I ask in all seriousness. Why is it the pundit class is filled with so many people who cannot grasp the most basic concepts? Beinart goes on at length about why right thinking liberals hate Joe Leiberman and concludes that it must all be about temperament.
Lieberman is hated - loathed by me - because he gives the right an out. If the press needs a “Democrat” to repeat the latest right-wing talking point, Joe Lieberman is there. If someone needs a “Democrat” to stick a knife in the back of another Democrat, Lieberman can’t run fast enough to be there to do the shiving. Lieberman loves being in front of the camera and if the best way to do that is to knife Democrats in the back, he’ll do it. The man runs around making up the rosiest scenarios about Iraq that bear no relation to reality (7 Americans were blown up today), and people wonder why he doesn’t exactly have the support of such marginal people as Sen. Harry Reid (currently the highest ranking elected Democrat, by the way).
But Peter Beinart just can’t understand this. Because he’s stupid.
Oliver
Your casting Joe Lieberman as the Judas Iscariot of the Democratic Party would be inspired if it were not betrayed by the fact that he was chosen for your Party’s presidential ticket in 2000 based on the very political traits you now condemn.
anthony, he was chosen in a lame attempt to distance Al Gore from Bill Clinton. Instead, it proves the argument.
Beinart isn’t stupid, Oliver. He knows better. He just doesn’t care.
Au contraire Diamond LeGrande
It only proves that the Democratic Party was (is) so morally bankrupt and vanquished that they had to choose someone purportedly deserving of abject loathing just “to distance Al Gore from Bill Clinton” - who was (and remains) the most powerful and influential member of that Party. And Democrats think their only problem is a rudderless “Nancy”?
Frankly, it’s Joe Lieberman who should be ashamed to be a Democrat.
Republicans love him bcause he is the poster boy for what they
present to the public; Dems are weak because they like peace
and harmony.
The public likes republicans during times of war (cold or hot)
because they don’t worry too much about who they kill, as long
as they are seen ‘kicking ass’.
So, what people like KOS and OW are saying is Dems have to
have the same ‘no prisoners’ stance on political war that
republicans have had from the ’60’s.
Lieberman is like Chamberlain waving a ‘piece of paper’ and
declaring peace between political parties ‘in our time’.
He deserves the same fate as Chamberlain.
George Orwell, Call Home. “Right thinking liberals” indeed. Agree with OW or you a re a doubleplusbad thinker.
This a is a great example of how totalitarism can grow within the left. There is already a mindset that there can only be one way to do things and only one way to think. I mean if its wrong to think a certain way, what does a ‘progressive’ society with full governemntal power do with the “wrong thinkers’ that are holding “progress” back. Why its a moral imperative to do something about those wrong thinkers. Any ideas gang?
How have powerful leftists handled recalcitrant populations in the past?
Dugger “It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
We got a huge tent in the Democratic party, it just ain’t big enough for Democrats who make a living at screwing over Democrats.
Dugger;
Lieberman can speak all he wants. he just can’t speak for me.
And you never never contribute anything but awful talking points. Both true, neither has anything to do with Iraq.
So much for a big tent and open discussion of ideas. Anyone reading this blog knows that isn’t the way leftist operate.
By the way, there are about 6.5 murders a day in california….you guys ready to roll up the carpet and leave CA?
Dugger, that is just a special brand of revisionism you displayed. Good job. Your analysis works the same if you replace progressive/leftist with conservative, so what’s your point? What do you think you proved? To leave out right wing fascism in any discussion of oppressive governments is simply bizarre. Oh, I get it, because then you would have to admit that the totalitarian urge doesn’t come from a particular political philosophy.
mjb,
My point is that people with average values and intellect or higher should be repulsed by the concept of “right thinking” as put forth here. That is what was said in THIS thread - by someone of the LEFT. That would seem to call for a contextual response, wouldn’t it?
Now yes, I would wholeheartedly agree that there is a totalitarian mindset amongst political extremes of the right and left. The problem is that it is not fashionable at all in our culture, media and universites to be a right wing extremist (but the opposite, of course, is not true of the left) and over history, left wing extremists have been much more successful in setting up long-running dictatorships, murdering innocent people and creating misery than right wing ones. Hence, the left extreme, today, should be of much greater concern to us all - IMHO.
Dugger, Tripleplusgoodposter or cretinous Rethuglican?
Dugger; somewhere in the middle
(tripleplugoodposter would be on the left of two choices-you don’t
want me to put you there, do you?)
Right… Beinart’s just stupid, because it never occurred to him that the anger about Lieberman’s a result of Lieberman (a) despite voting liberally, being seen to stand with Republicans at a number of times, and (b) supporting the war. Boy, if only Beinart had thought of that, he might’ve written something like:
“But, politically, rhetorical differences matter. In fact, they are at the heart of Lieberman-hatred. Lieberman’s heresy isn’t ideological; it’s temperamental. He loathes confrontation, he exudes goodwill toward all; he takes it as an article of faith that what binds us together as Americans is more important than what divides us, always. He is chronically happy with American life. During the 2004 campaign, he wanted to be liked by Al Sharpton, and he was. Today, he wants to be liked by George W. Bush, and he is. “
or
“So Lieberman-hatred is really all about style, right? Actually, no–there’s one final slice, and it’s the most important of all. Behind Lieberman’s obsession with national unity is his deep conviction that the United States is at war–not just in Iraq, but around the world. The war on terrorism is his prism for viewing Bush. And it drains away his anger at the president’s misdeeds, because they always pale in comparison to those of America’s true enemy. When the Abu Ghraib revelations broke, Lieberman said America should apologize, but then added that “those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, never apologized.”
Or…no, I think everyone knows how to click on the link.
Boy, it’s much easier to call people stupid when just ignore their entire piece, isn’t it?
Check a history book and see how long hitler, mussolini or pinochet were in power. Check how many people they are “credited” with killing. Then compare to J. Stalin…
You again fail to read. My esteemed collegue, Duggre said “and over history, left wing extremists have been much more successful in setting up long-running dictatorships, murdering innocent people”
See the qualifier…”much more successful” Words have meanings kids.
Most right wing idealogues are pikers compared to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
You see it isn’t how many names you can come up with, it is what those names “accomplished”. But I AM glad you understand a little latin
And you’re right, in your case the thing does speak for itself.
Pedro,
You’re right, Stalin did suck balls. Here’s an alternative for you: address the f-ing point. But since you feel that way of thinking proves something, here ya go: Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet. I realize I only needed two to win and prove that the right is much worse, but a third couldn’t hurt.
Dugger,
If by context you mean an indictment of one side without including any context at all, then you’re correct. Can’t argue with that. Look at it this way: you’re saying that because a liberal blogger got pissed at a conservative member of his ostensibly liberal party, somehow the “context” allows you to make an allegation that this is something particularly liberal which leads to totalitarianism, while ignorantly ignoring how this goes on every day (much more so, in fact) on the conservative blogs and websites you probably get most of your talking points from, usually in a much more violent form than you’ll ever see here. Also, i’m not sure how you came to such a sweeping conclusion as “over history, left wing extremists have been much more successful in setting up long-running dictatorships, murdering innocent people and creating misery than right wing ones”, but it’s pointless to argue with that because it’s so false that you make you ignorance pretty evident with the statment.
And you must not watch much traditional media because you seem to miss how hannity, oreilly, malkin, coulter, robertson, rush, savage, etc. are courted obsessively by them. And if you say they aren’t extremists, what does one have to say to be considered extremist? Before you answer, check out the dossiers on each of them at mediamatters.
I think in a lot of ways this OW entry is about frustration- one of the big problems for liberals has always been that not everyone is talking the same game- case in point, our protest rallies often get co-opted with messages from “Stop the War” to “Save the Whales”.
I am sometimes frustrated that Joementum and other conservative Democrats don’t speak with one voice. But this is a problem that cannot be solved. Being liberal is about being able to have your own nuanced viewpoint.
Conservatives have been successful in elections because they all speak one simple, easy to remember mantra that is easy for people who don’t follow politics to understand, and they all are in lockstep with the message du jour.
Only if you define history as beginning somewhere in the 20th century.
Joe Stalin, Hitler, etc. were firmly on the right. All about power grabbing and ethnic purity, there.
Stalin was firmly on the right?
Holy crap OW, you really believe that? Have you READ any history books?
Jesus, no wonder this site is so full of screwups, you people are truly unhinged…..you believe things with no basis in reality at all…up is down, down is up…..
drpedro, you want an example of a long-running totalitarian regime on the right? Try the Roman Catholic Church during the Crusades and Inquisition. That lasted hundreds of years. Nothing that Stalin or Hitler ever did cames close to the misery inflicted on the human race by conservative religious nuts down the ages.
But anyway, what does a “my dictators are less evil than yours” dick-measuring contest really achieve anyway? Shouldn’t we oppose all evil, no matter what side of the spectrum it cloaks itself in? Whether the evil lasts ten centuries, ten years, or ten minutes, is completely irrelevant.
Dugger;
Semantics is almost always victimizing one side or the other in any
exchange of ideas.
In the nether world of left vs right I think it is the intent of those who
lean left, to identify the thuggish tactics to the right, the other side
fully engages their defense mechanisms and retorts; ” More murderers
come from the left in history” and the perpetual game of Pong ensues.
I have often said, and I think those you typically spar with would
concur, “Get rid of all the murdering Bastards!”
Would anyone disagree with that?
How about; “Get rid of all the crooks and corruption?”
See. That’s not so hard to say. (harder to do, of course)
Can we all agree that, generally speaking, ‘where there’s
smoke, there is fire?”
Let’s pursue the smoke, wherever it gathers and snuff out the
flame before it fully involves those around it.
The problem with this approach is that some (like Saddam)
fight like Hell to keep their little game going as long as
possible.
It required extremism to remove him. That kind of extremism
is a little too extreme for domestic politics but the rhetorical
equivilent of war sometimes requires tactics that mirror the
oppostion. You know the old story about the guy who had to hit his
mule between the eyes with a 2×4 just to get his attention.
There are corrupt dems, there are corrupt Republicans. Can we
agree to get rid of these assholes with what ever tools we have
in a democracy?
mjb,
You will find that citing Media Matters won’t cut it with me (no more than my referring you to Brent Bozell would work w/you). Your arguments might or might not be correct - on their own merit. And I never get talking points from anybody. And could care less about Hannity Malkin etc. Forget the facile Internet ‘debating’ tactics.
Dr P covered most of this. I was careful in my wording. The problem is political extremism - both sides - but the consequences of left extremism, have, historically, been much worse. And lets not confuse arguing/discussion over the Internet and political/philosphical debate, even with sharp-pointed areas of disagreement, with ‘thinking’ crimes. Orwell recognized this mostly institutionalized radical left wing phenomenon in Animal Farm but it is very much evident in the earlier Darkness at Noon by Koestler (Stalinist political trials, purges).
And if you think the radical right has been worse, check out the estimates of # murdered under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc versus Hitler and pals. How long did the 3rd Reich last versus the Soviet Union?
OW please! The collectivist Bolshevik tsra-overthrowing Stalin was on the right!!!! Really?? You can do better than that. Thats just surrendering to us.
Dugger
I have high standards for those who serve in public office;
Liars, hypocrites(same as liar) and thieves need not apply!