-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
So over in the precincts of the American Conservative, where Dan Larison is completely mystified by the idea that something is askew when judging people by skin color, and sees nothing amiss at a Supreme Court nominee’s dalliance with folks who cheer on Puerto Rican nationalists with a proclivity for violence, Mr. Paleo has struck again.
This time, our friend Dan is having trouble with the concept that both Iran and Poland are populated by human beings.
In the Larison worldview, apparently, a human in Iran is not the same as a human in Poland. (This, perhaps, is related to his views on race?) No explanation here about a seemingly observable fact that both Poles and Iranians appear to have the same body parts, have the same need for air, water, and food and just maybe the same craving for freedom. Certainly there’s not a whiff of a Larisonian thought that what we are witnessing in Iran has been spotted before — and not just in 1980s Poland. That this is not a Polish problem or an Iranian problem but an unfortunately very, very human problem. Not a clue that fanaticism, bullying or just plain power-mad egomania are in fact common problems that have appeared all too often all over the planet throughout history precisely because they are problems evidenced by human beings. A Genghis Khan here, a King George III there, a Napoleon or Stalin or Hitler or Kim Jong Il or Saddam or Iranian Mullah or, yes indeed, just the jerks who run the Cripps and the Bloods or the Mafia — our friend Dan sees them all and misses the obvious. Like a hormone-charged teenager, a proclivity to alcoholism or a relentless desire to eat everything, this is the same problem over and over and over again all through the centuries. Whether presented in the name of religion (the latest round of Mullahs) or Empire (the particular madness of King George) or racial superiority (Hitler and that pesky Aryan race thing, the Hutu ethnic hatred for Tutsis in Rwanda) or turf (perhaps best exemplified by the old severed-horsehead-in-the-bed routine favored by Godfather Don Corleone) or even just plain barking looniness (current awardee: Kim Jong Il) — there is not a thing new to be seen in Iran anymore than there was in Poland. You might even say this is blindingly obvious to some.
What is new in a historical sense is the idea of freedom, of basic human rights, something that has been slowly evolving over the centuries in response to all of the above. As things have worked out, America — a nation built on the idea of freedom — has become what Ronald Reagan liked to call the Shining City on a Hill, borrowing from John Winthrop (who in turn borrowed from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount — Matthew 5:14). It certainly does not make America perfect, an impossibility for precisely the same reason we have bad guys in the world — the good guys are human too. We stumble around, sometimes we are clueless, weak, timid, filled with a touch too much hubris or just plain would prefer to keep our heads down and look the other way — just go about our lives and wish only to be left alone.
But the hard fact is that it always seems to be that unless we in America — which specifically means the human who holds the title President of the United States — holds that torch of freedom high, the world winds up in Big Trouble. At the moment, with the latest batch of bad guys turning up as the rulers of Iran, it is important for President Obama not to flinch. To — gasp! — do exactly what Reagan did, who did what Truman, FDR and Wilson and Lincoln and Washington did. (Alas, Larison views Lincoln as a tyrant — a tough sell unless you’re John Wilkes Booth.) Or for that matter, Eliot Ness. Visibly stand up for freedom. Brother Dan over there at the AC apparently would prefer to just go to the mall. I understand the motivation. But in the end, the bad guys will go to the mall too — and not to shop.
MattSwartz | 6.19.09 @ 1:04PM
Larison is making a case that could be described as traditionally conservative, while Lord is making a case that is more in line with 20th-century mainstream liberalism.
Larison's starting point is the idea that culture, ideas, and historical context are relevant. For Lord, all that seems to matter are the unities of, respectively, human nature, (western conceptions of) freedom, and American power.
But culture does matter. The Poles who rose up against Communism were heirs to a millenium-long Christian tradition that valued freedom and human dignity. Persian culture has many things to recommend it, but it's history is far more authoritarian.
When people take to the streets there to march for freedom, they are using a word in a different sense than the one we assume. I wish them well, but they are protesting in support for a candidate who helped overthrow the Shah, who publicly called for Salman Rushdie's death, and who was endorsed by the radically Islamist Grand Council.
The Iranians need to figure out for themselves what kind of freedom they desire. Washington, which is rightly hated for it's interference in the Shah's overthrow, can only hinder this process.
Lord's flat world is a figment of his imagination. Larison's world, less so.
In a fairer world, Lord and four of his equals would be fine-tuning their resumes and straightening their bowties in hopes of receiving the privilege of taking coffee to Larison's corner office.
Roy| 6.19.09 @ 1:24PM
No, they are protesting in favor of a candidate they voted for. Or in other words, protesting in favor of themselves.
What matters here is seeing the regime give way in a free and fair election. Establish that precedent and they get much weaker, never mind who is the beneficiary.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 2:16PM
This post is a perfect example of why interventionism is not at all conservative. It simply isn’t. It is a kind of crusading universalistic Jacobinism. Its proponents may fancy themselves conservatives. They may self-identify as conservatives. They may hold some positions that are in fact conservative. But on foreign policy they are not conservatives. They are revolutionaries. They have more in common with Robespierre than they do with Burke. Keep up these rants. They are exposing the Jacobin core of neoconservatism.
And BTW Mr. Lord, Lincoln was a tyrant and that is not a particularly tough sell. This is conservatism 101 and more conservatives are waking up to this fact. Note the Lincoln threads at this website.
Sam Cohen| 6.19.09 @ 2:34PM
Larison and the paleocons simply ought to be belittled, then ignored. They're not conservatives, they're reactionary xenophobes. They believe in judging people by who they are -- racially or ethnically -- rather than how they act. They despise Israel, capitalism, secular culture and modernity. They have no place in but on the margins of political discourse.
Not A Neo-Con| 6.19.09 @ 2:55PM
Actually Sam that is where neo-cons like yourself belong - on the margins.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 3:12PM
Not a Neo-Con, neocons have always hated and feared those to their right as much or more than the left. Those to their right, as Sam makes clear, are to be shunned and called names instead of engaged. It makes sense since they are a type of leftist. But sorry Sam, we ain’t going away and your neocons are losing their grip.
Not A Neo-Con| 6.19.09 @ 3:19PM
Agreed Red, and I take the comment "they hate secular culture" to mean those Christian Conservatives won't shut up and sit at the back of the bus. The neo-cons wrecked the Republican party, and we will be in the wilderness for years because of it.
MattSwartz| 6.19.09 @ 5:33PM
I thought I was judging people based on how they acted. I guess the problem is that after doing so, I went on to notice some patterns in it and posit some causal relationships.
A side note: anyone who "judges" the state of Israel's behavior and holds back from offering a critique is probably disqualified from lecturing others about how unbiased and modern their judgment process is. It's still tribalism if your side is doing it, Sam.
knlju| 11.28.09 @ 7:50AM
Paul Smith has been collaborating with a few different organizations recently and his latest venture sees him
teaming up with Japanese bicycle saddle specialist, Paul Smith bag, on a limited edition leather saddle. The release features Smith’s signature
stripes where only 20 will be available at Paul Smith Clothing
store in Japan and 8 at the Floral Street store in London. Get on it quick
sandy| 12.5.09 @ 10:03PM
Sports shoes play an important Chris Paul Shoes in our life. Adidas shoes brand is a professional Gilbert Shoes.
golf | 1.16.10 @ 10:25AM
we are exclusively in golf sports ping golf drivers irons fairway woods putter hybrid.this is your green health
mizuno golf drivers irons fairway woods .think twice about it ,you cant miss it.