I agree entirely with Melissa; I often enjoy Matt Taibbi, but this article is a feeble embarrassment. Virtually no article that consists of generalizations about some vague entity called “the Left” is going to have any value, and given that Taibbi uses a great many words to argue that anybody who anybody who doesn’t share precisely his priorities or is situated in a less socially privileged position is a whiny bitch it’s certainly not an exception to the rule.
Author Page for Scott Lemieux
The Massachusetts legislature has rejected the proposed constitutional amendment calling for the revocation of gay and lesbian marriage rights and the restoration of bigotry by a 151-45 vote. It should be noted that this is precisely the opposite of what was predicted by proponents of the countermobilization myth, people for whom it’s never the right time for social change, etc. Goodridge, we were often informed, was going to be a crushing setback for gay equality, but less than 5 years later it’s supported by an overwhelming vote in the legislature. The backlash, conversely, had been confined to states…that already overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage. Litigation is not, of course, appropriate in every situation, but sometimes it’s effective. Gay rights is the kinds of case where courts are likely to go first, and once they act 1)people realize that the predicted social apocalypse isn’t occurring, and 2)legislators who may be reluctant to extend rights on a divisive issue are much less likely to revoke rights.
…more from Pam Spaulding.
What’s really funny about Glenn Reynolds’ latest passive-aggressive “nice freedom of the press you have here, be a shame if something happened to it” routine (not, alas, a new one) is his claim that the British press is bringing it on itself because of “shoddily political and dishonest” war reporting. Reynolds better hope that the mobs with pitchforks don’t rise up, because if “shoddily political and dishonest” reporting was a crime, Reynolds would be doing 20-to-life.
Ezra gets this entirely correct:
The remarkable thing about the growing liberal hawk literature on Iran is its evasiveness — the unwillingness to speak in concrete terms of both the threat and proposed remedies. The liberal hawks realize they were too eager in counseling war last time, and their explicit statements in support of invasion have caused them no end of trouble since. This time, they will advocate no such thing. But nor will they eschew it. They will simply criticize those who do take a position.
Iran raises several complicated questions, but also a simple one: Do you think military force is called for in preventing Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons? Some, like me, say no. Some also, like me, do not believe the evidence supports the contention that Iran is a fully totalitarian society under the rule of a crazed and suicidal Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, and in fact think that such portrayals should be resisted and identified as part of a larger, pro-war narrative. This is how I ended up in Baer’s article as a convenient straw liberal who “excuse[s] the Iran regime, all the better to deny the very existence of a threat.”
Oddly, Baer did not take the opportunity to argue against my position. “Israel is again staring down a possible existential threat,” he wrote, “and the United States is once more facing a serious challenge to its interests in the region.” So the threat is to Israel, as well as to unspecified American interests in the region that face a “serious challenge.” Does that mean Baer thinks we should use force to prevent Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry? Who knows? Baer retreats here to platitudes, saying that “it is incumbent upon us to provide a coherent foreign-policy alternative to Bush’s neoconservative vision, one that is true to the progressive legacy of internationalism — liberal democracy, rule of law, and equal opportunity.” But what about those nukes? What does that sentence suggest that we do?
Baer’s dodge is not rare. A while back, The New Republic demanded that “the West finally get ruthlessly serious about Iran.” Unless “ruthlessly serious” describes some subset of containment theory that I’m unfamiliar with, this seems like mercilessly frivolous advice. But such is the sorry state of discourse on Iran: lots of hyperventilating, but relatively little in the way of actual diagnosis or prescription.
It’s very simple. When it comes to Iran, “liberal hawks” need to either 1)explain in concrete terms what the threat to American interests is and — this is important! — what kind of military action can advance American interests and why, or 2)enjoy a delicious frosty mug of shut the fuck up. (And given their recent record of assessing American security interests and the efficacy of military force, perhaps some slinking away in shame would also be in order.)
Riffing off this poll and this piece by Dana, Matt asks why Clinton has such a huge majority among progressive women — enough to make her a solid primary favorite — which doesn’t carry over among more conservative women. This is an important question, because if Clinton can’t change this it could make her a suboptimal general election candidate leaving aside normative issues — the progressive women that support Clinton are unlikely to vote Republican. My guess is that women with the strongest feminist commitments have the strongest stake in seeing a long-overdue woman as President, and will be particularly aware of (and place an especially high priority on) Clinton’s record on gender issues, which are Clinton’s strongest progressive credentials. But her (largely unmerited) reputation as a staunch liberal in general will make this less appealing to more moderate women. I’m not sure if the data will bear this out, but that’s how I would try to make sense of the gap.
So the other day a Red Wings fan asked me what I thought about the Flames in ’08, and I told her that they had a potentially championship-quality base but Playfair was the wrong coach for this kind of team. With their two superstars on the last year of their contracts, they needed a hardass veteran short-term maximizer like Mike Keenan rather than an inexperienced coach who may or may not be good. I’m not sure I meant it this literally.
I guess this will re-kindle the debate among my Ranger fan friends about how much credit Keenan deserves for the ’94 Cup. My position has always been that Keenan’s contribution was greatly underrated; I know Messier was allegedly the real coach of the team or whatever, except that they still had Messier but were mediocre before Keenan came and were mediocre immediately after he left. Same thing with Philly and Chicago; like him or not, his teams greatly overachieved. His record with the Blues was less impressive but still not bad. He did an abysmal job as Florida’s GM, but that’s not really germane here. I don’t know if he’s still got it, but historically when he’s had anything to work with he’s won. He’s hockey’s Billy Martin–you pay for the improvements over the long term–but this is the last year for the Flames’ current core anyway. I may regret this, but I think it’s a great gamble.
Roger Ailes reads MoDo so you don’t have to:
Maureen Dowd embarassed herself again today with a column comparing Tony Blair and Tony Soprano. Did you know they both have the same first name? And that’s just the beginning of the comparative fun! It seems that neither the Prime Minister nor David Chase live up to Dowd’s lofty but unintelligble standards.
And…that’s really the entire column. Perhaps TimesSelect will give her an extended director’s cut so she can also draw the Tony Awards, Tony Oliva, and Tony the Tiger into the discussion. Well, she does judge the Sopranos finale insufficiently neat and simple-minded for her tastes, which has to be counted as a point in Chase’s favor. But, really, doesn’t James Gandolfini remind you of James Madison and James Taylor?
Why is Camille Paglia being given space by Salon (in 2007!)?
Essentially every sentence in the thing is vacuous idiocy, of course, but this is particularly remarkable:
Whatever his high ideals, Gore is a mass of frustrated yearnings and self-defeating vacillation. Raised in a bubble of wealth and privilege, he has never fully emerged from his senator father’s judgmental shadow. Women (wife, daughters, wifty hired hands) have to buck him up and prod him in this direction or that.
So, sort of the silly “authenticity” argument but with some asinine pop-psych and a generous serving of misogyny smeared on top. (Needless to say, she celebrates the “electricity” of the Republican debate without getting into the glaring factual errors.) Good to see the pre-eminent online liberal magazine promoting this kind of brilliant analysis!
Some high comedy from Benjamin Lambert, who was shown the door in the Democratic primary after trying to save the flailing campaign of racist airhead George Allen (and, hence, to keep the Senate in Republican hands):
Lambert said, “I have no hard feelings. We ran a clean, fair race.”
Lambert said his support of Allen probably cost him his job. “I thought the Allen folks would have helped me more, but it didn’t work out that way.”
Christ, that’s rich. “Let’s trust the honor and integrity of George Allen and his supporters! What could possibly go wrong?” That’s what you call someone who deserves to lose.
“Authenticity” became the press corps’ favorite buzz-word in 1999, along with its silly handmaiden, “comfortable in his own skin.” And let’s state the obvious: When the press corps adopted such subjective markers as key standards of measure, they were giving themselves the right to tell whatever story they choose. It’s perfectly easy to shape a narrative in which any candidate is most “authentic.” As long as our standards of measure are so subjective, there’s no real process of assessment being conducted at all.
Right. And assertions of “authenticity” are not only feeble tautologies that are worthless as criteria of value. As Krugman points out, this focus — with the focus on the haircuts of John Edwards being the most recent example — on balance cuts strongly against progressive politics. Although there’s no reason that a wealthy person can’t advocate policies that help the poor — FDR came from considerably greater means than Reagan — suddenly any politician with lots of money (i.e. any politician who could be a serious national candidate under the current system) can be tarred as “inauthentic” if they propose progressive economic policies (although a rich actor renting a pickup as a campaign prop is good enough for a Republican to be “authentic.”) Not only is the Dowdian transmutation of political coverage into gossip and meaningless personality narratives bad in itself, in other words, its overall political effects are not random but reactionary. Which is why the behavior of people like Dowd and Frank Rich in the 2000 campaign is considerably more damaging than Fox News.