Neoconservatism & Fascism-A Reply to Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg, the author of Liberal Fascism, has posted a lengthy reply on his blog to my post on his book. Since the National Review, which hosts Jonah’s blog, does not allow citizens to reply on a discussion board (only the elite get talk?), I’ll reply to him here. As Jonah was complementary towards the civility of our discussion here, I want to say at the outset, that I appreciate both his thoroughness and his civility as well. I don’t want to indulge in a point by point refutation of his piece, but rather tackle his big idea, expressed here.
And so here’s my last point and a dire prediction. I would argue – in fact I do argue – that conservative dogma is the great bulwark against fascism or fascistic policies in part because it breaks the historic linkage between activist foreign policy abroad and totalitarian impulses at home.
This totally confuses me. Where have the conservatives helped break the link between Bush’s activist foreign policy and his totalitarian (the Unitary Executive) impulses at home? In fact it seems to me that the neoconservatives have been the chief enabler of both the activist foreign policy and of the tendency to centralize all power in the Presidency. Jonah goes on to raise his concern about a “rising tide of collectivism”.
Liberals, meanwhile, are still obsessed with the Jamesian “moral equivalents of war.” Indeed, after 9/11, a host of liberals insisted that war requires big government. Chuck Schumer argued that the war on terror meant we need a “new New Deal.”
As I have tried to argue, the new politics that is needed is not a centralized federal government led politics, but a decentralized bottom up New Federalism. What Obama is saying is that we have to end the war and reapply our treasure to fixing our broken education, health care and infrastructure systems. But this does not mean it has to be a top down central government solution. Justice Brandeis once wrote,
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
Obama’s campaign has been built on a bottom-up, decentralized model. I believe he knows this is the model of all innovation, which always happens at the edge. California is a laboratory for innovation both in the private and public sectors. If the Conservatives in Washington would stop their lawsuits to block our local innovations like clean car laws, privacy reform and stem cell research–maybe we could get on with our revolution. And maybe Jonah Goldberg might join us, finding that he was a conservative mugged by reality.
It’s very clear that he’s viewing conservatism as classical liberalism when he views it as a bulwark against fascism. It’s also fairly clear that this administration does not hold the same views. Conservative commentator Glen Beck actually made the remark that he wanted to rebrand himself as a classical liberal to bypass the stigma of conservatism. I find this a bizarre twist because commentators like his colleague Rush Limbaugh were responsible for the rebranding of the word liberal in the first place.
Many of Obama’s strengths lie in his compromise with capitalism. He doesn’t endorse a wholesale ditching of the current insurance business, but rather an invigoration of the competition by imposing a new alternative for the consumer.
The radio talk crowd appears baffled by this, and wants to continue to drag implications of fascism over the plans he has made- his plan to encourage corporations to hire within the United Sates remind them of Mussolini. The overall implication of an entire state takeover of services is hollow in the long run, and the citizens will choose to serve as a laboratory in the situations where they feel confined to unacceptable choices.
Jon,
Certainly IF, and this is a HUGE IF, Obama stood and said, “I side with Jon’s new federalism, and as such, I will devolve power back to the city states, and leave it to the local communities to decide the nature of the relationship the citizens will have with the states.”
THEN, you would be the man-with-the-plan.
But, really that isn’t going to happen. And as such, conservatives get the credit for at least wanting to break the back of “totalitarianism” here at home.
Again, remember, we count taxes as theft and think your worries about “civil liberties” pale in comparison to welfare, medicare, and social security as proof of evil federal authority.
I read your NF doc, and it is bold in as much as you trust your ideas to win in the city states that adopt them. I’d certainly trust one state with libertarian free market principles to TROUNCE the rest of the nation year after year.
My question is: if McCain makes a stronger case for your New Federalism, will you support him?
Morgan- I cannot support McCain as long as he want to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. (or even 10 years).
Snail, one doesn’t “compromise with capitalism,” any more than one compromises with medicine.
Thegiantsnail,
Limbaugh didn’t ‘rebrand’ the term liberal in the US rhetoric. That honor belongs to FDR, who, in response to being called a left-winger, ‘stole’ the term liberal from Hoover, because the left was trying to rid itself of the stigma of the ‘progressive’ Teddy Roosevelt, who happens to be one of John McCain’s personal heroes.
It is really hard to call Hoover much of what we call a ‘conservative’, he would be more the equivalent of a GWB, who flies under the banner of conservatism, but increases the size of the government more than any president since LBJ.
I personally would love to see a return to the classic monikers of liberal vs conservatives, because as a ‘classical liberal’ myself, I don’t like being associated with the likes of the ‘conservative’ movement right now.
This was why many great thinkers of recent times, like Hayek, did not like labels. They often change without people realizing it.
DanKenPon…
If we’re dusting off the time machine, I’ll lay the blame on John Stuart Mill for dragging in the concept of positive liberty.
The word liberal has only been stigmatized since Reagan was signed in, but that’s long enough for it to have been my whole life.
First of all, these labels that are thrown around (liberal and conservative) are really irrelevant in today’s world and are nothing but weapons used to muster the troops for your side, and attack the other. Neither of these labels are anything these days but ambiguous talk radio and Sunday talk show nonsense used for political purposes.
For example, the so-called “conservative” movement has done a wonderful job over the past few decades of turning the label “liberal” into a bad word that equates to the enemy.; they hate the military, they want the US to loose, they want to coddle the “terroists”, they believe in “craddle-to-grave” welfare for lazy people and the government to support everyone and run everything. Oh, and yeah…to surrender to the “terrorists”.
Of course, none of this couldn’t be further from the truth, and on even face logic it’s ludicrous, but yet they’ve quite successfully created this meme and it’s worked, and continues to work gloriously for them in the political arena.
Most Americans, sadly, are ignorant and naive of what’s really going on in the world, and also gullible to what they here from voices like Rush Limbaugh (a political hack entertainer making millions spouting one side’s propaganda), et al.
Most American’s don’t get real news and have no clue what’s really going on in the world around them. In fact, most Europeans know more about what’s going on in this country than our own people do, but that’s a whole other topic so I digress.
But as long as they can come home and watch American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars, they’re content to take and repeat the 30-second sound bites of propaganda and infotainment they hear on a daily basis from the major news networks and personalities like Rush and Bill OReilley. And more sadly, take those views to the voting booth, if they even bother going. Unfortunately, there’s little critical thinking going on with most American’s anymore.
Goldberg is famous for being one of these right wing ideological voices — on the same level as Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and the like. His published viewpoints have been consistently decimated with logical response and objective thinking. So personally, I find little value in anything he says. He’s a right wing hack. That’s about it. When confronted with intelligent counter arguments, he’s very consistently fallen short, as can easily be demonstrated in the quote from him above.
To the contrary, it’s painfully obvious that the Republican/conservative political and governmental movement of late is more illustrative of fascism than otherwise. All one needs to do is look at the facts of our current and recent Republican infestation of government, and you can’t define it as anything else. That’s why the ridiculous contention that they represent an anti-fascism dogma is completely laughable. As usual, all you have to do is look at reality, or dare I say, the facts. It’s the very opposite of what he claims.
As usual, these types of voices talk about “conservatism” in some theoretical light, but which is completely contradicted by the reality.
Would you say that our current so-called “conservative” government movement is actually “conservative” when it comes to, say, fiscal matters? Record deficit spending and an unprecedented national debt that is saddling future generations with debt they clearly don’t deserve, and can’t foreseeably manage long after the current batch of “conservatives” are long gone.
What about so-called “conservative” attitudes towards “states rights”. A constitutional amendment to ban state recognized same sex relationships?
And Goldberg, like most self proclaimed public pundit conservatives these days, want yours and my kids to go get their limbs blown off, or killed, in the Middle East for their professed beliefs in “democracy” and “free market capitalism”, when they clearly won’t go fight themselves, nor do they want their kids going. That’s some strong, noble beliefs there all right.
Not to mention that they claim to believe in democracy abroad, but while at the same time defending the utter destruction of it here in the U.S. It’s insane nonsense.
And I’m not saying that nonsensical, hypocritical BS isn’t exclusive to the Right either. It comes from both sides.
But this tit for tat name calling and pejorative labels, in lieu of actually discussing issues based upon facts and logic is what our political discourse has sadly become.
In truth, most citizens in this country actually believe in what I would define as more liberal than conservative ideas. In short, putting community and social well-being before individual profits and selfish gain.
Good public schools for our kids.
Health care as a right for all of our citizens (like every other industrialized nation on the planet except us).
Liberal is about caring for your neighbor rather than competing with him to see who can win the most.
Liberal is about helping the least among us — those who didn’t inherit wealth, and are otherwise handicapped by racism, bigotry and inherited poverty in our society.
It’s about a level playing field for all, instead of selfishness profiting at other’s expense.
And, of course, it’s about a strong nation economically, militarily and morally. Show me one American who wants out country to surrender to another. To gut our defenses. To eliminate our military. To put Bin Laden on a couch and psychoanalyze him rather than bring him to justice.
Show me one American who wants people to not have to carry their own weight and support themselves in our world, and not be a burden to the rest.
It’s all BS, and sadly too many buy into this nonsensical rhetoric that has been created and cultivated for the sole purpose of winning elections.
Not to say that many don’t actually believe these things; things which don’t hold up to the slightest degree of critical thought and evaluation. To the contrary, I’m sure that Goldberg and Kristol and others truly believe in their own deluded non-realities.
But it’s not rocket science to see what’s going on right before our eyes.
Our government, currently dominated by so called “conservatism”, acts in ways that are anything but. To the contrary, what we do have of late is the closest thing to fascism, under any definition of it you choose, and as a direct result of the modern so-called conservative movement.
The nonsensical rhetoric of our political landscape is truly mind boggling. These labels mean nothing. They’re just simplistic fight’n words. But the real truth is in the pudding.
Our government has been moving full steam ahead into full blown corporatism, fascism…a plutocracy. And doing so ostensibly under the label of so-called “conservatism”, which it obviously isn’t. No more than liberalism is anything like what it’s been labeled and characterized as being for political purposes in recent times, and which spews from the mouths of of the Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, Counter’s ,and Goldbergs of the right wing political punditry who make their very livings (and quite lucrative ones I might add) spewing this crap because people will consume it and they get paid will for it.
So if Goldberg, or anyone else, wants to claim that the conservative movement he supports is contrary to fascism, then they truly need to have their head examined because the proof just ain’t in the pudding. It’s utter and complete nonsense by virtue of the facts right before our eyes.
Enough with the labels and name calling which only serves to distract, to placate, to numb the masses from critical thinking.
Do we want a truly representative government; of the people, for the people and by the people, or not. What was envisioned by our forefathers of this nation. Or do we want this plutocracy, theocracy and fascist corporatocracy which that we currently now clearly have, despite what Goldberg and these other nonsensical voices claim, and which the reality (as is nearly always the case with Goldberg) clearly contradicts.
Here’s Jonah’s sleight-of-hand trick (from his reply to Jon) in operation:
“7. The point I try to make in my book about corporatism is that it is the natural result of economic regulation. ”
THE natural result? Of ANY economic regulation? Gimme a break! A possible result in some circumstances maybe. But deregulatory zealotry is just as good a path to corporatist tyranny. In fact it is the one we’re on right now.
“When profits are ultimately determined by the government, not the market, then businesses will spend their time investing in government policies.”
Sure. But profits are usually NOT determined by the government. Regulation typically operates to adjust costs to reflect social judgments like “killing all the fish in this river costs at least as much as buying equipment to prevent it” . That adjusts the boundaries of markets a bit, but only rarely eliminates them.
Globalization plays a role here, because to regulate company A in the US, while company B is unregulated in China MAY in fact render A unable to compete. But that is a flaw in the regulatory approach. Nobody thinks it is reasonable to ban murder in even numbered ZIP codes, while rewarding it in odd numbered ZIP codes. Rules should be applied consistently. A globalization of capital without a corresponding globalization of law defeats our ability to set prices of things like water quality. That points to a flaw in global governance not to the inherent evils of law. We have a race to the bottom in regulation because we prioritize the profits of today’s corporations over our own future liberty.
“Conservatives” like Jonah have completely forgotten the pervasive function of law in their privileged lives. As long as he is labeling me a fascist, perhaps it’s only fair I should call him an anarchist. And, come to think of it, maybe I should write an “incisive” book called “Conservative Anarchism.” The logo could look something like this monopoly guy throwing a Molotov cocktail.
Cufford, I think you are just upset about what people here in the U.S. want.
1) An unpopular war is a war we are “losing,” don’t take this the wrong way, but it doesn’t /won’t take much to convince the same people we are winning. Because we are.
2) People want everyone to have healthcare, but they won’t give up what they already have (not even 1%) so other people get it.
3) It sounds to me VERY MUCH like you don’t really want people to have to carry their own weight. Your definition of “carrying weight” seems pretty easy on people, far easier than mother nature intends. Just say, “I don’t think people should be forced to carry their own weight,” then you have the advantage of telling the truth.
4) I don’t mean to accuse you of spew, but you bring it on yourself. “It’s all BS, and sadly too many buy into this nonsensical rhetoric that has been created and cultivated for the sole purpose of winning elections.” THAT’S YOU, dude.
5) “In fact, most Europeans know more about what’s going on in this country than our own people do, but that’s a whole other topic so I digress.” Cufford, you are obviously tilted. Look bro, MOST PEOPLE here have their eyes open, they just choose rationally NOT TO BE LIKE YOU. You sound upset that your ideas have been weighed, judged, and found wanting – and instead of figuring out how YOU CAN CHANGE what you think, you want to blame the judges, you want to blame the audience.
I (and this country) love new ideas. If you have some, tell them. But you’ll never sell old ideas, ideas of second rate nations, HERE. If other countries are doing it, trust me, this country won’t be.
“Conservative Anarchism.”
The logo could look something like this monopoly guy throwing a Molotov cocktail.
I’d buy that book! Hell, I’d see that movie!
Morgan, your medicine analogy is a little vague.
Is this medicine as a cure? Capitalism is no panacea, and you should revisit Adam Smith’s reservations regarding it.
Medicine in practice is a series of compromises. We want the patient to be pain free, but we can’t sedate him so much that his vitals drop dangerously low.
Medicine as a science? This is perhaps the strongest point, but then your viewpoint is reversed. Laissez-faire is survival of the fittest. Government intervention allows the unfit to survive.
@Morgan:
“1) An unpopular war is a war we are “losing,” don’t take this the wrong way, but it doesn’t /won’t take much to convince the same people we are winning. Because we are.”
Cufford didn’t use the term “unpopular”, “losing”, or “war”, so it’s unclear how your point here relates to his post. But, your point is worth exploring.
In order for us to be “winning” the “war”, we need a clear, universally-held definition of the “war”. Historically, wars were defined by the declaration of war from Congress (see WWII). Such declarations stipulated not only the enemy but what conditions would be considered “winning” (e.g., surrender by enemy government).
In recent decades, “war” has been used as a term for things other than Congressional declarations of war. This causes a fair but of public confusion, because fluid definitions of “war” result in fluid definitions of “winning”. And, since in some cases the use of “war” is mostly a marketing term, the definition of “winning” can morph to suit the needs of the marketers (e.g., the Bush “Mission Accomplished” brouhaha).
In short, the public won’t feel we’ve “won” unless they know what “won” might look like.
Perhaps I’m just a dolt, but I cannot tell you what would constitute “victory” in *any* of our current “wars”. Remember that “victory” conditions, to be usable by the public, need to be positive conditions (e.g., we have achieved this condition), not negative (e.g., nothing bad has happened in such-and-so time).
What are the victory conditions for Iraq? If you say it was the ouster of Saddam Hussein, I suspect a lot of people will disagree, because then the troops would be coming home and not dying from IEDs and such. And a “peaceful, stable Iraq” is too nebulous to be a practical victory condition.
What are the victory conditions for Afghanistan? Capture of bin Laden? Eradication of the Taliban (and how will we know if they have been eradicated)? Both? Something else?
What are the victory conditions for the “War on Terror”? Is it even possible to have positive victory conditions for such a war? In other words, what would have to happen for victory to be declared?
What are the victory conditions for the “War on Drugs”? The “War on Poverty”? Let’s pretend the civil rights movement had been pitched as the “War on Intolerance” — have we won? If not, what would constitute “winning”?
And so on.
Until such time as there are commonly-held victory conditions for these “wars”, I suspect there will be serious debate as to whether we are “winning” or “losing” those wars. This isn’t a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, it’s a “let’s use ‘war’ as a marketing term” thing.
Actually, Morgan — and with all due respect — you are incorrect on all of your points. You have clearly bought into, and are repeating verbatim, the propaganda that I am speaking of.
On Iraq, on health care, et all. Repeatedly, public polls demonstrate that Americans, in vast majorities, feel the opposite of what you state.
As with most people who repeat the standard right wing talking points, like Goldberg, you ignore the obvious, the facts, and repeat what’s been driven into your head by the incessant, and apparently effective, right wing noise machine.
You appear to be in that 19% of Americans that believe this administration is doing a fine job for America.
Thanks for your response.
@Mark Murphy… to add to your rebuttal of Morgan, I would say that there is a large population of Americans who would consider war “unpopular” not only if we weren’t winning but also if it didn’t fit within Just War principles. That doesn’t include pacifists who in considering war offensive have already moved into that group of people to which Oscar Wilde alluded when he said, “As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular. ”
Here are the principles, see if this war fits:
* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Now, granted, these are the principles for jus ad bellum and not for jus in bello nor for jus post bellum but I think the point isn’t lost.
“But this tit for tat name calling and pejorative labels, in lieu of actually discussing issues based upon facts and logic is what our political discourse has sadly become.”
To borrow from an old joke, Cufford, what do you mean by “our”?
A lot of us want to talk about issues. That characterization, however, aptly describes your lengthy rant … ad hominem attacks, generalizations, parroting of partisan stereotypes … it touches all the bases.
With all due respect, if you think those with whom you disagree are not worth discussing, why waste time criticizing them?
Snail and Mark,
Capitalism is the medicine as in… it is the best course to fix what ails us. As far as I can see, the only time you/we should accept government interference in the market is for war. And not just any kind of war, war for our resources, to protect ourselves. If we do not “win” in the Middle East – oil/energy will be weaponized, something we have suffered slightly through before and it is only going to get worse.
As I said, Iraq has perhaps 400BILLION barrels of awesome cheap oil (cheap to extract) and we need it. We AT LEAST need to maximize production of it, get as much oil on the market as humanly possible, for as long as the oil lasts. Doing that is “winning.” And losing is SO HORRIBLE, we willing sacrifice blood and treasure to ensure the free flow of oil. IT IS A PITY, so many people, Jon included, are not accepting this reality, and DEMANDING a war garden mindset. It bothers me, that Jon puts all his chips on “ending the war,” without covering his bets and demanding that since we have a war – we should all cut back.
That’s the beauty of the coming election. When Obama or McCain wins, Jon and company learn we are staying in Iraq and they will then (please god) focus of FIXING the country’s attitude – go throw rallies to get people to sacrifice their consumption of oil. SCREAM at celebrities to stop taking private jets, scream for tax free investment into alt.fuels.
Be clear here, we are in CRISIS. The oil is running out, RUNNING OUT. We face large scale destruction, “All the worst parts of the Bible” to steal a line from Armageddon. The whole world will crash and burn if WE (the US capitalist engine of the world) do not step into the breech and figure out how to run the earth on solar and nuclear. That’s 15BILLION+ people living on this planet on nuclear and solar energy. It falls to us. There is no other cowboy who will save the day. We have no time for mamby-pamby anti-hero socialist elites who want to pretend other countries don’t want to sit on “their” oil and gain power against us while we are racing towards the cliff. They know their oil is running out, they know when it is gone, they have nothing left but sand. Do you think they want us over there ensuring it flows out as fast as possible? Forget religion. Thats the silly thing they tell their weakest to make them fight. Forget fairness. Life is not fair.
The question is, do you want your children’s children to live better than you or not? That is the only question.
Cufford, I didn’t mean to be rude. But everything you said was so meaningless I could say it right back to you AND IT FITS. Stop with the generalizations. Capitalists are not anti-poor. Foreign countries are weaker than the US for a reason – their forms of government – their structural economies are anti-invention and run by dipshits who resent their betters. These are the facts. Deal with it.
I left this link before, I’m not a video editor, but I gave it my best shot to fix the movie “Syriana”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvPvtF8idiA
Morgan and Doop.
Typical of those who repeat the talking points they’ve been fed rather than engage in critical thinking of their own, is the tactic of attacking the messenger when they don’t like the message. Both of your responses to my post were nothing but attacking me for expressing my point of view, in the way I chose to express it.
Not only disrespectful, but downright counterproductive to the discussion.
Furthermore, and as at least one other commenter pointed out, you both ignored much of what I really said, heard what you wanted to hear, put words into my mouth, and tried to trivialize my points of view.
I can see where this is going, as Internet discussions often go; attacking the poster for participating in the discussion with his/her own points of view.
When you don’t agree with what was said, slam the messenger.
So, I’ll move on.
Morgan- I would argue that there is another time when both of us would agree that government intervention is necessary and beneficial. In issues which the market cannot fix- issues like pollution, human rights, and education- a firm hand needs to step in and protect those who have no power to confront these issues alone. A free market does not have the capacity to encourage billions of people to make sacrifices in their lives which are minuscule to them, but which can have a global effect. A free market does not want everyone to be treated with equal dignity. A free market does not want everyone to be educated. Individuals want that, but unless they band together to make a stand in a democratic government, these personal goals will be passed by because a free market wants cheap, easy, uninformed labor.
There is an interesting book about anarcho-capitalism available for free in at FreeKeene.com called “The Market for Liberty.” I’d suggest you read it. It even goes so far as to suggest that governments have absolutely no positive role. It might change your mind about a few things. For me, it succeeded in distinguishing a firm line concerning the proper place of government. Where the market would fail to recognize the overwhelming will of the people, a government must intervene.
We are on the verge of name calling here and we have all prided ourselves in the last few weeks on our civility. Even outsiders like Jonah Goldberg have noted that quality in our dialogue.
I would make the following suggestions. Try not to make long posts that don’t directly relate to the topic of the original post.
Morgan-I realize you may feel like Davy Crockett in the Alamo, but you keep shooting the same gun–Iraq has all of this oil. We need to get our hands on it. Whatever it takes to assure us of cheap oil is OK. I don’t think even Dick Cheney would be bold enought to make that argument in public. I have put up a new post about real solutions and maybe this discussion could migrate over to a place we might find common ground on.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/alternative-energy-new-federalism/
I have to say Morgan, what you appear (in my opinion) to lack in logic, reason or implied morality, you certainly make up for with enthusiasm. But the volume of one’s argument, the decibels of one’s debate do not make a substitute for being right, or for dealing fairly and justly with one’s fellow conversationalists.
Many of the things we have been discussing on this blog are not ones that can be clearly defined as right or wrong. Many cannot be clearly defined at all, let alone which are correct and which are false. This leads us to the commonly observed substitutes for true communication or worthwhile debate and discussion – - ad hominem attacks, name-calling, straw-man arguments, obfuscation, nebulous definitions, specious statements, and/or dubious assertions.
The most important thing that I learned in college, I gleaned from a 500-level philosophy class. This namely is: people rarely if ever are actually arguing about the same thing. If we cannot agree upon the givens, we are really just exchanging so much hot-air.
So, to do us both credit, and to honor the host of the blog, I submit to taking up a single point of yours, out of this whole thread, and to provide a refutation for it. As I work for a living, and cannot afford to spend more time in the arguing of what I consider to be numerous instances of specious statements and assertions. So, the point that I would like to refute was a point you asserted in a response to Cufford upthread, which I find particularly questionable:
“Look bro, MOST PEOPLE here have their eyes open, they just choose rationally NOT TO BE LIKE YOU.”
Without knowing what your definition of ‘here’ is, I am going to assume that you do not mean ‘this blog’, as from the number of posts, and with the inclusion of Mr. Taplin, your particular viewpoint does not seem to be in the majority (which I will define as greater than 50%). Then again, it is possible that you mean that amongst the blog lurkers and posters that the majority do not tend to post that they share similar beliefs to Cufford, either. I am going to assume that you do not take ‘here’ to mean, your locale or place of residence, because you offer no reference to it in your post. Instead, I am going to assume (for purposes of my refutation), that you in fact, are defining ‘here’ as The United States of America.
Again, as mentioned previously, I am going to take for a definition of MOST PEOPLE to be a majority of people, and again, define this as a percentage of the group found to be greater than 50% (in a binary-choice situation).
Depending upon when the first part of the statement is made, about MOST people having their eyes open, this may or may not be true. Typically, I would offer for some given assertions, most Americans spend roughly two-thirds of their lives on Earth with their eyes, in fact, open. The other third, again typically, they spend asleep (again, most people) with their eyes closed (current President excluded of course). The lower 48 states of our Republic crosses 4 time zones, so if you made this assertion at approximately 3am central standard time, I think that your assertion may be false. Where, it would be quite likely that 50.1% or more of the nation (at least the lower 48 states) would in fact have their eyes closed, on account of them being unconcious, in their beds.
The second part of your assertion is that ‘they’, the group which I am again assuming you define as 50.1% of Americans, make a rationale choice to not be like Cufford. At this point, it bears directly on your statement to clarify two things:
The first would be whether or not Cufford (or rather the person posting behind the moniker of Cufford), is sufficiently famous to be ‘known’ by the majority of Americans. I would posit that perhaps this is not the case, as famous people tend to have much more entertaining and engaging things to do than to bandy-about and exchange insults on blogs. I could certainly be wrong (Cufford if you are reading this, please post as to whether or not you are sufficiently famous for the majority of Americans to ‘know’ you).
The second clarification needs to be whether or not ‘most’ Americans are rational. This will be a much harder clarification to obtain (in fact, nigh to impossible), so I will posit a couple of facts that would seem to contradict your assertion that ‘they just choose rationally NOT TO BE LIKE YOU’.
Fact #1: A Washington Post poll conducted from August 7th to the 11th of 2003 found that 69% of respondants believed there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11, without any evidence to support such a conclusion.
Fact #2: A CBS news story filed on February 7th, 2006, stated that America has a negative savings rate, where: “The government reported last week that consumers last year spent all they earned and then some, pushing the personal savings rate into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent.”
I would at this point like to make the assertion that the above two facts do not imply rational behaviour or rational choices by a majority of Americans.
In conclusion, I believe that your assertion that:
“Look bro, MOST PEOPLE here have their eyes open, they just choose rationally NOT TO BE LIKE YOU.”
is, in fact at best a specious claim, and at worst an outright falsehood. This is not to consider the fact, claim, assertion or mis-statement that Morgan is, in fact, a brother of Cufford…
Personally, I love a good, even if flawed, discussion – - even with individuals with whom I disagree strongly. I love the fact that Mr. Taplin has provided both the venue and catalyst for the discussion. I like to take in mostly any point of view, because the more facets of the gem that are seen and taken into account, the clearer the perception of the gem becomes.
I would ask that we continue to be civil and respectful in our argumentation, discussion and debate. Debate the merits of an argument, not the value of the individual. Rejoice that we live in such a country and in such an age that such meetings of intellects and arguments can even be had.
- Zhirem
@Captison:
I like that summary. Here’s a wiki-citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_in_bello
As I see it, it is possible to discuss Just War completely apart from current events (e.g. Iraq), thereby keeping “talking points” from entering the discussion.
Talking points (a.k.a. viral memes), are actually entertaining to use, in addition to originally being infotainment. …and talking points are easy to use because they are so salient, due to the frequency of repetition. Unfortunately, this thread has had a strong dose of virii, and it’s growing ill.
So, I have a question that I can probably answer on my own, but maybe for the sake of discussion, I’ll post it here. Ignore if necessary.
During the 1970s-1990s, when the neo-conservative ideology was being articulated, what was its stance on Just War theory?
Zhirem, LOL.
You caught me. I generally always assume, everyone has an informed opinion. Meaning they have paid attention as much as they deem “enough.” And more information is all anyone needs to eventually change their mind.
Jon, Dick Cheney made this claim, you have his secret document, laying out a plan based on it. You felt Greenspan was admitting it was all about the oil, and I pointed out you knew it already. The important thing was Greenspan was LAMENTING we couldn’t all just accept it (back then). Well, I do now. I think when faced with the true alternative, you will too. Everyone here (by here I mean the US) will. And I’m making this argument as a clear sign of things to come. This is THE argument, the truth as I can see it.
I keep asking WHAT IF Obama wins and says, “guys turns out we have to stay and protect the oil…”
Will you then change your mind? Seriously, just fiat this for a second… Obama wins and tells you he has had his mind changed. What do you say then?
I haven’t read Goldberg’s book, but I think it sounds interesting. I did read the long and absurd rant from Cufford and one word came to mind: balderdash.
You’re being attacked not for participating in a discussion and expressing your point of view, but because in doing so you diminish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I think by calling Goldberg, Kristol et al a hack exposes you as a partisan hack incapable of accepting that you may be wrong.
Morgan- As I keep saying. Any country or company that has oil reserves are more than happy to sell them on an open market at any price north of $70 per barrell. We don’t need to spend $2-3 Trillion on the military to get our fair share.
Jon, and I keep asking, what if you are wrong?
For my part, I’ve come to terms with at minimum we might get a president who is promising to leave Iraq. And if he actually does it, and we don’t have oil weaponized, we don’t lose global power, and supply doesn’t drop, and oil prices don’t shoot up to $150 a barrel – then I am wrong.
Now then, I keep trying to get you to answer, what if Obama wins and he finds out Jon’s assumptions about free flow of oil are wrong? Will you believe him if he tells you?
Why is so hard to get a real answer? Have you really considered the questions I’m asking?
Don’t you find it funny, that YOU are the one telling ME to believe in free markets?
Cufford seems to have taken his ball and gone home, after calling some of us names, questioning our intelligence and accusing us of regurgitating propaganda. My, that was helpful.
So I can’t respond directly to him, which puts me in the position of talking about him behind his back, which I don’t like doing.
However, because much of his participation has been symptomatic of much of what Goldberg wrote in his book, it doesn’t hurt to point this out.
Ironically, in his first post in this thread, he closes by unconsciously supporting Goldberg’s central thesis: That liberalism has roots in, and parallels in many ways, fascism, as it puts the state’s interests ahead of those of the individual.
Cufford doesn’t use those words, of course. He talks about putting the community ahead of selfishness. But it’s the same thing.
It’s fascism with a smiley face. Government making the decisions, but for our own good because we aren’t smart enough to do it ourselves.
Morgan- “Don’t you find it funny, that YOU are the one telling ME to believe in free markets?”
That’s what I find most ridiculous of all. We have oil reserves. Canada has oil reserves. Lots of our friends have oil reserves. The middle east supplies only a quarter or so of what we use. We can find a way around a need for direct purchase if we so choose. It would be much easier if we had a single man who was president of both Exxon and Iraq, but we can deal with a free market.
The solution cannot solely be oil, and we both recognize that. Oil is a one way weapon- if the Middle Eastern nations stop selling it to us, they will be shooting themselves in the foot.
@farkinga — You raise a good question! I don’t know what the early neo-conservatives thought of the Just War Doctrine. Here’s a promising start though a search results page for “Just War” on the First Things site
“First Things” is a Catholic conservative/neo-conservative magazine: wiki stub
I hope someone more knowledgeable than myself can comment on your enquiry!
I feel like Indiana Jones in the marketplace, whip in one hand and no more time left to argue.
Lets see if we can keep it simple. No oil, no economy “now”. Yeah I know “alternatives”. What if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Hydrogen production its coming.
I was taking a class and the couple behind me were saying “a very boring class”, how they looked forward to socialised health care. I asked them if it was okay with them if the government held a gun to my head to pay for it. It was okay by them. how about it being run by the VA. The eyes opened a little wider.
The city states don’t have to experiment, it’s being done all over the world, we just have to pay attention. Oh yeah everybody will come to a different conclusion.
Our founding fathers actually thought about this “Stuff” and gave use a plan to deal with it.
Zhirem “What !!”
A good site, good short contents of the good work. I have loved your site :,
Good news! Thanks!,
[...] about a year I’ve had a running dialogue with Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism.Goldberg is a neocon who got so tired of being called a fascist for his [...]
“Obama’s campaign has been built on a bottom-up, decentralized model. I believe he knows this is the model of all innovation, which always happens at the edge. California is a laboratory for innovation both in the private and public sectors. ”
18 months later…..
Decentralized is not a word currently linked to Obama and California is broke. There could be some flaws in your thinking. Good discussion none the less.