Weapons of mass altercation…
Howard Kurtz notices that the patriotism litmus test is getting more difficult to pass. Conservatives are now accusing other conservatives of hating America in regard to their opinions about the war.
UPDATE (12:35 p.m.): The Daily Howler has much to say about this.
UPDATE (25 March 6:15 p.m.): I broke two of my own rules: 1) Always check out the source documents, and 2) Always make sure you understand the nomenclature. I pointed out this item because I think Frum’s charging other conservatives with hating America an extreme red herring and ad hominem attack. I still believe that. But, I failed to read his original column to fully understand the context, and I posted before I had an adaquate understanding of the “paleo” prefix. By breaking these two rules, I seriously damaged any chance I had to make a cogent comment.
I stand by my original comment—-all this is just getting silly!
I agree…My rhet. class this morning got a big kick out of the idea that Furm would suggest that Novak hates America.
But, for me, the fact that it is (among other things) silly, means we ought to be paying careful attention.
Sorry, but for me, “silly” means it ought to be ignored. Please tell me why we should pay closer attention to “silly”.
Yes, sometimes “silly” does mean “ought to be ignored.” But, in some cases, the fact that something is silly has a lot to say about the situation, or, rather, how a situation is unfolding.
In this case, I think we should note the silliness because it allows us to see a clear example of a big problem in our civic discourse of late (actually, for a long time): demonizing the opposition. The silliness allows us to discount the content and get right to the rhetorical tactic, i.e. we don’t have to waste time wondering if what Frum suggests is true. We can go directly to asking why he’s making such an argument, why now, why this target, and to what effect?
As news, it is certainly silly. As an opportunity to deconstruct civic discourse, it presents a good opportunity.
It is most often the “silly” things in news and politics that if left unchallenged, would escalate into a situation of dire proportions. It is best to squash out the “silliness” before it has time to ferment into something that is not at all “silly”.
Einblick- I guess I don’t know what you are talking about—could you give an example?
Consider it this way; we
Criticism of Frum’s piece either intentionally misrepresents what he said (i.e. Novak), or just dismisses it as “silly.” But Frum documents his claims, using the words of the paleo-conservatives themselves, quite well
Just as Europe is experiencing a union of red-brown interests, so too are some American paleo-conservatives sounding an awful lot like the extreme left. Hence, we have hints of a Zionist conspiracy, operating at the highest levels of government, from both the Workers World Party and from Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak (e.g. neo-conservatives like David Frum are actually “Sharonists” who control American foreign policy and brought about war against Iraq on Israel’s behalf.). We have Buchanan’s magazine publishing authors who have elsewhere claimed Israeli culpability in the terrorist acts of 9/11, including hints of active participation (e.g. Jason Raimondo).
Buchanan’s close paleo friend, Joe Sobran, has actively questioned whether democracy is a desirable system of government. In 1999 Buchanan sought and received the backing of Lenora Fulani, a founder of the leftwing, anti-Semitic New Alliance Party, in his bid for the Presidency. Likewise, Buchanan and many others paleos are every bit as opposed to free trade as their leftwing counterparts, blurring any de facto economic policy distinction between left and paleo right.
What I have yet to see is a serious refutation of David Frum’s allegations.
How does Frum know the so-called paleos “hate” America? Smells like a red herring to me.
Frum’s flourish in saying that the Paleos ended by “hating their country” follows from his argument that:
“They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation’s enemies.”
Each allegation is supported with examples.
What Frum doesn’t mention are the close ties between the paleo Rockford Institute (which he does mention) and the League of the South – an organization that seeks to reverse the results of the Civil War and create a new country from the former states of the Confederacy. Thomas Fleming, Editor of Chronicles Magazine and President of the Rockford Institute, is also a Director of the League of the South. Other paleos are either members or have written positively about the organization.
As I read Novak, one of his complaints about Frum’s piece is being “bracket[ed] with his selected paleos–people whom I have never met or read and whose anti-Semitic and white supremacist views I abhor.”
One of the interesting things about conservatism in the U.S. is that it is defined more by what it isn’t (capital L Liberalism) than by what it is. Hence groups as disparate as the paleos and the neocons both claim the mantle.
Bruce…I’m certainly not denying the content or accuracy of your comments. I’m still wondering, however, about Frum’s rhetoric (which is what interests me). To call this a “flourish” is to deny the importance of rhetoric in *creating* reality–in this case the reality of America-hating conservatives.
Now, I may have an imperfect concept of all that the “paleo” prefix contains. I would certainly agree that any conservative that wishes to reverse the results of the Civil War and create a news country “hates” America in the sense that they like something else better.
Don’t confuse paleoconservatism with pre-neocon conservative thought. As paleo Samuel Francis admits in Pat Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, “the truth is that what is now called paleoconservatism is at least as new as the neoconservatism.”
TAC:http://www.amconmag.com/12_16/review6.html
Here’s how some Paleoconservatives define Paleoconservatism:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2001/0101RoundTable.htm
Bruce…thanks for those links. I’ll take a look. I fear that I am indeed confusing “paleo” with “pre.” And, in that case, I’ll stand corrected.
Thanks!
De nada.