Glenn Reynolds Takes the Last Refuge
...according to Johnson. Or the first, according to Bierce. Pathetic and desperate.
But many prominent conservatives have been doing this all the time...in fact, always do this. So it should come as no surprise, really. I just thought GR was above it.
[Note: he seems to have backtracked some on this now.]
['nuther note: KD beats me to the punch as usual. Instead of posting immediately, I stewed about it first, whereas Drum posted right away. I hadn't seen his post, and it's a trivial thing, and an obvious title that hundreds of bloggers probably thought of and used, but I just want to make it clear that I hadn't seen his post.]
...according to Johnson. Or the first, according to Bierce. Pathetic and desperate.
But many prominent conservatives have been doing this all the time...in fact, always do this. So it should come as no surprise, really. I just thought GR was above it.
[Note: he seems to have backtracked some on this now.]
['nuther note: KD beats me to the punch as usual. Instead of posting immediately, I stewed about it first, whereas Drum posted right away. I hadn't seen his post, and it's a trivial thing, and an obvious title that hundreds of bloggers probably thought of and used, but I just want to make it clear that I hadn't seen his post.]
posted by Winston Smith at
8:44 PM
17 Comments:
Yah, WS, even my hackles went up when I read this:
And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they're acting unpatriotically.
Now, me, I (predictably) happen to be sympathetic to the notion, and I happen to think that it is largely correct, statistically speaking. But it is judging motivations and all, which I am loath to do and hope I keep to a minimum around here, as your guest.
I presuppose that your crew is comprised of people of good conscience.
Now, I do believe that mindless and loud protest can do harm, as any human activity can. Protestors are as morally responsible to consider the harm they might do as any other active agent (say, Paul Wolfowitz), a point that is not much appreciated these days. Bush may be bad, but al-Qaeda is unquestionably worse, and to chasten the first to the benefit of the latter is not a moral act.
But Mr. Reynolds closes the door on the possibility of principled dissent. He should indeed back off.
Bush may be bad, but al-Qaeda is unquestionably worse, and to chasten the first to the benefit of the latter is not a moral act.
How interesting. Please explain how chastening Bush is to the benefit of AQ, because as I see it, the leaders of AQ must be very happy with Bush and therefore it is allowing him to continue without criticism that would be to their benefit.
Do you truly believe that it is "not a moral act" to criticise Bush for anything he does in prosecuting his War on Terror?
Yeah, I thought about you, Tom, as I was writing this, thinking "you know, as heated at things get around here and as besieged as tvd gets and as over-the-top some of the criticisms of him are, he's never once questioned anybody's patriotism." Anyway, I admire that.
I don't agree that Reynolds is right statistically speaking, but I don't know. Most of the war critics I know personally do not think in terms of patriotism and its opposite, but in terms of principle.
I ardently love the principles at the core of the idea of America, carry a copy of the constitution in my bookbag (which goes almost everywhere with me), know the Gettysburg address by heart, almost burst into tears the first time I saw the Yorktown battlefield and at Gettysburg, read much about the Revolution and WWII, follow American politics closely...but criticize the country when I think it's going wrong, and loath this administration. Am I a patriot? Am I not a patriot? Somehow the category seems to me to contain a conceptual confusion.
I strongly disagree that to chasten A to the benefit of B is wrong, even if A is lots better than B. If you are part of A and not part of B, you have stronger respnsibilities to keep A on the straight and narrow, and greater power to do so. I have no power over al Qaeda. If I could kill them all with the push of a button I would. But it does little good for me to say "hey, you know, those patently murderous bastards are murderous bastards." I expect no more from them. In my book, they are virtually quasi-animals, like Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler.
But from us I expect better. We are capable of better. More is demanded of us. We are better than they are. Though we're inching farther in their direction by the day. And that's what fills me with rage and sadness.
Winston,
Very eloquently put. Ditto.
Tom, if you don't believe it, why did you say it?
You read me carelessly.
"I strongly disagree that to chasten A to the benefit of B is wrong, even if A is lots better than B. If you are part of A and not part of B, you have stronger respnsibilities to keep A on the straight and narrow, and greater power to do so."
WS, my point is that even moral watchdogs are not exempt from the possibility that they may do more harm than good, or from the responsibility for it if they do.
Being on the side of the angels does not come with a Get Out of Hell Free card.
Tom,
I think I'm missing your point. Could you elaborate?
"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."---Adam Smith
For agents and their critics alike.
On the other hand Tom, you may have written carelessly, because your original statement is considerably different from the Adam Smith quote, which as you note cuts as sharply - if not more sharply - against Bush than against his critics.
I wrote most carefully, because your intentions are quite transparent, sir.
And since you previously rebuffed my attempt at personalizing your pseudonym in calling you "Dookie," you may call me Mr. Van Dyke.
I am Tom only to my friends, and to those who approach me in good faith.
I see Mr Van Dyke, that you first insult my reading abiltiies and then complain that I do not approach you in good faith.
If your writing was so careful, why did WS find it hard to see your point?
As for your good faith, sir, you may stuff it because I care more for honesty than for politesse and while you make a show of the one, the other cannot be feigned.
Honesty can't be feigned? That's... that's quite a concept.
I don't wanna be a pr*ck about this, but that Adam Smith quote seems kinda BSy to me. I mean I see the point, so I'll ignore the nit-picking. But I gotta agree with the Duke that it cuts more strongly against your boys than against mine. Convinced that they're right, they seem willing to say and do anything to achieve their goal. All *I'm* saying is *look at the damn evidence and think about it with minimal care*. And my activities, anyway, aren't immune from the regulation of conscience. In fact I'm greatly bugged by the fact that I'm becoming less and less dispassionate about this whole matter.
But when guys like Reynolds won't even acknowledge the reasonably obvious facts that *that the administration's conclusion was in agreement with the consensus of the intelligence community* is (a) not clear and (b) not the main point and (c) certainly not dispository...
Well, one begins to feel like one is talking to the bricks in a wall.
rilkefan--
What I had in mind was honesty as in facing up to criticism and being willing to work at communicating rather than simply dismmissing critics as incompetent.
I certainly don't dispute that the appearance of honesty is a necessity for a successful liar, but sometimes honesty requires actions which cannot be faked.
My apologies for any confusion my haste in commenting may have caused.
Well, thanks for not nit-picking, which is sophistry and not an honest search for truth.
I had figgered that Bush had already been found guilty here, and so was off the table. But even though my remarks were pointed, directed at the moralities of protest, they were intentionally universal. Of course they apply to Bush.
But which is it, that he's a bad man who started an immoral war for Halliburton, or a good man whose conviction he was doing good led him to immorality? ;-)
Personally I think he is a careless and unserious man who has no convictions, except that because he is the president, he doesn't have to listen to anybody if he doesn't want to.
But I'm still waiting to find out how criticising Bush can be to the benefit of AQ.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home