P.C. Goes to War
Michael Kinsley explores the ginned-up outrage over MoveOn's Petraeus ad, a.k.a. that forgettable kerfuffle that hardly any normal Americans care about:
These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography….
All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn't done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?)
For more on right-wing political correctness, go here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another Boston blinky-light debacle:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070921/ap_on_re_us/fake_bomb;_ylt=AjoVpUNCeDOs8UFBYnvCXihH2ocA
While despicable, this behavior on the right isn't the classic political correctness we all know and hate. The PC of old was chock full of crazy ad-hoc euphemisms and language twistings, which seem to be missing from the war-at-any-cost Right.
Leftist PC has a certain semantic style that is easy to mock. "Vertically challenged", "specieist", etc. I don't see anything remotely similar with Right wing PC. Maybe I'm just too close to to recognize it?
The left has questioned General Petraeus's patriotism in the same way the right questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland. In other words...they didn't. Is that about right?
The right defeintely seems to be getting their own version of PC perfected. Inevitable, of course, seeing as they aren't any more interested in freedom of speech than the left and were sick of getting hammered by the left's PC crap.
The interestng thing about these respective PC obsessions is that they are targeted more and more specifically. What I mean is that leftists can often get away with breaking leftist PC rules, and righ-wingers can get away with breaking right PC rules. The question is, can libertarians get away with both--or neither?
Armies are political tools.
The left's gripe is with the president, not his generals.
While I haven't seen pictures of that device, from descriptions it did resemble a bomb. It may have been an art project, but I suspect it was "performance art" to see what would happen if you walked through an airport with a bomb-resembling contraption.
When generals go along with Bush's political campaigns, they become legitimate targets of political criticism.
The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus.
Heck, I've yet to see one of them even attempt to refute the factual assertions in the ad, about Patraeus's numbers being phony and his actions being political.
The question is, can libertarians get away with both--or neither?
excellent question! probably neither. Would any libertarians forgive/find sympathy with either LPC or RPC?
You know you're talking about chickenhawks when they don't distinguish between generals and grunts.
Ever hear grunts talk about generals? Why, sometimes they even imply that the generals are making inaccurate statements for political purposes!
Actually, it's pretty clear Petraeus got the facts right and this shows MoveOn.Org is not interested in the facts. On the other hand, it's just a regular political attack--they're saying "we disagree with the other side," whether it's a general or a President. No reason to act outraged, any more than there is for those who act outraged when the pro-war side makes its arguments.
When generals go along with Bush's political campaigns
If they don't "go along" they get canned. It's not the generals' prerogative to disagree publicly with their commander, who, as you know, is the president. So MoveOn's hissy fit is misplaced.
"Michael Kinsley explores.."
That's enough for me right there.
Kinsley is a liberal - and as such it is an absoulte phyiscal impossibility for him to be a legitimate authority on any subject.
Would any libertarians forgive/find sympathy with either LPC or RPC?
No, but my question is more like if Nick was on some talking head news program and said something to the effect of "well, some of our soldiers do bad things sometimes--the army is composed of people just like the general population", would the right-wingers slam him as not supporting the troops? I would guess yes.
Same as if he said "affirmative action is bullshit and is reverse racism", would the left slam him as being a racist? I would guess yes.
Leftist PC has a certain semantic style that is easy to mock. "Vertically challenged", "specieist", etc. I don't see anything remotely similar with Right wing PC. Maybe I'm just too close to to recognize it?
"Freedom Fries"
"The Commander-in-Chief"
"Objectively pro-(insert 'hitler of the week' here)"
"Cheese-eating surrender monkey"
".....is just like Neville Chamberlain"
They certainly do have their own language.
it's similar to the way right-wing talk show peeps talk about John Kerry and the way he disgraced his country by saying all those terrible things about his fellow soldiers in Vietnam. Except that, like, a lot of the things he said were true (especially civilian killings, razing villages, etc.).
So, since Kerry hurt the pretty perfect image of the military, he's the traitor and the villain. The guys who burned down villages and shot little kids, they're heroes because they wanted to be brave and complete the mission.
If they don't "go along" they get canned.
Yes, that's rather the point - despite the charade of this being Patraeus's military judgement, it was in fact an official making the White House's case.
Actually, it's pretty clear Petraeus got the facts right Uh huh. Clear as day. Nevermind those other reports, by people not actively working to toe the White House line. Lemme guess, Myers got the facts right, too.
Gilbert Martin,
Yeah. Right. You go, girl! Sing it, sister! You da man! High five me! You nailed it! Dude, that was great! I'm speechless. I don't know what to say. Brilliant! Fantastic! Right on the money. Perfect. Bullseye! Stupid liberals. Yeah, they're so dumb that, um they can't ever know anything, ever.
I have to go take the recycling out before I go back to work, so imagine me in your head telling you how everything you say is so true and insightful and wonderful. Your shit don't stink, etc.
Actually, Randolph, Kerry made exactly the point that "they wanted to be brave and complete the mission." He blamed the politicians and, yes, generals.
Right wingers are fond of calling us libertarians "isolationists" and left wingers are fond of calling right wingers "fascists".
Gilbert Martin,
Why can't I quit you?
Let's start a Gilbert Martin Fan Club. We'll sit around and talk about how dreamy and right he always is and how anyone who has any ideas any different than his is not worth ever listening to because they'll impurify our pristine wannabe-Gilbert Martin brains.
One thing I've noticed: the charge of anti-patriotism and "not supporting the troops" used to have a lot of sting, precisely because it was used only in the most extreme instances. The GOP and affiliated commentators have used it so often recently that I believe it has lost its sting. It now has no more juice than lefties going around whining about "heartless" Republicans--simply another cynical political ploy.
And I think this would be a good thing, overall, if it leads to less emotionalized discussion of the aims of American foreign policy. Not that I'm holding my breath...
Right wingers are fond of calling us libertarians "isolationists" and left wingers are fond of calling right wingers "fascists".
My experience is that neither side gets us at all.
My experience is that neither side gets us at all.
Because to a partisan liberal Democrat or partisan conservative Republican, you're either with them or against them. Tell a Democrat you support tax cuts, and they go into a rant about how much you must love Jerry Falwell.
Good thing libertarians don't call people fascists or communists for tiny deviations.
Heck, I've seen them call perfectly decent, thoughtful people...
...I hesitate to say it...
"ne*c*nservatives."
Was Gilbert Martin being serious?
Of course, tell a libertarian that you support the government providing a social safety net and he'll go into a rant about communism and state agents collecting tax money at the business end of a gun...
I was once talking in favor of free trade and this religious right woman said I must be for one world government.
"Of course, tell a libertarian that you support the government providing a social safety net and he'll go into a rant about communism and state agents collecting tax money at the business end of a gun..."
Dan, you're nothing but a goddamned socialist.
Would any libertarians forgive/find sympathy with either LPC or RPC?
Not real ones.
The general is a big boy now. All grown up. If he can't handle a little political mud he needs to find another occupation. Same thing goes for the whinging blowhards on capitol hill.
Y'know, one that nobody would dare insult. Like ... Hmmm, Errr, ..., I'll have get back to you on that.
Explain to a statist where the government gets it's money and you get nothing but trolling forever on internet forums.
Shit, I had that happen in a Ron Paul meetup by a Ron Paul supporter! It was embarassing. I long for the days when the conspiracists were ostensibly for the free market, like the Birchers. Nowadays they're just raving nutbags.
Was Gilbert Martin being serious?
He couldn't be.
No, he was serious.
He once told be, in all earnestness, that I couldn't be right about anything because I am a liberal.
joe, that is almost inbelievable. I disagre with you on the majority of issues, however I'd be deluded, insincere, or insane if I said you were NEVER right.
Too frightening to listen to a stranger
Too beautiful to put your pride in danger
Youre waiting for someone to understand you
But youve got demons in your closet
And youre screaming out to stop it
Saying lifes begun to cheat you
Friends are out to beat you
Grab on to what you scramble for
I'm not even sure there's such thing as a "statist". Is this a word that exists outside H&R?
STATOPIA!
it exists in splendid, frozen isolation! Dare not tread within its borders, else you shall become just as frozen.
(and since extreme cooling causes what, in some circles, is called "an innie"... well, anyways, it's not good)
Of course, tell a libertarian that you support the government providing a social safety net and he'll go into a rant about communism and state agents collecting tax money at the business end of a gun...
The government provides nothing. This is an important concept that you (repeatedly) fail to understand.
Whether the government forcing people to finance a social safety net is a good thing or not is a separate argument. The case could even be made in a way that I would agree. But it should never be couched in terms of "the government providing" this or "the government providing" that. It obscures and misrepresents the issue.
Now I'm arguing with Dan T. Is this what cheap hookers feel like? I no like.
Is this what cheap hookers feel like?
Only if he pays you.
Re: "Statists" - I've known a few people who could accurately be described that way: in favor of strengthening the central government and its authority over that of more local actors; in favor of gun control precisely to weaken local actors vis-a-vis the central government; and so forth. Of course, those statists were Lebanese & thinking about the local situation in Lebanon, and I had to admit they had a point.
Cripes, rho, do you actually think people don't realize the government is funded by taxes?
Seriously, do you think THAT is where you and Dan T differ?
I'm not even sure there's such thing as a "statist". Is this a word that exists outside H&R?
Yes, from Dictionary.com
"stat?ism /?ste?t?z?m/ [stey-tiz-uhm] -noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty."
A statist is an advocate of the above.
BTW, Dan T. Does it fit?
Wikipedia offers this:
The term is often used loosely in a derogative sense to describe an instance in which a country or other political entity is more Statist than the user of the term believes is desirable (in the case of Anarchists, this may include all of the world's countries).
The government provides nothing. This is an important concept that you (repeatedly) fail to understand.
That's like saying the grocery store doesn't provide food because you have to pay for it at the cash register.
BTW, Dan T. Does it fit?
It's relative, but I guess it does around here.
Although I'm not necessarily pro-state as much as I'm neutral towards the state as a concept. Government is a human institution that is capable of good things and bad things, in my view. Like any human institution (churches, corporations, clubs, etc.) I imagine.
It's relative, but I guess it does around here.
Honesty, I like that in a trll. 😉
That's like saying the grocery store doesn't provide food because you have to pay for it at the cash register.
They don't "provide" food, because you have to pay. While you can find a dictionary definition somewhere to fit your use of the term, to most people, "provide" implies "free" (as in "providing for your family" and the like).
When generals go along with Bush's political campaigns, they become legitimate targets of political criticism.
I kind of feel sorry for generals during wars like Vietnam and, another one comes to mind...hmm, this one?
If the President orders you to stay the course, you stay the course, and your career be damned. Honestly, I don't know what the answer is.
I don't think anyone is holding Patraeus's performance as a military commander in disrepute.
Everyone seems to agree that he has done a remarkable job with the lousy hand he was dealt.
The "Anbar Surge," for example - that was all him. That was a general reacting to conditions on the ground - and the only real success we've seen in years.
Kinsley may be right, but, as he cites no examples of the stupid extreme leftist PC stuff he decries, I can't be sure. I mean, were any Democrats & radical feminists wrong about anything back in the 80s? Who? What? When? I don't suppose any smart, erudite young liberal columnists defended them. But, hey, what's past is past. Can't we all just get along?
"All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left."
Like when the leftists...?
"The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette."
As, for example, when the university speech PC storm troopers said....?
"""Actually, it's pretty clear Petraeus got the facts right and this shows MoveOn.Org is not interested in the facts. """
How is it clear when an independent government reports disputes the numbers? It's about as clear as the WMD in Iraq issue. It requires ignoring any and all dissent.
"""The "Anbar Surge," for example - that was all him. That was a general reacting to conditions on the ground - and the only real success we've seen in years"""
I thought the gains in Anbar were a result of local people deciding to stop supporting AQ?
Civilians have a right to criticize generals. The right-wing acts like attacking a military man is attacking the military. But the right-wing had no problem with the level of venom used against Kerry in the swift boat ads. I think the right-wing has become nothing but cry babys when things don't work their way.
Do unto others, and whine when others do unto you.
I see the same problem in their views of war. They think war is us attacking them and it's terrorism if the other side attacks back or if another country (Iran) supplies our opposition. But of course they didn't mind it when we were supplying conflicts in Central America or else where in the world. I didn't hear the word proxy used then.
The Bush admin has no problem using generals or ex-general like toliet paper. Ain't that right Gen. Powell. Funny how the right doesn't have a problem with that.
Tricky Vic,
The phrase "Anbar Surge" is generally used to refer to what the US military did in response to the locals turning on Al Qaeda - that is, sending 10,000 troops back in to back up the locals, and providing air and artillery support and such.