(Actually, I agree with you, yojimbo. Dissent is becoming politically incorrect right now in America, and there’s a real tendency toward us-and-them thinking, which treats all criticism of the US as equally “irrational”. Carry on, please.)
One less nasty drunk, bitter at his inability to understand the world, in the Washington press corps. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of them, though.
Good luck in the real world, Christopher. Try the National Inquirer, or the Globe, or one of the other tabloid papers in Florida - they hire a lot of failed British journalists with drinking problems; you’ll fit right in.
Re this “reflexive anti-Americanism” some people keep harping on: No such thing that I can see. There’s a lot of refusal on some people’s part to try to understand problems, and consider that we have a responsibility to try to make things better - it is much easier, making much less demand on the intellect, to simply denounce anyone who wants to try. And y’all can go screw, m’kay?
Hey, knock yourself out. Without having extensive research, I would say that the number of doctors murdered by anti-abortion zealots in the past century is comparable to the number of Jews killed in a standard suicide bombing. Just a hunch.
Sorry, I just don’t see this. Democrats, and even some Republicans, are criticizing Bush’s Iraq strategy right and left. You can’t open a newspaper without being bombarded with commentary arguing against the administration’s behavior. I think it’s just trendy nowadays to say that dissent is politically incorrect. I get a good chuckle when I read some columnist in a nationally syndicated column printed in God-knows-how-many freely run newspapers saying that our fascist government is silencing him and everybody else who dares to speak out against the president. 
Actually I think there is plenty of debate in the Nation: there was much debate over Kosovo, over Nader vs. Gore, and over what kind of response to make to 9/11 (and let’s not forget those inscrutable Cockburn/Hitchens debates over George Orwell, et.al.). And then there is the more centrist left of the Democratic Party, or The New Republic (as it was prior to its last takeover in any case). And then there is the more leftist left of say, Z or some (though far form all) academic publications.
Anyone who thinks there isn’t any debate on the left is hanging with the wrong lefties ;).
I will miss Hitchens who, as others have said, was truly unique. His book on Clinton was hilarious. I liked his cranky style and his willingness to say/do anything. (Some may not know that a rift was created between Hitchens and some Nation devotees when the former made a controversial decision to divulge information during Monica-gate. He hated Clinton that much.)
If I’m talking about Hitchens as though he were dead rather than just gone from the Nation, it’s because I really think he’s lost his mind on this issue. I found his post-9/11 columns, in which he took on Chomsky’s position (which is not a Nation position, mind you), very stimulating. They made me think a lot. But Hitchens seems to be making a facile equation between Iraq and 9/11; between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The remark in which he castigates a section of the left for fearing John Ashcroft more than Osama is absurd. For one thing, criticism is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of opportunity to reprobate both figures without making some kind of valuation between them: something that the Nation would never do. We in the United States who care about civil liberties have to criticize John Ashcroft because he’s our Attorney General. Who will criticize him if we do not? What is Hitchens thinking?
More to the point, the Osama/Aschroft comment was also a strange segue in a column that is all about how nasty a dictator Saddam Hussein is. I don’t doubt for a second that Saddam Hussein is a nasty and dangerous dictator; I wish he had never been supported in the first place. But I’ll be damned if I can see the legitimacy of unilateralist, imperialistic behavior from a country that could and should see itself as part of a community of nations. And I’ll be damned if I can see how a war waged on those terms would be helpful in the struggle against terrorism.
The Nation is for multilateralism, the UN, and diplomacy. It is for a longstanding US policy of exhausting these options before warmongering. It’s position on this issue is more or less in synch the centrist editorial position of the New York Times, and very much in synch with our allies in Europe. (Even Blair is for working through the UN.)
To criticize the new preemptive doctrine, to favor a multilateralist approach in Iraq–to criticize John Ashcroft–has nothing whatever to do with one’s thoughts about Osama bin Laden. Nowhere in the pages of the Nation have I ever ready anything in which Osama was favorably compared to Ashcroft, and Hitchens has to have lost all judgment to go so far in implying it.
I don’t know enough about Hitchens personally to understand him; but I think he’s very haunted by the failure to combat fascism early on in the last century. I think Islamic fundamentalism is also something that must be contended with. But that is almost the end of the analogy between the two. Fundamentalist movements in countries whose dictatorships the US helps to prop up, or in democracies with complex ethnic problems and poverty such as India, are a very different matter than Hitler or Mussolini coming to power in Europe.
Let’s not forget that Saddam isn’t an Islamic fundamentalist. Let’s not forget that fundamentalist movements are growing within countries such as Pakistan and India. Will we simply invade and take over these countries too? Let’s not forget that most of terrorists involved in 9/11 IIRC were Saudis. Yet the Saudi government is considered a great ally of the US.
None of these complexities are taken into account in Hitchens’s ill-considered analysis.
for the sake of completeness, additional explanation in red
News flash: Dissent (from the majority view) has always, by definition, been “unpopular” in this country, not to mention everywhere else. This does not release would-be leaders from the obligation to speak up against foolish and/or poorly-articulated policies without obsessing about political gain.
And it does not justify whining about one’s “marginalized” status. We are not sending jailing dissenters or sending them to re-education camps. Accept a little unpopularity without flinching.
Get real.
I don’t know if that was aimed at the viewpoint I expressed to yojimbo, Jackmannii, but I totally agree if you’re talking about the Dem’s’ tactic of whining about “politicization” (as if politician’s aren’t supposed to do that) instead of actually being the opposition party. If you’re talking, on the other hand, about individual citizens then I don’t think you’ve made a very compelling point. Marginalization limits debate to what’s “popular”. That’s not democracy. It’s masturbation.
I don’t believe that “marginalization” (i.e. criticism, fair and otherwise) has limited anything, except for those who chose to be limited. The people who gripe about this come off sounding like prom queens who are afraid of not being “popular”.**
Very true.
Are you done with that strawman-there are some crows I need to scare away.
:rolleyes:
I’d like a CITE for everything you just said, Sam.
Specific examples, please. Kthanxbye.
december, I’d like a cite for this:
Guinistasia, a number of people have expressed empathy for Iraq. The latest were Bonior and McDermott, who went to Iraq and expressed an opinion questioning Bush’s word and expressing some degree of confidence in Saddam’s word.
There have been any number of anti-American critics in Europe. Remember the German minister who recently compared Bush’s actions to Hitler’s?
AGAIN december, criticism of Bush does not make anyone anti-American - maybe anti-bullshit, maybe anti-his self-serving agenda, maybe even anti-his policies. But not anti-American…how can anyone be ‘anti’ an entire damn continent and everything therein ?
It’s the same old, same old with you: Anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian …yada yada…you know, too often you read like somewhere between a fundamental Nutball and an old fashioned racist…You really need to differentiate between a ‘people’/culture/way of life and transient political policies because - just to state the blindingly obvious - otherwise you encourage dangerous stereotyping and misrepresentations.
With all respect, one would have thought history would have taught a Jew the importance of making that distinction.
Sam
This is a joke, right, Sam? Just a droll spoof of what you might be like if you were rigidly and blandly wingish. By what nebulous mechanism do you connect Robert Mugabe with the American left? Robert Mugabe, Sam? Robert fuckin’ Mugabe? You’re kidding, right?
december
Stunning. Ann Coulter? Ann of Green Goebbels?
You and Sam got some kind of bet going, right?
One Coulter’s points in Slander is the frequency with which liberals “argue” by calling conservatives fascists. No doubt she would be grateful to see you providing support for her thesis.
Real stinging rejoinder there, december. Hope it didn’t take very long.
Are there two Ann Coulters? The one who talks about executing a few liberals? The one who talks about killing all thier religious leaders and converting them to Christianity. (Though the validity of the conversion of dead Muslims is beyond my theological grasp)
You imply that I have insulted Ann Coulter. I say that’s impossible.
Listen, I gotta go. Don’t want to miss Sam explaining to me how liberals are responsible for Robert Mugabe. That’ll be better than Twilight Zone
The same Ann Coulter who stated that no one appreciates the benefits of “local fascism,” IIRC.
And we should all know by now not to single out someone on the basis of religion.
There are bigots to be found among every religion, race and nationality.
If december had been making blanket statements about all Muslims in this thread, there might be justification for someone to bring his religion into the discussion. He didn’t, and there is not.
“Marginalization” doesn’t mean “criticism”, it means pushing a group or philosophy to the “margins” of society, thereby removing that viewpoint from popular discourse. Thus limiting debate. -Admittedly, such a thing can’t happen counter to prevailing public attitudes; however, popular dismissal doesn’t automatically make marginalization either philosophically justified or politically healthy for a democracy, as it tends to remove the p.o.v. without consideration. IOW, while open public debate may well lead to considered rejection of a particular viewpoint, the process of evaluation will have enabled improvement of the prevailing viewpoints, and aspects of the rejected viewpoint may be adapted into popular thought. Thoughtless dismissal of a viewpoint is done at society’s peril.
…
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
~Aristotle
I realize that this “marginalization” theory is one you subscribe to strongly, and there’s not much hope of convincing you otherwise.
I think this is still an open society where dissenting viewpoints can be freely expressed, even if the more outrageous and poorly expressed ones are liable to catch heat. And it’s far more effective just to let fly with a good argument than to say “Help, help, I’m being marginalized!”.
Otherwise you risk marginalizing your critics.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
Jackmannii, when nonoutrageous and well expressed arguments get pushed aside because they go against popular sentiment, it’s worth noting, as I’ve done several times. I don’t dwell on it, except in response to denials that the phenomenon exists.
You say dissenting viewpoints can be freely expressed in this open society of ours, and I don’t deny that. But I do assert that the mass media have failed on the whole to reflect that dissent, that elected representatives have also failed to adequately communicate dissent, and that active social stifling of certain forms of dissent is ongoing.
There are no black helicopters, no reeducation centers, no raids on counterculture publications. Dissent in America is vigorous and vital, and constitutionally protected. God (may Her hooves forever invisibly glisten) bless America, land of the free. But let’s acknowledge that the resurgence of patriotism we’ve seen as a necessary response to 9/11 isn’t fully compatible with the -arguably- more necessary open criticism of the country’s policies.