Ready to rumble? Village Voice Author, Rick Perlstein, Here to Debate the Freeper Horde

08/03/2004 | Rick Perlstein

[dead]

Opening Statement

Dear FRiends:

I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.

Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.

I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.

A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)

Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.

I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.

Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).

I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.

So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?

Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein

[viaveritasvita]

Note to self: Copy Tonk's posts/pics and send to private email distribution list. Thanks Tonk.

<><

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: Because by projecting their own tactics onto conservatives, Dems hope to put us on the defensive.

Good point, cake_crumb, and one that cannot be repeated often enough.

[Perlstein]

Why do I reflect on this in regard to your article? Because clearly you went into it with your permis firmly in place and emerged with that same permis completely unscathed...and you discovered nothing in your journey ....So the next time you get with your friends and colleagues and chuckle snidely with your superior airs about "Bush" look around and ask yourself "Is anyone here a bigot ?"
----

Woofie, I'm often accused on FR of going into my reporting with my premises already firmly in place, then just "cherry-picking" quotes that confirm it. All I can do is tell you in good faith I don't. I developed the HYPOTHESIS that some conservatives were beginning to use their judgement that Bush was an inherently good person, deep within his soul, as an excuse not to think straight about what George Bush is doing, in an email dialogue with a FR member.

The hypothesis also came from reporting I did on conservatives who believe Bush was an instrument of God's will, and even literally prophesied in the Bible.

It also came from reading every single post on the live thread on FR about Bush's April press conference.

I was surprised to notice the depths of the hero worship, and how it cut directly against conservative wisdom about human nature, and went to Portland to see how common it was. It wasn't universal--that's why I reported on the guy who kept on criticizing Bush, but said that the liberal alternative was only building "bike paths"--but it certainly was there.

I'm sorry you think I'm bigoted towards conservatives. Talking with conservatives is one of the things I most enjoy in the world.

[MeekOneGOP]

Roger that. :^)

[Southack]

"I think it would have been better to impeach him based on the informal vote-buying Clinton did to get NAFTA through, but that's just me."

Better?! That would certainly place Senator "I voted Aye For NAFTA" Kerry in a bind today, one presumes...

No, former President Clinton deserved impeachment not for Monica (though the related perjury offense might merit it), but for his non-UN-sanctioned war on Serbia over "mass graves" that turned out to be based on faulty intelligence, against a treatied (1917) ally of the U.S. at the behest and in concert with anti-American Islamic Mujahedeen from Iran and Afghanistan as well as with the known terrorist KLA organization in 1999. A war in which he bombed the Chinese embassy and had his top general of that war (Clark) order British General Jackson to open fire on Russian paratroopers at the Pristina airport, an act that *would* have started a global nuclear war had the British General not disobeyed that direct order.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Tribune7]

Not sure. I certainly don't trust Bill Clinton. But I certainly don't know enough about Broaddrick to trust her. And I certainly don't trust many of her allies. I'll have to remain agnostic.

Here is one of the many problems I have with the left. The allegation was made public shortly before the impeachment vote. The left generally ignored it. Stories in the LA Times -- almost every major daily actually -- were spiked and there was little network coverage. Nobody from NOW or any left-leaning interest group came to Ms. Broaddrick's defense.

This was a serious charge, it seemed to me pretty important that all Americans come to an understanding as to whether it was merited especially when the problem could have been addressed via Clinton's removal.

Now, I could see someone expressed doubt about Ms. Broaddrick if she popped up in a vaccuum -- a la Anita Hill, irony intended -- but she was part of a long list of women whom had made complaints about Clinton. And remember in every he said/she said in which Clinton was involved and was resolved, Clinton was found to have been lying through his teeth.

It seems to be the duty of a journalist to take arms (figuratively) against a thug. Clinton is one. Where was the outrage expressed at his speaking at the DNC?

Now, you say you don't trust Ms. Broaddrick's allies. You know they include Lisa Myers, perhaps the only establishment journalist of any stature who reported honestly on the accusation.

Did you believe Bush when he said in 2000 that most of the money from his tax cut would go to the bottom half of the income distribution?

OK, I asked a question about a credible rape charge against a promienent Dem & you respond with a presumed gotcha concerning Dubya from a political campaign as though there is some moral equivilancy. I don't recall him saying that in the campaign so I can't address the claim specifically or consider the context in which he said it.

Now, accepting that he did say that as you describe, yes I believe Bush believed it when he said the most of the money from the tax cut would go to the bottom half. It would be in keeping with the Laffer Curve and supply side economics.

I appreciate your visit to FR & hope you're not getting to hammered.

[Perlstein]

OK, I definitely don't know what to make of this!

An editorial this week in the Richmond Times Dispatch cites me as one of two political commentators that actually seeks insight instead of just trying to repeat my premises.

Make of it what you will. I have no idea how credible this source is!

RP

Copyright 2004 Richmond Newspapers, Inc.  
Richmond Times Dispatch (Virginia)

July 30, 2004 Friday City Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A-10
LENGTH: 312 words
HEADLINE: MORE OF THE SAME
BYLINE: Todd Culbertson/ Mr. Culbertson, Deputy Editor of the Times-Dispatch Editorial Page, is covering his 10th national political convention.,
DATELINE: BOSTON
BODY:
The national conventions give ample opportunity for humor - intentional or un-. By the thousands scriveners and screaming heads invade the host cities. Everyone has an opinion on everything, and in most cases the opinions could have been written years before. Observers see what they want to see, which means they often miss the picture.
Although the occasional commentator seeks insight - David Brooks comes to mind on the right, The Nation's Rick Perlstein on the left - most revel in scoring points. The right's performance during this year's Democratic primaries is tell-tale. When Howard Dean soared (or at least when the press corps thought he was soaring) partisan kibitzers described him as the most radical and dangerous rabble-rouser since Emiliano Zapata. As soon as John Kerry took the lead, he became the most extreme candidate in human history. The left's similarly sullen gambit is to denounce George Bush as an ideological extremist when Bush is as ideological, and as extreme, as scrod. If the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare prescription-drug plan represent hard-edged conservative ideology, then "conservative" and "ideology" can mean just about anything.
The question before the house asks whether it is more profitable or entertaining (or both) to read a pundit on convivial turf or hostile. Ellen Goodman perches in Boston and writes with discernment when among Democrats, but when writing about Republicans her eloquence reduces to a whine. Peggy Noonan hits the high notes when discussing Reagan and George Bush but sometimes displays a tin ear when reporting on the Clintons and other Democrats. Ms. Goodman and Ms. Noonan are not unique. They are cited because they stand at the top of the trade. The lessers are something else.
Empathy is a priceless gift. Knee-capping the opposition is so much more fun. Ready, aim, fire!/

[Perlstein]

Carton, which answer are you referring to? Glad to clarify.

RP

[viaveritasvita]

LOL! I have to wonder if this whole thread is going to turn into a Perlstein article.

<><

[Hildy]

Did you see his resonse? Why haven't you replied?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

OK, Just ONE question.
Do you really believe a traitor like Hanoi Kerry should be Commander in Chief?

[jimfree]

Hello Rick. Agree with some of your critique. I stopped with the budget deficit since it interests me. I am a budget owl - I suggest by this that some hawks might cut the budget without applying any wisdom. I also believe though that W has tried to achieve the spirit of cooperation he had with the Texas legislature to the U.S. House and Senate and it hasn't worked. Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy have no interest in real cooperation, and the Republican Senate leadership wants to preserve the most unfettered fillibuster for whatever reason. That unlimited debate has also resulted in the blocking of the appointment of some of the most promising Federal jurists.

Thanks for joining us today.

[cake_crumb]

"I have been reading this thread, and I have to believe that Perlstein is either the slowest typist in journalism or has a very slow connection."

It takes time to dig up and link to old articles, rather than make thoughtful, off the cuff responses. FR is slow for me today too, but I'm only behind due to having to step out for 15 minutes.

[Max7]

"Activists plan to hold sit-ins at delegate hotels, take over city intersections, block doors to major corporate offices, confront GOP bigwigs and infiltrate events when Republicans come to town for their political convention."

Good grief. I need to go find that old beaded headband and tapestry shirt I used to wear in the 60's. We're on our way back there anyway. Oh yeah. The Democrats are such "progressives". Gimme a break.

[Nonstatist]

A leftist Christian named Perlstein???

He is an atheist with a Jewish sounding last name.

Virtually all the "Peace Now" Leftist Jews in Israel around as recently as 3 years ago have come to believe that appeasement = death, and that there is no negotiating with the current slew of Palestinian Arabs, who believe that demography alone will make their wish of total victory come true.

Perlstein could give 2 spits about the survival of Israel as it is currently constituted. On that, he is in agreement with Michael Moore, Gore Vidal and the rest of the mainstream Jew-Hating Village Voice left.

[StarCMC]

GREAT post cake crumb - check this Tonk... More ammo??

[veronica]

I did reply, if we are talking about the same post.

[lugsoul]

Southack, we've been down this road before, but facts are your friend. Not even Sir Michael Jackson, the butcher of Derry, claims that Clark ordered his to "open fire" on Russian troops. You know full well that the order that led to the "WWIII" exchange was for his men to occupy the runways before the Russian troops could do so to prevent Russian transports from landing.

People can debate the foolishness of that order all they want. But it is false to claim that Clark gave an order to open fire, and I'm sure you know that.

[jimfree]

Kerry strikes me as smart and competent and thoughtful. That's a start. He was very brave in leading the investigation of the way the Reagan Administration negotiated with hostage-takers in Iran; I admired that, certainly. He worked hard with McCain to try to heal the wounds of Vietnam; he didn't have to do that, and it didn't help him politically.

Hello again Rick. The political benefit would seem to me to be substantial. He had turned his back on his VN experience in 1971. Why not seek innoculation by working with a 7 year POW?

Cheers!

Jim

[Perlstein]

3 - Bush received considerable criticism for taking out Saddam without UN approval (despite the fact that apparently the French and the Russians were in bed with Saddam and his oil-for-food bribes). Now some of the same critics are blasting Bush for not intervening in Sudan, even though the UN is blocking any significant action and actually has Sudan on its Human Rights Commission. Do you believe that the UN has any credibility left after the oil-for food scandal and their inability to act in Sudan after dropping the ball in Rwanda? Do you think the Bush critics are being hypocritical by comparing Sudan and Iraq? Do you think the folks who blast Bush for attacking Iraq without final UN approval should also be blasting Clinton in retrospect for attacking Yugoslavia without UN approval?
------
To start with, I would point out one major difference: thousands of people are being massacred a day as I write this in Sudan, a massacre that could be easily ended by a countervailing military presence. While Saddam did indeed massacre thousands (are Freepers aware that the biggest massacres came against Shiites who rose up against Saddam at the bidding of the U.S. after the first Gulf War, after which we chose to sell the Shiites out?), no such massacres were in operation last March when we invaded. that's why it was called a "preemptive" invasion.
-----

4 - Do you think that the use of American military force when it is aligned with American security interests is more effective than a purely humanitarian intervention with no compelling US security interests? Does a compelling security interest in any manner taint a US military action?
-----
I'm confused by the question. Is your implication that liberals only favor intervention where there is no compelling U.S. security interest? Please clarify.