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

[Perlstein]

Ah, the McCarthyite attack.  You and Teresa, accusing your enemies of being "un-American" (quick deny you said it - accuse me of misquoting you)  I know my Madison, as well as my Jefferson and Adams (most of the others, save Franklin, are too obtuse to try to apply to today).  I also know my McCarthy, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Goebels and Gore.  Hate is not a substitute for critical thinking or honest debate.  The left, yourself included, has become what you always claimed to despise: mindless doctrinaire establishment drones.  You are captives of the institutional bureaucracy, vomiting back the talking points and NY Times editorials instead of actually thinking for yourselves, incapable of thinking that anyone other than your fellow travelers has any right to exist, let alone control the reigns of "your" government.  Fortunately we still live in a democracy.  That means you lose (unless you cheat).
----
Psh, I'll have to ask you which part of my chain of reasoning you disagree with.

I argue:

1) The essence of American ideology being a government of laws not men, those who specifically base their argument about the rightness of a politician on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart

2) Many--not all--conservatives have begun making arguments on the rightness of Bush based on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart.

Which part do you disagree with, (1) or (2)? After we establish that, we can argue whether I'm being McCarthyite or not.

Again, I'd repeat what a wise Freeper wrote me about people here:

"I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better."

As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

He has seen my posts

Kind of hard to miss.

He just can't think of the Spin yet.

[Dominic Harr]

Hi, interesting, wish I hadn't been at work all day, this could have been fun. Can I still get in the game?

1. Fewer than 1000 dead, before this election campaign, would have been a successful single battle. To lose so few soldiers in an entire major war that freed millions, wouldn't you agree that this war has been well prosecuted?

2. With the effects of "liberating millions" and "attempting to establish a military ally in a troubled region", wouldn't you agree that the war was a just war?

3. I can imagine a better president than Bush. But is Kerry that man? Kerry won't reform education, because of his ties to the NEA and Teachers unions. He won't reform the legal system, because of his ties to the Trial lawyers and his running mate. He won't reform Govt, cuz he's been a part of the problem (as a sitting senator) for years. He'll run a 'pacifist' foreign policy, which history clearly shows is not a successful strategy.

I'm afraid it's back to work, now, but I'll check in later for your responses.

Wish we could sit over a beer and yak it up, some time.

[Perlstein]

I see a lot of these odd contradictions in your writings: "We should never have attacked Iraq (but the world is better off without Saddam)."
---
Please read better. I said Iraq is better off without Saddam.

[section9]

Actually, I strongly suspect that the civil war you fear will happen will not happen.

It is not in the interest of the Shi'a collegium and the Kurdish leadership to engage in a conflict. Neither it is in the interest of the Sunni tribal leadership to engage in a bloodletting; not when there is a killing to be made in the international oil business. Naturally, the Ba'ath and the Wahabist interlopers want to screw things up, but enough of the Ba'ath will want a piece of the oil action to simmer the insurgency down in the next year, especially after the Americans pull back "over the horizon" after the election.

The Iraqis do not want Zarqawi and his foreign friends in their country any more than they want the Americans there. As a matter of fact, as familiarity breeds contempt, I suspect that they hate the jihadists even more.

As for the Ba'ath, they are merely corrupt. Most simply need to be bought off and want some perks and money and influence in the new government. Sort of like Democratic activists, if you get my drift.

Your assertion about the churches was beyond stupid. The Ba'ath have never gone after Christianity as an institution. As long as the Christians stayed quiet and payed taxes to Saddam, they were allowed to live. Most Iraqis figured out what a child could have supposed: it was Zarqawi's people. Omar at Iraq the Model should give you some idea of what many Iraqis are thinking.

The folks who blew up the churches are the same people who blew up the Shi'a pilgrims at their holy festival earlier this year: the Wahabists. Foreign terrorism does not a civil war make.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[F.J. Mitchell]

Hello Rick,
I wasn't aware of you until dead, set up this debate. I do have a comment though, regarding your inference that we (Republicans who support Bush) have chosen power over principle.

Principle without power is impotent and ineffective. We of the pro-life persuasion have waited for decades for a Congress that would produce a bill limiting the incidence of abortion and a President with the back bone and moral strength to sign such a bill. Bush is that President, and the current Conservative Congress, with a few replacements,will be that Congress.

As far as I am concerned, one of the most urgent needs we face today, is making darn sure that the next thirty years doesn't add another 44 million dead babies, to the conscience of America.

Liberals can squeel about a woman's right to choose (to choose abortion) until hell freezes over. But only genuine idiots will be convinced that without abortion rights , 44 million women would have died in childbirth over the past three decades.

We need GW Bush in a position to appoint Federal Judges who intepret the law, rather than rewriting the law from the bench. We need Judges with guts enough to reverse every decision made by those judges who legislated instead of intepreted the law. Only Bush will appoint such Judges.

[Perlstein]

<> I probably disagree with R.N. on that one, but I'd like to see the context. What, for one thing, does he mean by "pure religion." He was a scholar, so that could be a technical term. Anyone know what book it's from? My Neiburh bio isn't handy.

[Southack]

"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."

No, the Russian paratroopers were already there:

"In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War." "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark " http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Perlstein]

"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."

Lets turn that around and ask about your committment to the principle of democracy:

Do you support a national vote by the American people on gay marriage, or do you support the changing of our entire system via unelected state or federal judges?
------
Our founders did not set up a Constitution where ANY one law is decided by "a national vote by the American people."

[alisasny]

I am sorry I don't agree with you based on his posting pattern. I think you will get a response when your post comes up and berating him is really not helping the situation when he is answering every post in order and has not even gotten to anyones retorts yet.

I am sure he will discuss this with you via his email also. Why not compile all your posts today and drop them in his email that was listed?

Just a suggestion as I know he only has an hour or two more.

Thanks,
Lisa : )

[45Auto]

"the liberal left have really no purpose in life"

That about sums it up; but since liberalism is a mental disorder, those afflicted with it cannot and will not accept the defeat of the Soviet Union as a defeat for "Communism"; they will maintain that even the Soviets didn't "do it right." Therefore, there is no logical basis for discussion/debate with them at all.

[Phantom Lord]

Well, there was the New Year's arrests, the Sudan missile attacks

Well, you ignored my request of ignoring the bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan, and the New Years arrest at the Canadian border was the work of an attentive border guard. Clinton had NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING. So, your answer should have been... he did nothing.

[Fawnn]

Agreed! What some call worship, I call a thankful appreciation that somebody is now in office who respects that office and also reflects our values. President George W. Bush isn't perfect, but he doesn't pretend to be.

[lugsoul]

Facts are your friends. A few dozen Russians held some of the buildings at the airport. They had not occupied the airfield. Clark wanted Jackson to occupy the airfield. It was reported that way from the day it happened up to now. And everyone knows it except for those that want to falsely characterize the exchange.

[Perlstein]

<> Who is this intelligent minion? Answer: yes. For political reasons. Means-tested programs are unpopular among the middle class and often die. I don't think social security should die. There should be no cap on income withheld for social security. What can I say? I'm a lefty. Do you think home mortgage deductions should be means-tested?

[Max7]

"I was surprised to notice the depths of the hero worship.

That's not "hero worship", Mr. Perlstein. It's just a collective sigh of relief we have someone w/brass cojones and a strong sense of "right" in the White House. He leads. Lincoln was hated - HATED - in the north. But he did what he had to. Only as an example, which you already know but is relevant, the Civil War did not start out as a fight against slavery but became one. We have ended the regime of a butcher in Iraq, who would have been followed by his equally evil sons at his death. You know about them, I'm sure. Iraq is not pretty right now, but neither was Germany or France (which we helped liberate, and aren't they the greatful nation?). Give Iraq the time, they will be FREE to practice their religion and have "regular" lives, and they're on their way now even as we speak. Maybe even one like you have where you can write whatever you believe, right or wrong, and not have your hands cut off or your children raped in front of you if the Dictator doesn't agree. Your world is not one I ever want to experience. I hope I never do.

[Cogadh na Sith]

What, for one thing, does he mean by "pure religion." He was a scholar, so that could be a technical term.

No doubt it means technically:

"any non-western, inclusive, god/goddess worship that appears nothing like any eeeeeevil established religion--especially Christianity--especially as practiced by George Bush."

He's a scholar y'know....

[Max7]

"I was surprised to notice the depths of the hero worship.

That's not "hero worship", Mr. Perlstein. It's just a collective sigh of relief we have someone w/brass cojones and a strong sense of "right" in the White House. He leads. Lincoln was hated - HATED - in the north. But he did what he had to. Only as an example, which you already know but is relevant, the Civil War did not start out as a fight against slavery but became one. We have ended the regime of a butcher in Iraq, who would have been followed by his equally evil sons at his death. You know about them, I'm sure. Iraq is not pretty right now, but neither was Germany or France (which we helped liberate, and aren't they the greatful nation?). Give Iraq the time, they will be FREE to practice their religion and have "regular" lives, and they're on their way now even as we speak. Maybe even one like you have where you can write whatever you believe, right or wrong, and not have your hands cut off or your children raped in front of you if the Dictator doesn't agree. Your world is not one I ever want to experience. I hope I never do.

[BibChr]

Thanks for responding.

Well, there you go. You excoriated the Dems for supporting Clinton, though he wasn't liberal enough.

You're absolutely right in (I take it) assuming that this isn't a persuasive answer to me. Had Clinton been a Republican, the GOP might well have led the way in hounding him out of office. The GOP frowns on felonies and disgracing public office (witness Gingrich, Livingston, Nixon, etc.).

A security guard would have been fired for doing what Clinton did on the job. The Dems are now on record as embracing on-the-job felonies, perjury, subornation of perjury, sex with subordinates, and a host of other ills... just to keep Clinton in the White House.

As long as the denial continues, so will the moral and spiritual spiral.

Dan

[WOSG]

"how no conservative who makes claims about liberals ever INTERVIEWS liberals, whereas liberals who write about conservatives (like me) try to give their writing depth by interviewing conservatives all the time. "

That claim is factually false. In fact, it is the reverse of the truth.

Every night, practically, conservative pundit Sean Hannity is on Fox News Hannity and Colmes - interviewing Liberals.
Last week, O'Reilly had the Fat One - Moore. Typically, thees shows have almost as many liberals as conservatives. Heck, I'd bet O'Reilly would book you if you had a good story.

Rush has made a career out of taking liberal views, liberal editorials and liberal politicians' statements and commenting on them - MUCH AS FR IS A FORUM FOR CONSERVATIVES TO TALK BACK TO A NARROW-MINDED ELITE LIBERAL MEDIA.

Liberals have no curiousity - with rare exceptions (yourself?) - about what really makes Conservatives tick. Probably why their biased slams about conservatives are so off-based. Most conservatives otoh face liberal views constantly in their newspaper, news, etc.

Now, Mr Perlstein prove yourself right and me wrong: Show me the extensive record of liberal shows and magazines interviewing Conservatives Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and David Horowitz?

You can't! They never do!

Liberals are far *less* interested in conservative views than vice versa.

PS. Wasnt Joe McCarthy more right than wrong about the threat of Soviet spying in the 1940s? Can you name a single Liberal interviewer/reviewer who examined Coulter's Treason book long enough to study that question *seriously*?

PPS "But he is also a responsible intellectual, careful and thoughtful, and deeply humane. Nothing in his book is unsupported by evidence and logic, disagree with it though you may -- ..."
The same can be said for Coulter's Treason, which groans with facts about 50 years of Democrat malfeasance in foreign policy. Do you actually dispute Coulter's recounting of the McCarthy era? or the Vietnam war?