Cold War Values
In the newest Bloggingheads, Rosa Brooks offers Jonah Goldberg an opportunity (about 3:20 into this segment) to justify the current conservative thinking on the human rights issues hovering about enhanced interrogation, habeas corpus at Gitmo, etc. She notes how during the Cold War, it was the anti-communists who sought the moral high ground by forging human rights treaties and using them to flog the Soviets. “How appalling,” she says, that the heirs to the Cold War anti-communists are now so dismissive about those same scruples. This seems like just the kind of thing for Goldberg to seize, in that he’s usually pretty rigorous about sorting out the implications of various stated principles. It’s something that he, as a sort of metatheorist of conservatism or of ideology in general, seems to do a lot. And the Cold War position Brooks invokes has been the starting point for my own surprise at the almost total lack of conservative questioning and self-questioning on the torture issue. So I braced for a smart conservative’s response to this. Goldberg took a deep breath and changed the subject. I’m not saying he changed the subject because he didn’t like it. I’m just saying he changed the subject, and I was disappointed.
Well, as this video= shows, I don’t think Golberg is completely sanguine about the Administration’s policies on those issues himself, and is in the process of sorting through his thoughts on it.
— JohnMcG · Nov 16, 11:41 PM · #
“So I braced for a smart conservative’s response to this.”
Uh-huh. If Jonah Goldberg is a smart conservative, then conservatism is in even worse shape than is normally supposed.
Here is one of Goldberg’s very serious, thoughtful arguments that has never been made in such detail or with such care before on the matter at hand.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512090853.asp
— Ashish George · Nov 17, 01:25 AM · #
I sort of savor the irony of Ashish George waxing sarcastic about Jonah Goldberg’s intellectual candlepower when he apparently can’t tell the difference between a piece of media criticism (what the article he cites is) and a thoughtful, substantive policy argument (what he claims the article he cites is).
— BC · Nov 17, 01:33 AM · #
Uh-huh. And when Goldberg admiringly cited Michael Ledeen saying “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” Was that a thoughtful, substantive policy argument, BC?
— Freddie · Nov 17, 02:06 AM · #
“And the Cold War position Brooks invokes has been the starting point for my own surprise at the almost total lack of conservative questioning and self-questioning on the torture issue.”
Define “the torture issue”. The word is thrown around constantly without definition. As far as I can tell, the only technique that has been used by the US government, (or has plausibly been claimed could be used), and could conceivably be defined as torture, is waterboarding. It’s already illegal to torture someone, and nobody at Gitmo has been tortured. And I’ve yet to see a persuasive case that waterboarding ought to be defined as torture.
It also seems a stretch to say there’s been an “almost total lack” of questioning about the issue from conservatives. Conservative legal types (including those in the administration) have discussed various aspect of the law in this area extensively since 9/11. And McCain and others have figured prominently in the public discussions.
— Mike S. · Nov 17, 02:26 AM · #
I don’t know, Freddie. I didn’t read either Ledeen’s remark or Goldberg’s allegedly admiring cite to it, and in any case my purpose is not to offer a definitive defense of the entirety of Goldberg’s ouvre. I’m sure that there are reasonable criticisms that can be made of his work.
Ashish’s buffoonery does not fall into that category. When you can’t tell the difference between a piece of media criticism and a serious policy argument, you’re not in any position to snark about other people being lightweights.
— BC · Nov 17, 02:30 AM · #
BC, I was making a joke about Goldberg’s self-importance.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=is+a+very+serious%2C+thoughtful%2C+argument+that+has+never+been+made+in+such+detail+or+with+such+care
If you follow the links, you might see that thoughtful, substantive policy arguments really aren’t Goldberg’s thing, which is part of the reason he provoked such mockery from other commentators. That, and the fact that he was referring to his book Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. (The subtitle has since twice been changed.)
Mike S.—
You wrote: “As far as I can tell, the only technique that has been used by the US government, (or has plausibly been claimed could be used), and could conceivably be defined as torture, is waterboarding.”
Bracketing the question of whether waterboarding is torture (I think it is), Maher Arar might beg to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar#Arar.27s_rendition
Another problem is that the secrecy attendant to the “war on terror” has meant that the government has, at every turn and through every tactic, attempted to keep us in the dark as to what really happens. And as for McCain, it suits his campaign narrative—maverick! straight-shooter!—to speak out against torture, but he actually voted for the Military Commissions Act, which may protect those who engage in torture from ever being held accountable.
“The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the ‘war on terror’ from prosecution.”— The Center for Constitutional Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant
— Ashish George · Nov 17, 04:05 AM · #
We need more waterboarding.
— Mr. Waterboard · Nov 17, 06:35 AM · #
Here’s the cite.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTFhZGQ4Y2IyZmNlY2QyNDkwZTlkZjFkYjZiNWY0YzU=
— Freddie · Nov 17, 04:02 PM · #
Yes, Ashish. I understand that you were trying to make a joke.
However, when you’re snarking about somebody else being a self-important lightweight, you assume the risk of coming off looking like a self-important lightweight, yourself — which, by confusing or misrepresenting Goldberg’s media criticism as an example of a thoughtful, substantive policy argument, is exactly what you’ve managed here.
As for whether or not thoughtful, substantive policy arguments are or aren’t Goldberg’s “thing”, I see no evidence suggesting that he’s, on balance, any more outside the realm of intellectual respectability than, say, Peter Beinart or Kevin Drum. Those guys say plenty of things that I disagree with, or that I think are world-class dumb, or that strike me as being downright reprehensible — but it would be perfectly asinine for me to sit here and snark that they reflect poorly on liberalism to the extent anyone takes them seriously.
— BC · Nov 18, 01:14 AM · #
You say you understand the joke, but I don’t think you really do. If you did, you wouldn’t keep insisting that I was “confusing or misrepresenting Goldberg’s media criticism as an example of a thoughtful, substantive policy argument” after I already pointed out that I was merely using Goldberg’s own words to accentuate his own superficiality and the fact that the piece I cited wasn’t some light excursion from his usual wonkery, but rather a typically shallow Goldbergian assessment. At any rate, you are entitled to your own opinion and your own humorlessness. (In conservative circles in the era of Bush, the two often seem to be one and the same, after all).
If you’re interested, here’s a pretty good response to Goldberg’s piece.
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/cover.html
— Ashish George · Nov 18, 10:59 AM · #
Ashish George is doing a lot of backside covering to hide the fact that he refuses to recognize that writers write in different styles at times. Goldberg’s great strength as a writer is precisely that he doesn’t take himself as seriously as people like George all the time. The reference to Ledeen’s comment is an example of this. George might want to try cultivating a little more nuance to his reading comprehension, or better yet, a sense of humor.
— AA · Nov 19, 03:50 PM · #