Shock and Awe contra Instapundit

Now here's an interesting dust-up over at Shock and Awe (via counterspin, via Atrios). Apparently there was a previous disagreement that went something like this (er, if you are really interested, don't take my word on this, 'cause I'm just learning about this and am probably missing something):

Reynolds pointed out that ANSWER sucks, because they are basically Stalinists, and Stalinists are no better than Nazis, which is pretty clearly true (though when you get into the real stratosphere of evil, it's tough to make precise comparisons. Who's more evil, John Wayne Gayce or Ted Bundy? Pol Pot or Goebbels? Sauron or Satan?). ANSWER also allegedly supported the Tiananmen Square massacre and Slobodan Milosovic. These are bad, stupid people.

Then apparently there was some confusion about whether or not Reynolds was calling all anti-war protestors commies, and charges of McCarthyism (allegedly) fired at him. He (Reynolds) responds:

"HESIOD DOESN'T GET IT, so I'll try to speak very slowly:

Antiwar protesters aren't Communists by definition.

But A.N.S.W.E.R. and the WWP basically are. (And of the extra-nasty Stalinist variety.)

Communists are, in my opinion, as bad as Nazis: mass murder, totalitarianism, etc. (And calling them "Marxists" instead doesn't fool anyone.)

Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi.

But knowingly going to either one makes you icky. And calling it McCarthyism when people point that out, or point out that the Communists really are Communists, makes you either dishonest, or stupid.

Clear enough?

(I should also note that I've tried to call attention to non-icky voices opposing the war. I think they're wrong about the war, but it's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to be in bed with Stalinists or Hitlerites.)"

Then Shock and Awe responds in the way you've probably already checked out, above.

What do I think about this? Well, since you asked...

A. The Instant One is...argh...fingers...won't...type...........so...hard...to...admit................mostly right in this case. The only thing I'd quibble with in the post above has to do with the Communist/Stalinist distinction. You can clearly be a communist without being a Stalinist or a Maoist or, in fact, any kind of mass-murderer-ist. Jeez, when I was young and stupid I thought I was a Trotsky-ite for awhile. I'm not (uh, currently) a big fan of communism, but I don't see that it inevitably leads to gulags. (Though, since it's basically led to gulags 1/1th of the times it's been tried, I'm to say the least a tad hesitant to give it another shot...)

B. Reynolds doesn't even say that you shouldn't consort with commies, but only that you shouldn't knowingly go to marches organized by 'em. Though this isn't obviously right, it's more plausible if you substitute 'stalinists' for 'communists' in the appropriate way. And he doesn't say it makes you evil, he says it makes you icky, which seems to me to be about right. Under extreme circumstances, it might be o.k. to, in essence, let ANSWER organize a march for a good cause--but under ordinary conditions, you just shouldn't have anything to do with those people.

C. Reynolds didn't knowingly support communists in his post. Presumably he hadn't seen the close-ups of the flags. So any criticism of Reynolds on that score is entirely unfair.

But:

D. Perhaps that's not Kynn's point over at S&A. Perhaps he meant to show how easy it is to end up consorting with villains when they happen to be on the same side as you. (Christ, now there's a lesson for our time...) Insty didn't know he was running with the Reds any more than lots of American anti-war protestors did.

E. If that is the point then I think it's pretty good, but maybe a shade too subtle, as I missed it at first. And Reynolds could respond that the evidence about ANSWER was easier to obtain that the evidence about the Iraqi protestors. Failing to blow up the pictures was hardly irresponsible on his part. I'd respond on Kynn's behalf that, news junky that I am, I didn't know that ANSWER was Stalinist until about a month ago.

F. Still, Reynolds shouldn't get off scott-free here. This latest installment got started because he was feverishly riding his liberal-media-anti-war-conspiracy hobby horse again, insisting that the Iraq anti-terrorism march hadn't been covered because....oh, who knows? I guess because the New York Times hates America so much... Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one that you've got...
[Note: I take that last snide comment back and apologize. Not fair, not smart, not true, and needlessly provocative.]

G. The question here is: will Reynolds withdraw his (perhaps only tacit) support of the anti-terrorism march in Iraq? Or will he deploy the insta-double-standard from his utility belt? Or will he try pleading that it's different because he wasn't AT the march...and he doesn't know WHO organized it...etc.? I hope he does the right thing.

H. Oh, and Reynolds is obviously right that calling a communist a communist isn't McCarthyism.

I. But this whole thing is making me re-consider the wisdom of blogging. My guess is that there's a lot of agreement among the relevant parties here, and this is mostly being driven by a gotcha mentality resulting from a kind of partisanship combined with the inevitable results of a certain nastiness of tone. Remember boyz -n' grrlz, Mr. Nietzsche sez:

"Why one contradicts. One often contradicts an opinion when it is really only the tone in which it has been presented that is unsympathetic."



Oh, and everything I say could be wrong.