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

[ableChair]

How have I or my ideology lost control, may I ask?

By a reduction to selfish popular faction, an inevitable consequence of an 'ideology' that has no limiting principle. See my earlier post.

[Feiny]

I do not envy you today. There are hundreds of questions & not enough time to answer them all.

I think what it really comes down when examining the differences between liberals & conservatives is the way we view the function of government. Liberals view government as the solution to all of life's problems. Conservatives view government as the problem.

Unfortunately, the Republican party only SAYS it is for smaller government without ever reducing the size & scope. Of course, if Hastert succeeds with eliminating the IRS...I will stand corrected. The only thing Democrats seem to want to reduce spending on is the military & defense. I find this extremely odd as national defense is the 1st priority of our government.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: Phsstpok (your #78 reply)

That's some great comments, Phsstpok. Thanks.

I was trying to think of a lefty (Lenin?) attached to "Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary." Classic Saul Alinsky agitprop.

[BSunday]

Mr. Sunday's is the first ignorant post

Yessssss !!!!!!!

But seriously, you completely failed to defend your man vs. law statement, other than call me ignorant. In fact, the very documents your bring up, the Federalist Papers, prove the liberals are the ones that value man over law. FP 51, as far as I know, is not the law of the land, but an opinion that someone wrote as a pr campaign to get the constitution signed. Hmm sounds like a judges opinion doesn't it ? I'm not disagreeing with it, mind you, I'm just citing it as an example of how liberals put man over law.

As for the Gitmo business, this may surprise you, but I can disagree with the leader of my own party and not consider myself a turncoat. Gitmo has nothing to do with this discussion in all practicality because it is far outweighed by all the evidence in favor of the libs being the ones who are un-American.

PS I defended you earlier and I get called ignorant for it ? Typical dem, you are.

[Nataku X]

The clear, undeniable fact is that if Bush had done the same thing to the free democratic state of Israel that he did to Iraq where people constantly lived under the fear of being thrown into plastic shredders feet-first, you wouldn't be hearing a peep out of any international leader's mouth (except for Sharon's of course).

Very sad indeed! Let's roll and win re-election for Bush!

[Nonstatist]

But Clinton, tho' certainly not my hero, slowed the growth of the federal government. Bush did not. So as to how much federal spending is wasteful, the question is more appropriately directed at Mr. Bush.

More misdirection and dishonesty. You bemoan the reduction in the rate of growth of the Veterans Budget, but you take credit for the constraint on spending imposed on Clinton by the Rep legislature. And of course you dont answer the question..

So here we have a Republican President who has increased discretionary spending at a faster clip than anyone since Carter and yet you attack him for being a radical right winger, putting the interests of evangelicals and big business above all others.

Admit it, Perlstein. Its all about power. Gots to get the Democrats back into government controlling the courts and the pursestrings, even if we have to hoist up an empty suited blueblood billionaire like John Kerry to make it happen!!

[dead]

Well, there was the New Year's arrests, the Sudan missile attacks--

I’ve been doing much more reading than posting, but this is beyond weak.

The New Year’s arrests were the result of a single observant border guard, working under no special anti-terror directive.

And the Sudanese missles were just a silly ineffective laughable response to the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans working for the US.

I’m sure that the fact that the missles were launched on the eve of Monica’s grand jury testimony was purely incidental, but such a token gesture was the very last message that needed to be sent to Al Qaeda. They received it and read it correctly – the US (under Clinton) was not prepared to meet an attack with sufficient force to dent their operations.

They mistakenly assumed that Bush was of the same mold in that regard.

[Perlstein]

Rick, I was looking over your 1/14/04 piece in which you stated the following:

Baghdad will become Beirut: Iraq's three major religious and ethnic groups, the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, will consolidate their respective positions in the center, south, and north of the country, recruit their militias, and get down to fighting for control of the power vacuum that is the post-war "peace."

Do you have any timetable on when the major fighting will commence? Aside from the random, though deadly, car bombings, this explosion in violence that you predicted has yet to materialize. Where exactly are the militias massing? When does the shooting war start? When are the Kurds going to break away, risking war with Turkey?

And will the “Last Copter Out of Baghdad” depart before the election?
----
Couple of points. When will civil war commence? Well, the bombing of four churches yesterday might suggest it already has. And that the presence of 150,000 allied forces are what's keeping the lid on, more ore less.

Pretty good analysis of prospects for civil war by the CIA's former Saudi Arabia station chief here:

http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html

And, once again, I have to distance myself from the idiotic headline implying I argued that the MILITARY would pull out of Iraq. My argument was that the administration would pull back on their on-the-record goals for the civil administration--which largely revolved around U.S. privatization and the writing of a formal constiution--which proved to be 100% correct. In fact, they gave up on privatization the DAY after the first executive of a privatizing state-owned firm was shot, as I explain in the article.

I'm proud of that article. I said George Bush was going to move the goalline to the 50-yard-line in Iraq and declare he'd scored a touchdown on July 1, and he did.

[Kackikat]

No thanks.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

As for fighting to keep Bill in power regarding Monica, what can I say: I think the Democrats who fought against Clinton's conviction were defending the spirit of the Constitution against a constittutional coup. None of you are going to agree with me on that.

I think the biggest error on the assumptive engine of the left is that those on the right wanted to remove Clinton for office for having an affair. Not true. Clinton committed a felony. Perjury, no matter what the issue, is a felony. Perjury is most assuredly a High Crime. It is a crime that undercuts our entire Judicial system. (If you can lie under oath, then what is the point of the oath at all.)

The chief enforcer of our entire Judicial system undercut that system for a trivial thing such as a sexual harrassment case. How serious, then, must he take the Judicial system and his role in protecting it?

No, it is not the fact that he enjoyed the company of many women that was the final straw, it was that he had complete disregard for the laws and diginity of 2/3rd's of our system of Government. The Senate as a whole made it a clean sweep and refused to do their duty (or even look at the evidence in most cases).

[ableChair]

Kerry strikes me as smart and competent and thoughtful. That's a start. He was very brave in leading the investigation of the way the Reagan Administration negotiated with hostage-takers in Iran; I admired that, certainly. He worked hard with McCain to try to heal the wounds of Vietnam; he didn't have to do that, and it didn't help him politically.

He believes in some basic liberal principles that I believe in concerning economics: that corporations can't be trusted to regulate themselves, for example.

You're kidding, right? Kerry is one of the most extreme leftists in the U.S. Senate today. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler (yes, YOUR boy, too) were also "smart and competent and thoughtful". That means nothing by itself. As for his Reagan investigation, he led an investigation that only served to compromise the defeat of a socialist totalitarian regime. How is that a good thing? As for Kerry's disastrous work on the POW/MIA committee, all Kerry cared about was getting U.S. businesses up and running in the DPRV.

Corporations are NOT trusted to run themselves, in deed, in the United States. That's why we have regulations for their operation. What's your point?

[FourtySeven]

I don't think Kerry is the kind of person who would run a White House, as Bush did, that would make our most important liaison in Iraq (and his special guest at the State of the Union Address) a spy for Iran, Ahmed Chalabi.

Don't expect an immediate reply, if at all, since you're swamped, but:

Wasn't Ahmed Chalabi's office recently randsacked and he himself deposed as our "most important liaison", specifically because of his ties to Iran? In other words, I don't think his ties to Iran were known at the time he was a special guest of Bush's at the SOTU address you mention.

I could be wrong though.

Back to reading this thread. Actually, I'm going to continue at home, this is fascinating. I'm still behind myself, by about 100 posts, and that's just searching for your replies! LOL

This is as entertaining as I'd hoped. Thanks again for the ping dead!

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

OK, Just ONE question.
Do you really believe a traitor like Hanoi Kerry should be Commander in Chief?



VVAW supported demonstration, Washington Spring Offensive, April - May 1971

Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany.

It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.

One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam."

In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.



Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said that Kerry, "who drew rave notices in the media for his eloquent testimony before Congress," was using material ghosted for him by a former Kennedy speech writer (Adam Walinsky).

Picture #2, VVAW supported demonstration during the Washington Spring Offensive, April - May 1971.

Notice the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong flags.

[dead]

Of course, if Hastert succeeds with eliminating the IRS...I will stand corrected.

The hell with that - I’ll kiss him on the mouth.

[viaveritasvita]

>>>Basically, I don't accept your premises, so why argue about your conclusions?<<<


AMEN TO THAT!

<><

[lowbridge]

But Clinton, tho' certainly not my hero, slowed the growth of the federal government.

No, that was the Republican congress.

Bush did not.

True, I'm afraid to say.

[Happy2BMe]

z zz zzz zzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Happy2BMe]

Liberals are just too boring - life is too short and they put me to sleep.

[ableChair]

As for fighting to keep Bill in power regarding Monica, what can I say: I think the Democrats who fought against Clinton's conviction were defending the spirit of the Constitution against a constittutional coup. None of you are going to agree with me on that.

Nor will Webster's. Define what you mean by 'coup'? Do you really believe that? What successful extra-judicial and/or extra-legal events occured to satisfy that comment? Yea, none.

[cake_crumb]

"He was very brave in leading the investigation of the way the Reagan Administration negotiated with hostage-takers in Iran; I admired that, certainly. He worked hard with McCain to try to heal the wounds of Vietnam; he didn't have to do that, and it didn't help him politically."

It probably helped him personally.

He worked hard ordering documentation of POWS who's remains were never returned to be shredded...the same exact thing he crucified Oliver North for doing.

He then killed the Viet Nam Human Rights Act, attaching non-humanitarian aid to Vietnam to progress on human rights issues, in the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which he chaired.

H.R. 2833 stated that Hanoi would get NO goodies from the US unless it demonstrated progress in the following areas:

1. the release of all political and religious prisoners from all forms of detention including imprisonment and house arrest;
2. respect by the Vietnamese government towards the right to freedom of religion, including the
3. right to participate in religious organizations not connected to the Vietnamese government;
4. respect for the rights of members of ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands and elsewhere; and
5. an end to government complicity in severe forms of trafficking in human beings, in particular, women and children.

His excuse was "it may hinder rather than advance the cause of human rights in Vietnam."

In gratitude, Hanoi designatied John Forbes Kerry's first cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, CEO, of Colliers International as the exclusive real estate representative in Vietnam. A contract worth millions.

All of this information if freely accessable via the internet. Google it.

Admirable qualities indeed.