 |
 |
 March 4, 2007
GENERATION TRAP....If you haven't been following the ongoing brawl between Time columnist Joe Klein and the liberal blogosphere, it's probably too late to bring you completely up to speed. Let's just say that the blogosphere thinks Klein is a wanker and Klein returns the compliment in full. Which is too bad, because I think there might be an interesting conversation to be had here if we could get past the Crossfire-style drive-by insults. Here's Klein a couple of days ago on why he's a centrist:
In a followup post he listed some benchmarks for identifying a "left-wing extremist," and after reading comments from liberal critics suggesting that real-life liberals didn't take any of the extreme positions he imputed to them, he replied sarcastically, "There are no lefties left. There are no socialists left....Jeez, that's a relief." Still, since I became politically aware during the 70s and early 80s (a decade later than Klein), I have at least a little bit of appreciation for what's driving him. For somebody with a moderate temperament, some of the excesses of that era are bound to leave scars. In my case, though, I was only aware during that period, not active. Like most lefty bloggers, I only started following politics in a serious way in the late 90s. So for me the ghosts of school busing are just that: ghosts. My political frame of reference is different. It's Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America; it's the insane wingnut scandal-mongering of the Clinton administration, Now, I sort of get the fact that, having grown up and reported on politics during the 60s and 70s, Klein still gets twitchy when he sees things that remind him of it. And his personal knowledge of the past has some pretty obvious utility, especially for a blogosphere that tends to be pretty historically myopic. But in the face of everything that's happened since 1994, does he really think his memories of school busing are germane? This is where a genuine, non-snarky conversation might actually be interesting. Basically, I (and most of the liberal blogosphere, I assume) think that Klein is living in the past. He just hasn't completely internalized the vast changes of the past decade: namely that right-wing extremism is now light years more dangerous than any chimerical revival of the New Left. With apologies to Bernie Sanders, there aren't any socialists left in national politics, and a spotty dedication to national healthcare is about the most radical position held among mainstream liberals today. I imagine Klein would say I'm wrong. He'd say he gets it just fine, and I'm the one being naive. But it would be worth having an inter-generational conversation that tries to unpack the assumptions behind the name calling. You never know. We might all learn something. —Kevin Drum 12:12 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (186)Comments
I'm Klein's generation and he's nuts if he thinks he's battling anything other than demons inside his head. Posted by: QrazyQat on March 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINKThat's the problem though, Kevin. Klein's too insulated now. He doesn't have to worry about the problems within the current political sphere. He's IN the political sphere right now. That tends to color his world. We're just little mental midgets on the outside looking in. How could WE ever truly understand how the world works from the outside, when he, a privelidged member of the press, can see it for himself! Posted by: Kryptik on March 4, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINKOf course that's the problem. No one wants to learn anything anymore. It's all about confirming and expanding the reach of what you think you already know. Posted by: Cranky on March 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKI think the real difficulty is that Klein is using static definitions that don't make much sense today, and I would argue never make much sense. Political activity is not on a continuum between right and left (does anybody know where that came from anyway?), but I would argue is a bifurcation between authoritarian and generative (without making value judgments about either, because sometimes maintenance is just as important as exploration). So where the hell is the center in that? Either you are inclined to follow traditions and/or what other people tell you, or you are inclined to explore new ways of doing things. I think Klein, and much of our "liberal" pundit class is in the midst of an ongoing identity crisis. They want to believe they are generative, this is the mythology they have built up about themselves, but in the end they have personalities that lean in the direction of authoritarian - they are prone to want to listen and want to believe what their betters tell them, and they are terrified of those who do not. I don't think you can reach a position of influence in the MSM, which in the end is very conservative (small c), if you are prone to look for new ideas. So Klein's problem is he wants to tell the world he has a generative perspective when he actually has an authoritarian personality. I think this is difficult even for him to handle. Posted by: Wilbur on March 4, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKI dont think that an intergenerational conversation woudl neccessarily have much value. Klein is moored in the past; that makes him an enabler of the excesses of teh Right today because he gives them "balanced, objective" cover. If hecan be convinced of the error of his ways, great. But if not, then theres little point in debating whether the 60s era lefties or modern righties are the worse bogeymen. Its a purely academic discussion. heres a useful metric to investigate baout teh utility of debate: what did Klein have to say about the Starr report at the time? Posted by: Aziz Poonawalla on March 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with actually engaging Klein over any of this is that he likes to argue in generalities. When asked to name names, he demurs. As long as he doesn't have to connect his claims to observable reality, he can't be proven wrong. Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on March 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKklein's over-estimation of his own intelligence, and his dismissal of the apparently unhinged online progressive community, is also probably a reflection of age. he's been reduced to some old coot yelling "get off my lawn" to some punk kids. whether this is simply age, or a combination of age with political insider-ship, is debatable. ultimately, however, the value has been transferred from the old wise white men to actual product, and this is where klein is considerably lacking. on the salient issue of the day, he was wrong, and for whatever reason (whether it be his insider status, his age, or his supposed convictions) he cannot defend his action (or inaction, to be charitable). he thinks he is somehow owed respect for his age and status, while somehow managing to avoid dealing with the consequences of his work. Posted by: Nads on March 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKWilbur, Bingo! They are authoritarians that enjoy porn and dope and they think that makes them Liberals. Almost like most Libertarians...who think they are "Anti-State" when they are actually "Right-Wing Statists." Posted by: SomeOtherDude on March 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKJoe Klein wrote: A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes: . . . doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.I can think of several profoundly American liberal ideas that trump mere capitalism. For example:
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK Klein reminds me of my cloth-coat Republican dad (in his early 70s, thus a generation older than Klein): whenever my dad and I get into a political disagreement and I ask him to name the policy sins of the Democratic Party, he always, always refers to something that happened in the 60s or earlier. When pressed for an example that isn't 40 years old, he simply can't do it, and it doesn't matter to him. The last few decades' reality just don't matter to people like Klein and my dad. Sad, really. I hope that doesn't happen to me as I age. Posted by: pdp on March 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINKKlein is complete in his cluelessness, a creature entirely of a dated perspective. He doesn't even mention Identity Politics, which I regard as the real differentiator of what I'd regard as the extreme left and the more moderate left. That's where all the psychic energy of left wing fanatics goes these days, instead of such pedestrian things as economic justice for the poor and middle class. Marxism really is dead, but Identity politics is still revving up. Want to see leftist ideology in full exercise of an absurd agenda? Go to academe and stir up an Identity Politics issue -- any issue. The nuts will fall from the sky like raindrops in Seattle. And forget about the uncool poor -- I mean, aren't a lot of them white trash? Eww. Look at the course offerings and the many "Identity" departments, and you'll see the movement just finding its stride. Marxist critics, once the darlings of leftist academics, are now quite passe. The baton has been passed. That's one reason I worry about an Obama run as Democratic nominee for President; all the Identity politics crowd seem to be finding a very comfortable place to roost there. Posted by: frankly0 on March 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKTry this: A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes: . . . doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is one of the grandest liberal ideas in human history. Better? Posted by: buford on March 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKWe're bad because we swear. Sorry, I mean fuckin' swear. Or fuck and swear. Oh, that messy life and all its complexity. Bring in Rudy to clean it up! It seems they all go Woodward eventually—and not 'towards the wood', either. It's soft timber in Little Joe's case. Posted by: Kenji on March 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK"Living in the past" ... isn't that one way to define a conservative? Posted by: ahlanwasahlan on March 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKWant to see leftist ideology in full exercise of an absurd agenda? Go to academe and stir up an Identity Politics issue -- any issue. The nuts will fall from the sky like raindrops in Seattle. This is a vague enough generalization to be meaningless as written. ... and, I am actually curious as to what you are trying to say. mind clarifying? Posted by: Nads on March 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK"pursuit of happiness" ~ self-interest in capitalism "freedom of speech" ~ *marketplace* of ideas 4th amendment ~ *private* property Bounded capitalism "promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty" better than any other alternatives that have been tried so far. One way to think of Klein's dated list of leftist excesses is that virtually ALL of them can be subsumed under Marxist critiques. But even in academe, Marxist critiques are out of style. The problem today, according to the leftist segments of academe, is not the imperialist capitalists. It is the patriarchy, and always was. Posted by: frankly0 on March 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINKI think it's naive to assume that professional pundits, particularly those who are well known and well paid, assume the positions they do for any reason other than a desire to continue to be well known and well paid. Naturally they have to continue to defend whatever positions they assumed when they became well known. Those few who became well known because they switched from left to right or vice versa became well paid by continuing to attack their former positions and can't possibly change their minds again. Joe Klein says "It would be wildly stupid for me to get into a pissing match..." But into one he gets. Any reasonable person can tell this piece is divisive crap and it is so stereotypic and demeaning that I bet he was out of ideas for discourse and put this in as a filler. All but dead for decades? A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes: Consider Ward Churchill and his comments on the people who worked in the WTC. And the people who backed him for tenure and defended him against charges of incompetence. How about the people at A.N.S.W.E.R. who think that N. Korea is better governed, and better for world pwace, than the U.S.? Or the people who still think that the Khmer Rouge were not murderers until they had been attacked by the U.S. Such people continue to think that the U.S. is a fundamentally negative influence in the world. I don't know how many such extreme leftists there are, but "all but dead" is not accurate. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKNo one wants to learn anything anymore. It's all about confirming and expanding the reach of what you think you already know. That's about it. Posted by: fiat lux on March 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKPotemkin Issue, anyone? Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKPolitical activity is not on a continuum between right and left (does anybody know where that came from anyway?) Posted by: DonBoy on March 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINKMy political frame of reference is different. It's Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America; You do live in California. And which, exactly, of the ten items in the Contract with America did you positively dislike? Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINKJoe Klein did a follow up on the piece titled "Right-Wing Extremists". It's a one line link to Ann Coulter's CPAC screed. Yes, it's nice he recognizes Ann Coulter is an extremist, but he equates Atrios with her in that sense, and seems to balk at any sort of extended explanation of such while he was all too damn willing to go on a screed about left-wing extremists, virtually all of whom have no real political and media power. Posted by: Kryptik on March 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKJoe Klein wrote: A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes: . . . believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.I don't know if America is "fundamentally imperialistic," but neither was the war in Iraq the only example of a foreign war or interference that, rather than served to protect America from attack, served to promote a private economic or political interest. If you want to call that "imperialistic" that's fine with me. Examples:
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK I would point out that Klein discovering trolling is not all that interesting a story. I believe the next step is sock puppetry. Posted by: jhe on March 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKI'm inclined to think that no productive conversation will be possible with Klein until he learns to drop the smug and dismissive pose of the tenured elite pundit. (There haven't been any really negative consequences for him from anything he's gotten badly wrong, right? Well, that must mean he's gotten everything right, and anybody who disagrees with him is wrong!) In the last week or so, we've already seen some ebidence that he might be going through some of the growing pains of giving up that non-responsive smugness--e.g., his exchange with the non-wanker Klein--so maybe there's hope for him yet. But in the meantime, what's the point of trying to change the mind if someone so self-satisfied in what he knows he knows? Posted by: Scott E. on March 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKKlein's got it right. Millions of Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan after the disastrous decade of the 1960's when leftists tore the country apart and when race riots rocked US cities, pot-head students sat in at universities and their teachers left their classrooms to march in the streets. While Reagan was applying the pressure on the USSR which resulted in the disappearance of that tyranny, liberals attacked Reagan as a war-monger and "peace-lovers" demonstrated world-wide and in the US. Reagan won the Cold War. Liberals have that same defeatist attitude now- they blamed the US for 9/11 and now they attack the US military and not the religious fanatics in Iraq for the killings of innocent civilians that occur there every day. Democrats want a US surrender in Iraq but they lack the political courage to withdraw its funding. The reason you liberals can't identify the "extremists" among you is that the extremists are now the leaders of the party, Pelosi, Murtha, Dean, Kerry et al. I was a Democrat for years and the only real Democrat around today is Joe Lieberman. I voted for Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and Clinton- man, was I wrong. Posted by: m on March 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINKI'd say that Joe Klein is suffering the following phenomema: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on his NOT UNDERSTANDING IT." - Upton Sinclair Joe Klein has his bully pulpit because he is so good at bashing Democrats, why would he put that to risk by looking at reality? Nevertheless, I for one am tired of his incessant good-will for the authentic Bush while constantly seeing only hypocrisy on the part of the inauthentic Democrats like John Kerry. IMO, he's not worth trying to talking to. Posted by: Mary on March 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you are giving far too much credence to poor Joe's "scars"; his positions have, in my opinion, little to do with actual ideology, and everything to do with pragmatism and good old-fashioned careerism. Those swingin' dead cats would have to fly further and do their centrifugal best to find a bona fide "Leftie" (to hell with "socialist"!) in the D.C. Beltway. Along comes a careerist pundit, who realizes that the period when he "came up" simply had an influence on him that he can't shake. It precludes his having become a rabid right-winger, or being able to to play the part effectively. Despite the obvious marketability of such a political bent, in mainstream punditry. But Joe was not born content to be a byline, at best. He wants to be the Brad Pitt of his world. He wants nothing less than to be the face of TIME, and all over Sunday morning TV like a rash. Thus, to be accepted among the power elite of Washington, Klein must necessarily find ways to sup with AEI fellows and Federalist Society types. He must also do a precarious balancing act of achieving print space, TV face time, and celebrity, in a field dominated by the right. And with red meat conservative pundits a dime a dozen anyway, what better character to create, than that of a token, nominal "liberal", upon whom they can count to accede to the Republican narratives about liberal inadequacy, and bash all the people the right-leaning pundits bash? Bill Clinton had a zipper problem. Liberals are "extremists". You can just hear the sighs of approval from Frank Luntz and Karl Rove. And Chris Matthews. And Tim Russert. Can we book you next week, too? Bonus: much like the "Oreo cookie" in racial conflict, the power elite can shine a Klieg light on Joe Klein, turn on the red light and go, "Look! A 'GOOD" liberal! We don't mind talking to HIM, because he represents MAINSTREAM LIBERALS!" And of course, this brands his Republican-friendly narratives as being from the bosom of Liberal America. Effectively, using up the parking space grudgingly reserved for the actual liberal point of view (or, God forbid, that of the serious Left). Fiendish. But, in the immortal words of Mel Brooks in "High Anxiety", it provides "... 'a nice living'!" Posted by: Barry Champlain on March 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKJohn Dean wrote a wonderful book "Conservatives Without Conscience" Dean relies on substantial social science data to illustrate the personality type that seeks out authoritarian movements. But his case is made much more persuasively by what one can visibly see unfolding before one's own eyes. As Iraq collapses into all-out civil war and new, tragic levels of violence, Bush supporters continue to insist that things are going well there and our invasion was a success. As the Middle East spirals into all-out regional war, Bush supporters insist that this repulsive violence is actually good for the region -- wars are encouraging "birth pangs" on the road to progress, as the Secretary of State put it yesterday -- and they are now actively involving the U.S. in this escalated conflict, even while Iraq rapidly falls apart.' Posted by: consider wisely always on March 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKReagan won the Cold War. The Airmen and Officers of SAC will be shocked to learn this. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINKJoel, spot on comment. One of Klein's sillier statements that I heard (and wrote about) was when he was opining on KQED's Forum: This was followed by a discussion about what Klein thought about Jeb and Hillary's chances for becoming President. Klein pontificated that there was something about who is selected to be worthy for our most precious institution: the presidency. Silly me. I always thought that the president wasn't as important as that thing called the Constitution. Now I know. Posted by: Mary on March 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKKevin I agree with you on almost everything you write in this post. I would add that pundits like Klein, who rail against the mythical "socialist" left, ignore the fact that the political spectrum has gotten skewed so far to the right that anyone just slightly to the left of George Will is framed as a "liberal", for Chrissake. I even watched a talking heads show where Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal was characterized as balancing out the hard right views of Fred Barnes. If FoxNews really was "fair and balanced", they would have a representative from the American Communist Party on to offset Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter's neofascist views. Click here for a nice clip of Klein getting dressed down for his illiberal views. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKJesus Christ, it's like reading something from Bill O'Reilly. And it's not as though all of those claims which 'liberals' supposedly make are even unfair assertions, so long as they are backed up by something rational, and neutral language is used (ugh... 'evil' is so Fox News). If anything, Klein is stoking the ideological fire by making such claims. Posted by: Everblue Stater on March 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKas we observed over at skippy's place this morning: "bottom line, most corporate media hacks are perry como and dean martin to atrios’ beatles and skippy's traffic. joe thinks he’s cool because he’s got a blog. but the kids think he’s pat boone. give him a couple of years and he’ll be putting out a disco lp." Posted by: Pudentilla on March 4, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKI can't believe discussion of the past 30+ years of the issues driving American politics and separating liberals and conservatives and the word "abortion" wasn't mentioned once Posted by: Amdy on March 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINKI guess you could consider me a left wing extremist, since I would fight and die for that most liberal of documents, the Constitution of the United states. As to my temperament? Well, one tends to get just a little cranky and pitch the niceties when on has been absolutely right about absolutely everything for six fucking years. And what did we get for being right? We had general threats made against our safety, our patriotism questioned. We have been mocked and ridiculed. All for the egregious affront of being thoughtful, deliberative, careful and right. Fuck yes we are angry. Who the hell wouldn't be? (try being right some time and maybe you will understand.) Get over it. Grow a callous on that thin skin, whiff the smelling salts, and deal, for fucks sake. We are all grownups and we have known those words since 4th grade, so don't act like their infliction on your virgin ears will just up and give you the vapors! Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK"bottom line, most corporate media hacks are perry como and dean martin to atrios’ beatles and skippy's traffic. joe thinks he’s cool because he’s got a blog. but the kids think he’s pat boone. give him a couple of years and he’ll be putting out a disco lp." Okay - I get to be Michelle Shocked. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINKKlein is using the busing in Boston as his main example of how extremist 'liberals' 'refuse to accept the complexity of reality', but it's altogether unclear to me how he derives that point from that example. It's not just that he's using an example from decades ago (and in a completely different political environment), but I'm not sure it means what he thinks it means. What would someone fully 'accepting of the complexities of reality' suggest be done about the segregation of education in Boston? Ignore it? Or try something to fix it, knowing that nothing will work overnight and every option has flaws? I don't think that the people behind the busing that Klein sees as unrealistic liberalism were as naive or as unrealistic as he seems to believe. Rather, I think it is Klein who finds it easier to deny the complexities of reality, clinging to an imagined 'centrist' moderation between phantasmagorical 'extremist' positions of his own creation. Posted by: biggerbox on March 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINKOn the whole, I think Joe Klein pretty much nailed it. I especially like his qualification at the outset. Lack of qualification is a major indice of extremism, left or right. This seems a subtext of most of his points and rightfully so. To the extremist it's "my way or no way." Always. Is his critique all-encompassing? Of course not. He's not writing a book on the subject and makes that plain, too. (Perhaps he should expand his thinking into a new book. Each of his interesting points probably could be a chapter in and of itself.) As for Klein being old-fashioned, I think not -- not any more than many accomplished people who have observed much, listened, thought deeply, occasionally changed their minds and, in general, matured. A word: Changing your mind once in awhile is important and it is something with which extremists have little experience. And young folks. Posted by: tom t on March 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINKAccording to Joe Klein the most dangerous figures on American political scene are Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, people without much power. He is not worried about Bush, Cheney, Scalia.....people with real power who are doing real damage to the country. Kevin Drum makes an interesting argument about the generational aspect of this. Most liberal columnists/bloggers I like are in their 20s, 30s and early 40s. I can't relate to the Richard Cohens of punditry who are obsessed with busing and hippies. It is like they are stuck in a time warp. Posted by: Nan on March 4, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKI think this analysis really rings a bell. It's one reason I am fairly excited about Obama. He seems presidential and he isn't a boomer. Frankly I am sick of 60s feuds coloring our political races today. Somehow the fact that Obama tried this or that twenty years ago is not relevant to anybody...even though the fact that Clinton hedged on whether he had doobies twenty-five years in the past did really bug a lot of people. Yes, it did. His indulgence was interpreted as his pronouncement that he was no square, and boy did a whole bunch of squares hate that. Sorry Boomers. You blazed the way for many many issues and just now we are reaping the harvest - witness the growing support among us young 'uns for gay marriage. Time for you to get out of the way. Declare victory and go home! Love, Young 'uns Posted by: BoulderDuck on March 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINKAs I sem to fall in the gap between Klein and Drum, I offer my self as a bridge. However, I feel impelled to point out that the necessary evil of busing arose from a far greater and incidious evil that Klein seems to have forgotten. Equally, as shown by your previous post re creative charts, the present administration points up its inherent evil that is far more dangerous than incompetence alone, although it has that, too -- a disastrous combination. There is a deliberate campaign to advance an agenda as far below the political radar and in secret as possible. This is not how democracy works. Also, the US has been marching slowly but surely to the right the last 30 years, becoming ever richer in total but with less inclination to deal with disadvantage or social immobility. Klein is looking through his privilige-tinted glasses without, it seems, a clear understanding of what he speaks. Oh, and I have never yet met a real US socialist although I have met a few that have said some pretty fascistic things. "I even watched a talking heads show where Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal was characterized as balancing out the hard right views of Fred Barnes." This is the world Joe Klein lives in. In Joe Klein's view Atrios "balances" Ann Coulter. The fact that Atrios has mainstream views and does not advocate violence against those he disagrees with means little to Klein. Sunday gasbag shows routinely pair foaming at the mouth right wing partisans with objective, non ideological journalists and call it "balance". It is not unusual to see David Broder "balancing" Bob Novak. It is a twisted view of the world and Joe Klein is a product of this Media Establishment. Posted by: Nan on March 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKWait, is it really beyond the pale to support school desegregation now? Posted by: Tom on March 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINKActually, left-wing viciousness isn't quite as passe as Drum or Klein thinks. Nationally, it's been awhile but don't forget the bad old days of college-campus PC which didn't really start to fall from grace until the early 90s. And the stuff going on was even loonier than the Clinton scandals and more personally insulting. Take the multiple-personality/Satanic Ritual Absue hysteria which was fostered by a nefarious coalition of feminists, Freudians and born-again Christains. It actually used to be taught in some college classes by feminist professors that there was a national epidemic of incest (according to the book "The Courage to Heal" 50% of all women had been sexually assaulted by a close relative) which was causing millions of women to lead a Sybil-like or worse existence. Some were, unbeknownst to their own selves, members Satanic cults engaging in human sacrifice and such. And you thought the Vincent Foster conspiracy theorists were nuts. The price for openly doubting this story was to be accused to siding with the mostly non-existent abusers (Kinsey put the incest rate at a far more believeable 2% w/o bringing in devotees of Lucifer). That's an exceptionally gaudy but hardly isolated example of feminist delusional belligerence. Imaging being a straight male and being expected to swallow this stuff and being chastized for not doing so. That'll leave a mark. Then there was the Tawana Brawley fiasco led by Al Sharpton, whose 2004 presidential campaign was bought and paid for by Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone. He we had another preposterous rape story, which, if you understandably didn't believe it, would get you accused of racism (a grand jury found that Brawley had made the story up to keep from being punished by her disgustingly abusive parents). Being accused of racism and approving of sexual assault against women was far more offensive than anything levelled against those who found the chargers against the Clintons dubious. People would think you were a reality-denying jerk but they wouldn't accuse you of approving the murder of Vincent Foster. During the run-up to the war in Iraq a lot of us were offended by accusations of being part of a fifth column or objectively pro-Saddam but those were a minority and there were plenty of people on our side who were together on the idea that the accusaions were unfair. Standing up to the PC onslaught of chracter assassination was, at that time, a far more brutal and lonely affair. I tell you in those days the PC police were driving millions of white straight males and a not insubstanial percentage of women into the arms of Rush Limbaugh. It was ghastly. And that's why the period continues, for some of us, to have so much power. Put succinctly, the left was guilty of some serious witch hunts and has never taken reponsibility for them. The left, like the right, has been a member of the reality-based community inconsistently. It is still paying the price for those past errors and a lot of younger people who don't remember them don't realize why this is and nobody on the left is telling them. Neither is anyone on the right, the bastards. Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree on March 4, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKPudentilla--good summary at Skippy's. "While Reagan was applying the pressure on the USSR which resulted in the disappearance of that tyranny," This Fairy tale never goes away. Mike Gorbachev ended the "Cold War," by ending the U.S.S.R. The best you can say about Reagan was that he gave Gorbachev some political cover to do the right thing. Wingers insist that all good things come from their heros, regardless of the facts.
I much prefer Clinton’s sexual escapade with a consenting adult, over bush’s intercourse with the entire nation. Posted by: Richard W. Crews on March 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKI'm older than Klein, went to a prestigious East Coast women's college, and worked on Wall Street. I have no idea what Klein could be thinking. I loved the 60s and 70s, and although I thought the extremists were nuts, I was quite relaxed about the fact that they would disappear soon enough, as they did. There is no left any more. The political spectrum ranges from extreme right to a hair's breath to the left of center. Today's right wing extremists will not go gracefully into the night as did the lefty ones of the 60s and 70s. They have tasted power and will take it back by force if need be. Posted by: eCAHNomics on March 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKKevin Be reasonable. The charges against modern conservatives are much worse than the ones you cite: - exploding the Federal Budget deficit - invading Iraq on a pretext, then botching the aftermath completely, ignoring all information (from their own CIA officers no less) that it was going wrong - invading Afghanistan and forgetting about it, so that there too, we are now teetering on the brink of defeat (if Iraq is Vietnam 1968, Afghanistan is Vietnam 1962 or 63) - fomenting another war with Iran that will tear the middle east into 1000 pieces - forgetting completely about the Palestinians, as an inconvenience, and allowing the Israelis to build a wall outside the 1967 frontiers, thus guaranteeing Israeli occupation of large chunks of the West Bank forever - ignoring the warnings of their own intelligence and counterterrorism people, and taking no tangible actions before 9-11 to prevent it taking place (whereas by contrast, after the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings, and the attempted New Years eve attack on LAX, the Clinton Administration was obsessed with terrorism) - ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made global warming, and refusing to cooperate internationally to do anything about it - consciously deemphasising agreements towards greater nuclear disarmament and control of nuclear weapons with Russia, the only power on the planet that could still destroy the US in one attack, and could do so entirely by mistake - sowing the seeds of a space-based nuclear arms race with China, in pursuit of a ballistic missile defence system that no impartial expert believes is now working, and many doubt can ever be made to work. Every major threat to the security and future of the US of A and the western world, the current regime and its supporters have failed to guard American security or the future of its people. Posted by: Valuethinker on March 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINKHey Look! I, a ragin' Leftie, said something in previous post without fuckin' swearing! BTW, Ken Starr is the biggest Internet pornographer that I know of. He certainly set many a prissy, and proven hypocritical, Republican netherlands a'twitter. Posted by: Richard W. Crews on March 4, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINKOh my, Hieronymus Braintree--"The Courage to Heal" is quite well regarded I don't really see what's wrong with name-calling. As someone who grew up with the "excesses" of liberalism ("bussing", as in, I was bussed, a convoluted 19-mile ride) and the "excesses" of reactionary conservatives (as in, the KKK, complete with cross-burning, David Duke, and a botched attempt to start a riot at our high school -- and the remark I recall, "my daddy's voting for Wallace because he'll kill all the n****rs if he has to"), I think I know what excesses I prefer. Klein ought to know better, and if he doesn't, then I think it's fair to call it "wanking" when he puts pen to paper. As far as bussing in Boston goes, the interesting question for me is why did people up here go so apeshit, when it went without any hitches that I could perceive where I grew up. (My wife reports it going not nearly so well for her in Tampa.) It looks much more to me like crazy people in Boston, than a liberal excess. (And has Joe Klein ever even seen a water fountain marked "whites only?" Has he ever seen a cross burning? Has he ever seen a place where the KKK had enough of a presence to set up a bookstore? Has he ever lived someplace where there was still a section of town that was supposed to be haunted by a black guy who was lynched there? Has he ever lived in a town in the South that had, for some mysterious reasons, ZERO black residents? Has this man not even got the slightest hint of a fucking clue, or any idea how the "other side" operated back in the Jim Crow days?) I'd say that "wanker" is downright polite. "Consider Ward Churchill and his comments on the people who worked in the WTC. And the people who backed him for tenure and defended him against charges of incompetence. How about the people at A.N.S.W.E.R. who think that N. Korea is better governed, and better for world pwace, than the U.S.? Or the people who still think that the Khmer Rouge were not murderers until they had been attacked by the U.S. Such people continue to think that the U.S. is a fundamentally negative influence in the world." That and all the other examples of lefty extremism that have been mentioned in the comments are truly the exceptions that prove the rule. People who look for extremists on the left have to go to such lengths as to dredge up Ward Churchill, whereas we could all point to many R members of Congress for right wing extremists, not to mention several well known think tanks, just for starters. "I (and most of the liberal blogosphere, I assume) think that Klein is living in the past. He just hasn't completely internalized the vast changes of the past decade: namely that right-wing extremism is now light years more dangerous than any chimerical revival of the New Left." I don't know about the liberal blogosphere, but I don't assume that at all. I assume Klein is that guy at a social event, in a group of 4, who hears one person say "well, you know, the fact of the matter is, statistics just plain show that poor people are lazy and stupid" and then joins the other 3 in politely nodding and saying nothing, rather than taking it on. Because the champagne at this cocktail party is higher-end, and you're more likely to show up in the society column if you're at this party. Maybe if he engages that ridiculous statement on its merits, he'll even become a favored guest. Don't make this debate more complicated than it is. Posted by: KPatrick on March 4, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKYou make Kevin's argument for him, Hieronymus. You have to go back 10 & 20 years for pure arcana as your examples. The point -- since you've obviously missed it -- is that right-wing viciousness is central to today's Republican establishment, and the figures that don't actively participate in the viciousness benefit directly from it. Please explain how Al Sharpton & "a nefarious coalition of feminists, Freudians and born-again Christians" is in any way representative of the American Left. Posted by: chaunceyatrest on March 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKFailure to edit myself: by "engages" I meant "follows up on it like it makes SOME sense." My comment makes no sense if you don't know that. Although in a world where Ann Coulter is a millionaire, I'm not sure I should care about making sense in a comments thread. Posted by: KPatrick on March 4, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKSo, according to Klein, fighting against segregation is extreme? Klein isn't conservative, much less liberal; he's through and through a fascist punk. He should be honest with himself and just shave the few remaining strands of his hair off. Speaking of Ken Starr, no decent, honorable individual would have accepted the job of directing a multi-million dollar, taxpayer-supported investigation and smear of the President of the United States. Only someone indecent, dishonorable and promised a deanship at a private college situated with a grand view of the Pacific Ocean and a really great climate would agree to carry out such a task. By the by, lest we forget, his investigation exonorated the President but the smear stuck around awhile and he got the deanship. Talk about 30 pieces of silver . . . Posted by: jeremy on March 4, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK"m" at 3:03 said Liberals have that same defeatist attitude now- they blamed the US for 9/11... How can we have a serious discussion with people who think Jerry Falwell is a liberal? Posted by: Emily on March 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKConsider Ward Churchill and his comments on the people who worked in the WTC. ... How about the people at A.N.S.W.E.R. who think that N. Korea is better governed When these people represent a political force in the United States and end up getting a syndicated column, I might be interested. These aren't the people Joe Klein is arguing against. He's arguing against atrios, kos, and those of us who think he's not a very well informed or smart political pundit... and he's calling us political extremists. Posted by: Constantine on March 4, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINKi agree about conservatives filling the think tanks. That overly pious rhetoric spouting right wing extremist poster boy and Pennsylvania's former republican senator Rick Santorum joined the Ethics and Public Policy Center in D.C. which describes itself as "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy." He's arguing against atrios, kos, Good lawd. If moderates like atrios and markos represent the fringe, then we are all doomed. There are liberal extremists, and the only reason they are less prominent than conservative extremists is because liberalism is a less popular philosophy than conservatism. If there are less liberals than conservatives, there will be less liberal extremists than there are conservative extremists. Liberal extremists, however, do have significant power in politics, and, like conservative extremists, they wish to impose their view on others. Just as there are Christians who want to eliminate atheism, there are atheists that want to eliminate Christianity. Just as there are neoconservatives who want to conquer the world, there are liberals who want to surrender American sovereignty to the U.N. Radicalism appears in every ideology, and it is beneficial to the Republicans that radical liberals enjoy the power that they do in the Democratic Party; it helps Republicans win elections. Posted by: brian on March 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINKLiving in the South where grown men use "women's libber" in public without embarrassment, I can relate to Klein's list. The issues to the far right are integrally connected to the 60s and 70s - repealing everything that happened in those years. The left on the other hand has moved on to other issues. The right has to reject the idea of global warming because it wasn't an issue for Reagan. Posted by: ml on March 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINKI've been reading Klien since he started blogging on TIME (not long i know) and he personifies the media left wing like Joe Lieberman personifies the Democratic party. brian: "Liberal extremists, however, do have significant power in politics, and, like conservative extremists, they wish to impose their view on others. Just as there are Christians who want to eliminate atheism, there are atheists that want to eliminate Christianity. Just as there are neoconservatives who want to conquer the world, there are liberals who want to surrender American sovereignty to the U.N." Name the liberal extremist whose political power & influence rivals that of James Dobson -- that of Jerry Falwell -- that of Dick Cheney -- that of Rush Limbaugh -- that of Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly (for that matter identify the liberal network that rivals the scope & influence of Fox News) -- that of Newt Gingrich... or whose power & influence rivaled that of then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay & his co-conspirator, Jack Abramoff. Name those influential liberals -- hell, ANY liberals -- who want to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations -- or anyone else, for that matter. You won't, and you won't because you can't. Posted by: chaunceyatrest on March 4, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINKI think that Klein's references are dated not because of his age, but because, when confronted and forced in a corner, he could not come up with any recent examples that could reasonably justify his blatant anti-progressive and anti-Democratic Party bias. Posted by: gregor on March 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKLiberal extremists, however, do have significant power in politics, Be specific. Provide names of these "liberal extremist" pundits and politicians who have significant power. Posted by: Constantine on March 4, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKSo, if somebody even older than Klein starts sweating about today's liberals because of his fear of the Wobblies, should we give a damn? Posted by: Quiddity on March 4, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK"Liberal extremists, however, do have significant power in politics, and, like conservative extremists, they wish to impose their view on others. Could you point to just one of these powerful liberals? I recall the last 12 years quite differently, culminating with Democrats being denied meeting rooms and no being informed of meetings of committees on which they held seats. I recall a systematic effort by a criminal cabal headed by Abramoff and Delay to subvert law and order and permanently disenfranchise the elected representation of half of the American electorate. Just as there are Christians who want to eliminate atheism, there are atheists that want to eliminate Christianity. As that would require eliminating the Christians, and the wholesale slaughter of any group of people is, apparently more abhorrent to us than it is to our religious brethren, your assertion is invalid. Just as there are neoconservatives who want to conquer the world, there are liberals who want to surrender American sovereignty to the U.N. Please back up this assertion. Point to one prominent liberal that advocates such an action. I guess I'm a little older than Klein. But I grew up in the part of Texas that was Southern in culture, so segregation was really important. The KKK was still quite active in all of East Texas through the 1950's. I graduated from a segregated all-white High School in 1961, and the court cases were only just beginning to effect our city. We had an all-Black high school in the Southern part, and the all-white High school was in the effective center of the city. To avoid bussing, they shut down the all-white high school and opened a new high school on the mostly white and affluent west side of town. It is my conclusion that while Bussing itself was not too useful outside the South, it forced voters to face segregation and change things. Again, Klein is probably correct that the Boston bussing had relatively little effect on segregation in Boston, it gave the voters nation-wide the understanding that integration was the law of all the U.S., and if cities were to avoid the threat of having the federal government come in and force some really expensive and generally (outside the deep south) unnecessary changes, then the locals better get their *sses in gear and do something about the problem. Just like eliminating slavery, there was very little room for centrists in the effort to dismantle the segregation laws. (People should not forget that South Africa copied the South Carolina segregation laws in 1948 and called their system Apartheid. Legal Segregation was TOXIC! Only comparisons to slavery made it appear acceptable.) It took a nation-wide and relatively severe set of actions to dismantle segregation, and the job isn't finished yet. Getting the movement towards a race-neutral America was no place for centrists. Any actions that did not strongly tilt towards desegregation would never be effective, as was demonstrated during the decade from 1954 to 1964. Busing was taking a sledge-hammer to the problem, but sometimes when the old plumbing system can't be dismantled with wrenched, you have to tear it down with hammers and saws. The destruction is immediate, the benefits do not appear for a long time after. Joe rather clearly does not have the soul of a historian, where cold knowledge of the past overcomes the emotional ties that developed in the heat of the bussing controversy. As I said, centrists could not have eliminated segregation. Just as today, destroying all the destructive elements of right-wing authoritarianism that have been emplaced in the last 40 years will be no place for "centrists." What is the center position between democracy and authoritarianism (or worse, right-wing theocratic authoritarianism?) The only way to be a centrist between democracy and right-wing authoritarianism is to watch passively and silently as authoritarian measures slowly destroy democratic traditions and say "It's not so bad. The Authoritarians are only halfway destroying Democracy." And that's just today. Tomorrow the centrists will let them come back and again half-way destroy what remains of Democracy. The RWA's have to be stopped and rolled back, which is not a centrist option. [Go read Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians. It's all on the internet now.] Posted by: Rick B on March 4, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINKLiberal extremists, however, do have significant power in politics, and, like conservative extremists, they wish to impose their view on others. Who are they? What important political organizations do they control? Which TV networks do their spokesmen appear on? Which popular national magazines do they appear in? How many columnists in important newspapers support their their views? Can you please provide some evidence that these people exist in the real world? Just as there are Christians who want to eliminate atheism, there are atheists that want to eliminate Christianity. Please name a member of congress or a prominent party leader who espouses this view. Which governor in which states are proposing laws to this effect? Which state legislatures feature strong factions attempting to eliminate Christianity? Just as there are neoconservatives who want to conquer the world, there are liberals who want to surrender American sovereignty to the U.N. I try to keep up on a wide selection of political news and opinion outlets, and I have never seen this position advocated anywhere. Where have you seen it advocated? We have given up our national soveriegnty in some areas, but not to the UN. We have instead signed it away in international trade agreements, so foreign governments can attack our safety regulations, environmental laws, and laws to protect businessmen and investors. In theory, you may soon have the same chance of being poisoned by bad food as anyone from Latin American, or the same chance of being maimed in an industrial accident or cheated by stock fraud or copyright infringment as someone in China or Indonesia. You might want to check up on that. beginning with the liberal attempt to impose court-ordered school busing to achieve integration in Boston in the 1970's The most notorious incident in the Boston bussing uproar was when some white anti-busing protestors came across a black lawyer who happened to walk nearby them outside the statehouse. One of the protesters took the flagpole he was holding and used it to beat this bystander so severely he needed to be hospitalized. That Klein can look at this and say that this turned him off to "liberal extremists" demonstrates that he simply exists in a moral void. Posted by: Constantine on March 4, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINKI am possibly from Klein's generation (possibly a bit older). I personally agree with the assessment the left blogosphere has made of Klein. He's a wanker. I base that on whenever I read what he writes or see him on TV, he doesn't even remotely relate to me or the times we come from. I mostly ignore him now. I do not believe the 60s and 70s were so radical that we were whackos like those on the right today; but, I probably see it differently because of my gender. I gained so much more from it than he. There were some serious inequalities that were part of the culture at that time--not only the less than human treatment of blacks, not only Viet Nam; but, spousal abuse, sexual harassment, incest, etc. How could we have changed those insidious inequities without the radical tactics of the left? I guess I see that what most people who complain about the 60s and 70s politics just don't understand the times because they weren't there. Klein just seems to me to be too comfortable with his very cushy job that probably could be taken away from him if he actually took a strong stand on anything. Posted by: Mazurka on March 4, 2007 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINKSocialists are very much alive and well. They inhabit the Democratic leadership positions, the NEA, most of academia outside the hard science disciplines, and the media. IOW, the elites of this country, many of whom are Klein's generation and who haven't grown up because it is a characteristic of Boomers that they are permanent juveniles. Posted by: Corlyss on March 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKSocialists are very much alive and well. They inhabit the Democratic leadership positions, the NEA, most of academia outside the hard science disciplines, and the media. IOW, the elites of this country, many of whom are Klein's generation and who haven't grown up because it is a characteristic of Boomers that they are permanent juveniles. As before, please provide names of people, their strength in these organizations, and evidence that any socialists you name have any influence on our national politics. This is your big chance to win some people over. You just have to go the next step. This should not be a tough question. Posted by: Berken on March 4, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINKIt's intellectually much easier just to say both extremes are equally bad, and therefore the middle is the place to be. While much of what you say about Klein has some truth in it, Klein, like many mainstream pundits, has always struck me as being an intellectually lazy writer who prefers striking poses rather than doing any real heavy lifting. Also, Klein and his class have been massive beneficiaries of many of the economic changes the left deplores (it would be interesting to compare what a writer like Klein would have made in 1974 versus today), and so it seems reasonable that at least a few columnists deep down don't find the right's hard economic policies to be that extreme. If you're at Klein's economic level, cutting upper tax rates, taxes on investment income and eliminating the estate tax may sound like really good ideas while what impact would say privatizing Social Security have on you or just about anyone you know. Posted by: Guscat on March 4, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKI think I am right that Klein needed a quick piece to publish. He said this once--I just found it: "To which I can only say, what security? Speaking for myself--and you can check it with my colleagues and bosses--I'm terrified each week when it comes to column-writing time. Need to be sure I haven't made any mistakes or taken intellectual short-cuts, need to be sure I'm saying something sorta new, need to be sure I haven't let my anger get the better of me...One of my first editors, in the underground press in Boston around the dawn of time, said: "You're only as good as your last column." He was joking, I think, but...I'm still biting my toes each week waiting to see if the editor likes it or not. (And if you want some real serious insecurity, try having a piece fact-checked and copy-edited at the New Yorker.)" It's intellectually much easier just to say both extremes are equally bad, and therefore the middle is the place to be. Joe Klein is the sort of centrist that, when one side argues that 2+2=4 and the other side claims that 2+2=6, decides that the correct solution is 2+2=5. And if both sides are angry at him for being wrong, well that just proves how right he is! Also, Klein and his class have been massive beneficiaries of many of the economic changes the left deplores True. Plus, they have been insulated from a lot of the economic changes that have hurt many Americans. Newspapers would benefit from outsourcing their Op-Ed pages. There's nothing Klein or Friedman can write that couldn't be written by someone in China or India for a fraction of the cost. Then maybe columnists would have a better perspective on the economics of labor. Posted by: Constantine on March 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKSocialists are very much alive and well. They inhabit the Democratic leadership positions, the NEA, most of academia outside the hard science disciplines, and the media. IOW, the elites of this country, many of whom are Klein's generation and who haven't grown up because it is a characteristic of Boomers that they are permanent juveniles. Please point out these *socialists* of which you speak. I am in academia, with friends in all departments and know no socialists. I can't think of any socialists I might have known in the last decade. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, what's wrong with being socialist? Stalinists and other sort of authoritarians should of course be excluded from the political discourse, but anyone who advocates more egalitarian economic polices should not be automatically disqualified. One of the reasons the progressives have lost ground is the decimation of people with more radical views to their left. So with no one to the left of them, it has become their geographical fait accompli to be prtrayed as extremists by the likes of Klein. Posted by: gregor on March 4, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. I came of age in the late 90's, early 00's. So for me, it's all "I did not have "sex" with that young woman," and lieing to grand jurys and what the meaning of 'is' is and the Clintonistas trashing the white house and taking all the Ws off keyboards, its Hillary throwing a vase at Clinton in a spat... And then, more ominently, it's 9-11: those beautiful buildings being destroyed by a bunch of tinhorn terrorists, its Kerry flip flopping and "Sgt Cpl Kerry reporting for duty, Cap'n!" and Algore inventing the internets, its Democrats mendaciously using the levers of governance for political gains while undermining the war and the survival of Western civilization... Kinda puts a different spin on it, doesn't it, Kevin? Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINKCorlyss: "Socialists are very much alive and well. They inhabit the Democratic leadership positions, the NEA, most of academia outside the hard science disciplines, and the media." You have absolutely no idea what that term means. Posted by: chaunceyatrest on March 4, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINKI hope those of you who utter the word Socialism like invective have never used a public library for research...Or cheered for the Green Bay Packers. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINKKlein is a weasel and a complete fucking idiot. He makes lists of characteristics of liberal extremists that apply to no one and compares: - the 30 year-old, long-dead busing issue (busing! lololololol) vs. - the ongoing Republican looting of trillions of dollars from the public Treasury by means of the Supply-Side Hoax AND starting a disastrous and expensive war under false pretences. Wow. If you can see moral equivalence in that picture you can see it anywhere. What's worse is there are many, many more ongoing egregious offenses that can be aded to the Republican side (see the New York Times' recent editorial, "The Must-Do List" for starters). Klein is absolutely pathetic and deserves no respect. Posted by: The Fool on March 4, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKegbert: "Kinda puts a different spin on it, doesn't it, Kevin?" If by "different spin" you mean a jarringly stupid equivalence and making up words like "ominently," then, yes, that certainly is a different spin. Posted by: chaunceyatrest on March 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKIt's all about the Bubble, Kevin. Joe, the rest of the MSM, the DLC, and all the rest of the beltway folks are in this self-referential frame that doesn't involve actual people. The internets are very disruptive. They keep whacking at the bubble. This makes Joe nervous. I honestly don't think it's generational. It's more complicated than that. There's a courtier class that's arisen in DC, and Joe is part of that class. Stuff is done for show, and the kewl kids are in on the show. In fact, knowing what's behind the curtain is the definition of being a kewl kid. It's interesting that this stuff on swampland is happening at the same time as the libby trial, where it is being made very clear that the washington media doesn't really credit this journalism thing all that much. You know, sources telling the truth on the record. Posted by: jayackroyd on March 4, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKSo for me, it's all "I did not have "sex" with that young woman," You conveniently omit the indiscretions of Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston and Newt Gingrich. the Clintonistas trashing the white house and taking all the Ws off keyboards, I'm pretty sure that's nothing more than urban legend. it's 9-11: those beautiful buildings being destroyed by a bunch of tinhorn terrorists Yet your president was the one who ignored the August 6 Daily Briefing that warned that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US with an "okay you've covered your ass now." its Kerry flip flopping and "Sgt Cpl Kerry reporting for duty, Cap'n!" It is Lt. Kerry, and do not dismiss the sacrifice and service of one who went when Bush and Cheney are both feckless draft dodgers. Thell the five men who went in Cheney's place about other priorities, kid. Democrats mendaciously using the levers of governance for political gains while undermining the war and the survival of Western civilization... What the fuck are you blatheriong about here? I said it earlier today - egbert, you are the special kind of stupid that only occurs among the products of Kansas public schools. Valley Center? Derby? Hutch? Olathe? Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 4, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKI'm from Huntsville, AL, Blue Girl. We call it the 'Ville. Posted by: egbert on March 4, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINKGood post, Kevin. Joe Klein at Time's site: "I think this from Kevin Drum has a fair amount of truth to it...and is quite generous. I have some caveats, of course, but let the dialogue continue." I think Kevin is | |
culminating in Kenneth Starr and the Republican loonies trying to impeach a president over a blow job; it's the press beating up on Al Gore in 2000 and a conservative Supreme Court then awarding the disputed election to its favored candidate; it's a series of brazen, multi-trillion dollar tax cuts aimed at the GOP's rich donor class; it's the K Street Project; it's the 30-year stagnation of middle class wages, partly due to an unholy alliance between conservatives and neoliberals on trade and unions; it's a disastrous war in Iraq led by a president who had no clue what he was getting into (and still doesn't); and during this entire time a Democratic Party seemingly adrift and unwilling to really fight back.