Happiness is a Warm Gun, Part 437

Shorter Ol' Perfesser: "That government is best that kills most."

Update: Pantload weighs in here. Money shot:

But this is a very thorny argument and I've got a very busy morning. So I'll just reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

:lol:

The Pantload has dumped another large block of text over at The Corner, proudly attributing this one to some "Newt." Here are the best bits:

Newt On the McCain Gambit [Jonah Goldberg]

Statement just came out:

Newt on Senator McCain’s Decision to Suspend His Campaign to Forge an Agreement on the Financial Crisis:

The McCain Leadership Factor...

This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, 'I will go to Korea.'...

If McCain can develop this plan, bring enough Democrats to support it to get passage, and then convince President Bush to sign it, this will be one of the most amazing achievements in the history of presidential campaigns....

Dang, who can forget when Eisenhower said that about Korea?! Goosebumps!

Shorter Right Blogosphere

From the actual pie-hole of Pantload:

It's sort of like when you're not sure if someone is a b.s. artist, or an ass, or a racist or whatever until you meet his wingman and that guy turns out to be much worse — but also substantively the same. Birds of a feather and all that.

A Fertile Mind

Jonanismus maximus:

Stupid Box, Give Me More Data [Jonah Goldberg]

Amazon sales rank addicts (like me) are going through withdrawal because Amazon.com no worky.

Update: Amazon's working again. Obama be praised!

06/06 02:59 PM

Guy's a perpetual jagoff machine.

[Added a link.]

If McCain Needs Help Winning Alaska, He's in Real Trouble

When last we saw Jonah, he was saying McCain should choose a Democrat as his running mate.

Well, it looks like he's still blathering outside the box.

I for one think this is a stellar idea, and sincerely encourage McCain to take Jonah's advice in this and all other matters.

The Paranoid Style in Pantload's Politics

Hold on, America -- don't burn those philosophy primers just yet. Sure Jonah Goldberg's book has its own blog. But let's not get carried away, shall we?

...Of course some of the philosophers and intellectuals on the receiving end of my indictment [in Liberal Fascism] were valuable and worthwhile.

Paul Tillich was a brilliant theologian. Erich Fromm had much to recommend him. William James was a profoundly decent and insightful philosopher. Even Richard Hofstadter was admirable in many ways — foremost his writing skill. And of course anyone who simply dismissed Nietzsche and Rousseau wholesale is making a grand mistake.

On the other hand, American liberalism from FDR through LBJ and MLK you may safely dispense with.

Right-Wing Wind-Up Monkey du Jour

Why, it's Jonah Goldberg, of course! Let's take a little wade in the intellectual kiddie pool:

What is fascinating here is not the sentiment, but what's missing from it. The P-word....

But what on Earth could he mean by unity other than a kind of patriotic esprit de corps for the good of his country? Indeed, patriotism is far, far preferable to mere unity. (Mafia syndicates and terrorist cells are unified, after all.) Patriotism is a species of unity that has some moral and philosophical substance to it....

One cannot credibly talk of love of country while simultaneously dodging the word and concept of patriotism. And, I would argue, one cannot sufficiently love one's country if you are afraid to say so out loud.

But while Patriotism is Good, any sense of national community is inherently fascist. And of course any substantive efforts toward national unity (other than war) are--yes, you guessed it--fascist. And when Democrats attempt to give substance to the thing called 'patriotism', those efforts are here derided by Goldberg as anti-patriotic ("a means of finding fault with...America itself").

The 'patriotism' Goldberg embraces is the familiar kind of content-free flag-waving we see all over the right; no surprise there. The entertainment comes in seeing him say "[p]atriotism is a species of unity that has some moral and philosophical substance to it" even as he explicitly rejects anything that might approach substance. It takes a special kind of wind-up monkey to do that.

(Hat tip: Steve M)

The Stupid--It Multiplies!

Following Ahab to the Corner, I ran across a prize bit of stupid...and another...and another...and somehow my throwaway one-liner got a whole lot longer. Here's what they currently have to offer:

• Historical Ignorance 'R' Us:

  I remember reading that Mexican kids born here weren't always automatically granted citizenship.

  Umm...maybe before 1898.


• K-Lo's House of Misogyny:

  Charlotte Allen eviscerates women. I love it.

  But only because she thinks 'eviscerate' is meant literally.


• Reading Comprehension? Not Our Strong Suit:

  I just checked the mail and found the Social Security Administration had sent my annual statement...one has to endure a page of "What Social Security Means To You," which includes this:

  About Social Security's future ... Social Security is a compact between generations. For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families. Now, however, the Social Security System is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement.
  
  In 2017 we will being paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted [footnote and citation omitted] and there will be enough money to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.

  Compact between generations? Promise of security? The "Trust Fund"? Foundation of protection? Jeez.

  Yes, it's true: Andy McCarthy reads a page of thoroughly dishonest Bush administration scare-aganda, and the thing that leaps out at him is the tiny bit that extolls the virtues of Social Security.

For the love of god, don't make let me go back there...

Is Our Conservatives Learning?

Pantload:

One thing I would like to know is what it says about Matthew Dowd (a perfectly likable fellow) that he eagerly signed up to work for Bush but now thinks the man's a moron. Makes you wonder about the guy's judgment, to say the least.

Heh. Indeed. To say the very least.

(Fixed title. Fixed heh. Open to further suggestions.)

Jonah Has Correspondents Even Dumber Than He Is

Exhibit A: an e-mail he posts without comment. Choice quote:

The Democratic Party has been identity-driven for most of its existence. Ask a Democrat about his and he will tell you who it stands for—women, minorities, the poor—in old times, it was "the common man" or "the working man" or "the little guy."

Thing one: in old times? The 'common man'? The 'working man'? The 'little guy'? Was actuaally the common white man, the working white man, and the little white guy. Women, African-Americans, Hispanics--not in the picture. Not part of what the party (either party) stood for. The thing Goldbergians deride as 'identity politics' exists because it has to--because the identify politics of white guys was used to disenfranchise people who weren't (and apparently still aren't) supposed to have an identity.

Thing two: no identity politics in the GOP? Riiiight.

(Hat tip; Sadly, No!)

A Shrine to Liberal Fascism

Seriously.

Surely at some point Jonah will reach self-parody singularity and become a self-parody black hole that swallows all the parody in the universe. The guy is dangerous, is all I'm saying.

(hat tip: Tbogg).

Jedi Fascism: The Readers Respond

Response to Jedi Fascism has been extremely gratifying. Sure, the same old bleeding-heart pro-Jedi types are trotting out the same tired, predictable attacks on me and the book--but here's the thing: they haven't read it. It isn't even due out until next year 2010. How can you slam a book you haven't even read? If somebody wrote a book in favor of intelligent design, or arguing that the earth is flat, would it make sense to dismiss it without first seeing what the arguments are? Of course not.

Happily, there are more positive comments than negative, and they are far more thoughtful and serious. Early blog reviews are particularly encouraging: Daniel Wolf calls it "a brilliant and timely analysis of Jedi politics", and The United States of Jamerica says "'Jedi Fascism' would actually be an interesting book."

My reader e-mails are also a great source of encouragement and unpaid research helpful information. Here's one:

It's about time someone got to the bottom of this. I took one look at Carrie Fisher's hairdo in the first film (just called Star Wars for you youngsters out there), and thought her name should be Helga. There's your smoking gun right there.

Leia, She-Wolf of the SS? Sounds plausible to me.

Another reader e-mails:

You should also check out Jonathan Last's defense of the Empire. Last makes some of the same points you make, and also argues that Palpatine is a "relatively benign dictator" like...Pinochet.

Last makes a point similar to my own:

In "Attack of the Clones"...Count Dooku leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism"....The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.

They hate freedom and capitalism...hey, who does that remind you of?

Some comments are pithier but no less insightful:

The storm trooper is the Jew of Jedi fascism.

That is definitely going into the book.

Another reader makes a great point:

Mind control powers. Seriously ... how can you defend THAT?

When you watch old newsreel footage of Hitler, it's almost as if he has...wait for it...mind control powers. Coincidence?

Yet another reader corrects the record:

Alderaan was "liberated," get it straight!

True, but I'm sure the MoveOn crowd doesn't see it that way. To them, it's a 'criminal act of aggression'--and maybe even a 'quagmire', at that.

The same reader also notes that Emperor Palpatine is exactly like Dick Cheney, and as a charter member of the Dick Cheney fan club, I think that's an excellent analogy. Because at a time when everybody talks a big game about how they don't like people-pleasing politicians who live by the polls, Palpatine is pretty much the only guy out there who walks the walk. He truly doesn't care what people think about him. I love that.

Anyway, thanks for all the great comments--keep 'em coming! I wish I could credit all of you when the book comes out, but that would be a lot of work. Just know that I am really, really grateful.

Jedi Fascism

The first time I saw Star Wars¹, I was dissatisfied with the sketchy portrayal of the Rebel Alliance. What was their program? If they succeeded in their rebellion, how would they govern? Did they have any core beliefs other than mere opposition to the Empire? The movie was nearly silent (nearly!) on these important issues; we, the audience, were expected to root for the Rebels based on nothing more than heavy-handed semiotics.

I say nearly silent because there is a disturbing clue at the very end of the movie: the final scene, in which the putative heroes are awarded their medals, is a direct visual lift from Triumph of the Will. This shocking turnabout calls into question everything that comes before it--or rather should have called into question, because it seems to have been lost on all but a few discerning viewers.

I didn't give this much thought over the years...until recently, when I learned that everything I know about liberalism is wrong². Maybe now, I thought, the public would be ready to revisit the all-important question surrounding Star Wars³: who were the real totalitarians?

Surprisingly, the deeper I delved, the more evidence I found confirming my unorthodox conclusions. Among other things, I learned that:

• Arch-villain Darth Vader, in his youth, espoused beliefs almost exactly like those of the Jedi;


• Like 20th-century Fascists, the Jedi had a deep-seated hostility toward free trade--as evidenced by their military action against the Trade Federation;


• Despite their professed opposition to Emperor Palpatine, the Jedi Council worked for him at one time; and


• The Jedi considered themselves a sort of 'master race' marked by superior blood ("midichlorians"), just like Hitler.

All of the above and more are explored in detail and with great care in my forthcoming book, Jedi Fascism: the Totalitarian Temptation from Midichlorians to Mace Windu from Ewoks to Alderan from Jar-Jar Binks to the Death Star (publication date: December 2008 May 2009 eventually). This will be a thorough, compehensive, painstakingly researched and incisively argued account that should settle the question once and for all about who was the real 'Empire'.

In the meantime, though, I'm still doing research for the book, so if any of you Star Wars⁴ experts out there (regardless of ideological affiliation) could provide additional examples, I'd certainly appreciate it.



¹i.e., Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope.
²Apparently liberals are really fascists and fascists are really liberals, or maybe it's the other way around.
³i.e., the whole 6-film Star Wars series.
⁴See Footnote 3.

But Seriously, Folks

Matt Yglesias:

One major problem with the book is that Goldberg has no ability whatsoever to stick to a coherent line of argument. You might call this book "disparate essays about fascism and American liberalism designed to annoy liberals." He doesn't seem to care about what his various claims amount to or even whether or not they're inconsistent. Thus, sometimes liberals are too mean to the non-Hitler fascists of the world. Other times, the problem is that people on the left in the 1920s were, at the time, unduly soft on fascism. But other times the problem is that people on the left now have views on some subjects (e.g., the importance of public health) that are similar to views fascists had back in the day....

Beyond specific errors, lapses in logic, etc. the biggest problem with Goldberg's book is actually that Goldberg himself has the wrong ideology.....[Goldberg is] a steadfast supporter of the political party representing the dominant ethnocultural group in the United States, the party that supports torture and unlimited surveillance, the party that supports a larger and more aggressively employed military, the party that supports a more punitive criminal justice system at home, the party whose backers are prone to fretting about low birthrates, the need to police gender roles more rigidly, etc....[N]obody with allegiances like that can seriously turn around, point at the other ideological camp, at start yelling "fascism" at the slightest whiff of collectivism.

But of course that just gets us back to the fact that there's no real coherent argument to be extracted here at all. Nor does there seem to have been any real intention of producing one. Rather, Adam "In Defense of Nepotism" Bellow's basic idea was, basically, let's slap a bunch of shit together that'll piss off liberals, generate buzz, and then maybe conservatives will buy the book. It's cynicism, pure and true, but it makes a reasonable amount of sense. The funny thing about it is that as best one could tell, Goldberg is actually slow-witted enough that he doesn't understand what's happening and is apparently genuinely upset that liberals aren't seriously debating his ideas the way one goes back-and-forth against an antagonist whose thinking you respect despite your differing perspectives.

Jonah responds:

Matt Yglesias tries a serious critique, or so several emailers tell me....

Update: Oh. Sorry. It's not very serious at all.

The difference between Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg is that Coulter knows what she is: a clown, a provocateur, an entertainer. As Matt observes, Goldberg doesn't have a clue.

Bonus Jonah-ism: "Nor do I believe that [Matt]'s anti-Semitic. I think he writes dumb things about Jews..."

Not-Much Shorter Jonah: "Tom Wolfe Likes It!"

Two of the recurring themes at Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog are that (I paraphrase) none of the liberal critics of the book have actually read it; and rather than engage its arguments, liberal critics dismiss the credentials of the author. These, of course, are demonstrably untrue--especially the former, as more and more folks on the left make some attempt to engage a book that doesn't merit the effort.

Yesterday evening, I got annoyed enough at the disingenuousness of this to e-mail Jonah for the purpose of calling him on it. To his credit, he responded (and he does deserve credit for that; I could name a fair number of big liberal bloggers who don't bother to respond to e-mail from strangers). Hence, the following exchange.

Me:

This constant refrain of 'liberal critics haven't read the book' is vulnerable on (at least) two fronts. First, you highlight the liberals who say they haven't read it but neglect to mention the ones who have. I won't even include Sadly, No!, hilarious and apt as their dissection was, because I'm sure you don't consider their approach 'serious'; but what about Spencer Ackerman?

Secondly, when a critic is more familiar with the underlying history and philosophy than you are (as seems to be the case with John Holbo), and it's clear to him that they don't support *any* argument remotely like the one you advance, then what does it matter that he hasn't read
your *particular* argument? If I were to construct an elaborate justification for the notion that the world is flat, would anyone with a passing familiarity with science really have to read it to know that it's completely wrong?

Jonah:

wow this is silly. If you take spencer ackerman and sadly no remoyely seriously, you're a fool. As for holbo, he's wrong and he hasn't read it. If he had, i'd bother with him. But how do you deal with the fact that a great many very serious people agree with the book in large measure. Ron radosh is no hack. Dan Pipes, steve hayward, tome wolfe, (coming soon) paul johnson: these people outweigh everyone you mention by a wide, wide, margin.

Try harder.

Me:

Thanks for responding.

This is a bit of a shell game here. When people dismiss the book based on your own lack of distinction, you say we should engage the arguments; when Spencer Ackerman clearly and cogently demolishes your arguments, you say Spencer Ackerman is a nobody. See the problem
there?

And by the way, Radosh, Pipes, and Johnson are ideologically-driven hacks. Wolfe has written some pretty good works of (sort-of) non-fiction and several terrible novels; sometimes he is very
perceptive and sometimes he gets it laughably wrong, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground.

Jonah:

again, if you think a nut job like ackerman is serious, you're a fool. Radosh just recently evicerated stan evans ' book on mccarthy in nr. And so far all of your arguments are variations on appeals to authority of your choosing. Sorry, this really isn't worth a lot of my time. [hyperlink added]

So, to recap:

1. I suggest that he is ignoring people who do engage the substance;
2. He responds by telling me his favorable references are far weightier than the critics I cite;
3. I point out that he is engaging in precisely the sort of appeal to authority he has accused liberal critics of using against him;
4. He calls Spencer Ackerman a 'nut case', and accuses me of arguing from authority.

Which, of course, is exactly what Jonah does in the book: set up a fallacious opposing argument, demolish it, then turn around and assert exactly the same sort of argument from the opposite direction.

Is There No Meat This Man Cannot Jerk?

Yes, it's yet another intellectual pratfall from Jonah Goldberg. His initial post is here; the amusing sequel is here.

Good Work, Jonah!

I'm impressed: Jonah Goldberg has never made any argument in such detail or with such care as he does on his serious, thoughtful blog.

(Hat tip: Tbogg.)

Quote of the Day

Spencer Ackerman, on Jonah Goldberg's atrocity exhibition:

It's no accident, as the Marxistsfascists used to say, that Goldberg started out by shrugging at how difficult it is to define fascism. What he offers isn't a very serviceable definition, but rather one that can offer about 40 feet of bridge to cross the 50 feet of chasm between liberalism and fascism, in an attempt to get the reader to continue on into a Wile E. Coyote-esque act of intellectual gravity-defiance.

Quote of the Day

Jonah Goldberg:

If even partially true, this strikes me as...entirely believable.

Words fail...

Update 10/25: Jonah has won a journalism award! The current lead story at the awarding organization's website: "Pesticides are good for you."

Watching the Corners Turn Corners

The extraordinary thing about Ahmadinejad's visit to NYC is that it somehow distills wingnuttery to its very essence, so that all the wingnuts sound exactly like themselves only more so. Nowhere is this more apparent than at the Corner.

Take Cliff May, for example:

How could Saddam have used chemical weapons against Iranians? Doesn't A'jad know Saddam didn't have WMD? That was just a neo-con lie.

Yes, Cliff is still having trouble with that whole 'linear time' concept, believing (apparently) that all events are simultaneous.

Meanwhile, K-Lo gets huffy:

Ahmadineijad just called what happened on September 11 "a tragedy." Sorry, it was a helluva lot more that that.

Alas, she does not identify the politically correct way to refer to 9/11. "The most tragic tragedy ever"? "The greatest crime ever committed against humanity"? Exactly how much hyperbole is required here? It would be helpful if she told us.

And then there's Jonah Goldberg, reliably sophomoric in his response to Ahmadinejad's claim that "We don't have homosexuals in Iran like in your country":

Yes, but I hear that there's so much toe-tapping in the Turkish toilet stalls it sounds like a Fred Astaire retrospective.

Ever the class clown, never actually funny.

And Jonah again, being the more Jonah than Jonah:

It'd be nice if someone in the audience shouted a Homeresque: "Borrrringg!!!"

Now that's a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.