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

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Darn I missed it. I miss locking horns with liberals.

"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.)"

Idealism can be confused with dogma, which is why conservatives prefer the term, 'realist'.

Stalwartness and devotion, that sounds to me to be party loyalty, based on his assumption that liberals are better in his opinion. Conservatives believe in placing country above party. The party's sole purpose is to serve the country. That's the only reason to even take a party seriously. The 'long-term view' of helping your party destroy the other through short term harm to the nation is placing party above country. I call that a quick fix for short term power. Their 'long-term view' is my short term view. FReegards....

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I don't consider Richard Goldstein to be of the "left." Rather, I think that he belongs to that peculiar substratum of society that has no clear identity and therefore, cling to bizarre ideological constructs invented by the types of people who founded the Frankfort School.

Tell me exactly, how does one go about being a militant, homosexual fascist, while simultaneously espousing a philosophy that embraces with open arms the very people who hope to wipe gay men and lesbians from the face of the Earth?

Don't rush to your keyboard, I'm not actually expecting a satisfactory answer to my query. I was just curious if you found this paradox to be as baffling as I do.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

What's left largely unmentioned in this discussion is the reason behind John Kerry's nomination in the first place. Namely, that he did serve on a swift boat during the Vietnam War.

That-and the fact that his extremely liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate was given a patina of moderation when it was compared with Howard "give me a Zoloft" Dean's sprint to embrace every boneheaded, left wing idea conceived of over the past four decades-is the sole reason that he is now the Democratic nominee.

And you expect us not to scrutinize Mr. Kerry's military service record?(!)

Fat chance of that happening anytime soon!

[samtheman]

I don't think Perlstein did very well, even considering how badly he was outnumbered.

It's hard to do well without facts. However, I'd like to see a bigger contest. One between DU and FR. On some kind of neutral ground.

I like the fact that posts are generally restricted in FR so that all manner of pests and insects don't come flying in the window.

But I'd also like to see some kind of organized online debate between the lunatics on the left and ourselves.

Maybe on a single thread, something like was done here?

[Mudboy Slim]

Thanks fer the ping...it don't appear that Mr. Perlstein learned much from his visit...MUD

[jjmcgo]

Thank you for taking the time to more fully express your opinion and thank you for your service to our country and the Republican Party.
I don't think that I accept the Democratic Party view of things but I do believe blacks were aware Nixon felt this way about them while at the same time he presided over the greatest transfer of wealth from earners to idlers by signing every welfare bill Carl Albert put in front of him:
From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.

RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.

JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.

NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.

At another point on the tapes, Nixon tells Rumsfeld that blacks are recently "out of the trees."

Blacks gave Goldwater only 5 percent of the vote because EVERYBODY voted against Goldwater. It was a landslide and don't think he lost because of conservative principles. The primary reason was fear of the (now forgotten) right-wing John Birch Society which seemed at the time a combination of Klanners, Nazis and McCarthyites. The second reason was the embrace of what seemed like a kooky idea at the time: conservative opposition to flouridating drinking supplies. Better dental health was a national goal and cancer warnings weren't given much attention.
The third-biggest reason was that the election followed the Kennedy assassination by less than a year and the nation sought stability over a clarion call for change.
I think we should go back and look at water flouridation, given evidence of decreased human and other animal sterility. What other problems has it caused? Off on a tangent again, I guess. Nice talking to you and I did learn a few things. Thanks.

[section9]

Oh, Good Christ, every white politician in America thought that way about black folks back in those days. Don't kid yourself. LBJ's comments about having the "n-----s" in the Democratic Party's back pocket for 200 years is the stuff of legend.

What I'm saying is that most of it is myth, propounded by Democrats to imply that the Republican Party is an instrument of racism. I simply reject that, given my own experience with other Republicans and my knowledge of history.

Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Bill killed him, and our party, among black voters. Goldwater was a victim of his atypical conservatism and of association with kooky sections of the right, you are correct there. OTOH, Goldwater did better against Lyndon than McGovern did against Nixon, if only because people felt he was leveling with them about Vietnam.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[zip]

Thanks fer the ping...it don't appear that Mr. Perlstein learned much from his visit...MUD

And for darned sure we didn't learn much from him. I'm still waiting for answers.

[Cinnamon Girl]

when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles.

That's funny, Mr. Perlstein. That's what we say about you liberals. And you even admit in your intro that you have "anger" toward President Bush that motivates your writing. All I'm hearing from liberals these days is "anybody but Bush"-- as the only reason to vote for John F. Kerry. Is hatred of President Bush a "principle?"

[Mudboy Slim]

"...for darned sure we didn't learn much from him."

Yep...he cherry-picked the questions he saw fit to answer, and left the tough ones alone. I appreciate the effort Mr. Perlstein made to correspond with FReepers, but I really don't believe he has much of a clue about the realities of foreign policy.

FReegards...MUD

[Abundy]

You would be correct in your guess. But I never said I was a conservative, either.

You choose the latter definition/classification of "liberal," which today equates to a Socialist.

I, on the other hand, have a distinct Libertarian streak. I don't want government telling me how to live my life and making value judgements for me. Nor do I want government taking my money that I earn and re-distributing it to someone who doesn't.

That's more of a Lockean Liberal than a conservative.

At least you are honest about your leanings.