The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Perhaps you have to be a lefty to get away with saying what Christopher Hitchens said on the Hewitt show last night. They were talking about Iraq - and, most importantly, domestic reaction to the war.
The interview tripped into a point that I want to focus on for a bit.
Hitchens:
I mean, if you think it's bad now, just try and imagine what it would have been like if it had been left alone. And on that, I don't think there's any disput at all. And by the way, I've made this point in countless arguments with so-called anti-war people, many of whom are actually pro-war, but on the other side, in public and in print and on television and on radio and in universities. I've never had any of them reply to my point there.
HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?
CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as...in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.
HH: Do you believe that there are leaders in the Democratic Party in Congress who also belong to that caucus?
CH: No, I can't say that I do think that. I mean, maybe Cynthia McKinney, who is not exactly a leader. She seems sometimes to talk in a sort of MoveOn.org manner, but no, I think that we're far from that in this case.
Bravo, Hitch.
Crying "you're questioning my patriotism!" is one of the most manipulative, rhetorically abusive strawmen the left uses. When every two-bit anti-war Democrat tosses it out when their views get criticized (and it's become a cliche that they do), it does three things: ratchet up the emotional commitment one must bring to any legitimate criticism of their views (you have to defend not only ), sidetracking the debate over the actual views (while one sorts out the whole "questioning patriotism" canard, and - worst of all - cheapens the meaning of the phrase when referring to people who really are, as Hitchens points out, not so much "anti-war" as "working for the other side", people like George Galloway and Michael "The Insurgents are the equivalent of the Founding Fathers" Moore.
Posted by Mitch at
March 23, 2006 07:46 AM
| TrackBack
So if I criticise, I'm not REALLY anti-war... I'm on the other side in the war for civilization?
Look up Demagogue in Websters and I'll bet you'll see Hitchens face.
And speaking of "the most manipulative, rhetorically abusive strawmen", there's this...
""working for the other side", people like George Galloway and Michael "The Insur*gents are the equivalent of the Founding Fathers" Moore."
(Had to add Asterik because the filter didn't like the word)
For anyone not paying attention, conservatives constantly and continually pull out the patriotism card. Now that a majority of Americans see the war in Iraq for what it is, that little trick isn't working so they're ratcheting up the rhetoric with direct accusations that we are traitors to our Country.
Remember, you're either with us or against us.
Posted by: Doug at March 23, 2006 09:30 AM"So if I criticise, I'm not REALLY anti-war... I'm on the other side in the war for civilization?"
Gosh, Doug - it looks like once again you've completely missed the point! Actually, you've totally proven mine; "What? You think *I'm* being unpatriotic for criticizing the war?" Uh, no.
Criticism is fine, and good. But some of the criticism has gone way past reasonable, and gone over to actively working for enemy ends - as Hitchens says, a small number (not Congress, for example).
"Look up Demagogue in Websters and I'll bet you'll see Hitchens face."
Amazing. Hitchens is historically one of the most reliable, and erudite, domestic liberals ever. But let the guy support the President (justifiably) one time, and POW - "we've ALWAYS hated Hitchens, Winston..."
Posted by: mitch at March 23, 2006 09:38 AMMaybe liberals don't have terrorist interests at heart.
But if they did, how would they act any differently?
.
Posted by: nathan bissonette at March 23, 2006 09:44 AMGosh Mitch,
I haven't missed your point at all.
To recap... You claim,
"Criticism is fine, and good. But some of the criticism has gone way past reasonable, and gone over to actively working for enemy ends."
What determines what is "reasonable" criticism? You? Chris Hitchens? Hugh Hewitt? How about Alberto Gonzales?
Please Mitch, define for all of us what is acceptable criticism because God knows, we wouldn't want to be considered un-patriotic much less traitors to our country.
It's been three years since the start of this war in Iraq and I have been wrong about exactly one argument I had - that was the possible number of dead Americans. I said overthrowing a secular government that posed ZERO threat to the United States wasn't worth the 10,000 American lives it would cost.
2319 dead and 17004 wounded. So I was off. Thank God I was wrong on that one but everything else? I (we) were right.
As for Hitchens, he is an ideologue. He's dug in his heals and refuses to budge on his position - even when the ground underneath his feet is washing away. The last thing you would ever find Hitchens admitting was that he is wrong.
For Hewitt to have him on his show and for you to represent him as some kind of spokesperson for the left is folly - made even more absurd by the fact that Hitchens was a self-proclaimed socialist.
Isn't it Eracus that is ALWAYS talking about how socialists and comunists have a not-so-secret agenda? Maybe Hitchens is actually brilliant and has you and Hewitt completely fooled. Maybe, Hitchens is agreeing with the war because he knows that the deeper we get, the greater the call for a proletarian revolution.
Wouldn't that be a fine "how do you do" eh' Mitch...?
And yes, I've always disliked Hitchens because he has always been an over inflated, pompous gas bag.
Posted by: Doug at March 23, 2006 11:13 AM"And yes, I've always disliked Hitchens because he has always been an over inflated, pompous gas bag."
Wow. The best pot meet kettle post I've ever read.
Posted by: Kermit at March 23, 2006 12:11 PMDoug, you prove my point in huge black letters.
If I say Michael Moore is working, wittingly or not, in support of terrorist goals - a supremely valid assertion - it's for certain that someone like you will chime in with something like "You're saying all dissent is unpatriotic!".
No. I'm being very specific, and either you know it and are ignoring it for rhetorical purposes, or it's just part of the way you (plural) think. Neither option bids hope.
"For Hewitt to have him on his show and for you to represent him as some kind of spokesperson for the left is folly"
Bollocks. That may be the most absurd thing you've ever said, Doug; what, because he appears as a guest on a talk show, he's really a potemkin conservative? By that "logic", Laura Ingraham is a liberal because she went on the Today Show.
" made even more absurd by the fact that Hitchens was a self-proclaimed socialist."
Um...what? Socialist=left. Not all liberals are socialists, and not all socialists are liberals, but all are left of center. And there is no rational way you can say, viewing his whole history and body of his work, that he's anywhere to the right of Paul Wellstone on any issue except the Anglosphere's response to Islamofascism.
Posted by: mitch at March 23, 2006 12:23 PMHitchens is far to the left of most liberals. He, much more than Andrew Sullivan, is the heir to Orwell; he has never repudiated his trostskyist beliefs. In the piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last july, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006950 he even seems to endorse the Trotskyist/Stalinist/Maoist idea of a permanent revolution. Hewitt is a smart guy, but he seems to have maken a mistake in assuming that Hitchens is some sort of conservative. Fellow-traveler might be a better description of Hitchens.
Posted by: Terry at March 23, 2006 12:33 PMBy the way, did you know that the Hitchens/Galloway feud has its origins in Orwell? Orwell was a member of Britain's Socialist Workers Party back in the 30's. It was the SWP that sponsored Orwell's service with the loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. The SWP endorsed Galloway for the seat he now holds in parliament and Galloway reminds Hitchens of that fact at every opportunity.
As for patriotism it means love of country, not love of country as it once was or love of country as it might be. If you frequently deface or burn the flag (the handiest stand in for the United States as a nation) at a political rally, you shouldn't whine about your patriotism being questioned. That goes for the right as well as the left.
Okay...
"If I say Michael Moore is working, wittingly or not, in support of terrorist goals - a supremely valid assertion - it's for certain that someone like you will chime in with something like "You're saying all dissent is unpatriotic!"."
Mitch, if you were to say Michael Moore blah blah blah... I would chuckle and remind you that the goal of the terrorists is to undermine our democracy and way of life. One way to do that is to indirectly cause us to forfeit or abandon our civil liberties. (see Bush wiretapping)
Another way is to bankrupt our economy (see Cost of Iraq war and tax cuts for the top 1%)
Terrorists don't need Michael Moore to help them. George Bush and you Republicans are giving them all of the help, reason and support they need.
"No. I'm being very specific,"
Really? Like when you say... "When every two-bit anti-war Democrat tosses it out when their views get criticized"
Or how about,
"not so much "anti-war" as "working for the other side", people"
Yes Mitch, you're being VERY specific in a vague, generalized kinda way...
Next,
"what, because he appears as a guest on a talk show, he's really a potemkin conservative?"
Um, no Mitch. I didn't say that now did I. I said he was an Ideologue. You're the one who felt the need to point out that Hitchens was, "historically one of the most reliable, and erudite, domestic liberals ever." Why would you do that Mitch unless you felt it were germane to the argument?
I don't care if he is the reincarnated soul of Leon Trotsky. He argued for this war based on it's ideology and he worships at the altar of Paul Wolfowitz. He was wrong, is wrong and will continue being wrong.
Posted by: Doug at March 23, 2006 02:30 PMDoug, how about I say this for everyone so you can feel better: we do not think you (singular) are unpatriotic, we just think you are (oh so very) wrong. There, I said it, and I feel better; I hope you do, too.
Of course, I don't take notes on your comment threads at this site, so maybe I don't speak for everyone...
Posted by: Sixth Sense at March 23, 2006 03:00 PM"In public affairs, stupidity is more dangerous than knavery, because it is harder to fight." --Woodrow Wilson
Posted by: RBMN at March 23, 2006 07:00 PMJeepers thanks Sixth Sense although I thought it would be clear from my post that I don't really care if you think I'm unpatrotic...
Posted by: Doug at March 23, 2006 07:46 PMY'know, Doug, if you think you need a little help with this patriotism thing send a message to my gmail address and I'll send you back an mp3 of John Wayne reciting the pledge allegiance. The last time I listened to it I was halfway to the recruiting office before I remembered that they aren't desperate enough to take a middle-aged guy with a crippled shoulder & a metal plate in his head.
Posted by: YTerry at March 24, 2006 12:57 AMYTerry,
John Wayne reciting the Pledge? And that's patriotism to you?
Wow. Sorry but I've always believed actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Doug at March 24, 2006 10:24 PMSo, no words are good at all?
What are we doing in a blog comment section then?
Posted by: badda-blogger at March 26, 2006 07:31 PM