Horologium

July 16, 2003
Reciprocity—A response

The reaction to my "Reciprocity" post has been gratifying. I have had a significant number of comments on the post, some positive, some less so. The most recent comment requires a lengthy response. Rather than enter a book into the comments section, I have decided to create a new post for a lengthy rebuttal.

Open the more button to read it, and my response.

Johnny wrote:

Timekeeper:
Okay. You're saying that, in some way, Chomsky's opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine is equivalent to, say, voting for someone who opposes your basic civil rights? There's a big difference between supporting someone who seeks to oppress your particular group in some way and telling members of your particular group to stop oppressing others. Saying that a Jew who opposes the occupation of Palestine is an antiSemite is as ridiculous as saying an American who opposes the invasion/occupation of Iraq is UnAmerican...oh, hold on a sec.... The point is, being against the occupation is not equivalent to being anti-Israel. Being against the occupation is not the same as being in favour of the (often actually anti-semitic) terrorists who attempt to fight it.

It's also worth pointing out that 'Uncle Toms' and so on don't actively hate their own group, they merely (in the mindset of people who use such terms) betray their group, usually for some manner of personal gain. I don't think it'd be valid to call a black person who voted for a conservative- even an (anti-black) racist- a racist themselves, merely a sellout of some kind. Therefore, even if you believe that Noam Chomsky is in some way betraying all Jews by asking the Israelis to stop occupying Palestine, he is merely a traitor (to his ethnic/religious group) rather than an anti-Semite.

And as for the soldiers affected by Bush's statement? How about these guys? They (by which I mean the entire 2nd BCT) certainly don't seemed too chuffed about Bush and co, and I'd wager that those comments of his had something to do with it. I've been looking for the past wee while for any comments by actual soldiers in iraq about the 'bring it on' comments, and can't find any, either on the blogs you linked to or elsewhere. But if I remember rightly, when the story broke there were a lot of veterans, army family and other people affected by his statement that were seriously unhappy with bush for his latest moronism.

I'm not presuming to speak for the troops (they seem very capable of speaking for themselves, and a lot of them seem to be agreeing with me) or trying to further some kind of agenda- I'm really not the agenda-making type. I'm not necessarily asking you to buy into my worldview. All I'm asking is that the right-wingers at least concede that encouraging enemy troops to kill your own country's soldiers is really not a very clever thing to do, rather than coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. If Clinton had done said the same things there would have been outrage from the right (and rightly so). Why do they make excuses for this particular incident?

My response:

I will comment first on your two links. The first one is to a news article that indicates that there are a significant number of soldiers who are not too enamored of the Bush Administration right now. That is true (and I never claimed otherwise). The reason they are peeved, however, has nothing to do with "Bring it on"; it has everything to do with shifting return dates. If I was over there, and my deployment was operationally extended, I'd be irked too. (It happened to me in 1990, and again in 1996, and again in 1998). However, while I was a little torqued about the unplanned changes, they didn't change my opinion of the presidents or SecDefs who made the decisions. Nothing is writ in stone, and everyone in the military knows about unscheduled changes.

Your second link is a link to a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. There is one factual statement in the whole strip—Bush's statement. Everything else is TT's mind at play. What was the point?

Going back to the first part of your post, in which we discuss individuals who don't toe the line on prescribed attitudes, you use the thermonuclear "traitor" and "sellout" to describe dissenters. One cannot be a traitor to one's race, whether it is a Jewish Nazi, a black KKK supporter, or a gay Focus on the Family activist. Treason is an action against nations, not against identity groups. We are all Americans (well, those of us in the US, at least), not blacks, Latinos, Jews, Catholics, lesbians, or any of the myriad "Hyphenated-Americans" who seek to eliminate the "American" portion of their identity. And while there are those (on the fringes of both sides) who would seek to deny civil rights to certain groups, it is disingenuous to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better. And you say they are selling out. What personal gain do these people get? They are often ignored or rejected by those who they support, and are crucified by those who embrace identity politics. For some, personal beliefs trump identity, and they usually endure a lot of abuse as a result.

Regarding Chomsky—I don't think he is an anti-Semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-Semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind).

You misunderstood the purpose of my links to Smash, Pontifex, and PMO. What I was trying to convey is that there are plenty of military types over there who probably don't have a problem with what Bush said. You have to read their blogs on a regular basis to get a feel for what they think about the whole thing. As far as I know, only Smash has actually blogged a response to what Bush said (link), and it's quite supportive of Bush. The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans.

There are undoubtedly some military types (and more family members) who were disturbed by Bush's comments. The media seem to go to great lengths to provide "dissenting voices" when it suits them, and this appears to be one of those times. I strongly suspect that if you asked the people over there what they think about the statement, you'd find that a majority agree with the sentiment. In fact, the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home.

Clinton would likely not get a free pass, you're right. Of course, for someone who "Loathed the military", he was certainly eager to trot us out for every little humanitarian mission that came along (never mind that that type of mission is not what we train for; the skill sets are a bit different). If not for September 11th, it is likely that we would not have had any major deployments at all. (Remember, the Europeans were denouncing Bush's isolationistic impulses prior to the attacks.) The kicker is that I seriously doubt Clinton would ever say anything like that; it offended the Eurocrats (not Europeans in general, just the leftist elites who shape opinion over there), and Clinton placed special emphasis on their opinions when formulating his foreign policy.

posted on July 16, 2003 08:51 PM

Comments:

"...it is disingenuous to to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better.... "

I certainly didn't intend to do so, and I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that from in my post. I was unclear in my usage of certain terms: when I used terms like 'traitor' and 'sellout' I did so to explain the perspective of someone who would use terms like 'oreo' and 'uncle tom', not because I believe in those viewpoints myself. I accept that the term traitor was used inaccurately, and was a bit hyperbolic, perhaps 'works againsts the general interests of their group' would be a more appropriate phrase. The reference to a black person voting for a racist was intended as a fairly extreme hypothetical situation, not as a common case. My point was, even in such a situation, the black voter is not a racist himself, merely that he can be considered to be working against the interests of black people as a whole. Therefore, the terms you used in your previous post were not equivalent to calling Chomsky an anti-semite.It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

"Regarding Chomsky—I don't think he is an anti-semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind)."

An idiot? He is (as I understand it), considered to have completely revolutionised the field of linguistics! If that's your definition of an idiot, perhaps the world needs more idiots. I don't believe he's anti-american or anti-Israel- he merely criticises certain policies that the governments of each country has. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of right-wingers seem to frequently confuse anti-zionism with anti-semitism. At the anti-war demos I've been to (in Britain) I've seen a lot of Pro-Palestinian banners and so on, but nothing I would deem to be anti-semitic.

I'll respond to the "Bring it on" stuff in a later post...

posted by Johnny Proctor on July 17, 2003 08:13 AM

For my first link, you're right, the article is explicitly about the fact that they're being kept out there even longer than expected. However, I get the impression (from this and other sources) that these guys are more pissed off than can be attributed to shifting return dates. It seems to me that the fact that the case for war is rapidly turning out to be a pack of lies, the fact that they are notably *not* being welcomed as liberators but rather as targets, and the fact that their commander in chief apparrently thinks that it's a good thing for them to be attacked by the iraqi people all add up to their current state of extreme peevedness. I'm sure I've seen quotes from vets, soldiers, and soldier's families saying how unhappy they were about the 'bring em on' comment, but couldn't find them while I was writing that post.
There are actually TWO factual statements in the strip, the second being where it says "'you see, the president is deliberately using the ongoing conflict in iraq to lure the terrorists out into the open.' (actual argument making the rounds in conservative circles)." I'm pretty sure I've seen both Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan make this very same point. The rest of the strip illustrates how ridiculous this fantasy is. As Tom Tomorrow explains why i consider these theories 'ridiculous justifications' so eloquently, i decided to let him do it for me. The point was to justify my use of the 'bring them on' incident as an illustration of what should be seen by both left and right as an example of right wing idiocy which the right are making excuses for.

"The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans."
This argument pretty much works both ways. Many on the right used the 'support the troops' meme to criticise anti-war protesters, and to drum up support for the war. This is despite the fact that the anit-war people were the ones supporting the troops by trying to prevent them being sent off to fight an entirely pointless war. Now that the troops are being critical of Bush and co, some right-wing extremists have now started saying that those soldiers should be punished for criticising their leaders.

I'm sure that there are many soldiers out there who are still trying to support Bush, of which the three guys you cited are indeed fine examples. But I'm not convinced that these are representitive of the majority of the troops. When you say " the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home." you make the assumption that there's a finite number of terrorists/Saddamites, and that increasing warfare won't encourage others to join, and seems to imply that the people doing all the fighting are either from other countries or pro-saddam, despite the evidence to indicate that there are many anti-saddam, anti-american guerillas.
As it stands I've still yet to see a right-winger either criticise these idiotic statements from George "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" Bush, or produce a halfway (quarter-way? an eighth-way!) convincing justification for them.
I too doubt that Clinton would ever say something like that, but primarily on the grounds that he wasn't an idiot.

posted by Johnny Proctor on July 17, 2003 10:16 AM

Re. Chomsky - While Chomsky's contributions to Linguistics are important (though, I'm told, increasingly under attack), I'm sure that doesn't affect the point that regarding politics the man is a complete idiot.

Brilliance in one field does not preclude, or even imply, non-idiocy in any other (For instance, Einstein was, while not in Chomsky's realm, at best naive in terms of political thought, and any number of examples can be thought of where someone is very skilled and intelligent in their chosen field (or some other), but incompetent in others).

posted by Sigivald on July 17, 2003 03:50 PM

It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

I'll buy that, but many who are opposed to ENDA and gay marriage don't see either of these as equal rights, but rather as special rights. In the case of ENDA and similar legislation, it is pretty clear-cut—there is no equivalent protection for someone who does not fit into one of the protected classes. It's a lot harder to justify a proscription on gay marriage (on strictly legal ground), but marriage is an issue with a lot of emotional weight attached. Much of the more overwrought railing is nothing more than naked emotion.

In regards to Chomsky, Sigivald nicely summed up my feelings on his intelligence. Anyone who considers the US to be carrying on the aims of the Nazis, while simultaneously denying the atrocities that occurred in communist nations such as the USSR and (especially) Cambodia is detached from reality.

You accuse the right of cynically supporting the troops only to support the war, and then attempt to link an anti-war position to real support for the troops. While there were probably a few people that felt that support for the troops entailed keeping out of the war, the vast majority of the anti-war protestors were those that protest against *any* war that supports US interests. People that advocate reducing the DoD budget by 50-75% cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who support unilateral disarmament cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who are against war, but support "peacekeeping" missions in Liberia, Kosovo, Somalia, and elsewhere cannot be considered those who support our troops. Many of the anti-war protestors are self-professed socialists, and I cannot think of a single socialist group that supports the US military in *any* fashion. If you are aware of one, please let me know; I am convinced that such a group cannot exist.

As I am not currently deployed over there, I cannot speak for the troops on the ground (or floating nearby), but I do know that most of my co-workers (some of whom have just returned to the US after spending time in the area during the war) are still strongly supportive of the administration's position.

As to the finite number of Hussein supporters, you're right—I *do* believe that there is a finite number, and eventually most of them will be marginalized. Now that Iraq has a functioning government (one that is pretty strongly anti-Baathist), you will see the Iraqis begin to work in an organized fashion to deal with the remnants of the opposition. Salam Pax has a letter from a friend at his blog, and it supports what I have said; most Iraqis support the US, at least more than they support Hussein and his partisans.

posted by Timekeeper on July 18, 2003 10:00 AM