Yglesias on Sullivan and cartoons
Earlier, I said I enjoyed Andrew Sullivan's Time column concerning the riots and violence over the offensive cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammad. And while I still agree, more or less, with Sullivan's assertions in the piece, it doesn't necessarily mean I think he was breaking any new ground in the debate nor have I surrendered to his worldview.
And Matt Yglesias agrees with me:
There's no need for hard thinking precisely because this isn't a hard question. Of course newspapers should have the legal right to publish cartoons that offend some people. Of course the people offended by the resulting cartoons shouldn't start throwing around threats of violence to intimidate people. But what does this have to do with "the foreign policies of Bush and Blair" or the need for "very hard thinking" on the left?
And Matt Yglesias agrees with me:
There's no need for hard thinking precisely because this isn't a hard question. Of course newspapers should have the legal right to publish cartoons that offend some people. Of course the people offended by the resulting cartoons shouldn't start throwing around threats of violence to intimidate people. But what does this have to do with "the foreign policies of Bush and Blair" or the need for "very hard thinking" on the left?
posted by Jmac at 8:13 PM
10 Comments:
Apropos to nothing else at all...did you catch this?
During the chaos, the Gladiators' Markis Callahan returned to his roots as a calm and cool player.
"It's just the way I am," Callahan said.
Just like Corey Hill.
He became that way growing up three blocks away from coach Billy Wade's nephew, a four-year letter winner at Clarke Central who died on Tuesday.
What happened there? Any idea?
Lovie
The Left needs to come to grips with the fact that we are engaged in a real struggle with evil people who wish us dead.
The problem here is a lack of understanding that the Left may not necessarily accept the issue as defined in the terms of the Right. Not everyone (and I'm not speaking for Johnathan here) believes in the threat (at least not to the extent that it's been painted as). Or in "evil." Just repeating over and over again that we're engaged in a war and that we're right is not going to convince me. You may have to provide some actual hard evidence.
Lovie - Yeah, apparently he killed himself, or so I've heard. It's a shame. He was a good kid who I really liked.
I concur with Hillary. To simply say there is one way to conduct a global war on terror is incredibly short-sighted. And, for what it's worth (and removing the War in Iraq), I pretty much agree with the Bush administration's response to 9/11. I have some reservations about the Patriot Act, and I think the administration has done a fairly lousy job with regard to shoring up our ports and other transit stations, but overall the military response (the invasion and removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) was one I agreed with.
As was freezing the economic assets of known terrorists and terrorist organizations. As was going to troubled spots, like Indonesia, and helping to train the government's forces to combat terrorist organizations. As was refusing to work with nations which harbored terrorists.
True, I have many issues with the War in Iraq - as do many Democrats and Republicans and libertarians and Green Party folks and independents - but because I have concerns over that issue, by no mean suggest I don't comprehend that we're in a struggle with fanatical individuals who have no qualms with taking the life of innocent people to further their agenda. I even wrote a long piece just a few days ago which outlined my views, and it was one in which you agreed with.
But to say it's Bush's way or the highway grossly underestimates the situation. It fails to see the many possible theories on how best to combat terrorism. What the administration has done a good job of doing is suggesting its way is the only way (as well as give the false impression that allegiance to its course of action in Iraq, and Iraq only, is the litmus test for national security) and the opposition has done a very poor job of countering that by saying there are other solutions.
You fault some on the left for 'sympathizing' with the enemy, but even that is too simple. Should we attempt to excuse the horrific actions terrorists take? Absolutely not. Killing innocent people is wrong. It's morally wrong and does no good with regard to advancing one's true agenda. Simple as that.
But if we are really trying to change the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East - as the Bush administration says it is trying to do - then we have to, at the very least, understand what is driving so many young men and women over there into an ideology of extremism and hate. We have to understand all of its complexities so we can offer an alternative which will produce a form of peace and create some measure of stability in a dangerous region. Because while I have no issue with fighting individuals who wish to do us harm, I also recognize it's not a sound long-term foreign policy.
And Hillary, that very skepticism you just displayed is exactly what the right is talking about. To many on the right, it is obvious that a hostile civilization (or sub-civilization) is out to get us. They must be responded to in kind (though of course there is room for debate as to exactly what kind of response is appropriate as we go, day-by-day). Many on the left respond to this "obvious" situation by sitting around and rubbing their academic beards and wondering "What is evil? Are they really out to get us?" etc. This is precisely why the right accuses the left of being woefully naive at best when it comes to national security and fighting a war on terror. And at a gut level, I think the right is more in line with general popular opinion here. Despite opposing what is now an unpopular war, the Dems still do not inspire the average Joe with confidence regarding national security. Average Joe feels not-so-good-anymore about Iraq, yet still can't stomach the Democrats on general questions of war. That should make you take a step back.
I realize that this answer can be frustrating if you really don't believe in evil (or are just skeptical about it). It starts to feel like we're going around in circles. But I also think the prevalence of evil is fairly easy to demonstrate to most fair-minded people. Let "evil" be roughly defined as great harm caused to a person unnecessarily by another person. The wild hypothesis of supporters of some kind of war on terror is that these sorts of harms occur with great regularity throughout our world, and that people who deliberately blow themselves up and try to take down non-combatants with them in service of a political cause (any political cause) are among the worst perpetrators of such evil. A further hypothesis is that it is legitimate to resist such evil-doers violently. And the final hypothesis is that, when the threat is grave enough, it can be warranted to put security over other values (like civil liberties).
Liberals (or leftists of some other stripe) might want to argue that the threat is not really so bad as to warrant any setback to liberty, or even to warrant a war at all. They might be right (remember that I oppose the Iraq War). But the problem is that most on the left come across to those on the right as not even being interested in arguing for such claims. Instead, they summarily reject any and all claims that a war on terror is even going on, or that it is really that big of a threat to warrant any major military action, or that security can ever be put above liberty. They come across as simply opposing whatever Bush ("Chimpy") does, no matter what. This makes them seem like reactionary ideologues. And it makes many 'ordinary' people mistrustful of their ability to respond to genuine threats to our civilization, which these ordinary people think actually exist. Even if the War in Iraq is wrong, or most of Bush's foreign policy is wrong, he at least comes across as trying to respond to a threat that seems very real. Dems simply dig in their heels and oppose him at every turn. It does not inspire confidence.
This is really a philosophical argument, and so it might not feel like the "hard" evidence you want. But, there it is...
(I could be won by the Dems in an election. I know that's hard to believe, but it's true. It is possible to get me as some sort of social conservative Democrat. But the Dems have to stop preaching socialism in economic matters, and they have to stop preaching Bush is Evil/What is Evil anyway? in foreign policy matters)
I'm sorry for the Sunday rant, everyone. It grew into something bigger than myself.
But Xon, both you and Corleone repeatedly say 'many on the left' or 'most of the left' when you say the left doesn't get it. That's fine and dandy, but as someone who actually considers himself fairly up-to-date on current Democratic ideologies, I don't know where this claim comes from. I don't mean that in a flippant or controversial way, but out of geniune disbelief.
True Hillary has expressed her reservations and she has requested more concrete evidence, and that is a perfectly legitimate position to take. But even she would admit she is considerably more liberal than most in the Democratic Party, and she hasn't explicitly said she would refuse any sort of explanation about 'good' and 'evil' in this debate. Perhaps your most recent response can sway her one way or another. All she has done is ask, from what I can gather, sincere and valid questions, even if they do raise concerns from those on the right. But rather than lambast her - as so many on the right tend to do when someone voices some concern and decides to not march lockstep behind one course of action - why not engage her in a constructive dialogue to let her see why you feel the way you do.
To be fair, I think you did a very good job of that Xon, though I sadly think such respectful responses are lacking on both sides.
But, back to my original point, with the exception of individuals such as Dennis Kucinich (a man who honestly means well) or Michael Moore (a talented filmmaker who is, admittedly, a bit wacko), what prominent member of the left has contemplated whether or not the Islamic extremists who flew planes into our building or blow up innocent people in a crowded shopping mall were 'good' or 'evil?' And when did folks like Moore become the spokesperson for the progressive movement in America? I don't think Bill O'Reilly speaks for all conservatives in this country, so why do conservatives possess this disconnect in public discourse?
Is the right so unable to engage in geniune discussion about policy that when it sees Susan Sarandon protest the war and shout 'Save The Gila Monsters!' they automatically feel the more moderate Democrat in the heartland of Iowa must feel the same way?
It's true that many on the left have expressed reservations about the current course of action with regard to conducting a war on terror, but they haven't attempted to rationalize the actions of the terrorists. Nor have they suggested a war on terror 'isn't going on.' The former suggests an inability on the right to accept legitimate criticism, while the latter is just a made-up line with no grounding in reality solely designed for PR purposes so Republicans can look 'strong' on national security and Democrats can look 'weak.'
I'm really not sure where to start, except to say that, yes, it's a philosophical argument, and that I don't come from a philosophy that's about hitting the other guy harder. And I'm not interested in preserving my "nation" so much as preserving my philosophy.
I believe the reason people tend to go after Bush, howevs, is because a) it's pretty obvious Osama's not a force for truth, justice, and the American way, and b) we actually have a say in the matter. We can't control who funds terrorism overseas so much, but we can control who our president is.
Feel free to hold forth on how I'm a naive America-hater. Please.
Hillary, do remember that I myself have lots of concerns about U.S. foreign policy as it is currently exercised. (As someone who self-labels as "conservative" in this day and age, I feel obligated to diligently point out my separation from certain other kinds of 'conservatism' in this area, though I know that by now everyone who reads my comments regularly is tired of hearing me say it.) But I am just trying to explain to you where the conservative frustration with your position comes from.
Even in that last comment, you said that you put your own philosophy over your "nation." Again, this sounds like (but maybe it's not quite what you mean) you are "anti-American", in that you are willing to let your entire country crash to the ground so long as your own favored philosophy is honored. This sounds like uncompromising ideology.
I listed four hypotheses that are held by those on the (center-)right who support some sort of war on terror. These aren't just held by such people, they seem almost indisuptably obvious to them. Any response with high-sounding rhetoric that is not willing to grant any special status to our current circumstances will be met with frustration and disbelief.
Perhaps if the left can provide some sort of detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of these hypoteheses, some folks on the right will be willing to listen and at least take the left seriously on foreign policy. (And some try to do this, to be sure.) But so long as the responses are of the "I just don't believe in hitting the other guy harder" sort, there will be frustration. Again, please don't take this as an insult; I'm just trying to point out why many feel like the left just doesn't "get it." Pretend that terrorists are running around kidnapping people out of their homes. The community is getting rather panicy over this. Someone stands up and says, "Well, I just don't believe in hitting the other guy harder." What the heck are we supposed to do with this? Not try to catch the terrorists? Not to try to rescue their victims, even if lethal force is required against their captors? This sounds like "pie in the sky" utopianism, and it gives no comfort to people who feel they face a real threat to their basic existence.
Obviously, we can debate just how great the threat posed by terrorism really is. We can debate just what measures are acceptable for stopping it, just what temporary compromises of civil liberties might be acceptable if it keeps us secure. There is a gray area here over which reasonable people can disagree. But, if the liberals just say "Omg the police are looking around at UGA without a proper warrant! Omg the police have a guy that fits the terrorist's description and they are holding him for questioning without a lawyer. This is wrong wrong wrong and should never happen!," then they start to sound naive and utopian. These civil liberties will do nobody any good if Athens gets nuked. (On the other hand, if the conservatives just say "get the bastards, I don't care what you have to do", they sound a bit over-the-top in their own right.)
Many are so adamant in criticizing Bush that they end up sounding like they don't even support doing much of anything to stop terrorists. They end up sounding like a war on terror is an inherently meaningless concept invented by politicians. And this sounds crazy to a good many people.
JMac, I somehow missed your comment from a few days ago.
There are lots of people who support Michael Moore, etc. Though I will admit that my being a grad student and constantly moving and having my being in a state university environment might skew my perceptions somewhat. The fact that I am an "internet being" probably also skews my perceptions. But the internet is at least something of a "grassroots" cultural matrix. In ay case, it's hard to go onto the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and deny that there a substantial number of folks in the Democratic Party (or on the Left in general) who are rigid ideologues in the way I described earlier.
I don't deny that there are moderate Democrats. Certainly there are. A good many even. Maybe even a majority. But, for whatever reason, the moderate Dem political philosophy, the set of principles that guide their political thinking, are not coming out very clearly in the national discussion. The 'Hollywood whacko' types are always out front-and-center, and they seem to be embraced.
But, really, this could just be a problem with the right. Maybe the moderates are talking, and we're just not listening. I can buy that. Nonetheless, there are a number of pretty radical folks out there on the Left, and I run into them (in a university setting and on-line) a pretty good deal. If you like, you should feel free to take my comments as only intended for the Hillarys of the world, and not the JMacs. I certainly know there is a difference. I'm not talking to you, just to the radicals, if you like.
Hillary, I didn't mean that last comment to JMac to sound demeaning of you. I'm assuming you would endorse JMac's characterization that you are "considerably more liberal than most in the Democratic Party," when I speak of the "Hillarys" and the "JMacs." I'm assuming that you would volunteer to be associated with the more radical left. If not, then let me know, and I'll apologize.
Post a Comment
<< Home