Does anyone read the plank? That relatively new New Republic Blog. I ask ‘cause I don’t regularly (admittedly because I’m somewhat of an ignorant philistine who’s not at all interested in sitting around and reading the dry, arid, ponderings of yet more centrist liberals (with 25% more douchiness!) on my computer screen all fucking day) and Chait seems to be on a mission to drive up traffic over there. And while I’ll do what I can to oblige, I’ll let him summarize.
“In my most recent column I argued that Joe Lieberman is annoying for all sorts of reasons, but beating him in the primary would be bad because 1) He would continue to play the role of Lone Democrat Honest Enough to Praise Bush, only now with the power of martyrdom behind him, and 2) It would encourage purges against other moderate Democrats who don’t have Lieberman’s annoying flaws. The left-wing blogs have taken after me for this, especially this passage describing the party’s left-wing activists: These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early ’70s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent.”"
Well I agree completely with point number (1), and on point number (2) I can appreciate Chait’s candor even if I’m of a differing opinion on the merits of moderate dems, and primary challenges. Though he’s also being too clever by half, I suspect, as all such “I’ll do the wrong thing to attain the right goal” thinking usually is. But understandably so. When you have a minority opinion within a given framework, I suppose it makes sense to use undemocratic means to protect the interests of that minority opinion, and that means shunning primaries, and entrenching your incumbents if necessary. Whatever. It’s douchiecrat oligarchy thinking. But nothing to take personally. After all Jonathan Chait is nobody, politically. Just like you and me. His haughty attitudes toward the rabble that makes up the Democratic party is of no actual consequence. It’s just like his opinion, man. And what? He’s like a third tier voice amongst an obsolete class of opiners of ever decreasing relevance. But those of us who think in simple slogans and refuse to brook dissent need someone to kick around. That’s Jonathan Chait’s function. Fodder for the angry ire of the lefty blogs. If Jonathan Chait wasn’t stuck in a 1970’s mentality, I’d have to find something else to write about. Maybe even something hard. And you know what? I don’t need that. I don’t.
But anywho, so today Chait writes:
Ah, I see. So before I wrote my column last Sunday, the left-wing blogospere was a placid realm of civilized discourse. The relentless, juvenile name-calling, the imagining of conspiracies between the Democratic Leadership Council, The New Republic, and various corporate lobbies, the fervent belief that monolithic motivations could be imputed to all who were associated with those sinister, back-stabbing institutions–these things all began with my column on Sunday. I see.
Let’s outsource this part to retardo montelban at sadly no. I don’t know what Chait means by “uncivilized” anyway. Words are a mark of civilization. Even mean ones. I know I’m being pedantic. I’m just so sick and fucking tired of the bore’s lament regarding decorum. This fucking shit about civil tone and all that noble detritus makes me want to hurt someone. Literally, physically hurt someone. Possibly with a weapon. And that someone is Jonathan Chait. I can think of no better way to explain the concept of “civilization” and/or “decorum.” After all, I do believe, and fervently so, that the sword is mightier than the pen. Also I’m completely fucking nuts. And I brook no dissent on the complete irrelevance of niceties and such.
Well, it’s not personal frustration. I actually really enjoy mixing it up, and oddly enough I enjoy being personally attacked as well. But the disposition of the left blogosphere toward TNR is suggestive of its paranoid mentality. They cannot see gradations. They cannot see differences between individuals within an institution. (This is the same problem with their unrelenting hostility toward the DLC, some of whose members are much more liberal than others.) The lefty blogosphere is simply unable to process the fact that TNR has published lots of extremely sharp attacks on Bush, and lots of genuinely liberal commentary, from the very beginning. That stuff is 80 percent of the political commentary we publish. They disagree with the other 20 percent, and they should. The problem is that they have no mental category for an institution that agrees with them 80 percent of the time.
The would-be Grover Norquists of the left fashion themselves as shrewd political tacticians. In fact, the conservative activists have been able to move the political center toward them in large part because they understood the difference between someone who agrees with them 80 percent of the time and someone who agrees with them 0 percent of the time. To judge them solely on their issue platform misses this important point. This is what I meant when I wrote that the new New Left is dangerous and fanatical.
I’m sorry I rarely read the New Republic. And I don’t really care to. I already explained why. And so have no opinion on the accuracy of this 80% figure. I’ll assume it’s a reasonable estimate. But Chait’s assumption that the blogosphere should play nice with the New Republic, or Chait himself, because of that 80% agreement rate is not one I can agree with in the abstract. Lock me in a room with Osama Bin Laden and George Bush, and I’ll probably agree with Bush 80% of the time. That doesn’t mean that the other 20% of Bush’s thoughts aren’t deserving of contempt. And once deserving of contempt, such contempt shall be expressed. I don’t fuck around with fractions and decimals and pie charts. Fuck that particular droning hum. It’s just a dodge.
But Chait doesn’t need me to pat him on his little fucking head, nor does Lieberman, nor does TNR, nor does the DLC for that wonderful 80% rate of agreement. Why the recourse to such passivity anyway? I mean really, who pats me on the head? And who’s calling who “dangerous?” I can’t figure these guys out. I really can’t. It’s like we’re a pack of rabid wolves and the little bunny acts offended that he can’t run with us. But only after insisting he doesn’t want to, because we’re too fucking dangerous.
Dangerous? Holy shit. It took me a little while to realize it. But that’s funny. I mean really, now.
But that Grover Norquist bit is complete bullshit. And even Chait has to know it. The right moved the center because of accomodaters on the left, not because the hard right is so fucking tolerant of moderate Republicanism. What is moderate Republicanism these days anyway? John McCain? Haha. You know Chait has to believe that one’s true.
I’ll conclude like this. I don’t want to be in a “coalition” with Chait anymore than Chait wants to be in a coalition with me. And I’ll put as much effort into pretending I do, as Chait does.
So fuck you Jack.
35 Responses to “A Toast, To Agreeing With “Dangerous Fanatics” 80% of the Time”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The link inside Chait’s post thinger takes me to this:
So this is me, reminding whoever you are.
Alright. I fixed it, I think. For whatever reason, sometimes the formatting really fucks with me on this thing.
I wonder if it’s occurred to Chait that the *reason* the Democratic party tears itself apart at these random times (late ’60s/early ’70s *and* 2003-6? Gosh, what a coincidence, both periods feature bullshit-wars-predictably-turned-quagmires and Republican presidents obsessed with the supremacy and righteousness of the executive branch) has anything to do with the utter crapulence of the “moderate Democrats” by which I don’t mean moderate Democrats defined politically, but “moderate Democrats” who define themselves by rejecting both liberalism and the courage to stand up for themselves and their party against a political opponent.
The reason “80%” isn’t enough to make Chait or Lieberman good Democrats is that the other 20% is the *important* portion, and that their actions and words on *those* issues utterly sabotage the cohesion and effectiveness of the Democratic party - or at least, the Chaits and Liebermans of the world sabotage the sub-party called “Democrats with guts” for the glory of the sub-party called “Democrats who suck up to powerful Republicans (or worse)” - and then they have the temerity to complain that “Democrats don’t stand for anything!”
It’s awfully hard to stand for anything when your “friends” go around kicking you in the back of the knees. If Chait doesn’t realize that in the pages of TNR, that’s okay; I expect that kind of studious obtuseness from him/it, because that’s their niche in the political debate/spectrum. But if he really doesn’t realize that in the privacy of his own thoughts, he’s a fucking moron. But a very useful one to Bush, Rove, and the conservative movement.
The link works now, so it’s all good.
So, is Matthew Yglesias, as one of the critics of Chait’s columns, now part of the dangerous and fanatical left? Never would have guessed it.
I think Lieberman needs a hot car date with Caitlin Flanagan while they drive over to Repugnican Headquarters in a pity party of diaspora.
The reason “80%� isn’t enough to make Chait or Lieberman good Democrats is that the other 20% is the *important* portion,
Thank YOU, Chris!
I think Lieberman losing the primary *because* he plays The Lone Democrat Honest Enough to Praise Bush would be awesome, b/c he wouldn’t have the”power of martyrdom behind him.” He would have the power of a Lame Duck, with a pissed off electorate against him.
Maybe that would teach other Democrats Who Are Honest Enough to Praise Chimpy to look to their base.
What exactly is the “power of martyrdom” in a legislative environment? I understand the concept when we’re talking about somebody who’s the figurehead of a movement. Dead revolutionaries have the power of martyrdom (which is the rice-a-roni of the power game, so a fat lot of good it does them without somebody else to take up the torch), but I completely fail to see what good it does a defeated representative.
I guess Chaim is implying that a primary-defeated Lieberman will become Obi-wan’s ghost. Or that Joe’s loyal followers will be such well-organized sore losers that they’ll work to sabotage the winner’s campaign. Or that he’ll use his martyred Joementum to form a powerful new Independent party. Or something.
Jedmunds,
that was a thing of beauty.
aimai
The very personification of moral opposition to delayed gratification: new posts by jed…
Thanks aimai.
What Chait means is that Lieberman’s still going to go on Fox News and be Lieberman, but now with some sort of proof that he’s too “reasonable” for the Democrats or something.
eh, OCD, I am morally opposed to delayed gratification in some respects. In the sexual realm certainly.
But as far as politics go, I don’t see any immediate gratification coming anyone’s way. Most of our fellow travelers would be well-gratified enough should the Dems take the House in 2006. I wouldn’t.
So I guess I’m saying I object to that characterization.
I like Chait. I haven’t read him much recently, nor do I know any of the details of what all this is about; but I think you’re being a bit hard on him. He did make some valid points; such as, that it shouldn’t necessarily besmirch him that he works for TNR. He was always one of their best, most liberal writers (a relative term, of course), and we shouldn’t necessarily hold it against him because he works for a neo-con magazine that poses as liberal. Sure, he’s totally wrong about this Lieberman stuff; but he’s still not such a bad guy.
Secondly, I think he’s also correct that many on the left are too quick to attack anyone who they fear is conservative; as if they’re just desperate to find another con to insult. For example, I’ve been called a conservative troll who thinks that Michael Moore is fat on Atrios’ commentboard enough times that I no longer comment there. And not only is Atrios one of my favorite bloggers, but I really like Michael Moore and hadn’t even mentioned him. But Atrios’ commentboard is off-limits to me because I had a few minor dissenting opinions that were misintrepreted by diehards who were looking for a rumble. I happen to be a proud, hardline liberal; but a few disagreements will unleash hardcore insults suggesting that I’m a conservative idiot. Oh yeah, and it was all my fault too; because I started it, even though I didn’t. A quick reading of my blog should establish my unabashed liberal position, but these people smear me based on a few misconstrued comments; and I become the enemy. I still love Atrios, however.
And that’s the kind of stuff that Chait and the other left-leaning moderate media-types put up with daily. Who likes to be attacked? Who responds well to it? Nobody. If you attack someone, they will only move further into a defensive posture and you’ll lose them. The media keeps showing us that over and over, yet we keep openly attacking and insulting them. It doesn’t work, and only makes them hate us more. Sure, it could have the benefit of pushing them openly into the rightwing position, so we can stop pretending as if they were liberals. But due to their anger, it’s unlikely that they’d cede the “liberal” name and will continue to paint us as more and more extremist.
I’m not suggesting that we try to find common-ground or some centrist position with them. But politeness will often get you much further than insults. And the proper strategy is to separate the wheat from the chaff and try to pluck-off the smarter guys like Chait; while pushing the dopes like almost everyone else at TNR into the rightwing category. That’s how the rightwing did it, and it worked wonders. And if media-types insist on calling themselves liberal, force them to argue for their liberal-credentials; rather than to make them wish they didn’t have any. And while it might make you feel better to insult someone; it will almost never have the intended result and will usually backfire. And honestly, I’ve found that a few properly placed compliments before a polite criticism gets much better results, and is much more fun too.
And once deserving of contempt, such contempt shall be expressed. I don’t fuck around with fractions and decimals and pie charts. Fuck that particular droning hum.
Stop, Amanda, you’re making me hot and shivery all over! That last sentence is a work of staggering majesty.
wow.
I feel rather dumb.
Find:Replace–”Amanda” with “jedmunds”
“The relentless, juvenile name-calling…”
What the fuck is that fucking fucktard talking about?
I was refering to the delayed gratification of waiting for your next post.
oh. sorry. thanks.
Shorter Jon Chait: All those dirty, mean liberals have the same problem. They do too much generalizing and insulting.
Biobrain, I’ll concede there can be problems with groupthink within blogs, but I don’t see an inter lefty blog problem of that stripe.
Those who are on the wrong side of an issue may not like dealing with the imaptience and exasperation of those who are right. But the demand for persuasive rhetoric is cheap. Being right, in a general sense, is what counts.
Doctor Biobrain wrote, For example, I’ve been called a conservative troll who thinks that Michael Moore is fat on Atrios’ commentboard enough times that I no longer comment there. And not only is Atrios one of my favorite bloggers, but I really like Michael Moore and hadn’t even mentioned him. But Atrios’ commentboard is off-limits to me because I had a few minor dissenting opinions that were misintrepreted by diehards who were looking for a rumble.
LOL! Atrios’ comment section have a signal-to-noise ratio of somewhere between 1:100 and 1:20. So I can’t see how you’d get worked up about it.
I don’t get why a Democrat who openly praises Bush (Leiberman) would be a good thing. “Honesty” in the form of agreeing with a sinking ship does no one any good. And what happenned to listening to one’s constituents? Why the hell does Chait think that’s a good thing!?
I’d like to respond to dr. biobrain’s point that we might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar–that by being nice to the chaits, and forgiving them for writing for TNR, we might…well, what might we get from that?
First of all, people like Chait *write for money* and they *write for fame* and, as we know, they *write for cocktail weenies*. I don’t mean by that that Chait is a Fox news wannabe, but simply that like everyone except the purest free blogger, he writes to make money and influence people and to be liked by people he wants to associate with socially. There are two ways of influencing such a person: pay him, love him, or attack him. One is beyond our means: Chait writes for people who will pay him to trash us over and over. Can we socialize with him and “persuade” him that we aren’t so bad? Why, no, because someone is still going to pay him to write pieces that attack the left. That’s simply TNR’s function. Can we lure him away from TNR and find someone to pay him for being more thoughtful and honest? Only if we make the TNR gig not worth his while–by shredding and destroyign the TNR brand which Chait is selling his stuff under. Can we attack him into leaving us alone, or leaving TNR and moving to our side? I’d say, yes. In fact, by writing continually about the bloggosphere it is Chait (and those like Chait) who are revealing that they can be bludgeoned into change. I’d keep going with what works and worry a little less about what transparently doesn’t work. The one thing you can say about Chait and his buddies is that they will *always* put money before the personal, and the personal before the political–in other words,they have no political principles at all. In that he is sounding suspciously like Caitlin Flanagan with her “the democratic party is pushing me towards the republicans.” F that noise.
aimai
“I’ll concede there can be problems with groupthink within blogs”
Ya Think?
I also understand that all these jokes about “civility” and niceties are quite funny, and maybe I’m just a prude, but the tendency towards crassness, obnoxiousness & plain rudeness for it’s own sake in the blogosphere, rubs me the wrong way sometimes. It doesen’t seem all that different from Wingnuts & other clowns who are deliberately provocative & offensive & say things beyond the pale, and when somebody calls them on it, they snicker about offending square liberals’ PC sensibilities. It’s absolutely infuriating when they do it, I don’t imagine it’s any different when progressives do it either.
Another reason I object to is that I see how it affects those who discuss women’s issues. E.J. Graff writes about feminism & women’s issues over at TPMCafe and she usually ends up getting some incredibly intimidating hate-filled comments for her troubles. So much so that after she discussed the myth of the “war on boys” she had to write this;
“Oh, and before you comment on the Rivers/Barnett article, here’s another thought: a number of writers have noticed that when we write about feminism or women’s issues, we get truly vicious commentary, far worse than when we write about anything else. Personally, I was shocked to discover how much more verbally violent the response is on on women’s issues”
In other words, those writing about women’s issues are being intimidated by violent comments & e-mails (on a liberal site no less) to the extent they are actually writing about it as a plea for civility. According to blogger conventional wisdom though, if E.J. Graff & other assclowns can’t take the fucking heat that comes from publishing their insepid feminist shitfests well they can GET OUT OF THE FUCKING KITCHEN! & stop writing self pitying horseshit about “civility”, to fuck all with decorum, niceities & all that other bullshit.
Or words to that effect.
* This message was paid for by prudes & fuddy-duddies for ‘civil’ decent, & non-juvenile discourse.
Fuck all y’all, this is a trillion times better than AOL chat rooms.
[…] Update: Excellent relevant comment over at Pandagon, here’s an excerpt: I also understand that all these jokes about “civilityâ€? and niceties are quite funny, and maybe I’m just a prude, but the tendency towards crassness, obnoxiousness & plain rudeness for it’s own sake in the blogosphere, rubs me the wrong way sometimes. It doesen’t seem all that different from Wingnuts & other clowns who are deliberately provocative & offensive & say things beyond the pale, and when somebody calls them on it, they snicker about offending square liberals’ PC sensibilities. It’s absolutely infuriating when they do it, I don’t imagine it’s any different when progressives do it either. […]
Butress, I’m all for civil discourse face to face, but I don’t understand “being intimidated by violent comments & e-mails.” I guess it can become stalker-ish — there was once a weird racist guy I tangled with on a baseball Usenet group who would spoof my name to post further racist trash in the hopes of making me look bad or getting me in trouble somehow, and I’m pretty sure he was also calling my house and hanging up. (That’s when I stopped using my real name online.) But, barring that, I don’t see how mean-spirited or even filthy emails can cause “intimidation.” Anger, sure.
Biobrain, I’ll concede there can be problems with groupthink within blogs, but I don’t see an inter lefty blog problem of that stripe.
Now that I’m thinking about it, it’s not groupthink that I’m complaining about, but rather the quickness to which people ascribe bad motives to someone’s argument. Specifically, the quickness to which they call someone a conservative or neo-con, and dismiss their argument on that basis. I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with me; and, in fact, I enjoy a heated discussion. But too many people are too quick to dismiss other people’s arguments out-of-hand.
And so we’ve got folks like Richard Cohen and Deborah Howell who might imagine themselves to be liberal and probably share many liberal beliefs; who end up being called conservatives in rude emails. And maybe that label is correct. But they don’t see it at all. They think we’re complete loons for suggesting it. Read Cohen’s latest screed against us, and that’s exactly what he keeps saying. He thinks we’re loony extremists for calling him a conservative or for suggesting that he’s one of Bush’s lapdog. It makes no sense to him. It’s not that he disagrees. He can’t comprehend how it could possibly be true.
And that’s one of the big things that Chait was complaining about. Not necessarily that all liberals think alike; but rather that they’re too quick to attack anyone who thinks differently. And not just to attack, but to dismiss as too conservative. They read a few arguments and start flinging labels around. I personally do think that Cohen is more rightwing than leftwing, but that’s just not something that he’ll accept. And the truth is that he’s a complete twit. But he can’t accept that either. So there’s no reason for saying it. Instead, we should just make our points instead of flinging labels. And as I said, politeness and respect will do far more to get someone to listen to you than insults.
And this isn’t something limited to leftwingers. In fact, righties are far worse about it. As Digby recently noted, righties are quick to ascribe liberal tendencies to our military, CIA, State Department, President Bush, and anyone else who doesn’t perform up to expectations. By the end, I suspect that Dick Cheney will be the only conservative left in Washington; but isn’t that always the way with cyborgs. But lefties aren’t immune to that either and are also quick on the draw when it comes to labeling others the dreaded R-word.
The second quickest way to end a dialogue is to make bad assumptions about what somebody else believes or to wrongly label them something that they are not. Of course, the quickest way to end a dialogue is to listen to the other person and respond intelligently about why you disagree, which will surely piss them off; but that’s another issue altogether. Overall, politeness just scores more points and labels don’t do a damn bit of good.
Except of course, that points count in horseshoes and bocce ball, neither of which we’re playing. And that listen to what Chait, Cohen, the other one, it just drags us down in this monotonous dragging conversation wherein the ACTUAL point gets bogged down in being polite, not making waves, not doing anything to offend the LINOs out there from being upset and spiting liberal motives for fuckwits that don’t care about them, don’t care what they want, don’t care why they voted for the fuckwits, because all they want is to be in power.
But hey, we should be civil, right? Because civility is what seperates us from the animals. It also seems to be the thing that seperates us from y’know, changing anything, while the animals punk us out and then ask why we’re so angry all the time.
Fuck ‘em. Fuck civility. Fuck being polite. Fuck the dialogue in which we can unify our common interests because at the end of the day, that dialogue is always going to end with “boy, that Bush is a bastard” and “I can’t believe you said that! I’m leaving!” Dialogues only work if both sides are being honest. And pining for civility and politeness is not how you build honesty.
“But, barring that, I don’t see how mean-spirited or even filthy emails can cause “intimidation.â€? Anger, sure.”
I admire your courage ;0 , and it’s possible I’m overreacting, but I think you underestimate the degree to which even comments on the internet can create a climate of intimidaiton. I’m speaking of feminist weblogs that become overrun with MRA’s who rhetorically dominate threads to the extent that women feel intimidated and are no longer comfortable posting.
You don’t even need intimidation per se — every time someone with interesting things to say decides, “fuck this shit, I’ve got better things to do” you’ve lost something. And the energy spent beating up on people who are “just” moderately out of step (and no I don’t mean Soapy Joe) isn’t energy spent on beating the ones who are going entirely the wrong direction.
Butress, I’m having trouble accepting your point as terribly connected to the discussion, at least with regards to the issue of feminist intimidation, such as it is. We could draw a line between harassment and “colorful” language, or whatever. Or we could characterize the use of patriarchy as part of one’s rhetoric as wrong as we would racism or something similar. But, no, I don’t in the abstract embrace the idea of adopting a more rigorous form of civility when conversing with women. And I’d feel the same disdain toward a woman’s appeal to civility as I do Chait’s. And from what I read of what you quoted I read it as an observation and not an appeal to civility from someone who had been intimidated.
Anyway, sexism is wrong. But I don’t think you’re on point with the comparision. Unless I’m missing something.
Love it Jed…s
Lieberman should go on a nice farm in leg-irons with Dick Cheney, Feith and Wolfie
(can’t decide if I mean Wolfowitz or Blitzer)…they can let ‘em out on Saturdays to see a nice movie like in O’ Brother Where Art Th…” but never loosed on an unsuspecting world …again.
An while I ‘m here tell me about ‘neo-con’ vs. ‘Zionist’ vs ‘pro-Israli Lobby’…or it that all just Asia Times talking?
THNX….j
[…] Over at Pandagon, Jedmunds takes Chait to task for coming out against the ornery in politics, and Amanda follows up with a kick to the crotch the idea of debating with right wingers civilly. […]
from jedmunds:
“But Chait’s assumption that the blogosphere should play nice with the New Republic, or Chait himself, because of that 80% agreement rate is not one I can agree with in the abstract. ”
That’s not how I understand Chait. He is more interested in intellectual discourse, rather than sloganeering, berating or vituperation. The entries on this page bear witness to the phenomenon he finds less than constructive.
“Lock me in a room with Osama Bin Laden and George Bush, and I’ll probably agree with Bush 80% of the time. That doesn’t mean that the other 20% of Bush’s thoughts aren’t deserving of contempt. And once deserving of contempt, such contempt shall be expressed.”
While that might be emotionally satisfying, it would hardly bring you to any greater understanding of your opponent. It just strikes me as an energy leak - wasted energy - ranting rather than focusing on effective action (or is that the intent - just to have a political rally 100% of the time?)