hard heads soft hearts |
|
a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists. mobile
Archives
June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 April 2003 December 2003 June 2004 September 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 June 2005 August 2005 January 2006 February 2006 January 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 January 2013 March 2013 May 2013 June 2013 December 2013 February 2014 June 2014 November 2014 August 2015 January 2016 April 2016 April 2017 July 2018 December 2018 September 2019 December 2019 August 2020 January 2021 October 2021 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 October 2022 December 2022 January 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 Short List: Brad Delong Yahoo Long List: Arthur Silber The Note Arts and Letters Daily Andrew Tobias Daily Howler Talking Points Memo New Republic Armed Liberal Eschaton Eric Alterman Slate Salon TAPPED David Corn (Nation) BuzzFlash Max Sawicky Oliver Willis InstaPundit Patrick Ruffini National Review Weekly Standard Amygdala BartCop Andrew Sullivan Drudge Report Romenesko Media News Matt Yglesias Daily Kos MyDD PLA William Burton Matt Welch CalPundit ArgMax Hullabaloo Pandagon Ezra Klein Paul Krugman Dean Baker TomPaine Progressive Michael Barone James Howard Kunstler Pundits & Editorial Pages NY Times Washington Post LA Times USA Today Washington Times Boston Globe Stanley Crouch Jonah Goldberg Molly Ivins Robert Novak Joe Conason Gene Lyons WSJ Best of the Web Jim Pinkerton Matt Miller Cynthia Tucker Mike Luckovich "What's New" by Robert Park Old Official Paul Krugman New Official Paul Krugman Unofficial Paul Krugman Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Washington Monthly Atlantic Monthly |
Friday, June 14, 2002
On C-Span today you used an Orwell quote from 1942 that pacificists who wanted Britain not to fight were "objectively pro-Nazi" because Hitler also wanted Britain not to fight. Therefore today's pacifists are also "objectively pro-terrorist" because they reject any realistic means of opposing terrorism. The thing is, Orwell specifically repudiated his use of the construction "objectively pro-. . ." in his December 1944 "As I Please" column. Blaming "the lunatic atmosphere of war", he apologized to honorable pacifists he had maligned, and explained that the term "objectively pro-. . ." had its origins in 1930's Stalinist propaganda. Anybody who disagreed with Stalin on any issue was "objectively" on Hitler's, therefore a traitor. It was this logic that fueled the 1938 show trials. Orwell further went on: "the habit of accusing political dissenters of "conscious treachery . . . is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes harder to forsee their actions." The example Orwell gave was a pacifist asked to be an enemy spy. An honorable pacifist, he argued, would never betray his country. "The important thing is to discover WHICH individuals are honest and which are not," he wrote, "and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which [political] controversy is conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is a fool or a scoundrel."" Michael Kelly and Andrew Sullivan both approvingly quoted Orwell's "objectively pro-Nazi" 1942 article, seemingly unaware of his 1944 recantation. Gene Lyons rebuked them in his Arkansas Democrat-Gazette column, but obviously they didn't read it or chose to ignore it. Hopefully you won't do the same. You are free to use the "objectively pro-terrorist" formulation, though I hope you now see it is very sloppy thinking, but you cannot honestly do so while citing Orwell's example and authority. Also, you called Byron York "one of the foremost investigative journalists" in Washington. Byron York is not a bad guy, but your assertion shows what's wrong with Washington. I will accept York's credentials as an investigative reporter the minute he writes something that is not based on the subpoena power and good graces of Dan Burton, Orrin Hatch, and the witches' coven of Ashcroft/ Chertoff/ Comstock. |