National Review know more about Iraq or Israel/Palestine than do the writers for the Nation. I would guess that writers for the Nation know more than writers for NR about the U.S. involement Guatamala and East Timor. Or don’t these count as history?

>

The Nat Review folks DO think Perle and Wolfowitz know what they’re doing, yes? Case closed.

As for conciliation, are you referring to this? >

Some conciliation!

Why we single out liberals, Walt? Trust me, trying to talk some sense into a right winger convinced Clinton killed Vince Foster is an unforgettably annoying experience.

Or talking to some right wing apologist for McCarthy for that matter. Man oh man. A great way to waste one’s brief lifespan on this earth.

But it beats the pants off discussing evolution with some nincompoop who thinks ID deserves a “fair hearing.”

What I think you mean to say, sans the gratuitous swipe, is that talking to people on a subject they merely pretend to understand is incredibly annoying. This is true. This is also neither conciliatory nor insightful.

One wonders where non-interventionist conservatives, and ostensibly conservative advocates of “creative destruction” and “total war” fit into Totten’s builders-versus-defenders dichotomy.

The National Review, which Totten praises, does have articles about the Middle East. Unfortunately most of them are ideological prattle, or are written by people with vested interests in promoting war in the Middle East.

An example of the type of “analysis” the National Review website carries is an article by Abd al-Majid al-Khoei- a Shia cleric and wannabe Iraqi puppet ruler- who said:

“The Iraqi people are not interested in who is to carry out this task — be it an individual or individuals, that the task of freeing them of this tyranny is an obligation enjoined by every sacred code of law and supported by every secular ethical system. Anyone, therefore, who can perform this task will win their gratitude…”

Less than two months later, this National Review “expert” paid the ultimate price for his faulty analysis, when he was hacked to death by an enraged Shia mob in Najaf.

I suspect that Totten’s praise for the National Review and Weekly Standard has less to do with their quality or quantity of their articles on the Middle East, than it has to do with the fact that they share his own pro-war beliefs .

I read Totten’s piece the other day and found it very interesting. Now, obviously, its filled with simplistic generalizations. Many commentors here have pointed this out, seemingly in an attempt to dismiss the argument and therefore avoid its rather uncomfortable(to them) and surprising thesis. Of course Totten hasn’t proven anything; but he has suggested a somewhat novel and thought-worthy explanation of the world.

I found Totten’s piece interesting because I’m quite often frustreted by the taunts of “Nazi” and “Commie” that prop up the arguments of the ignorant and ill-tempered. Now, there are legitimate reasons to dislike Bush. There are legitimate reasons to think Bush is quite scary, and a long-term danger to civil liberties. But to suggest that Bush is like Hitler in any meaningful way is to fall off the deep end. Bush may be bad for wanting to lock up terrorist suspects without a trial. But Hitler ordered 6 million+ people killed because of their religion/ethnicity. He started a war of conquest that claimed 20 million lives. Saying that Bush is a Nazi, hell, saying that Bush is a fascist, is to give up any claim to intellectual credibility or moral seriousness.

The same goes for people on the right who compare lefty attempts to create universal health insurance to Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture. When national health insurance results in the death of 10 million peasants, then maybe that’s a legitimate comparison. Until then, its the argument of a sullen 14 year old, not an adult.

Totten suggests though that these tiresome comparative arguments do not arise from the same kind of childish ignorance, and in that I suspect he’s right. When lefties say that Bush is no better than Saddam Hussein, it almost has to be because they are really ignorant of Saddam Hussein’s regime. I mean, the lefties think Rick Santorum is a terrible guy because he suggests that maybe we should have anti-sodomy laws. Do they know that throughout almost the entire Arab world homosexuals get killed in the proverbial public square? They think we’re committing human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay. But then they turn around and say that Castro is only getting a bad rap because of the lies of those vengeful Cubans in south Florida.

And when righties say that Democratic social and economic policy is akin to communism, it almost has to be because they are fundamentally ignorant of what the Democratic party is all about. Almost every Democrat that I’ve ever met has been, fundamentally, a supporter of the free market. Sure, they may think that markets function better, or generate fewer negative externalities, when they are highly regulated. And they may be more willing to say that some human activities, like healthcare, shouldn’t be the domain of the market. But they’re simply not hostile to entrepreneurial success. I know a lot of Republicans who seem to really believe that the lion’s share of the Democratic party wants to make private enterprise illegal. That Democrats hate businessmen.

>

Straw Man! Straw Man! A small group of “radical leftists” holding “dozens of signs” comparing Bush to Hitler in a rally of 300,000 plus according to Michael on calpundit’s blog. Can you spell statiscerally insignificanturum?

Now, on fascism I have no intellectual credibility but Dave Neiwert shure as tootin’ does. Go over to his blog called Orcinus and read the Rush/Fascism series.

And whilst I have no intellectual credibility on fascism, I certainly can think and read. What Dave describes, what others describe, what I’ve seen for myself, looks like Bush and his administration are more than happy with fascist ideas. Now, a Rick Santorum would make a distinction between a fascist and someone comfortable swimming in fascist seas. I don’t think Powell is a fascist by a long shot – he’s just a right wing conservative – but Ashcroft? Norton? Santorum? Ari the “Watch what you say” Boy?

As for moral seriousness, Bill Bennett is morally serious.

I’ve never been morally serious. Seriously.

tristero – i work with know-it-all leftist/liberal intellectual wanna-bees in t he music production business. And i think when you keep insisting that Bush and the present administration is some kind of fascist administration that is all about crushing dissent, I would wonder if you could explain how folks like Chomsky, Zinn, the folks who write for and publish mags like the Nation are still free and uncensored? I was raised in a repressive third-world country, where repression was and still real, and I find leftist/liberal protestations of being repressed and censored by the Bush Administration absurdly funny.

tristero – i work with know-it-all leftist/liberal intellectual wanna-bees in t he music production business. And i think when you keep insisting that Bush and the present administration is some kind of fascist administration that is all about crushing dissent, I would wonder if you could explain how folks like Chomsky, Zinn, the folks who write for and publish mags like the Nation are still free and uncensored? I was raised in a repressive third-world country, where repression was and still real, and I find leftist/liberal protestations of being repressed and censored by the Bush Administration absurdly funny.

Apologies for the double post.

” I was raised in a repressive third-world country, where repression was and still real, and I find leftist/liberal protestations of being repressed and censored by the Bush Administration absurdly funny.
”

Oh, Geoff, Geoff. Where does one begin? Leftist/liberals (i.e., me) make two points regarding repression and censorship under Bush.

1. Leftist/liberals are being censored/repressed.

2. So are others that don’t agree with Bush.

Regarding point 1, here are a few of thousands of examples:

1. Bill o’Reilly, interviewing a man who lost his father on 9/11, screamed, “shut up, just shut up!” when the fellow told him that his father was as contemptuos of Bush as he was. He cut off his microphone.
2. Ari Fleishcher’s famous comment after 9/11 “Watch what you say, watch what you do.” That’s creepy enough. What’s worse is that, at least for a while, the official transcript of that quote was altered.
3. Total Information Awareness, headed by convicted criminal John Poindexter.
4. The TIPS program, which was shot down.
5. Lynne Cheney’s blacklist of college professors.

Finally, and in some sense most ominously, is self-censorship. I was seriously worried about my career when I first started to speak out against Bush. (I have not been politically active since Vietnam.) Finally, I decided that I didn’t care. But I can tell you that many of my friends are terrified of speaking up. Laurie Anderson risks little by signing Not in Our Name. But a Well Known Musical Artist Who Will Remain Anonymous risks financial ruin if he does, as his audience is less homogenous these days.

As for point 2:

Geoff, trust me, you don’t know the half of how bad it is because it is not getting reported by the big outlets. Don’t trust me? Good for you, you shouldn’t. But I urge you to look up the case of Mike Hawash, one of only many, of Jorge Padilla, of the closing of the borders to Muslims who were trying to flee to Canada to avoid Ashcroft’s roundup, of Jason Halperin’s inadvertent witness to a Homeland Security raid (which was in error), of the hate crimes against innocent Muslims, the boycotting of liquor stores for selling French wine, of the terrible deaths of two Afghan prisoners in US custody, of the offshore torture of suspects, of Ashcroft’s obsessive, insane desire to increase death penalty cases, of the incarceration of 13 year olds at Gitmo, of cops being called after someone heard two patrons in a coffee shop dissing Bush, and so on and so on. And then, go and read Anthony Scalia to get an idea of what our next Supreme Court Chief Justice believes. It will make your skin crawl.

Does this equal Milosevic? Does this even equal Prague pre-Havel? Let me put it this way, Geoff. In my 50 years I have never seen anything like this in the US. Not during Nixon, and that was horrible. Not during Reagan and that was very bad. Not during Bush I and that was nearly as bad as Nixon.

This is beyond a doubt a regime that, if not yet fascist, is clearly moving that way, and rapidly.

During the campaign Bush joked, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just as long as I’m the dictator.” Ha, ha.

What anyone who troubles to listen to Bush carefully learns is that in his off the cuff remarks, his jokes, and his malaprops, Bush tells the truth. It is usually the only time he does.

Finally, one of my dearest, dearest friends, a woman whom I personally helped get out of communist Czechoslovakia 16 years ago, sees in the Bush regime the same frightening behavior that I do. Your personal experience was, I’m sure, so bad that Bush’s America looks good in comparison. But that’s damning with faint praise indeed.

Because before Bush, this was a much more open society where freedom of speech was considered a sacred principle. And where no on, no one at all, was held for months without charge.

Please, don’t let these right wing fools kid you. This is a very, very dangerous situation.

Tristero: I’m not saying that ignorant conservatives are not annoying, because they are.

George Bush is pretty obviously not a fascist, and does not have a secret agenda for fascist take-over. But conservative talk radio has bred a group of home-grown fascists. Right now the Republican party is using them, but 20 years from now who will be using who?

Walt,

Glad we agree about ignorant conservatives.

Bush is a man who jokes about wanting to be a dictator. So I don’t think it is obvious at all that he’s not a fascist. At the very least, such a joke says a lot about his total lack of character. And the joke is representative of his approach and his minions’ approach to “what this country needs.” And they have acted that way.

Bush does not have a secret agenda because it is all out in the open. It’s hiding in plain sight and so far, very few mainstream folks, with the notable exception of Krugman, have connected the dots.

You imply that Republicans are just using the home-grown fascists. I admire your fine sense of discrimination: to me, they are two names for the same thing. Yeah, there is a difference between Powell and Ashcroft, but whose kidding whom as to who’s in the ascendant?

As for the Faustian bargain you believe the “good” Republicans made, please try again to try to rationalize what’s going on ‘cause that argument ain’t flying; it’s heavier than a day-old potatoe pancake.

What’s happened to the Republicans since the 50’s is closer to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And the Republicans were pretty bad even before they turned into pod people.

Sorry, man but as they say, you’re in denial as to how bad it really is.

(btw, yes, I know how to spell another word for spud; i just couldn’t resist.)

Tristero, you seem to have a big problem with freedom of association. If I don’t want to buy music from someone who has what I consider to be ridiculous views, then I don’t have to. If I don’t want to buy wine from a country that has behaved irresponsible, then I don’t have to. If I want to suggest to others that they do the same, then I can do that.

You are free to do the same. Just don’t go complaining that there happen to be enough people who agree with me to make a difference, and far too few who agree with you to make a dent.

And if there’s anyone in politics who HASN’T made a joke about being a dictator, then they have no sense of humor whatsoever.

Geoff,

Your point was proven. By Tristero’s logic, every time he turns off a “conservative” program, he’s a censor.

E. Brown

sd: Bless you for being the voice of sanity.

tristero: I’m not sure it’s only a handful of wackos who seriously espouse the Bush=Hitler line. I hear it A LOT here in the Bay Area. Even the non-radical Atrios has posted approvingly on this tactic several times and his comments board runs about 12:1 in favor of this line of thought. Not only is it historically ignorant, it’s very likely to backfire on the anti-Bushies. But don’t try telling them that.

Tristero does go into conspiracy theory territory doesn’t he? Bill O’Reilly telling a person on his show to shut up is a sign of fascism by the Bush Administration? People freely refusing to buy French wines or listen to the Dixie Chicks is a sign of America turning into Amerikkka?

Forgive me, Tristero, but it seems to me you’re confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. And of course, you cite the fact that you can’t really source your accusations (and that most of them are fuck-ups that have happened in all administrations – remember the many fascistic and blatantly illegal acts of Hoover’s FBI?) as “evidence” of your “fact” that Bush wants to kill you.

You’re a classic, Tristero. I think Geoff is right. You do not even have the shadow of an idea of what living under a true dictatorship is like.

Who Loves Foreign Policy?

I’m going to try and rescue Michael Totten’s much-disparaged argument (see here for a bunch of disparagers) that liberals know and care less about “international politics and history” than do conservatives. If you leave broad generalizations aside and …

Builders and Defenders Michael Totten’s

Builders and Defenders Michael Totten’s piece about Builders and Defenders had me spending way too much time yesterday reading all of the related linked articles and thinking. I’ve got a longer post in the works but I wanted to throw…