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

[Lurking Libertarian]

Placemarker.

[firebrand]

The fact that you found it especially egregious because they had invited you into their homes is . . . CHANGING THE SUBJECT! You have switched the subject to their lack of graciousness as hosts. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

Just had an encounter with a liberal after I replied to dead's post.

Me: Too bad those ads for volunteers for the convention gave information about where all the Internet computers are. That's why we now have to wait three and a half hours to get on.

Liberal: As if I want to volunteer for their convention!

Cuckoo clock in hell doesn't begin to describe their debating techniques.

[af_vet_1981]

Did you ever serve in the Armed Forces of any nation ?

[Perlstein]

You wrote "When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans, the children indefinitely detained at Abu Ghraib, maybe the story of how the young lad Bush loaded up live frogs with firecrackers in order to watch them explode."
----
1) Budget cuts for veterans. Everyone who follows politics knows that there is huge argument over what constitutes a "budget cut"; both parties play the game of calling shortchanging increases cuts. Dismiss my use of it if you wish. But my favorite invocation of the SPIRIT of the Bush veterans budget comes from no less than the Veterans of Foreign Wars:

VFW TERMS PRESIDENT'S VA BUDGET PROPOSAL HARMFUL TO VETS
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief

Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The President ignored veterans in the State
of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is
further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this
administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans'
medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the President's
inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt
our nation owes its veterans."

VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas, Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that
with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's
budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is
needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care.   "This
funding package is a disgrace and a sham,"  Banas said.

"This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of
veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic health care
appointments with VA.  Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the
system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more
than doubling the prescription drug copayment.  This is inexcusable,
especially when no member of this administration or Congress would wait this
long for their health care.

"What the administration is proposing for veterans is a shell game.
Veterans are being asked to pay for their own health care to make up for
shortages in the budget.  We are adamantly opposed to charging veterans an
enrollment fee and we are opposed to increasing payments that veterans make
for prescriptions and for other health care services, especially when
millions of this nation's veterans are already locked out of the system,"
Banas said.  "To ask this nation's veterans to subsidize their health care
is outrageous.  They have already paid for their health care with their
sweat and with their blood.

"This budget indefensibly will not meet the increasing health care needs of
our veterans, nor will it lessen the many months they wait for disability
benefits.

"As our veteran population ages and service men and women return from
Afghanistan and Iraq, we must have a system that meets the health care needs
of all veterans.  It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields,
we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this
disgraceful budget.  Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the
American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's
veterans, especially at a time of war," Banas said.

[TN4Liberty]

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

Maybe some--not many--conservatives adopt this position as you imply. I submit that most conservatives would use Bush's perceived goodness as evidence of, but NOT proof of an intent to "do right." By contrast, if a politician or leader were known to lie, obfuscate, mislead, and parse words, we might conclude that there may be an intent toward decisions that are more self-serving than other-serving. I can give examples if you wish.

[woodyinscc]

I wonder how Mr. Perlstein and his ilk would respond, if President Bush was caught doing exactly the same thing as Clinton in the Oval Office?(strictly hypothetical, we know this would never happen) What say you, Mr. Perlstein?

[mrsmith]

"I think [your point will be ignored and] you will get a response [preached to] when your post comes up "

Ah well, it's been interesting to see what Freepers would ask of a Liberal though the "responses" are not of any value.

[Phantom Lord]

Why were the democrats so afraid to speak their minds, talk about their ideas and policies, and totally hide who they really are at the convention?

And was Howard Dean right to call Bush a "facist" and a "book burner" to delegates while speaking to them on the floor? If so, why and what evidence do you have to support Dean's assertions?

[Perlstein]

You wrote "When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans, the children indefinitely detained at Abu Ghraib, maybe the story of how the young lad Bush loaded up live frogs with firecrackers in order to watch them explode."
----
2) Everyone at Abu Ghbraib is "indefinetly detained"--or at least was until the recent Supreme Court decisions. Are you denying there are children at Abu Ghraib? That's an uphill argument for you. Do you want to make it?

[raybbr]

ping to number 538, although many seemed to have debunked both of your points that I cited.

[Dominic Harr]

Q. Have you ever seen the British shows, "Yes, Minister" and/or "Yes, Prime Minister"?

Q. Are so-called "Social Conservatives" who want govt enforcement of vice laws really "Political Conservatives", in the modern sense of the word?

[Southack]

"General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain."

The keyword is "again" vetoed.

Clark's original order was for Jackson to storm the Russian positions at the Pristina airport, just as I said above.

Clark's second *plan* was to block the Pristina runway from Russia resupplies, something that was merely discussed and not implemented.

What you've tried to do, dishonestly, has been to first claim that Jackson's men were told to occupy an empty airport (not true, the Russian paratroopers were already there), and then to later claim that the Russians were inside buildings and were not deployed around the runway itself. Such historical revisionism won't cut it.

General Jackson went so far as to tell Clark that he wasn't going to start World War Three for him. The situation was tense, and Clark's original order to storm the airport could have led to a nuclear exchange.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Phantom Lord]

Are you denying there are children at Abu Ghraib?

Are you denying that these "children" were engaged in activities designed to kill American military members? And if they were, why shouldn't they be detained?

Do you also subscribe to the anti-gun school of statistics that include 25 year olds in stats about "children killed by firearms" or some of the more laughable studies that included anyone with a living parent as a "child"?

[Yaelle]

Conservatives see something angelic in George Bush. That's why they excuse, repress, and rationalize away so much.

And that is why conservatism is verging on becoming an un-American creed.

You are a clever writer, and the interview of conservatives in your column twisted them to appear as mind-numbed religious robots.

The cult of personality is strong. I have never met Bill Clinton, but I am sure that I could speak to him while standing on a white carpet and he could convince me that it was black, or at least make me look down several times. Conservatives are not hypnotized similarly by Bush's persona. Instead, most of them feel straight, logical respect and admiration for him. Why?

In my case, I admire him for standing by his principles even at cost to himself and his career. I am relieved that he does not have needs and insecurities so great that they show to the American public and affect his duties.

I admire him for wanting to keep America safe and good more than wanting America to be liked.

I respect that he has a core, and I respect that his core is from what I believe to be the only core: The Torah or Bible.

I believe what his best friend has said publicly, that Bush arises and goes to work each day trying to do the best he possibly can in service to the American people, including yourself. It takes strength of spirit to put one's self aside and become a humble servant to us. Yet the point is that he does not awake and think to himself, "How can I and mine most profit from the world today?"

Plenty of us disagree with Bush on some issues. I know I do, on several. Who can agree on everything? And the few that seem to be worshiping him like an angel are completely misguided or being silly.

When I was very young, I believed what you believe. But you liberal journalists (almost an oxymoron) fooled me back then, telling me Reagan was stupid and bad, when in actuality he was divinely bright and very good indeed.

President George W. Bush's presidency is most likely also one that will be a beacon to future generations all over this earth. His actions have already improved and saved so many lives. The ripple of positive force is nowhere near over.

I know you liberals ascribe evil, selfish intentions to all Bush has done, but logically there is a great chance you are wrong. Can you face that?

I have read your essays and books and tried hard to find the evil you see, but it is not there. Your torrid hatred, if not pure projection, might be nothing more than burning the witch to save her.

[tacticalogic]

Yes. Sometimes unelected judges overstep their bounds. The most grievous examples these days come from conservatives in the "takings" movement going after eminent domain.

Too many of these "eminent domain" cases are driven not by any particular necessity of the municipal or local government for the land, but in pursuit of federal grant money for local "conservation" projects. Go back to your Federalist papers and find any reference that says that this is anything but an abuse of the Commerce power. You will almost invariably find liberal interests and NGO's inside the beltway behind it.

[Wonderama]

Thank-you Rick for taking the time to debate with people diametricaly opposed to your point of view. I haven't read the Village Voice in years, so I'm not really familiar with your work. I did however check some of the links to past articles.

Your obviously very intelligent and articulate, but ultimaly misguided. I understand because at one point in my life I was a proud Leftest, Democrat. One that that hated corporations, thought poverty was the root of all evil and that academic intelligence equaled wisdom.

I digress, sorry. This is a statement in your article that jumped out at me. (sorry, I didn't read every word you've written, as I am a capitalist and a stay at home mom!)

So why were 140 members and associates of two families with close business and social ties to the Bush family—the bin Ladens, and the royal family of Saudi Arabia—allowed the only flights out of the country on those days? The monologue might get a little dry at this point—explaining all those ties: the Saudi family's bailing out Bush Jr.'s Harken Oil, for example. The racquetball games between Colin Powell and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador who brokered the favor. It might get complicated, laying out how, as ground zero was aflame and Arabs were being hustled into FBI interrogation rooms around the nation almost at random, the dozens of people most likely to be able to shed light on the suspects were ushered out of the country under FBI escort.

You have unfortunly wandered into Michael Moore territory and your credibility is in question. I don't base my philisophical judgements on the rantings of right wing politicos. I suggest you don't fall into that trap.

The bin Ladin family left Sept 13th after briefings with the FBI. I assumed they too were hustled into to interrogation rooms and questioned. After the FAA lifted restrictions, then the family was allowed to leave. It's kind of public record. It may be a small point, but your argument implied that Bush was in cahoots and while you on the left claim Bush supporters are wild-eyed lemmings, your own anti-Bush philosophy is based on these sort of half truth, innuendos and false-hoods. Talk about looking the other way!

Well, I am done for now. I hope I made some sense to you.

Again, I applaud your courage, yet I think you'll be suprised how civil and intelligent Bush supporters, Republicans and conservatives can be. Thanks

[cake_crumb]

"I probably disagree with R.N. on that one, but I'd like to see the context"

Speaking of context, I'm still waiting to read why one interview with one anonymous conservative leader in Portland, who gave you the impression he was whining, is proof that conservatives are whiners. I stated in another post, which you probably missed on this fast moving thread, that without context, your assess carries no weight with anyone but you (you're the only witness)

You also didn't explain why you think we're all shallow. Only that you think Ann Coulter is vitriolic, and that Tommy Franks will do what no conservative would do: sit down with people he disagrees with and talks to them (which is odd, considering that most of us are honestly trying to debate with you.)

[F.J. Mitchell]

It is no secret to millions of Vets, that the leadership of the VFW are extremely libertal. It's no suprise to this vet, that the VFW is in bed with those who would take away everything that American's veterans have sacrificed to save.

The American Legion on the other hand, is on our side.

[lugsoul]

Untrue. The original order was given in the course of a "race to the airport." When the Russians won that race, Clark wanted to take the airfield.

Of course, even your dissembling in this post does not support your false claim that Clark ordered anyone to "open fire" on Russians.

It seems apparent that you are less interested in the facts of the exchange than your characterization of the exchange.

[Critter]

"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. "

What's to argue about?