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

[section9]

Your history is open to question, as it accepts the Democratic Narrative that posits the Republicans want to Bring Back Slavery.

Barry Goldwater was the standard-bearer in 1964. He received only five percent of the black vote. His stand on the Civil Rights Bill was the reason he got so little from black America that year. Consider that in 1960, Richard Nixon, Richard Milhous Nixon received somewhere in the neighborhood of forty percent of the black vote.

If any Republican in this era received forty percent of the black vote, there is no way a Democrat could be elected.

Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was not based on an appeal to racism. Even in the Spring of '68, before such a strategy began to take hold, it was clear that black voters were going all out for Bobby Kennedy. Nixon and the Republicans correctly wrote off black voters that year.

The Southern Strategy was based on an appeal to southern voters who were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party was the author of the stalemate in that war, and Nixon offered to "cut bait", which suited Southern sensibilities just fine. Democrats do not like to recall their incompetence during those years; their tomfoolery grated on the sensibilities of the South. Given the fact that a whole lot of Southerners had volunteered for combat duty during that war (we Johnnies are like that, you know), this should come as no surprise. The sheer stupidity of the Democratic administration of the day led to the revolt by Wallace. It is hard for me to see how Wallace could have developed an insurgency against Johnson/Humphrey were it not for Southern anger over the fact that we weren't winning the war.

By 1970, the Republican Party recognized that black voters were irretrievably lost to the Democrats for some time to come. You are correct in this regard: Johnson's reputation from the Civil Right's struggle and the "War on Poverty" (which, in Reagan's famous phrase, was won by Poverty) helped cement the bond between black voters and the Donkey Party. There was very little that could be done to remedy this.

I have been in and out of Republican campaigns for 25 years. I haven't seen the disdain for black folks that you describe. Probably because it doesn't exist. The Klan, you will recall, was an organization made up primarily of Southern Yellow Dog Democrats. Yes, we lay down with a few dogs (David Duke latched his ass onto our party for a while) and got up with some fleas, but that happens to everyone in politics.

We Republicans are practical, pragmatic people. If no one wants to play in our sandlot because they think we burn crosses there, even if you insist that no crosses have ever been burned in your sandlot, then why waste your time asking them to come and play? Why not go after Hispanics, Asians, and Indian immigrants? Why go address the NAACP Convention if all they're going to do is accuse you of murdering James Byrd again?

We have better, and higher, things to do than appeal to people based on their skin color. Eventually, conservative arguments will carry the day. They usually do. Conservatism as an ideology doesn't posit nonsense about Man as a Fallen Angel who only needs the next marginal dollar from the taxpayer to bring the Millenium to pass.

Conservatism works because Conservatism makes sense. No matter what color you are.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[lugsoul]

Hmmm... With logic like that, it is a wonder that you can hurl slurs at anyone else's.

Even "funded" is not the same as distributed. It seemed that his claim was that the money wasn't getting spent. Kind of like all that reconstruction money in Iraq and Afghanistan that has already been budgeted but not put to any use.

It is completely faulty logic to claim that "funding" equals distribution unless one proves otherwise. But you have already demonstrated that accuracy is not high on your priority list.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I'd love to hear your accounting for just how Clinton would have created a budget surplus, without the election of a Republican majority in both the house and Senate in 1994, that reigned in his plans for big spending?

If the Dems and Clinton had had the guts to take out Osama-911 could have been avoided. If Clinton had had the self control to imprison willie the bent worm behind the zipper of his fly-Monica would have found a boy intern to pacify her hornieness and everything would have been okay.

No President of these United States has ever faced the challange to protect and preserve our way of life,against such an unpredictable enemy, as has our President Bush. In 2001, thanks to Clinton's dereliction of duty, Our President Bush was sucker punched once. The absence of any terrorist attack upon these shores since 911, attests to the successful actions of George Bush- not to the pretensious and liberally slanted 911 commission.

We owe our gratitude for our safe yesterdays, our safe todays and our safe tomorrows to Bush-period!!!!!

[BADROTOFINGER]

As far as your lie about FR being a cheering section for Bush, in many ways it is, but as Pietro said, their is much criticism of W here. Your pathetic answer to that FACT was this...

Pietro, two things: first of all, check out the live thread on Bush's 4/04 press conference. It was stunningly worshipful. Second, it's my understanding some pretty serious charges have been made (pretty serious if you take the name of the site seriously) that paleocons critical of Bush have been banned from Free Republic.

...lame garbage, a referral to one thread out of tens of thousands, and a rumor. And you expect to be taken seriously? Please...JFK

[paulsy]

"Here I am. Who'll have the opening shot?"

First, thanks for having the courage to climb into this camp.

I have MANY questions.

1. How can John Kerry reconcile his personal belief that abortion is wrong, with his public policy that permits late-term abortion? To him, apparently abortion is a life-or-death issue, if what he says is real. To this extent, the Constitution and its Amendments protect life; as our country's CEO he would be obligated to uphold the Constitution. So I don't understand how he can have it both ways.

2. Why won't John Kerry tell us his international negotiating plan on Iraq? Why does he say, essentially, "vote for me and you'll see what you get once I have the power."? That sounds like Nixon and his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam conflict.

3. How can John Kerry at once claim to be budget-wise while proposing programs that will cost upwards of $2 trillion?

4. How can John Kerry make the economy stronger by raising taxes?

5. Do you really believe that tax cuts didn't go to the middle class? If yes, on what factual basis?

6. Where does John Kerry stand on the issue of home schooling?

7. How will John Kerry solve the looming Medicare and Social Security disasters?

8. Will John Kerry support dissolution of the IRS in favor of a VAT or national sales tax?

9. What is John Kerry's plan for ending our reliance on foreign oil?

10. Why does John Kerry lambast Bush for acting on the same intelligence that led he, dozens of other Democrats and the world community to conclude that the only plausible solution in Iraq was regime change?

etc. etc.

I know you're inundated with email, but I can't seem to get an intelligent answer to these questions from my liberal friends. Please, if you have time, answer some of these.

Best regards,
Paulsy in Texas.

[cyncooper]

Michael Moore like he had scurvy. He had no official role. He did, however, sneak into Jimmy Carter's booth, if that's what you mean.

False.

I watched the entire demcon and not only was Moore not treated like he had scurvy, Carter welcomed him to his booth. He did not "sneak".

[Vigilantcitizen]

Friggin' brilliant.

[nutmeg]

bookmark bump

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..question for Perlstein: How many years of non-genocide, non-dictatorship, freedom, free enterprise and democracy will Iraq live through before you admit you were wrong?...

Hmmmm. Quite a few, WO.

The Left haven't addressed the same question as regards the Soviet Union, yet.

[Perlstein]

Ah, the evil drug companies. Perlstein, I recently finished up a systems contract at one of those big evil drug companies. They have a very large program to provide reduced-cost AIDS and antimalarial drugs to the developing world. I'd certainly hope that most of the money has been distributed to drug companies, because they're the only ones who can cure the existing patients (prevention is a whole 'nother story, but liberals would rather shout down the president of Uganda who speaks of abstinence and self-control and instead throw condoms at the problem).
----

This is a very specific charge that I'm happy to make in more detail. The rest of the world besides the US funnels its AIDS funds through something called the Global Fund, the international coaltion dedicated to reducing the spread of aid. But plans to cut America's contributions by 65% in 2005, which will probably bankrupt it.

[firebrand]

Yes, the Freudian defense mechanisms used as a sick tactical credo.

[mrsmith]

.

Now that second and third string (and I'm just being descriptive- not demeaning here) columnists are, however duplicitly, admitting they come to FR for inspiration we should start thinking ahead to when the first tier columnists do too.

As rhetorically disappointing as Perlman has been it does seem like they should be limited to 'responding' on their own to criticism of their posted articles.

But would we feel that way about a real columnist like Willams or Will?

[Perlstein]

<> NP wins the funny award. Hope you don't get no paper cuts.

[lugsoul]

cyncooper - where did I make any judgment about the truth of the story? Nowhere.

Southack asked for the source, Perlstein gave it to him, and then Southack (typically) comes back and questions the source, insinuating that it was bogus. Since I found it in about 9 seconds, I passed it along to him. That's all.

[WOSG]

"defending the spirit of the Constitution"

where in the 'spirit of the Constitution' does it say or mean to say that perjury about sex doesnt amount to
an impeachable offense? Can you give a citation in the Constitution or USSC case law? Or is this just empty rhetoric?


"a constittutional coup"

Please define this oxymoronic phrase. If it is done Constitutionally, it is an 'impeachment and conviction', not a coup! right?

"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."

How is this more of a crime than perjury under oath?
What about his Johnnie Chung illegal campaign contributions - Valid impeachment article?

[Ben Bolt]

At least he is not some anonymous DU troll--pretending to be Perlstein.

Granted . But his account is nearly 1 year old . Why does he need a man who is credentialed to effect the introduction when none is clearly needed ?

We've all seen how fast alot of trolls get zotted here . I find the whole thing to be odd .

[Last Visible Dog]

Try language along with some facts: "asked for" is not the same as "distributed."

What more can the president do? All he can do is "ask for" it - it is the congress that handles the money. Not to mention, I see no support for Perlstein's "distributed" claim in the article he linked (the word "distributed" does not appear in the article)

[Perlstein]

<> Which lie specifically?

[Miss Marple]

Is that Global Fund run by the same sort of people who rant the Oil for Food program? And is their direction condom distribution as opposed to pharmaceuticals?

I prefer the money be given to the countries in need directly, rather than going through some middle agnecy, which no doubt is quite adept at siphoning a huge percentage in inflated overhead.

[Southack]

"You have a source that says he "distributed" 300 million? Cool - 'cause that ain't what your earlier post said."

Are you posting from another universe?!

It's not my claim. It's Perlstein's claim. Perlstein says that only $300 million (i.e. 2% of $15 Billion) has been distributed.

I asked him to supply verification of that claim. His source said *nothing* about $300 million or 2%. His source *did* say, however, that $2 Billion of $15 Billion was funded *last* year, as well as that Bush has asked for $2.8 Billion more for next year, in addition to having 3 more years left to meet his 5 year, $15 Billion pledge.

Now, if you want to claim that the $2 Billion mentioned in Rick's source hasn't been fully distributed, then you'll have to provide supporting evidence; to date, none has yet been shown.

But none of these things are *my* claims. I have no burden to show any of the above.

On the other hand, you and Rick have some explaining to do.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires