Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The First Rule of a Thomas Friedman Column....
Matt Taibbi and I both nurture an unhealthy interest in the comically (yet lucratively!) awful writing of New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman. Taibbi, however, is considerably funnier about it:
Remember Friedman's take on Bush's Iraq policy? "It's OK to throw out your steering wheel," he wrote, "as long as you remember you’re driving without one." Picture that for a minute. Or how about Friedman's analysis of America's foreign policy outlook last May:
"The first rule of holes is when you're in one, stop digging. When you're in three, bring a lot of shovels."
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about?
It goes on like that. Link via Andrew Sullivan.
Elemenope|1.19.09 @ 4:50PM|#
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at
once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about?
Awesome.
PantsFan|1.19.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Matt Taibbi's review of "The World is Flat" is still one of the
funniest criticisms I've ever read.
http://www.nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html
|1.19.09 @ 4:57PM|#
"It's OK to throw out your steering wheel," he wrote, "as
long as you remember you're driving without one."
How did that go over on Friedman's driving test?
|1.19.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Friedman is like the Steven Wright of political commentary, except for him, it's unintentional.
Lester Hunt|1.19.09 @ 5:02PM|#
He wrote one of the worst book titles ever: The World is Flat. It's a title that just begs for the response, "no it isn't, dumbass."
Kolohe|1.19.09 @ 5:03PM|#
This column was good, but Taibbi's world is flat review was
better, and this passage:
Where does a guy whose family bulldozed 2.1 million square feet of pristine Hawaiian wilderness to put a Gap, an Old Navy, a Sears, an Abercrombie and even a motherfucking Foot Locker in paradise get off preaching to the rest of us about the need for a "Green Revolution"?
Is factually challenged in a host of ways.
|1.19.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Obviously, there's a contest going on among the cab drivers of the world to see who can make the Mustache of Understanding write the stupidest thing.
sasob|1.19.09 @ 5:09PM|#
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at
once?
I suppose one could have each foot in a hole and one's head in
one's ass. ;-)
|1.19.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I really wish the first rule of a Friedman column was, nobody talks about Friedman columns.
ed|1.19.09 @ 5:23PM|#
the comically (yet lucratively!) awful writing of
New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas L.
Friedman
OK, OK, cherry-picking his most awfulest scribblings is fun (and
lucrative?) but let's take it a step further, shall we?
Why is he successful? Why is Friedman one of the
go-to guys on Sunday morning political roundups? Could it be that
we Americans are boobs? Dopes? Dupes? Why is reason
reluctant to say it? Satire is well and good, but shouldn't
reason take the comedy a step further? Why stop at a
Daily Show-like analysis of Friedman's popularity? Is
reason.com a site of ideas, or lowbrow comedy? Is Friedman
to blame, or are we, his enablers?
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Friedman is popular because he is an "expert" who tells us exactly what we want to hear. Better yet, he tells us exactly what we want to hear couched in the language of "hard truths." Conventional wisdom is reinforced, and positions of cowardice and convenience are reborn as courageous, original thought. Whether it's invading a crippled and constrained Iraq or simply outsourcing your company's IT department, Thomas Friedman is there to convince you of your virtue and foresight.
|1.19.09 @ 5:43PM|#
Conventional wisdom is reinforced, and positions of
cowardice and convenience are reborn as courageous, original
thought.
IE, "Suck. On. This," stated by a Very Important Person on the
teevee, means that it must not be the lowest form of barbaric
warmongering to argue that we should start a war to teach a
different ethnic group that we're better than them.
|1.19.09 @ 5:46PM|#
AMERICAN PORK BELLY PRICES vs. WHAT MIDGETS THINK ABOUT AUSTRALIA 1972-2002.
I LOL'd
|1.19.09 @ 5:48PM|#
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once?
Lots of lube.
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 5:50PM|#
He's definitely gone off message on Gaza. Instead of the straight declaration of bloodlust, he should have instead rambled about his Toyota and Indian call centers for a couple paragraphs before lurching into the flowering of peace and prosperity in Indonesia, then lurched again into likening Hamas with Attila the Hun and the WTO protestors, and finally summarized with a single line about how collective punishment is perfectly moral. That is how you make the big bucks.
PantsFan|1.19.09 @ 5:50PM|#
I really wish the first rule of a Friedman column was, nobody
talks about Friedman columns.
The second rule of a Friedman column is NOBODY TALKS about Friedman
columns.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at
once?"
Three words.
Long Dong Silver.
|1.19.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Satire is well and good, but shouldn't reason take
the comedy a step further?
What, and deprive The Onion of it's raison d'etre?
|1.19.09 @ 5:53PM|#
But with this dude, it's like "Whoa, baby." This dude is digging
tunnels.
Toby Chu?
MNG|1.19.09 @ 5:54PM|#
The only good thing one can say about Friedman is that any time spent discussing him is by definition not time spent discussing Maureen Dowd.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 5:55PM|#
Since I'm supposed to be a liberal, I'm sitting here trying to
think of a liberal columnist that I like consistently.
I'm still thinking...
MNG|1.19.09 @ 5:58PM|#
OK, so I went to wiki's list of newspaper columnist list, and
the following liberals I like to read most of the time:
Roger Ebert
Michael Kinsley
That's it.
Lefiti|1.19.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Friedman would make a lot more sense if he drew a few simple conclusions from a fixed set of dogmatic principles and repeated them ad nauseam--like a fucking libertarian zombie. Donate now!
Kolohe|1.19.09 @ 6:06PM|#
I'm not a liberal, but here are some liberal columnists I like,
but don't generally agree (in no particular order):
Al Hunt
Eugene Robinson
William Raspberry
Richard Cohen
E.J. Dionne
I see now that most of these are Washington Post columnists, so
it's likely my appreciation for them is that I pretty much learned
to read by reading their columns (and their conservative
counterparts, Will, Krauthammer and the muddled middle of Broder
and Samuelson)
Neu Mejican|1.19.09 @ 6:08PM|#
First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at
once?
Mind Freak!
Lefiti|1.19.09 @ 6:09PM|#
The real lefiti will defend anybody the moronic zombie Matt Welch attacks. There isn't a kettle little Matt won't call black.
Elemenope|1.19.09 @ 6:12PM|#
...and their conservative counterparts, Will, Krauthammer
and the muddled middle of Broder and Samuelson...
No quibble with the rest of your list, but...
You like Krauthammer? YUCK.
Neu Mejican|1.19.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Liberal columnists worth reading...
Hmmmm.
I like this blog:
http://3quarksdaily.com/
Many of their regulars are worth reading.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Yeah, I often like Raspberry, but isn't he dead?
Al Hunt is always sharp and Dionne is ok.
I actually think George Will and David Brooks are good columnists
on the other side. And Novak.
Kolohe|1.19.09 @ 6:42PM|#
Yeah, I often like Raspberry, but isn't he dead?
He's retired (in what I think was the same early retirement surge
that affected a bunch of newsrooms over the last few years), but
not dead.
I don't agree with Kraut on many things either, but unlike say
Kristol (or even Brooks), I think he writes what he believes, and
not what other people would like to hear.
I could never figure out if Novak is Broder with a dark soul, or if
Broder is Novak without any soul at all. At least with Novak, he
embraced his more normative writing, while Broder always seem to
claim descriptivism, except when it comes to facile, nebulous
'bi-partisanship' (Otoh, having myself a rather amoral utilitarian
bent when it comes to political economics, that never bothered me
all that much.)
|1.19.09 @ 6:49PM|#
I agree with Neu Mejican. It's tough to think of any liberal
columnists whose dead-tree writings I like.
I read columns from the 2008 Nobel Lauriate in Economics, but
mainly for his Econ writing.
Elemenope|1.19.09 @ 6:52PM|#
I don't agree with Kraut on many things either, but unlike
say Kristol (or even Brooks), I think he writes what he believes,
and not what other people would like to hear.
Point. I just like the story where a speech Krauthammer was giving
at AEI caused Fukuyama to freak out and question the meaning of
life or some damn thing.
|1.19.09 @ 6:59PM|#
I remember as a kid a farm truck with two vise-grip pliers for a steering wheel.
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 7:04PM|#
Lefiti is not real. This thread seals it. Friedman = liberal = Lefiti must defend is a logic train that only works from a libertarian conservative mindset. Real liberals hate Friedman more than anyone outside of NRO and the Weekly Standard, and real conservatives generally see Friedman as a sensible "center-leftist." To even arrive at the mindset that someone like Lefiti would defend Friedman, you'd pretty much have to have the mindset of a Reason regular from a conservative mindset, to whom Hollywood, Al Gore and vegan straightegers are all on the same page.
The Angry Optimist|1.19.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Kolohe - I hate E.J. Dionne. He embeds his
personal (wildly statist) policy preferences into his columns and
just baldly justifies them, like a 10-year-old would argue. Look at
this column where he talks about conservative jurisprudence:
what would be the legal fate of new regulations on banking
called forth by the economic devastation of the subprime mess, or
bank bailouts that may be necessary to keep capitalism on track, or
mandatory mortgage renegotiations to keep people from being thrown
out of their homes?
There is so much question-begging and oversimplification in there I
don't know where to start. I mean...there is just such a tangle of
unsupported premises in there (i.e. that the homes people have to
negotiate for are theirs in the first place, that we
should justify the mandatory mortgage renogotiations under policy
grounds of not expelling people from homes they don't own...)
I mean, I could write a book, but seriously, Dionne sucks. One
more:
The four conservatives on the Supreme Court...have already
shown their willingness to overturn the will of Congress...when
doing so fits their political philosophy. The same majority could
keep conservative ideas in the saddle long after the
electorate has decided that they don't work
anymore.
Does anyone here think conservatism reigned in anyway over the past
eight years? Fuck me, Dionne.
|1.19.09 @ 7:11PM|#
Friedman, Kristol, Kristoff ("I'm saving the world while YOU go
to PROSTITUTES!"), Dowd, and Warner.
Those are some pretty terrible columnists they have over at the NY
Times.
BDB|1.19.09 @ 7:12PM|#
dbcooper--
What do you mean? They have all the bases covered: big government
liberals, big government centrists, and big government
conservatives!
|1.19.09 @ 7:21PM|#
MAX HATS is right.
Tom Friedman is mercilessly mocked on every liberal blog I've ever
read.
|1.19.09 @ 7:24PM|#
Why is Friedman one of the go-to guys on Sunday morning
political roundups?
Lexus and the Olive tree was a good book as well as timely...also i
heard he did some good journalism about Palestine and Israel like
200 years ago..
If you do those two things and talk well and look like a small home
town fireman you get to milk media attention for years and years
and years.
Kolohe|1.19.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Does anyone here think conservatism reigned in anyway over
the past eight years?
In the Supreme Court? There's a case to be made that many of the
opinions (esp after the Alito appointment) have conformed to
'Movement Conservatism' as commonly understood, while being at odds
with small c conservatism. Raich, 'bong hits 4 jesus' are just two
that come to mind. Otoh, Dionne will be wrong if the Court follows
their other overriding rules lately, which are near absolute
deference to legislative plain text, and more generally giving
broad discretion to executive authority where the text in unclear.
But we'll see.
Overall, I debated putting Dionne on that list, because I do
disagree with him more than any of the others.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 7:42PM|#
"Does anyone here think conservatism reigned in anyway over the
past eight years?"
Yeah, me. Like Kolohe said, the case can be easily made.
But I imagine for a proto-conservative like you they have not gone
nearly far enough, so I can understant your incredulity.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 7:44PM|#
Alito has interestingly shown more indepedence (as far as that goes for a movement conservative) than Roberts (like the Bong hits case), which is interesting given the MSM's storylines on the two.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 7:47PM|#
Uggh, "a proto-conservative like you thinks they have not gone nearly far enough, so I can understand your incredulity"
MNG|1.19.09 @ 7:56PM|#
There is all this talk about strict Kirkian or Burkian
"conservatism." Bull. Conservatism as a movement in the U.S. (and
most places) has been about authority and tradition. Religion,
militiarism, and jingoism are clearly the three main strands of
"conservatism" as any kind of popular movement (read Burke or Kirk,
I have extensively).
It's always good of TAO though to betray his conservative rather
than libertarian leanings. I've always suspected so of
course.
There is some intellectually honest "conservatism." One can find it
these days in The American Conservative and ISI, both of which I
highly endorse.
The Angry Optimist|1.19.09 @ 7:58PM|#
MNG - I guess I should have provided the full context:
Article.
Anyway, the crux of Dionne's article is that the conservative court
is going to reinstitute conservatism by judicial fiat, even though
conservatism has been thoroughly repudiated by the public at large.
I take multiple issues with this:
1. That anything resembling conservatism reigned in the executive
branch or the legislature from 2000-2006, let alone for the past
EIGHT years.
2. That the public at large repudiated conservative ideals, as
opposed to the obvious fact that the 2008 election was a referendum
on the Bush Administration.
In SCOTUS, I agree that a strain of conservatism is present (but as
Jeffrey Toobin said, it is authoritarian conservatism), but I
reject the silly notions of Dionne that the great engine of
liberalism that the unwashed wants is going to be held at bay by
the court.
The Angry Optimist|1.19.09 @ 8:00PM|#
It's always good of TAO though to betray his conservative
rather than libertarian leanings. I've always suspected so of
course.
I'm conservative because Dionne is laughably wrong? Mmm-kay.
I know you think I am conservative because I couch libertarian
arguments a certain way (instead of acting like a hyperemotional
college kid and calling all politicians murderers and thiefs)...but
you're wrong.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:04PM|#
Oh TAO, you work from the SIV-ian paradigm that "REAL CONSERVATISM" was not involved in the Bush administration. Actually, it was there in all it's flair. The religiosity of "REAL CONSERVATISM" (evident in Burke and Kirk), the jingoism of "REAL CONSERVATISM", the militiarism of "REAL CONSERVATISM." It was totally a conservative rule.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:05PM|#
"I know you think I am conservative because I couch libertarian
arguments a certain way"
Nahh, I think you're a conservative because you have no libertarian
principles to speak of, but plenty of conservative ones!
|1.19.09 @ 8:05PM|#
Wow, MNG, you really unmasked TAO's evil, sinister, hidden
motives there. Did you learn that trick in Postmodernism 101 or
Postmodernism 201?
"I've always suspected so of course." Why, it's like I can see you
doodling a goofy moustache on TAO's posts!
AFAIC, The American Conservative is shit, if their
willingness to post this kind of sophistry is any indication:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:07PM|#
Well, once you realize that Bush was a great conservative, as
the conservative voters of 2004 said overwhelmingly, then you are
wrong on both points my boy!
Of course conservatives (like you) don't NOW want to claim him.
He's stinky!
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:08PM|#
Oooh, Graphite, you don't like American Conservative, you scholar you! Get bent.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:09PM|#
"you think I am conservative because I couch libertarian
arguments a certain way"
You couch libertarian arguments? Really? Shit, who believes that
anymore?
|1.19.09 @ 8:11PM|#
It embodies exactly the kind of authoritarianism (especially
xenophobic kinds) which you rail against above. Seems kind of silly
to me to praise it for being "intellectually honest" in that
endeavor.
If I were to engage in some pomo "motive unmasking" of my own, I'd
say you like American Conservative more for its critiques of
libertarianism than its advocacy of conservatism.
Also, eat turds.
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 8:13PM|#
If the term "conservative" doesn't apply to those who have
claimed the title or the millions who elected them to office, then
who does it apply to? Tom Delay and George W. Bush republicanism
wasn't some rogue outgrowth that just happened to run the country
for six years. It was entirely the logical outgrowth of Newt
Gingrich, Ronald Reagan and Nixon. And if none of these politicians
count as "conservative" who does? How can a terms real definition
be so totally divorced from the tens of millions who describe it as
their own?
It's not like "liberal" has held the same meaning for the last 200
years.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:17PM|#
Graphite
You do realize the extensive sharing of talent between Reason and
AMC, right? Oh, you don't, because you don't actually subscribe and
read both mags? Well, there you go.
|1.19.09 @ 8:18PM|#
Isn't there some way that we could convince a pack of Naomi Klein drones that Thomas Friedman is the evil economist of Chicago fame, and get them to pelt him at a public speech or something?
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:18PM|#
Max
It's the conservatives who have not said something embarrasing in
the past eight years who are the "real" ones. The others are
fakers, obviously.
"Real" conservatives for TAO/Graphite are the former. It's a
hindsight thing.
Neu Mejican|1.19.09 @ 8:28PM|#
Real conservative?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology - with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."
Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"
WFBjr.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Conservatism is about coming down on the side of the
traditionally powerful and authority. Like TAO has the uncanny
ability to often do.
I'm a long time Reason reader, and someone very interested by the
ability of conservatives to influence libertarians. There are
libertarians (like fluffy, thoreau, j sub d, bdb, etc) and there
are conservatives hoping to influence libertarians (TAO, SIV, Guy
Montag, etc).
MNG|1.19.09 @ 8:33PM|#
NM
The mistake you make is that conservatism is against government. As
long as government is "keeping order" (law enforcement) or
"furthering national interest" (jingoism) conservatives have always
loved it. They also like it when government fosters religion.
Neu Mejican|1.19.09 @ 8:46PM|#
MNG,
How is that a mistake I make?
Do you mean that this is a mistake that William F. Buckley
makes?
I haven't attempted to define a real conservative or to
discriminate between the libertarians and the conservatives in the
discussion.
I was just adding grist for the mill.
William F. Buckley, a man often given the label "father of modern
conservatism" felt that George W. Bush lacked an effective
conservative ideology.
That seems like it might be relevant in a discussion of whether
Bush led as a conservative or not.
Just grist...for your mill.
Grind it how you like.
Neu Mejican|1.19.09 @ 8:55PM|#
More grist:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8856
Particularly around 7:45 of the video.
MNG|1.19.09 @ 9:08PM|#
WFB's philosophy was to support "the most electable
conservative." Hardly someone I would think is the voice of "real
conservatism."
But as a social movement about conservatism WFB has great weight.
Sadly this interview was in 2006 when anyone, even WFB, could see
Bush was a failure. His denunciation of Bush could easily be seen
as self-serving at best.
The Angry Optimist|1.19.09 @ 9:10PM|#
there are conservatives hoping to influence libertarians
(TAO, SIV, Guy Montag, etc).
The Amazing Kreskin strikes again. I am a libertarian, MNG. You can
tell as many lies as you want, but the fact remains.
Anyway, you are the supposed Burke scholar, so
when you say this:
Well, once you realize that Bush was a great
conservative
Would you care to clarify in what ways, in terms of specific
policies and actions, Bush was a "great conservative"?
Kolohe|1.19.09 @ 9:30PM|#
WFB's philosophy was to support "the most electable
conservative." Hardly someone I would think is the voice of "real
conservatism."
Really? I've seen a lot of weird pronouncements from left leaning
folks lately on the origins of modern conservatism (the most recent
being how the Korean War was a touchstone*) but yours is the most
bizarre statement I've read)
(*it's important in the sense that it sidelined until 1991 the
isolationist elements of the political right, but considering the
putative 'conservative' faction in politics at the time 'ended' the
war, the Korean War cannot be seen as a jumping off point for
modern conservatism. Not in the way the opposition to the New Deal
consensus and Hugh Hefner was)
Citizen Nothing|1.19.09 @ 9:37PM|#
We really need MNG, aka CED, at the next Libertarian convention
to distinguish the real from faux libertarians. After all, no one
else will try to make the distinction, right?
Also, I'll pay good money to see a fight-to-the-death cage match
between MNG and Neu Mejican. I can't be the only one Why hasn't it
happened? Market failure?
|1.19.09 @ 9:46PM|#
Libertarian oppose Friedman because he is not opposed to outsourcing and free association? Am I getting that right?
|1.19.09 @ 10:23PM|#
MNG returns to his crow-eating-dumbass persona and sez
Conservatism is about coming down on the side of the
traditionally powerful and authority.
That is ONE branch of conservatism, and possibly even the dominant
one, but it is hardly the ONLY one.
For someone who claims to have read Burke you didn't learn much
from the effort. Particularly if you can conjoin Nixon and Reagan
in a single intellectual construct. [And Reagan was always far more
pragmatic then his rhetoric would lead you to believe.]
|1.19.09 @ 10:28PM|#
MAX HATS,
"Lefiti is not real. This thread seals it. Friedman = liberal =
Lefiti must defend is a logic train that only works from a
libertarian conservative mindset."
Nice piece of inductive logic. But flawed. Just because the
particular Lefiti post isn't real doesn't mean Lefiti himself isn't
real. I confess to having spoofed Lefiti on occassion (not
recently.) Poorly and transparently, but I am certain I'm far from
the only one. Lets have it: who else has spoofed Lefiti? Rate your
attempt soberly on a 1-10 scale. I'll give myself a 4/10.
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 10:34PM|#
I haven't read Burke, but I don't feel bad about it, because 99% of republicans haven't either. Given that I haven't read Burke, could someone please explain to me what "conservative" is? I am particularly curious how a politician can describe themselves as "conservative," tens of millions of people who call themselves "conservative" voters elect that politician, but all the while everyone is terribly, horribly wrong.
MAX HATS|1.19.09 @ 10:40PM|#
Domo: I see what you're saying, but I have a gut feeling that the Lefiti in this thread (so far) is the original Lefiti. Obviously I can't prove it.
economist|1.19.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Lefiti lends himself to spoofing. If it weren't for the fact that I already knew Tom Friedman's name was Mud with the far left, I would have fallen for the Lefiti spoof. That said, Lefiti is Edward (who is not, however, Teh Concerned Observer) who was also MK2.
economist|1.19.09 @ 10:43PM|#
John C,
Libertarians pissed off at Friedman because he frequently says
things that are retarded, thus making us look bad when he agrees
with us.
|1.19.09 @ 11:03PM|#
"Conservatism as a movement in the U.S. (and most places) has
been about authority and tradition"
as has any political movement that actually WINS elections.
heck, i wouldn't be surprised if the libertarians wouldn't morph
into authoritarians IF THEY EVER HAD THE FRIGGING CHANCE.
the reality is that conservative (so called) politicians generally
are authoritarians, just like liberals, because the very nature of
politics and govt. encourages it.
it's very difficult for any politician once given power to say
"give me less power!"
people in power tend to betray their principles, all too often.
Naga Sadow |1.20.09 @ 2:32AM|#
Domo,
Interesting summation. I too have spoofed Lefiti but I can count
the number of times with just my hands. I would say about 8 or 9
times. As a rated Lefiti spoof: 5/10. I recall spoofing someone
recently but can't remember his name. Seemed like a CO post
though.
economist,
Neil/Cesar were the same but I could never get Jesse Walker to just
come out and say that CO/Lefiti/Edward were the same guy. I suspect
the answer is one of three things: liability issues prevent a clear
unmasking, one of the reason writers is trolling his own thread(my
personal conspiracy theory), or a combo of the first two.
Neu Mejican|1.20.09 @ 2:50AM|#
Also, I'll pay good money to see a fight-to-the-death cage
match between MNG and Neu Mejican. I can't be the only one Why
hasn't it happened? Market failure?
Because I don't believe in the initiation of force?
Or because I ain't gay enough for the MMA (which is the gayest
sport ever--not that there's anything wrong with that).
Are you a submission man, do you like the ground and pound?
冉爽慷|1.20.09 @ 6:15AM|#
heck, i wouldn't be surprised if the libertarians wouldn't
morph into authoritarians IF THEY EVER HAD THE FRIGGING
CHANCE.
The day I realized libertarians were passive/aggressive tyrants
who, if given the opportunity, would probably be the worst
authoritarians of the lot, was the day I ceased to be a
libertarian.
MNG|1.20.09 @ 7:10AM|#
This is easy. Burke loved him some government, he didn't just
support monarchy he thought folks should have a proper awe about
it. He supported government induced religious orthodoxy through his
support for a state established church and the anti-dissenter laws.
And he prized order above all and emphasized the state's role in
keeping it.
And if you want to predict whether a given person is a
self-identified conservative in America you can ask them some
questions on religion, patriotism and support for the police and
the military and you will be right nearly all of the time. Bush is
what you get when you talk about conservatism in America.
That's what conservatism is as an empirical reality and as a
historical school of thought (Burke, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver,
etc).
MNG|1.20.09 @ 7:16AM|#
By the way, conventionalism and a strong support for
traditionally established authorities (church, military, the police
etc) and the powerful, essentially what defines conservatism, is
the current working definition of authoritarianism in the social
sciences.
And yes, to bring it all around, the conservative justices on the
Supreme Court certainly show pro-military (look at their recent
ruling in the sonar case), pro-religion (the recent 10 commandments
cases, in which Scalia said that the government can favor
monotheistic religions) and the police (a great deal of
cases).
But yes I imagine they were'nt conservative enough for TAO, hence
he doesn't think "real conservatives" were at work there.
MNG|1.20.09 @ 7:35AM|#
Kolohe
Given that WFB's own self professed goal was not to construct the
most intellectually consistent philosophy of conservatism but to
construct the most politically popular conservative philosophy then
I indeed do have a hard time thinking of him as the defining voice
of what some "real" conservatism would be. I think Russell Kirk
would have that honor and until recently most conservative
intellectuals would I think have said the same.
Also, I was responding to a post which said essentially that since
WFB said Bush was not a conservative then he was not one. But of
course as Bush became less popular WFB was going to distance his
movement from the guy, that was what WFB was all about after all,
so that's what I meant when I said I don't think he's the defining
voice of whether Bush was a conservative or not...
|1.20.09 @ 8:07AM|#
I'm convinced that the "real" Lefiti/Edward could have a heart attack and die, and no one would notice for 6 months because enough reason regulars would be spoofing him, that nothing looked amiss.
The Angry Optimist|1.20.09 @ 9:02AM|#
But yes I imagine they were'nt conservative enough for
TAO
you need to learn to follow an argument. The original context of
this line of discussion was me castigating E.J. Dionne for saying
that the outgoing Administration and legislative branch from
2000-2006 looked conservative. It did not.
What's even funnier is that you set out these definitions:
1. Pro-police
2. Pro-military
3. Pro-Religion
As some of the aspects of conservatism. So, atheist little me, who
talks about the police like NWA...I'm conservative? you undercut
yourself with your own definition.
|1.20.09 @ 9:15AM|#
The day I realized libertarians were passive/aggressive
tyrants who, if given the opportunity, would probably be the worst
authoritarians of the lot, was the day I ceased to be a
libertarian.
Just for a time, until the revolution is safe.
Look, it's perfectly just - nay, mandatory - to use force in the
defense of property. We know those unionist bastards are scheming
to steal people's property; should we wait until they control the
whole country?
Oh yeah, big time.
|1.20.09 @ 9:33AM|#
joe,
I think you're wrong - but the argument seems hypothetical since no
libertarians have any actual power. Wait, perhaps the fact that
libertarian types don't seek power in practice, actually is some
evidence that they wouldn't tend to authoritarianism given the
chance.
冉爽慷,
what, exactly did you morph into, given your professed
anti-authoritarian bent? I'm really curious about that one...
Kolohe|1.20.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Given that WFB's own self professed goal was not to
construct the most intellectually consistent philosophy of
conservatism but to construct the most politically popular
conservative philosophy then I indeed do have a hard time thinking
of him as the defining voice of what some "real" conservatism would
be.
I know not of this 'self-professed goal.' I do know that he
supported tje segregationist in the 50's (but renounced in the
60's), supported McCarthy (and never renounced that as far as I
know), supported Goldwater in '64, ran his own quixotic third party
campaign for New York City Mayor in '65. The man was a lot of
things, but 'political opportunist' is one of the most unusual
charges I've seen leveled at the man.
|1.20.09 @ 10:10AM|#
domo,
The fact libertarians can't get elected to high office doesn't mean
they don't seek power. They've got their own party, they tried to
push a candidate in 2008, and they sure as hell put a lot of
resources into DC think tanks for people who aren't interested in
power.
T|1.20.09 @ 10:45AM|#
The fact libertarians can't get elected to high office
doesn't mean they don't seek power. They've got their own party,
they tried to push a candidate in 2008, and they sure as hell put a
lot of resources into DC think tanks for people who aren't
interested in power.
Speaking personally, it's difficult to dismantle the apparatus of
the state from the outside without fire, bloodshed and revolution,
none of which I'm particularly eager to see here. So trying to gain
power to subvert the state from within strikes me as a perfectly
reasonable approach. Somewhat duplicitous, but this is politics
we're talking about here.
|1.20.09 @ 11:25AM|#
T,
It is a reasonable approach, and one that is necessary for any
group that seeks revolutionary change.
Which is why it's also reasonable to assume that they would behave
like every other group that seeks revolutionary change.
冉爽慷|1.20.09 @ 1:28PM|#
what, exactly did you morph into, given your professed
anti-authoritarian bent? I'm really curious about that
one...
As I'm suspicious of any kind of ideology, I suppose you could
consider me some derivation of a Kirkian small c
conservative.
I'm not intrinsically opposed to authority. Even a libertarian
proposition such as all activity except force and fraud should be
permitted requires an authority, at least the authority of
consensus, to enforce it. I make a distinction between legitimate
and illegitimate authority.
T|1.20.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Which is why it's also reasonable to assume that they would
behave like every other group that seeks revolutionary
change.
Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new
bureaucracy?
Or more simply, and set to a catchy tune, meet the new boss, same
as the old boss?
|1.20.09 @ 8:57PM|#
The day I realized libertarians were passive/aggressive
tyrants who, if given the opportunity, would probably be the worst
authoritarians of the lot, was the day I ceased to be a
libertarian.
Everyone knows a homosexual teacher would molest his students. Good
thing we never let those homosexuals become teachers.
economist|1.21.09 @ 6:09PM|#
"Look, it's perfectly just - nay, mandatory - to use force in
the defense of property. We know those unionist bastards are
scheming to steal people's property; should we wait until they
control the whole country?"
Fight that Straw Man, joe!
economist|1.21.09 @ 6:10PM|#
"The day I realized libertarians were passive/aggressive tyrants
who, if given the opportunity, would probably be the worst
authoritarians of the lot, was the day I ceased to be a
libertarian."
Could it be that you were a passive-aggressive tyrant, assumed all
libertarians had the same motivations as you, and thus just made
yourself sound like an utter tool?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245