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

[Perlstein]

You wrote "When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans, the children indefinitely detained at Abu Ghraib, maybe the story of how the young lad Bush loaded up live frogs with firecrackers in order to watch them explode."
---
3) frog: that was W's childhood pal Terry Throckmorton to Nick Kristoff in the May 21, 2000 New York Times.

[kingu]

Budget cuts for veterans. Everyone who follows politics knows that there is huge argument over what constitutes a "budget cut"; both parties play the game of calling shortchanging increases cuts. Dismiss my use of it if you wish. But my favorite invocation of the SPIRIT of the Bush veterans budget comes from no less than the Veterans of Foreign Wars:

Why is it that no where in that article nor in your response is there the answer to a simple question: What should be done to reduce the cost of health care?

A family member recently was ill. The total hospital bill, excluding any specialized care, operating room costs, etc, came to just over half a million dollars. Once all the specialist bills are in, it's likely that the total bill for one month of medical care will exceed a million dollars.

I personally don't think that most liberals or most conservatives are so far apart on a lot of issues, but we waste tremendous amounts of time debating if the coop should have been locked while the fox is enjoying an after dinner mint.

[WOSG]

"A little background: I am a proud leftist... "

What's to proud about?
I mean, Edison invented the light bulb. Reagan won the Cold War. American GIs liberated Europe and the Far East,
and most recently Afghanistan and Iraq. Ray Kroc built up McDonald's and Bill Gates created Microsoft. Tim Berners-Lee created the world wide web.

And I'm a father.

stuff to be proud of.

Meanwhile, Communism killed 100 million in the 20th century,
and American Welfare State liberalism saddled us with a host of societal ills from higher crime to cycles of poverty. Socialism has failed as an economic system time and time again. Free enterprise is better. Now the Left, having been disproven in economic realms, tries to debase the culture as a backdoor way to power. The Left is a pimple on the heinie of global civilization, contributing nothing but bad, old, disproven ideas. So what is there to be proud of?


BTW, a sanity question:
Do you agree that Alger Hiss was a spy?
Do you agree that the Rosenbergs committed spying and treason?
Do you agree that it was a good idea to put them in ol' sparky, as their spying helped Stalin build the nuclear bombs that he used to threaten us?

[Southack]

"Everyone at Abu Ghbraib is "indefinetly detained"--or at least was until the recent Supreme Court decisions. Are you denying there are children at Abu Ghraib? That's an uphill argument for you. Do you want to make it?"

OK, I'll give you the wordsmithing award on that one, so no, I don't want to atttempt that argument. I would like to see your support of the other two claims that you made (veterans' cuts and exploding frogs), though.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...who is Rick Perlstein?...

Mediocre liberal writer, unpublishable in the mainstream press. Too verbose to be popular, too pretentious to be understandable. Is there anything sadder than a dated enfant terrible, trying to be provocative to gain attention? Last book read, Michael Moore's Guide to Grooming.

[Perlstein]

"Say, when you ask whether a nice guy would invade a country at the cost of untold innocent lives on the shakiest of pretenses?"

Supported by John Kerry, John Edwards, most of the Senate, and the intelligences estimates of which were agreed by every country on record.
----
I disagreed with them, too. Why do you people behave as if all liberals read from some sheet of talking points?

Here's my savaging of the Democrats who were taken in on the Iraq vote:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/11/we_192_01.html

[Southack]

"Of course, even your dissembling in this post does not support your false claim that Clark ordered anyone to "open fire" on Russians."

Then you know nothing of military operations. The order to storm the airport by definition meant to take it by force, i.e. open fire on those who held it (in this case, the Russians who were already there).

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[kingu]

2) Everyone at Abu Ghbraib is "indefinetly detained"--or at least was until the recent Supreme Court decisions. Are you denying there are children at Abu Ghraib? That's an uphill argument for you. Do you want to make it?

Umm, I think you're mixing up prisons here. But let's take it from the angle that you're not; let's assume that there are 'children' in prison. What of it? There are children in many prisons. Some of them have shot fellow students, others drank and then drove stolen cars into people, etc. Why is it, from the liberal point of view, that it is desired for a 'child' to make a decision such as aborting a child, yet they're not able to be punished for crimes against society until they reach some magical age?

[Tench_Coxe]

"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 am not certain that you have paid attention. Yes, there is a large segment of partisans on this forum ( which should be expected ), who resemble the type of individual I would call the James Carville Republican ( to illustrate: Take Carville's statement about Paula Jones and the trailer park, 20 dollar bill comment, and apply it to politics ).

I'll give you some perspective of where I'm coming from:
I have my problems with Bush's domestic policies--spending, the misleadingly termed 'immigration' ( and the proposed amnesty ), the lack of using the bully pulpit to break the stonewalling on Judicial branch appointees, the backing of idiots like Arlen Spectre over a more conservative candidate ( and this has happened in more than one case ), and the sometime pandering to the Left ( Uncle 'Chappaquiddick' (sp) Ted comes to mind ).
I would have a problem with Iraq, except unlike Kosovo and Haiti, there was a national interest involved, and it had to do with a couple of airplanes flying into the World Trade Center. There is a lot of smoke and mirror crap out there, but Iraq was among the foreign states that helped to harbor the type of people that flew those planes. To take action against the states helping harbor these people didn't require the permission of France, Germany, or Oil-For-Food- Scandal Poohbah Kofi Annan.
You will note that there hasn;t been ( knock on wood ) a major terrorist attack since the United States took action. And here is where I would like to contrast a few issues, which are not blind devotion to a Cult of Personality:

There have been Democrats that have gone to Iraq on the eve of a war, to mention what a 'great guy' Saddam was ( Bonior, McDermott, and the third schmuck ). This was done less out of belief, and more out of partisan angling.
Democrats have also gone to the UN to publicly ask for election observers, implying in their public statements that the US is some type of banana republic.
In statements up until the recent Used Car Salesman show known as the 2004 Democrat Convention, the Democrat candidate for President has implied that the opinions of foreign leaders are more important than the opinions of the people in his own country.
The out-and-out lies with respect to gun ownership, when the Democrat candidate for President has voted for gun control on every single related gun control issue ( when he was actually bothered to show up ).
The endless Mary Quite Contrary antics ( and manufactured hysteria ) of the Democrats who, when proven wrong on an issue, resemble that character Gilda Radner used to play on SNL, by saying 'Never Mind', and moving on to the next boogieman talking point.

The near blackout by the fellow travellers in the mainstream media regarding incidents like Sandy 'I Was Feeling Inadequate So I Stuffed My Pants With Classified Documents' Berger, which gives the impression that Democrats, and by extension, liberals, are above the rules that the 'little people' wouldn't dare break because of prison.
You haven't seen a Waco or an Elian Gonzales incident under a Bush administration.

George Bush was proven duly elected, even after numerous recounts were conducted after the 2000 election, but you didn't hear the slightest admission of being wrong or a retraction of the mantra 'selected by the Supreme Court'.

The list is long. When weighing the innuendo of the Great Halliburton-Oil-Axis Conspiracy theories, the actual actions of the Democrats, the media, and the rent-a-mobs against the actions of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress, I'll vote for the latter, and fight for conservative principles, because I know with the Weasel from the Northeast and the behind the scenes witch Hillary, I won't have a chance.

[gopwinsin04]

Any comments on Kerry's conflicting testimony in the NY Sun about the Winter Soldier meetings in Kansas City where the assassinations of senators were actively discussed with him present? (and why the media was so hesitant to delve into the issue)

[Phantom Lord]

Was the US Congress and President Clinton wrong in 1998 to make removal of Saddam from power the offical policy of the United States?

Also, liberals all over America clamor for UN support and mostly the support of France before convening military action. Yet I don't hear liberals condeming France for military action in The Ivory Coast without UN support. Why is that? And why can France condemn us for taking military action without their support or the support of the UN, but it is AOK for them to engage in military actions without the support of the UN?

[cyncooper]

Why do you people behave as if all liberals read from some sheet of talking points?

It is reasonable to assume that a liberal supports John Kerry over George Bush. If you don't, calmly explaining where and why you disagree with Kerry will do the trick here on FR.

I'm afraid you are the guilty party in this phenomenon you complain about. You are the one who composes not only replies on a forum, but whole articles, claiming that the musings of a few obscure individuals represent "conservatives" and/or Bush supporters' positions and thinking.

[alisasny]

critter wb, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN : )

[Perlstein]

It took 98 posts to get to this one!
---Question: Do you honestly believe National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is just a misunderstood careless slob who inadvertently stuffed top secrete highly classified documents in his pants and socks and he really only has the country's best interest's at heart?
---

Are you people not aware that Berger was just EXONERATED?

[lavrenti]

on FR is aware that the mass graves are over ten years old, by the way?

Executions and torture continued throughout the exsistence of the regime. Using the same criteria, if we had invaded the Soviet Union and deposed Stalin, let's say, in 1948, yes we would have uncovered mass graves of ten years vintage. However, albiet on a smaller scale, we would have uncovered a number of gulags, as we did with the incredible array of prisons Saddam created in Iraq.

But look: the death toll from the ENFORCED starvation in North Korea is greater than Saddam could even spit at. When comes that invasion?

I think China, South Korea, the Russia and Japan have a say in that matter. Also, it is provable beyond doubt the DPRK have nuclear weapons. As well, as much of a vicious murderer and sociopath Saddam is, he does have his personal boundaries and limits. Baby Kim is a egomanical madman and unpredictable.

It was an eventuality that due to geopolitical necessity Saddam had to go. The facsist regime he put in place was already long moving toward the Wahabbi loons, and despite its relative toothlessness militarily (compared to 1990-91) it became increasingly evident the regime provided a haven to virtually every terrorist nasty the ME had to offer. At least with Hizbulluh the Iranians and Syrians "localized" the former's activity to Lebanon and Israel. Saddam was moving toward AQ, thus unacceptable. The resources available to AQ and other terrorists through the regime were enormous compared to anything the Afghans ever had to offer.

I don't trust Bush with the Iraqi people's freedom and security.

President Bush never had any intention to hold Iraq as a puppet state. That was a fantasy held by a few intellectuals such as Kristol and Kagan. Even Richard Perle's notorious position paper never considered such a inane idea. An independent, viable government was created in Iraq faster than in West Germany, for example. Increasingly, the Iraqis are providing for their own security. As for "freedom", it perhaps is not what you or I envision in our respective ideologies, but it is a remarkable improvement over the Stalinist murder regime it replaced.

His man in Iraq, Chalabi, was revealed to be a spy for their sworn enemy Iran, remember.

There was a great deal of conflict between the Pentagon, State and the White House regarding Chalabi's veracity, role and position in a post-Saddam Iraq. He was supported by one faction, and that support pre-dates the Bush Administration. Anyhow, that "man" has been shunted aside. Whatever it's worth, the current leaders in Iraq are already proving themselves as their own "men". Iraq is far from a British-style protectorate, or Vichy, or a Latin American republic from the days of yore. Certainly more independent than the only other regional counterpart to this transistional period--Lebanon.

[woofie]

Woofie, I'm often accused on FR of going into my reporting with my premises already firmly in place, then just "cherry-picking" quotes that confirm it. All I can do is tell you in good faith I don't. I developed the HYPOTHESIS that some conservatives were beginning to use their judgement that Bush was an inherently good person, deep within his soul, as an excuse not to think straight about what George Bush is doing, in an email dialogue with a FR member.

The hypothesis also came from reporting I did on conservatives who believe Bush was an instrument of God's will, and even literally prophesied in the Bible.

It also came from reading every single post on the live thread on FR about Bush's April press conference.

I was surprised to notice the depths of the hero worship, and how it cut directly against conservative wisdom about human nature, and went to Portland to see how common it was. It wasn't universal--that's why I reported on the guy who kept on criticizing Bush, but said that the liberal alternative was only building "bike paths"--but it certainly was there.

I'm sorry you think I'm bigoted towards conservatives. Talking with conservatives is one of the things I most enjoy in the world

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt.... but it would be nice to see more libs do the same for GW and those on this side of the fence ...(you will always find the religious folks out there and I wouldnt read too much into it.)

Would also like your reaction to David Horowitz:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183700/posts

[WOSG]

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

Cporrection: Congress has the power of the purse... the Newt Congress of 1994-1998 cut back spending, later GOP Congresses since 1998 have slacked off. After 9/11 and the after the PAYGO contraints expired, spending restraint has been a backburner issue, alas.

Of course, Clinton's cut of 2 Army divisions and cut of more than 500,000 people in the DoD, and other 'peace dividend' activities helped reduced the deficit in ways that had to reversed post 9/11. So for both reasons, it is really a myth to peg Clinton as the fiscal conservative. He was always trying to spend more than the GOP Congress.

" So as to how much federal spending is wasteful, the question is more appropriately directed at Mr. Bush."

Um, first this is a Congression issue as much as anything else; second, this is your forum, he's not here: What percentage of the Federal Government do you think is wasted?
And if it is wasted, should spending be cut?
what is your ideal amount of Federal govt spending?
Can you name a Federal program that *doesnt* waste money?

And if a "Pell grant" is such a great Govt program, amounting to a voucher for College, what is so awful about vouchers for K-12?

[ScreamingFist]

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.

Wow. Please elaborate. And thanks for the debate.

[lugsoul]

Then you know nothing of the facts. There was no order to "storm" any occupied position. None. It didn't happen.

For reasons I don't care to get into here, I was watching the situation very closely that day - and I remember well how it came down, at least as reported. Nothing I have seen since contradicts that, except for a bunch of yayhoos who want to mischaracterize the exchange between Clark and Jackson.

Not even Jackson supports your version of the story. But I'm sure that won't stop you from repeating it over and over.

[Phantom Lord]

Still waiting for you to list Kerry's legislative accomplishments from his 20 years in the Senate.