Fox News Guest: America Needs Osama to Attack
In recent months, I’ve had several people ask me why it is that I criticize “my own team” in blog posts. The answer is sometimes that I think they’re wrong, that I care about public discourse more than any political movement, and that anyway honest criticism strengthens a movement.
But the answer for some people I criticize is that they’re just not on my team, and they shouldn’t be on yours either:
Yes.
Sullivan labels them “far right.” I think that’s a disservice to any actual reactionaries in our country. These people want war more than anything else.
— Scott Shaffer · Jul 1, 04:17 PM · #
Who is the guy that Beck is talking to?
— just some guy with an opinion · Jul 1, 04:18 PM · #
Also, did you see this exchange between Beck and Jonah Goldberg? I swiped this from TNR’s The Plank:
GOLDBERG: …when Hillary Clinton talks about the politics of meaning, that we have to get our meaning, our meaning — you know, not from our souls or our church or our family, but from politics, then you are opening up a realm of a vision of life which says that if you disagree with me on politics, if you disagree with me on political philosophy or ideology policy, you’re a heretic, you’re outside, you know, decent life. And then you get this kind of crazy talk that we get from Krugman and others.
BECK: And that leads to — the last time that happened, Dark Ages.
GOLDBERG: Yes. Well .
BECK: Dark Ages. When politics becomes faith and religion.
GOLDBERG: That’s right.
— just some guy with an opinion · Jul 1, 04:21 PM · #
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/chávez-derangement-syndrome
sowwy for the raw link, but textile seems to be fubar
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 04:34 PM · #
If I say “It doesn’t sound to me like that guy said what you say he said,” will I be cast out as a lickspittle apologist for the gonzo right?
Because I’m not (a lickspittle apologist for the gonzo right) … but it doesn’t (sound to me like that guy said what you say he said).
Beck and Guest seem to agree that a major terrorist attack would have one salutary effect on the American public, with consequent effects on public policy that Guest evidently thinks would be a good thing. Guest further opines that such an attack is the only thing likely to have this effect on public policy (which, Beck suggests, only makes such an attack less likely, if al Quaeda knows what’s good for it).
Granted, then, that Guest is in favor of the public policy changes in question, and that he doesn’t see them happening in fact barring a major terrorist attack, it is nevertheless a logical fallacy to conclude that Guest actually wants an attack to occur, even as a means to an end.
— SDG · Jul 1, 05:04 PM · #
“The only chance we have as a country right now… is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 1, 05:37 PM · #
That’s Michael Sheuer right? That guy is insaaaaaane, I don’t know how his opinion was ever respected.
— pc · Jul 1, 05:42 PM · #
An attack is necessary for us to adopt the correct policies to … avert an attack? Which means that to stop us from averting an attack, al Qaeda will … refrain from attacking us?
Awesome!
— Consumatopia · Jul 1, 05:55 PM · #
Civil discourse is a noble cause, I guess. But since when did it ever have a place in American politics? Distortions, scare tactics, propaganda, innuendo, intimations, and outright accusations? Symptoms of free speech and freedom, maybe, but not evil. These things are as inevitable as the weather under such a system.
Shouldn’t the more civil, sober realists among us accept these things as part of reality, and often a salutary outlet and catharsis for the frustrations of some modern people who don’t get the same satisfactions out of enlightened discourse that we do?
When you start drawing lines, declaring enemies, how are you any different than the purging purists who disown us as lukewarm prevaricators? It seems to me that if you are interested in real politics, it doesn’t help if you are very attached to the fantastic idea of reason being the rightful ruler of our affairs.
And is it really that outrageous to suggest that good comes from harm? Many rational people I know who wouldn’t waste their time watching Beck or listening to Levin cheer all the harm of a long recession and the reining in of capitalism as good for the environment and our characters, despite the pain, suffering, and even deaths it might lead to.
There are many ways to react to such statements (consideration, deliberation, denial, ignoring, laughing, analyzing), but it isn’t really politically helpful (or rational) to be so indignant about every acerbic, vile, foaming thing indignant people say. Politics is filthy, offensive business for angry people to offend and punish each other so the rest of us can be more free of them and watch ball games. If you like to watch the political game, I say don’t get too caught up in the pissing contest over who the true fans are and the dehumanizing of rivals. It only leads to further alienation, face-paint, and snobbery. You’re better than that.
But maybe it’s the system that allows a a diverse patchwork of demagogues to flourish that you have a real problem with.
I’m sure that’s what Levin was trying to say when he called you names but was subtly nice enough to give you more traffic.
There’s only two teams, so we should be willing to cheer with whoever wants to cheer with us, if we want to win. If we don’t want to win or cheer along with the unseemly and the uncivil fans we should really find things that our improved by criticism rather than that which only feeds off it and infects our souls.
Did I mention I’m running for office next year? I’ll lie with, or to, any dog to help improve my country. I’d appreciate your vote.
— Trepanated · Jul 1, 05:57 PM · #
But trepanated (cute nic), the problem is pure distilled badcraziness has only a limited appeal to the electorate.
Most sapient humans, when confronted with an insane clown, will back slowly away while studiously avoiding eye contact.
Except for juggalos….and they only make up about 22 %.
;)
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 06:29 PM · #
Is it really appropriate to condemn a man totally for rhetorical excesses on a political talk show, a format which require one to think on one’s feet and blurt out the first thing that comes mind?
— Cody · Jul 1, 06:31 PM · #
“Is it really appropriate to condemn a man totally for rhetorical excesses on a political talk show, a format which require one to think on one’s feet and blurt out the first thing that comes mind?”
Only if the man’s children were being held hostage as an inducement to his appearing on the show. Otherwise, what a willing participant “blurts out” in such a format is precisely what information we should use to judge this man’s intellect and character. In my estimation, condemnation seems mild compared to what he deserves.
— Tony Comstock · Jul 1, 06:42 PM · #
Conor:
“The only chance we have as a country right now… is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Right, and? I thought my point about what this does and doesn’t imply was pretty clear.
But let me clarify. Let’s say my dad smokes, drinks, eats poorly, generally takes poor care of his health, and refuses to see a doctor. (He doesn’t really, it’s just an example.) For years my siblings and I have tried to impose on him to see a doctor, to take better care of himself, in vain.
One of us says: “The only chance for dad to start taking better care of his health would be if he had a heart attack or something.”
Does this imply a hope or wish for a heart attack? No.
— SDG · Jul 1, 07:15 PM · #
“The only chance for dad to start taking better care of his health would be if he had a heart attack or something.”
Which is why I was thinking this weekend, if I were heart disease, that’s the last thing I would do right now.
— Consumatopia · Jul 1, 07:47 PM · #
Wait, I can’t believe I missed this:
“The only chance for dad to start taking better care of his health would be if he had a heart attack or something.”
Note that there’s no equivalent to the emphasized phrase in the original quote.
“The only chance for dad would be if he had a heart attack or something.”
Does this imply a hope or wish for a heart attack? Yes.
— Consumatopia · Jul 1, 07:54 PM · #
Conor:
Again, you have lost all sense of proportion. Beck and Scheuer are worried about another attack happening and you’re worried about civil discourse. Talk about asymmetrical warfare. I really don’t understand you.
And I would simply echo what SDG said above, but I would say it this way: sometimes the only way an alcoholic will change is to let him go to hell and hope he finally wakes up before he kills himself. This is not wishing it would happen. This is NOT hoping for it to happen, but it’s simply saying there’s nothing left to do.
I really think you hate Beck for some reason, and I think you’re getting kinda weird. Is there any chance you’re getting ready to start bashing “Christianists.”
— jd · Jul 1, 08:07 PM · #
“Beck and Scheuer are worried about another attack happening”
No, they’re worried that America won’t adopt their ideas unless America is attacked. THAT’S the point. They’re losing the national security argument are are speculating about how mass murder may be the only thing that will win them the discussion.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 1, 08:12 PM · #
You are one judgmental human being.
And what the hell team are you on anyway? Because I can’t imagine any team you’d ever want to join.
Care to explain which argument about national security they’re losing. What the hell are you talking about?
— jd · Jul 1, 08:19 PM · #
Matoko
You are right – a limited appeal. But most people have to get worked up into a lather to vote or even care about this stuff. (Don’t you sort of have to be insane to vote in first place?) So it will always be on both sides’ interest to work up the crazies (as my campaign manager has been teaching me). But you can always count on them doing most of the work themselves.
I can’t simply back away from, or condemn, 22% of the electorate and expect to win on the merits of my ideas and civil discourse alone (I’ll save that for the deal-making in the smoky cloakrooms I’ve heard so much about and crave to enter and smoke in).
I would also argue that turning off most of the electorate by the same rhetoric is actually beneficial for the country as a whole anyway. It is only partly true that you win by “capturing the center” and triangulating. Actually, it is a matter of who can work up their side’s registered crackpots the most – not by your own merits, as an actual rational moderate, but by revealing your opponent as more extreme and off-center than you. It’s about perceptions, as my manager says.
And, again: so the guy is a melodramatically pessimistic about America’s hope (probably not a voter anyway). Wrong? Sure. That’s hyperbole for you.
But I just don’t get why I should be so astounded over someone implying that bad things can have beneficial effects. I hear it all the time. And it’s not completely false. Being under siege or in a crisis does tend to foster community and public devotion, which I assume he thinks are good. Maybe that’s crazy, but it’s something you hear all the time about the opportunities crises present to us for improving society. The economy’s heart attack will turn us back to what’s important, make us fighting trim again and learn to live responsibly and moderately and force us to redirect society to a better more just way to live.
Crises can even make people more civil. That isn’t my platform, but I am sure that an emergency or disruption of normal life will always change and even improve more people in the long run than all the words of chastisement and calls for civility from all the rational people in the world.
— Trepanated · Jul 1, 08:20 PM · #
“Care to explain which argument about national security they’re losing. What the hell are you talking about?”
Who is the President? Do the American public support his national security policies, by and large, or the policies of Beck and his guest? What affect do Beck and guest think an attack on the U.S. would have? Isn’t it making the public and the government more responsive to what Beck and guest are advocating?
Jiminy Christmas. Think about this stuff for two seconds.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 1, 08:51 PM · #
If we’re going to open the idea up why not go all the way? Where would we like Osama to strike best? Ideally, the attack would be prepared in Mexico and snuck across the border, that way we could blame it on Islam AND Immigration policy. Tighter borders and a justification for another crusade! How delightful! But where on the border, probably not in Texas, they’re already on our side. Better make it California, I would suggest Berkley, but obviously I’m open to other ideas. Hollywood would be my second choice, Disneyland maybe. Then we could say the terrorists did it because they hate our freedom and our Super-fun Roller coasters!
Thoughts like this guys is why thousands of Americans think the government was behind 911. Prick.
— Kailer · Jul 1, 08:57 PM · #
Look, to sum up, there are at least three problem with any interpretation of this video in which Beck and his guest do not have despicable intentions
1. Guest calls an attack “the only chance we have as a country”. Period. Not the only chance we have to change policies, not merely our last opportunity to adopt good or salutary reforms, but our only chance as a country.
2. Guest waxes rhapsodic about the aftermath of such an attack, and the “bottom-up, grassroots pressure” that people would begin to exert on their government. This would be like if you said a heart attack was your dad’s only chance, then started to go on and on about all the diet changes and exercise and stress-avoidance you could now get him to do. I am thinking you would not do that.
3. Beck’s final conclusion that Osama would actually avoid attacking us because the aftermath of an attack would be so good for America.
If vindication is valued above all else, then these three points start to make a little sense.
— Consumatopia · Jul 1, 09:38 PM · #
Yes, I agree with Consumatopia’s analysis.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 1, 09:50 PM · #
Trepanated, perhaps you need to see more of Beck’s…err…. “work” (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/chávez-derangement-syndrome)
before you can make you can make an assessment.
— matoko_chan · Jul 1, 09:54 PM · #
Conor, are you saying Scheuer is a conservative? He isn’t. Imperial Hubris was used as a bludgeon against Bush during the 2004 campaign, and he has long hated Bush and ‘neocons’ with the same intensity that Andrew Sullivan does today. Plus Bin Laden gave a shout-out to him in a public address! I’d guess that Hilzoy is as likely to cite Scheuer as the National Review is.
And Beck says he was thinking that Bin Laden won’t attack the US now because he wants to keep Americans complacent. Beck is a nut, but is that statement really nutty, much less anti-American? I think it’s accepted that Pearl Harbor was a mistake for this same reason, and it may be respectable to say the same about September 11th.
So that leaves a video of a famous Bush-and Commentary-hating commentator, and a wacky conservative host saying that it would be a strategic mistake for Bin Laden to wake the sleeping dog now, a la Pearl Harbor. What’s your point?
— tom · Jul 1, 09:59 PM · #
All that and still no answer to my question.
— jd · Jul 1, 11:46 PM · #
Take this for what it’s worth, but blogposts with hand-wringing denunciations of the popular boobs on TV & radio are what I come to TAS to get away from. There’s nothing at all to be learned, no interesting arguments, just sanctimony laced with smug superiority. If I want that, I can go to any number of partisan sites — there’s no value-add here.
I’m sure you mean well, but your posts are not going to have the desired effect — the only people you’re convincing are those who already agree with you.
— kenb · Jul 2, 01:01 AM · #
i dunno kenb…..it certainly serves to drive out tribal affiliations.
lemme axe you a question….what do you feel when you observe Beck?
incredulous horrified loathing or jovial comradery?
— matoko_chan · Jul 2, 01:18 AM · #
And Beck says he was thinking that Bin Laden won’t attack the US now because he wants to keep Americans complacent. Beck is a nut, but is that statement really nutty, much less anti-American? I think it’s accepted that Pearl Harbor was a mistake for this same reason, and it may be respectable to say the same about September 11th.
I would make a distinction: it is reasonable to say that 9/11 turned out badly for Osama and al Qaeda, but not to say that 9/11 turned out good for the United States.
But, yeah, on further reflection, maybe I made too much of Beck’s final comment. Nonetheless, Scheuer is definitely on the wrong side of this distinction—he’s not just saying that al Qaeda would come to regret a future attack on us (in fact I’m not sure he even says that), but that America would benefit from it.
If Scheuer is non-conservative, and conservative Beck looks bad because he’s beside Scheuer (he does), then I think that makes Conor’s larger point about team pretty well.
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 01:31 AM · #
There is just no point here that can in any way be large. Get a life.
— jd · Jul 2, 02:04 AM · #
Conor, you are proving with all of these posts that call out the lunatic fringe of the right that the Republican Party is having a massive case of “embarrassing uncle at the family reunion-itis.” But instead of just that one uncle, and maybe that one brother in law, there are dozens upon dozens of cousins, uncles, grandpas, grandmas, you name it. All the cringe inducing relatives have risen up like zombies from the grave and are foaming at the mouth, angling to devour whatever sensible brains might be left over there on your side of the aisle. And you know what the only way to kill mutant, genetically related zombies is, right? Torch them. That’s what you’re doing here. Keep torching them, and try to gather the sane family members together in a safe house. I welcome a worthy oppositional political party, I honestly do, and so do most civil minded Amercians. But the Hannity, Levin, Beck, Savage, & of course Uncle Rushy gang… they’re just dragging the whole notion of civil discourse into the septic tank.
— Joshua · Jul 2, 06:28 AM · #
Consumatopia:
I appreciate your analysis, but as grounds for character indictment if not assassination I find it unconvincing. It seems at least plausible to me that if instead of minute analysis one were simply to put a quick question to Beck or Guest — “Wait a minute, are you saying you actually hope an attack occurs for the good of the country?” — they would reject this. While it is possible that such a rejection would not be sincere, I have no particular grounds for assuming that this would be the case.
Very briefly responding to your three-point analysis (diminishing returns and descent into pedantry loom):
1. The absence of an explicit qualification doesn’t mean that a term is implicitly intended in an unqualified sense. The distinction you make here may easily be understood to be verbal rather than substantial.
2. The comparative simplicity of the case of my father’s health constitutes sufficient reason why I would not go into detail on the positive programme that might follow my father’s heart attack. It can be assumed; it does not need to be spelled out. A political analysis might reasonably go into more detail.
3. Beck’s comment does not necessarily assume that the attack would be “good” for America in any total sense, only that it would be bad for al Quaeda.
— SDG · Jul 2, 01:49 PM · #
Take this for what it’s worth, but blogposts with hand-wringing denunciations of the popular boobs on TV & radio are what I come to TAS to get away from. There’s nothing at all to be learned, no interesting arguments, just sanctimony laced with smug superiority.
Bingo. There’s a certain utility in policing one’s own fringe. But it makes for boring, self-righteous discussion.
— Ben A · Jul 2, 02:56 PM · #
JD – “All that and still no answer to my question.”
The answer to your question is self-evident. Unless you can demonstrate the most basic sort of reasoning skills and recognition of reality, there’s not much point in engaging you any further.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 2, 03:04 PM · #
“It seems at least plausible to me that if instead of minute analysis one were simply to put a quick question to Beck or Guest — “Wait a minute, are you saying you actually hope an attack occurs for the good of the country?””
How about instead of postulating hypotheticals and imaging alternative explanations that Beck and his guest didn’t offer themselves, we just restrict the discussion to what was actually said?
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 2, 03:07 PM · #
Mike:
“How about instead of postulating hypotheticals and imaging alternative explanations that Beck and his guest didn’t offer themselves, we just restrict the discussion to what was actually said?”
The discussion was never about what was “actually said,” but what was meant (or what we can reasonably conclude was meant).
I have no problem concluding that someone has said, and meant, something appalling. I do believe in general in giving people the benefit of any reasonable doubt. (That is not the same as “a shadow of a doubt”; I don’t say that any kind interpretation, however wire-drawn, is always preferable to a plausible but harsh interpretation.)
In this case, though, Conor and Consumatopia evidently believe there is no reasonable doubt for Beck and Guest to benefit from. I disagree. If I’m on the jury, I’m not ready to convict on the basis of this evidence.
For anyone really interested in trying to understanding what someone else may have meant meant, it can be instructive to at least consider (assuming we can’t really ask them) what they might plausibly say in their defense if cross-examined. That doesn’t oblige us to accept anything we can imagine being said, but it’s worth considering.
— SDG · Jul 2, 03:30 PM · #
My analysis is not the grounds for character assassination. The video is. Even if you were right about all three points logically permitting either interpretation, Schurer is still visually demonstrating a sort of grim satisfaction in what he’s saying, which doesn’t fit what you think he’s saying.
But in fact I happen to think you are obviously wrong. And I am not dependent on minutia to make this claim—I think it’s completely obvious from the single sentence Conor quoted. I’m going into great detail only to counter the ever widening fractal of minute obtuseness you are bringing to this.
1. “The only chance we have as a country right now…”. He does not merely omit an explicit qualification, he in fact offers an explicit qualification “as a country right now” that rules out the implicit qualification you ask for. These are two different qualifications with two different substantial meanings.
Again, to reasonable people, this would have been clear in the original video, and certainly even more clear when Conor restated the quote. The complexity here is entirely a result of your flawed logic, not at all the situation at hand.
2. Though Scheuer goes on and on about the aftermath of an Osama attack, his political analysis is still shallow—Osama attacks, people get mad and demand policy change. This is not really any more complicated than dad has a heart attack, dad gets frightened and starts exercising. Scheuer isn’t seriously analyzing the political consequences of a major Osama bin Laden attack, he’s on vacation in fantasy world. His fantasy doesn’t even make sense—since Obama’s current strategy is to escalate in AfPak, another Osama bin Laden attack would if anything vindicate that strategy.
3. If you read above, I backed down from this one slightly. Logically speaking, Beck is in trouble, because Scheuer didn’t say the attack would be bad for al Qaeda. In fact, part of Scheuer’s larger program (google him) is for America to stop supporting Israel and friendly Arab regimes and let the Middle East decide it’s own fate.
But I’ll give Beck the benefit of a doubt and pretend Beck was not really paying attention to what Scheuer was saying before he affirmed it. Points 1 and 2 still stand.
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 03:43 PM · #
Consumatopia: I’m glad it’s so obvious for you and those you deign reasonable people.
I’m afraid to dunderheads like me it remains unclear how “the only chance we have as a country” automatically tells us what our country’s “only chance” is an “only chance” for. (The question was about our leaders “doing the right thing,” but I think we can agree that answers don’t always fit questions.)
But if you are comfortable convicting on the basis of the video and the “completely obvious” implications of Conor’s one-sentence quotation, not to mention the “grim satisfaction” you detect in Guest’s demeanor, don’t feel you need to bother about my obtuseness on my account. Carry on.
— SDG · Jul 2, 04:23 PM · #
“I’m afraid to dunderheads like me it remains unclear how “the only chance we have as a country” automatically tells us what our country’s “only chance” is an “only chance” for.”
Is it our country’s only chance for vanilla pudding? Middle class tax cuts? Free hand jobs? I mean, if we’re not going to acknowledge the painfully obvious meaning of Scheuer’s words, there’s no limit to what it could be.
Our country’s only chance to clone Carla Gugino? Ass rape George Lucas for the prequel trilogy? Solve the housing crisis by decreeing all homes must now be made out of gingerbread?
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 2, 04:35 PM · #
Hey, nothing personal SDG, but if you’re going throw out “minute” and “descent into pedantry”, I’d think you’d be ready for some of that tossed back at ya.
That “the only chance we have as a country“ is the only chance for our country seems obvious enough to me. But hey, maybe I’m missing something. But you can clear that up! Try telling me the difference between these:
“Fox News Guest: America Needs Osama to Attack”
“Fox News Guest: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Are you really going to draw a distinction between “America Needs X” and “The only chance we have as a country right now is X”? Really? And then you’re going to make reference to MY pedantry? Really?
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 04:41 PM · #
Also SDG, you’d only be hurting yourself if you held Conor or all of TAS responsible for pseudonymous commenter Consumatopia being a dick.
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 05:07 PM · #
Just to clear up one misunderstanding in this thread I can speak to first-hand, my parenthetical aside about looming pedantry was not at all meant as a poke about someone else’s pedantry. I meant: “This is not a topic we can continue to chase much longer without getting pedantic” — meaning the discussion as such, and all of us as more or less complicit partners in pedantry.
(…which, I’m afraid, is a line we may well have crossed by this point … or certainly will have, by the end of this post.)
See how easy it is to misunderstand something?
So here comes the pedantry. I’m not sure we’re all clear that the phrase “the only chance we have as a country” does not have an absolute meaning. You seem to be inferring the implicit meaning “the only chance we have as a country for survival,” which is certainly a plausible meaning, but in context it seems to me at least equally plausible that he means something like “The only hope we have as a nation for returning to our senses on all the issues that I consider important.”
Not just words, but phrases, sentences and sometimes whole conversations can have very different meanings depending on context. In this case, the only context I currently have for Guest’s comment is Beck’s question, which I have now, alas, pedantically transcribed:
“Do you really honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land — Congress and the White House — that they really will not do the right thing in the end, that they will not see the error of their ways?”
Whatever else this may be, it is a question about what it would take to elicit a certain desired response from our leaders. Whatever else Guest’s answer may mean, then, there are at least some prima facie reason for reading it as “The only chance we have as a country for our leaders to see the error of their ways and do the right thing.”
Lacking any further context, I have no idea what previous discussion may inform those vague terms “the right thing” and “the error of their ways” — not to mention that ominous phrase “in the end.”
It is thus possible that Guest means to say “If bin Ladin doesn’t save us by attacking us, we will surely perish” — though by what means he might envision this dire fate arriving, I can hardly say.
But the possibility that he means that a terrorist attack is the only likely trigger for our nation returning to its senses on all kinds of important issues seems to me to warrant consideration — at least, insofar as we are likely to consider what Guest meant at all, which we have all, myself most of all, invested far too much energy into at this point, which is what I was getting at with my concern about pedantry.
P.S. Thanks for your warning about ways in which I might hurt myself. :-D
— SDG · Jul 2, 05:20 PM · #
Michael Scheur is not a conservative. Glen Beck is a conservative but his only real comment was in the very traditional category of ‘let the big dog sleep’.
So Conor should never have posted this as part of his campaign to police his “own team”. Conor probably just didn’t know anything about Scheuer and he didn’t watch the video closely to see what Beck said.
If Conor is going to keep his weird policing campaign going, I hope he puts a little more effort into knowing the participants and what they’re saying. This was dross.
— tom · Jul 2, 05:29 PM · #
You seem to be inferring the implicit meaning “the only chance we have as a country for survival,”
I don’t believe I am inferring new words. “The only chance we have as a country” itself has a specific meaning, quite different from “the only chance” which is underspecified. You can, of course, change a specific meaning by adding “for X", but that’s not resolving ambiguity, that’s changing a meaning that was already there.
And my thinking is not that Scheuer has some elaborate theory where getting attacked is good for us (as I made clear, he hasn’t really thought through the implications of an attack in any event), but that his resentment and self-righteousness bled through so he confused the country with his own ego.
And tom, the whole point of team policing is to keep people who aren’t on your team off of it. And note that this particular point of Scheuer’s was made in the context of border security and Scheuer’s call for “as much violence as necessary”.
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 06:34 PM · #
SDG keeps trying to misrepresent the debate just enough to make SDG’s arguments seem more effective.
SDG keeps insisting that Conor said these two scary guys on TV WANT an attack.
What Conor said was (here’s hoping I am right) these two scary guys believe that America NEEDS an attack.
These are not the same things. It’s subtle enough that I’m plenty frightened either way.
But “I want” and “America needs” are not the same thing. Are they?
— just some guy with an opinion · Jul 2, 06:34 PM · #
Consumatopia: The defense rests. The point is clear or not. Draw your own conclusions.
some guy w/opinion:
I am not, I assure you, “trying” to misrepresent anything or anyone.
If Conor denies inferring or implying that B and/or G “want” an attack, I am more than willing to take Conor at his word.
I agree that there is a distinction — in fact, a number of possible distinctions — between “America needs” and “I want.” There are further potential and even likely distinctions between “America needs” and “The only chance for us as a country is,” where the implicit stakes of that “only chance” are (pace Consumatopia) unstated.
P.S. There is no need for awkward pronoun avoidance. I am not anonymous, and if you don’t care to make a couple of clicks to find out, I’m male.
— SDG · Jul 2, 06:53 PM · #
I don’t think Glenn Beck wants an attack — and I doubt that the other guy wants an attack, though it would be logical if he did, since he asserts it’s America’s only chance. This is the first time I’ve ever seen other guy, so I am not in a position to say for sure, but I’d bet a hefty sum that he is being illogical, and doesn’t want another Al Qaeda attack.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 2, 07:22 PM · #
Thanks for clarifying, Conor.
If we agree that Guest probably doesn’t want an attack, then the remaining hermeneutical questions may be largely if not entirely semantic. That being said, I’m not going to peer any deeper into possible meanings of “the only hope for our country” (I’ve already done way too much of that).
I would like to propose a thought experiment, though — not about discerning Guest did or didn’t mean, but about our commitment to civil discourse (apparently a subject of some importance in this space).
Suppose (as a thought experiment) that Guest were to respond to this blog post (and other criticisms) by saying, “Good grief, I never said America ‘needs’ an attack — that would be terrible! All I meant was that under the current administration I don’t any other hope for us as a country coming to our collective senses on defense, etc.”
Which of the following best represents your response? (Feel free to suggest other alternatives.)
1. “Nice try, but this is clearly damage control. I know what he said, all right. He was positively fantasizing about how great an attack would be, he needn’t try to deny it now. Hypocritical liar.”
2. “Well, I’ll take his word for it that he’s not a psycho, but he’s still an idiot, and the misunderstanding is entirely his fault, not mine. People who say stuff like that on cable television deserve to be taken exactly how I took him. I don’t regret how I judged him at all.”
3. “Yeah, it was a poor way for him to phrase himself, but I guess maybe I was a little too quick to judge him on too little evidence. Maybe I could have given him the benefit of the doubt and concluded that he could have meant something less damaging than how I first took him.”
This is not a question about Guest. It is a question about us, what kind of people we are, and what kind of people we want to be.
Now let’s reverse the thought experiment: Suppose that G’s response went instead, “Of course American needs an attack, you morons! It’s the only hope for us as a country to survive!”
Well, then, it turns out that y’all were right and I was wrong. What should my response be?
1. “Wow, do I feel stupid now. How wrong I was to hector Conor and his combox posters. They are truly the reasonable people, while I am an obtuse dunderhead.”
2. “Yikes. Too bad for that nutjob. Looks like I was barking up the wrong tree on that one. Well, I’d rather give an occasional kook the benefit of the doubt than rush to judgment on the basis of a few potentially ambiguous phrases.”
For your consideration.
— SDG · Jul 2, 07:43 PM · #
The consequences here are not just civil discourse. If there are loyal Americans who believe that America needs an attack, “an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary,” that could have deadly consequences. Remember the anthrax attacks?
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 08:59 PM · #
Consumatopia: Thanks to your earlier cautions, I’ll be careful not to hold Conor and TAS responsible for your leap from the notion of violence “necessary” to defend Americans to the notion of violence that might elicit the desired responses from our civil leaders.
— SDG · Jul 2, 09:41 PM · #
SDG, come on. If the desired response is violence, and the violence is necessary, that implies the response is necessary.
But whatever, we’re both sick of this. So assume I’m wrong. You don’t think it likely that potential misguided domestic terrorists would make the same “leap” I made? You don’t think Scheuer should be a bit more careful making statements about desirable policy changes caused by a terrorist attack on the homeland? You don’t think this outweighs whatever civil discourse problem you’re talking about?
— Consumatopia · Jul 2, 10:05 PM · #
Let’s say that the statement “Scheuer should be a bit more careful making statements about desirable policy changes caused by a terrorist attack on the homeland” expresses a reasonable concern. That’s a much more nuanced statement than what we started out with, and one I wouldn’t have taken exception to. Beyond that, while it might be fair to say that domestic security “outweighs” civil discourse in some absolute sense, I’d like to think we can express whatever concerns we might have about the one without abandoning the other.
— SDG · Jul 2, 11:19 PM · #
I thought you were tired of arguing over the original statement? I did not mean to imply that my new statement was equivalent to it, I only intended that as a response to your new line of inquiry.
Given the real possibility that anthrax attacks occurred exactly because someone thought America needed to be attacked, if you come anywhere near saying anything similar in front a very wide audience that happens to be very worried about current policy, it is extremely, extremely important to make the relevant distinction absolutely clear. You should not merely deny that America Needs Osama to Attack, you should actively argue against it.
I think having such a social norm is important enough that anyone violating it should be much more severely chastised than Scheuer has been chastised in this thread. It is not merely crossing the line of evil that is hazardous, but simply appearing to cross the line, or even just coming up just short of the line. Which means that extending any sort of a benefit of a doubt to people who want to run up to the line just for the sake of provocation is dangerous.
Furthermore, even without this danger, a social norm encouraging these runs up to the line of evil would still be harmful to civil discourse. You can’t say “This is not a question about Guest. It is a question about us”. Civil discourse relies on social norms, and social norms are about all of us.
— Consumatopia · Jul 3, 12:32 AM · #
Just humor me and answer my stupid question. It shouldn’t be too hard for someone of your obvious intelligence. Though I wish you would quit signing your name twice. I would have preferred imagining what the “M” in “MBunge” stands for.
— jd · Jul 3, 01:47 AM · #
Boy, you guys have missed the point. Conor had no idea who Scheuer is. He assumed Scheuer was a conservative. He was wrong, and he’s not claiming otherwise now. It was a blown post.
— tom · Jul 3, 02:00 AM · #
“I thought you were tired of arguing over the original statement?”
I am. “What we started out with” refers to earlier critiques of B&G and whether those critiques pass the civility test, not to G’s original statement and what it did or didn’t mean.
“I did not mean to imply that my new statement was equivalent to it, I only intended that as a response to your new line of inquiry.”
I understand. I’m just saying let’s mount any critique in a civil fashion.
“You can’t say ‘This is not a question about Guest. It is a question about us’. Civil discourse relies on social norms, and social norms are about all of us.”
I meant, this is not a question about what Guest meant. Of course G is subject to requirements of civility, and I have no objection to criticizing him on this front — civilly, of course.
“I think having such a social norm is important enough that anyone violating it should be much more severely chastised than Scheuer has been chastised in this thread.”
Severity is not my primary concern here, civility is. All I’ve questioned in this thread is whether the claims made about what B&G said/meant are clearly accurate enough to be fair and civil. I think that some of them are not, starting with the post subject heading and including combox remarks like “These people want war more than anything else.”
If you want to say “G deserves severe castigation and censure for speaking irresponsibly about the hopelessness of certain conditions absent a terrorist attack,” have at it. If you want to say “G says we need an attack, he wants war more than anything else,” that’s where I want to say, “Really? You sure about that?”
Incidentally, Conor didn’t say — and in fact has rejected the idea — that G “wants” war, but his very first commenter took that next step. As you’ve pointed out, Conor shouldn’t be held responsible for what his commenters may say, certainly in any direct sense — even if, as seems to be the case here, the commenters seem to have taken Conor’s post as at least reinforcing their own view.
So if it is uncivil (because unjustified) to claim that G “wants” war, and if Conor’s comments led one of his commenters to take this unjustified view, does that mean Conor should have been more careful about how he phrased himself?
— SDG · Jul 3, 02:10 AM · #
All I’ve questioned in this thread is whether the claims made about what B&G said/meant are clearly accurate enough to be fair and civil. I think that some of them are not, starting with the post subject heading and including combox remarks like “These people want war more than anything else.”
Leave aside the combox for a moment, I don’t see how you can discuss the heading’s accuracy without making a claim about the original comment. Because it’s clearly obvious that the heading is a correct summation of Scheuer. “Fox News Guest: America Needs Osama to Attack”. If clear accuracy is enough to make something civil, then this is civil. Scheuer explicitly said twice that we needed an attack—that the policy change which would result from the attack was necessary. Accurate! Note that the accuracy of the heading has no relationship to what Scheuer would happen to say later, it’s entirely about what he said at the time.
If you want to change the subject to a comment you never mentioned before, fine. Nobody but the poster bears responsibility for that. The original post was accurate and clearly stated.
I would rule out the idea that Scheuer, if he actually thought it through, would really want the attack he deemed necessary—he would change his mind about this necessity. But it’s fair to ask what drove this particular irrationality, and people are entitled to reach their own conclusions about that.
— Consumatopia · Jul 3, 03:06 AM · #
gee….I would think this is obviouso.
What is Sheuers intentionalism? What is he signalling?
Given that Beck’s audience is largely leftside of the bellcurve, ie people that don’t read.
Over to you, Consumatopia.
— matoko_chan · Jul 3, 03:33 AM · #
C: I don’t think my thought experiment needs me to explain how it works. Either it works for you or it doesn’t. Peace out.
— SDG · Jul 3, 11:50 AM · #
SDG, if, as you say, accuracy can justify a statement as civil, and clearly accuracy is purely a matter of what he said at the time, then why would it matter what he says later?
It’s not a matter of whether it “works for me”, it’s a matter of logic.
— Consumatopia · Jul 3, 01:08 PM · #
I’ve already answered that question, C. Time to pack it in.
— SDG · Jul 3, 01:58 PM · #
Andrew posted this interview as an example of “the far right” being crazy, as Scott Shaffer notes up top. Conor does not know anything about Scheuer but he relies on Andrew and posts this as an example of the far right hating America.
Scheuer may seem ‘far right’ on rendition, which he knew from the Clinton era. But he is something else entirely on Israel, Bush and the neocons—Sullivanesque. That’s why Bin Laden has said the Scheuer understands the real problems of the US in the Moslem world.
Conor, can you admit you you knew nothing of Scheuer and just relied on Andrew? Or maybe that you got it from Media Matters, which started the meme, or kos which picked it up? A policeman really needs to know his beat.
— tom · Jul 3, 03:47 PM · #
Tom,
I saw the clip via a friend sending me the url by instant message. I did assume that Scheur was on the right side of the political spectrum generally. In fact, I now see that isn’t an accurate assessment of his views on “Israel, Bush, and the neocons,” as you put it.
It remains the case that Glenn Beck and Fox News are on the right, and that on this particular subject being discussed, the guest is expressing a far right view — and that even though I am on the right, I don’t consider myself on the “same team” as any of those people/institutions/views, and neither should anyone else.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 3, 05:15 PM · #
SDG, let me break this down for you.
A) Accuracy can justify a statement as civil.
You asserted this above.
B) The accuracy of the statement about what Scheuer said at the time is determined by what Scheuer said at the time.
Obviously true. That’s what accuracy means.
C) Thus, what Scheuer says later has no effect on the accuracy of the original heading.
D) By combining A and C, we know that what Scheuer says later has no effect on the civility of the original statement.
E) Thus, your thought experiment is rendered absurd.
There it is, SDG. Pixels on the screen. The only logically possible answer to my question is “nothing”. If you’ve offered any other answer, I’ve proven it false. It’s not a matter of “understanding” or “answering”, it’s a matter of logic.
— Consumatopia · Jul 3, 07:53 PM · #
Michael Scheuer clarifies himself here.
— Cody · Jul 5, 01:59 AM · #
What a waste of all our time…Conor, get real. You cannot be a serious critic of people like Levin who really need some criticism on the civil discourse front when you’re niggling away like this.
— Carl Scott · Jul 9, 10:14 PM · #