George Will has a nice column bolstering my criticism from yesterday.
It’s funny I spent much of yesterday swatting away twitter trolls complaining about my column (they were egged on by that Media Matters racket which lied — as is their wont – about what I wrote). After dispelling all of the nakedly wrong interpretations of what I meant or wrote, liberals fell back on an ironic defense of the president. In effect, they argued, “Hey man, they’re only words. Why make such a big deal about it?”
I find this line of argumentation from liberals hysterical. Obama himself has spoken eloquently on the folly of dismissing rhetoric as “just words” (language he borrowed from Deval Patrick).
So when I take offense at Obama proclaiming, in front of Congress and the nation, that America would be so much better if we simply acted like a single military unit, and liberals respond that I should lighten up because they’re just words, my only response can be: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter!”
Any liberal worth his/her free-trade, organic, shade-grown salt doesn't have to dust off their Foucault to know words matter. Haven't we just seen what the Republicans did to Gabbie Giffords with the power of their words?
America will never be a single military style unit, but could be a team of teams, competing and cooperating with each other at the same time, for the peace and prosperity of all.
Interestingly, George Will goes beyond Obama's hypocrisy and makes a claim about Liberalism's antagonism to politics in general (politics, political parties, etc). There may be elements of that in Obama's speech, though I think he's more concerned with political parties that oppose him rather than simply factionalism. The degradation of politics has been noted by many to be characteristic of small-l liberalism in general, whether from the American right or Left. People on both sides of the aisle criticize partisan rancor. George Washington opposed political parties. Phrases that infuse every aspect of society, such as "that's just politics," show a deep distrust of the political. Karl Schmitt's treatise on the Concept of the Political really lays bare liberalism's overt marginalization of the political, and how it's more pretended rather than real. His decision to align with the Nazis may lead us to question his recommendations, but his criticisms are things we still need to confront.
If you're saying that we already have a dictatorship by the political elite, you're right. The Constitution was written to prevent that, but the political elite ignore the Constitution.
A quick check over at Media Matters shows no commenting on young Jonah's devastating blogpost about SOTU. Using search terms such as "Jonah", "Jonah goldberg", "Lucianne Goldberg's idiot son", "NRO", National Review", "National Review Online", and "Los Angeles Times" brings up no commentary about Jonah's commentary about SOTU. So what is Jonah referring to when he writes that the trolls he so effortlessly disarmed were all het up by Media Matters content? Why should they have had to have been het up by anyone? Is it impossible to believe that many people can read Jonah's prose and conclude, all by their lonesome selves, that he is incorrect, unintelligent, tendentious (JG's favorite insult) and/or dishonest?
Here is what I look forward to seeing happpen at some point, if the left continues this kind of talk---someone of former military background will, in the future, not immediately jump on board an initiative of the Progressive left, and he will then be accused of not living up to the values of the United States military, as praised and supported by the President (and that veteran can thus be discounted as a self-interested hypocrite).
In other words, like so many things, the left, realizing they cannot abolish the respect the military gets, and well aware that in comparison they come off very poorly (the focus groups and polls on #OWS must be in) are trying to both see how that respect can be robbed of its power to harm them or limit their ability to achieve future goals, as well as how it can be made useful. I would not be suprised to see folks on the left suddenly becoming instantly experts on who is and who is not "acting in the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces"; and when it comes to such things I could forsee a time when ten veterans on the right will be given less moral weight on the subject than whatever random veteran the left will have managed to find to support their view.
There is a historical precedent--the space program of the late 50s/early 60s, post-Sputnik, was clearly seen at the time as a way to build support for other government actions in other spheres (and which eventuaaly played out as the Great Society). Of course, in this present day case the attempt to make respect for military virtue serve Progressive interests will be easy to parry, the proof of which statement I think best left to real-world execution.
Deval Patrick's speech was moving and authentic, Barack Obama sounded like a professor reading from a history book. Barack Obama hasn't had an original thought in his entire life.
Similar to this topic, please review this recent quote during his State of the Union speech:
"The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people."
I hope Congress refuses to allow him to do this, as these words are frightening in print and even more on what is implied and not said. What is next? A public burning of the Constitution allowing the three branches of government? He also says, in this speech, that he will do things with or without Congress, as he has already proven with his executive pen.
It is truly amazing that the Republic has lasted this long. I knew that the Roosevelts and Wilson acted like "virtual dictators" but hadn't realized that they had that much actual support pre-Thomas Friedman. We absolutely have to thank Madison and the other Framers for creating a document that has worked so well.
Any liberal worth his/her free-trade, organic, shade-grown salt doesn't have to dust off their Foucault to know words matter. Haven't we just seen what the Republicans did to Gabbie Giffords with the power of their words?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot a military style unit, but perhaps a team of teams, using competition and cooperation at the same time.
crossroadsteam.org
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmerica will never be a single military style unit, but could be a team of teams, competing and cooperating with each other at the same time, for the peace and prosperity of all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the take-away from the Media Mewlers crowd is that we needed take the Prez'nit seriously?
Mission Accomplished!
Cordially...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInterestingly, George Will goes beyond Obama's hypocrisy and makes a claim about Liberalism's antagonism to politics in general (politics, political parties, etc). There may be elements of that in Obama's speech, though I think he's more concerned with political parties that oppose him rather than simply factionalism. The degradation of politics has been noted by many to be characteristic of small-l liberalism in general, whether from the American right or Left. People on both sides of the aisle criticize partisan rancor. George Washington opposed political parties. Phrases that infuse every aspect of society, such as "that's just politics," show a deep distrust of the political. Karl Schmitt's treatise on the Concept of the Political really lays bare liberalism's overt marginalization of the political, and how it's more pretended rather than real. His decision to align with the Nazis may lead us to question his recommendations, but his criticisms are things we still need to confront.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you're saying that we already have a dictatorship by the political elite, you're right. The Constitution was written to prevent that, but the political elite ignore the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA quick check over at Media Matters shows no commenting on young Jonah's devastating blogpost about SOTU. Using search terms such as "Jonah", "Jonah goldberg", "Lucianne Goldberg's idiot son", "NRO", National Review", "National Review Online", and "Los Angeles Times" brings up no commentary about Jonah's commentary about SOTU. So what is Jonah referring to when he writes that the trolls he so effortlessly disarmed were all het up by Media Matters content? Why should they have had to have been het up by anyone? Is it impossible to believe that many people can read Jonah's prose and conclude, all by their lonesome selves, that he is incorrect, unintelligent, tendentious (JG's favorite insult) and/or dishonest?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is what I look forward to seeing happpen at some point, if the left continues this kind of talk---someone of former military background will, in the future, not immediately jump on board an initiative of the Progressive left, and he will then be accused of not living up to the values of the United States military, as praised and supported by the President (and that veteran can thus be discounted as a self-interested hypocrite).
In other words, like so many things, the left, realizing they cannot abolish the respect the military gets, and well aware that in comparison they come off very poorly (the focus groups and polls on #OWS must be in) are trying to both see how that respect can be robbed of its power to harm them or limit their ability to achieve future goals, as well as how it can be made useful. I would not be suprised to see folks on the left suddenly becoming instantly experts on who is and who is not "acting in the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces"; and when it comes to such things I could forsee a time when ten veterans on the right will be given less moral weight on the subject than whatever random veteran the left will have managed to find to support their view.
There is a historical precedent--the space program of the late 50s/early 60s, post-Sputnik, was clearly seen at the time as a way to build support for other government actions in other spheres (and which eventuaaly played out as the Great Society). Of course, in this present day case the attempt to make respect for military virtue serve Progressive interests will be easy to parry, the proof of which statement I think best left to real-world execution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDeval Patrick's speech was moving and authentic, Barack Obama sounded like a professor reading from a history book. Barack Obama hasn't had an original thought in his entire life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBroken promises are worse than no promises.
Our words are our bond with each other. They can create or destroy.
Our leaders must have the highest standard of integrity, which is to be true to one's word.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSimilar to this topic, please review this recent quote during his State of the Union speech:
"The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people."
External Link
I hope Congress refuses to allow him to do this, as these words are frightening in print and even more on what is implied and not said. What is next? A public burning of the Constitution allowing the three branches of government? He also says, in this speech, that he will do things with or without Congress, as he has already proven with his executive pen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is truly amazing that the Republic has lasted this long. I knew that the Roosevelts and Wilson acted like "virtual dictators" but hadn't realized that they had that much actual support pre-Thomas Friedman. We absolutely have to thank Madison and the other Framers for creating a document that has worked so well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure Mark Levin will be gratified to know that Will and Goldberg have bolstered HIS argument from 'Ameritopia'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly what did Media Matters say?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese are the same people who blamed Tea Party rhetoric for the killing of Gabby Giffords.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah,
Your wheelthouse is a special brand of humor that's too often lacking in the more-serious-than-thou political commentary arena.
When you sound genuinely angry I'm sorry to say you turn boring fast - like too many other monotones in your profession.
If I want my fix of out of control seething indignation I'll listen to Mark Levin - he does it funnier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou sound like you think you're addressing the help. Get a grip.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWords matter. And now some previous words from Tom Brokaw have him in an uproar.
External Link
A devastating portrayal of Newt's record as Speaker by the Romney Camp. Will the pudits still question Mitt's media saavy to take on The One?
Let's Roll GOP
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you'd used a cross-hairs graphic, however, that wouldn't be words, it would be an incitement to violence.
BIIIIG diff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou forgot your *eyeroll* tag. Didn't need it much, as I heard it aaaaalllllll the way over here. Heh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse