or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
May 17, 2009
Sympathy Barf
By: John Caruso
Dennis Perrin suggests projectile vomiting as a reasonable response to some of The Nation's recent Obama-related output, like Katrina vanden Heuvel's ode to the alpha Democrat:
In a recent summation of Obama's first 100 days, KVH recites the standard litany, by now a staple to anyone familiar with Obamaspeak. But amid the apologetics stands this revolting sentence:
"But there are two areas which I fear could endanger the Obama Presidency: military escalation in Afghanistan and the bank bailout."
Note where KVH's concern lies -- with the Obama Presidency. That the man is incinerating poor people in Afghanistan while allowing prisoners held without charge to rot in Bagram cages, and is paying back his wealthy benefactors with more state assistance while millions of Americans struggle to meet basic needs doesn't seem to seriously concern KVH. It's how all this might "endanger" Obama's rule that moves her to write.
I agree with Dennis that her framing deserves special attention; just read that one sentence over and over, and let it sink in. It's also worth noting the deference to power represented by the erroneous capital at the beginning of "presidency"—which makes it clear that she's not talking merely about the period of time that will pass while Obama is president, but rather Obama's exalted reign itself.
Believe it or not, Dennis is actually too kind to KVH in this instance. Here's how she explained her concern about the way that military escalation in Afghanistan might "endanger the Obama Presidency":
On Afghanistan, I am concerned that it will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies, and negate the positive effects of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world.
Got that? Incinerating poor people in Afghanistan is bad because it might cost too much money to allow us to prop up the economy—among other similarly weighty and pressing concerns.
Note in particular the lack of any moral basis for rejecting a massive increase in the level of death and destruction inflicted by the American military in Afghanistan. This is par for the course for liberals these days; piffling considerations like human life or international law are discounted for them in the age of Obama, in which the golden calf of Pragmatism is worshiped with single-minded devotion. No, such outmoded concerns are the sole provenance of fuzzy-headed idealists who haven't managed to grasp that all the fundamental equations of moral calculus changed the instant a Democrat started doing the killing.
This is not to say these liberals don't care about human life, of course, even deeply; they just keep it in its proper perspective, as political expediency and U.S. exceptionalism demand. KVH demonstrated this careful balancing act a month earlier when she wrote that "Escalation will not increase US security or secure a better future for the Afghan people--indeed, more troops will certainly mean more dead civilians." So she did express some (muted) concern for the lives of Afghan civilians, but also made a point of properly subordinating it to "U.S. security"—thus maintaining her credentials as a serious mainstream commentator. And she prefaced this sentence with the same list of "pragmatic" considerations I already quoted above, putting concern for the lives of Afghan civilians sixth in a list of six reasons, where it belongs.
In that same article she offered this plaintive cry, which goes back to Dennis's point:
Up to this point, the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama, don't make this your war!
Again, see how she focuses on her beloved President rather than distractions like the war itself or its innocent victims. In her frame, war is not "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole," but just another personality-driven/partisan policy issue, to be judged in terms of how it might "endanger the Obama Presidency" or undermine "U.S. security".
Finally, note the hilarious conceit of addressing Obama directly—as though he might actually be reading and carefully considering her words for himself. This is the fatal flaw of liberals, which comes screaming to the fore whenever the Democrats they revere are in power: they genuinely believe they have an ally in the White House who shares their concerns and cares about what they have to say. The fact that in Obama's case we already have mountains of evidence to dispel that fantasy—even after so little time—matters not at all; like all dogmatic beliefs, this one is proof against reason. And the fact that people who labor under such a towering delusion also spend so much of their time accusing others of political naivete is just one of the many brain-numbing ironies we get to enjoy whenever a Democrat becomes president.
— John Caruso
Posted at May 17, 2009 11:11 PMBUT.. BUT.. We won!
Posted by: sam at May 18, 2009 05:57 AMSurely you're not suggesting there could be a problem that's so big it can't be properly addressed by a solemn, orderly, respectful candlelight vigil?! You blaspheme our powerful candles!
Posted by: A Good Liberal, Not Like You at May 18, 2009 07:33 AMSpot on! The Democratic party and its shallow hangers-on are the REAL impediments to truth and justice. No matter how one seeks to justify it, the wanton killing of innocent women and children is indefensible, and just not cool. Precisely because he is perceived as "cool", Obama has the potential to become a more dangerous president than Bush ever was.
Posted by: DFH Dave at May 18, 2009 07:49 AM"But there are two areas which I fear could endanger the Obama Presidency: military escalation in Afghanistan and the bank bailout."
Interesting that the two gravest threats to the Obama presidency are policies enacted by... Barack Obama. Also interesting that Obama, a man intelligent enough to become president of the Harvard Law Review, is not able to perceive that he himself is the greatest threat to his own presidency.
This isn't the first time I've seen this "Save Obama from Obama" meme. Carried to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that there is no other solution than for President Obama to resign - to save the Obama Presidency, of course.
Posted by: SteveB at May 18, 2009 09:17 AM*sigh of morning despair*
Posted by: Cloud at May 18, 2009 09:52 AMvandenHeuvel doesn't believe she has an ally in the White House. she doesn't believe in anything but her own paycheck and the influence her readership gives her. to get that paycheck requires having a big readership (on The Nation's terms of "big" anyway) and to have the big readership requires gulling a bunch of pwoggies and lib-wools.
vandenHeuvel knows what's up. she knows she's selling snake oil. she revels in it.
so it's actually much worse than Caruso suggests. she's not a true believer. she's a true liar.
Posted by: blue ox babe at May 18, 2009 10:38 AMI don't really want to get into a debate about what's inside Katrina van den Heuvel's head, but I don't see any reason to think that she doesn't sincerely believe the nonsense she writes. Human beings are capable of believing the most patently ridiculous things, especially when self-interest requires it.
Why shouldn't she believe this stuff? Millions of other people do, even if they're not getting paid for it.
Posted by: SteveB at May 18, 2009 11:07 AMYeah, she always sounds like a true believer to me.
Not that it matters. She writes something, people read, they relate. Whether she is one of them, or she somehow manages to capture and express their sentiment is irrelevant.
Posted by: abb1 at May 18, 2009 11:24 AMI've been reading vandenHeuvel for over a decade. there's no evidence she's a true believer. where's the circumstantial proof that she is? anyone have that? anyone at all? Bueller?
Posted by: blue ox babe at May 18, 2009 11:51 AMby the way... how would one find the circumstances which indicate true believer status?
my idea is that the first item of "proof" is the suggestion that she is a true believer, which means that the status is in the eyes of the follower, not in any assessment of vandenHeuvel herself.
I guess when political neophytes who think themselves deep thinkers read vandenHeuvel, they turn off their critical thinking faculties and find new ways to reinforce Donkeymania. that's what I think, anyway.
Posted by: blue ox babe at May 18, 2009 11:54 AMBabe:
My point was that it's a waste of time to try to prove or disprove any claim about what van den Heuvel really thinks. Since were talking about the contents of another person's skull, I don't know how I would even begin to "prove" any claim to your satisfaction.
I take people at face value. Katrina van den Heuvel writes something, I figure she probably believes what she writes. Why not?
In the same way, when Obama enacts pro-torture policie, I figure he must like torture. It's a lot simpler than spinning a theory about how he doesn't really like torture, but is forced to do what he does because of political pressure.
Taking people at face value, even when the people we're talking about are Bush and Cheney, isn't naivete, or a "concession" to the "other side." It's actually a more effective way to oppose arguments you disagree with, because it requires you to develop counter-arguments, rather than just dismissing your opponents with, "Well, they're just paid to say that."
Posted by: SteveB at May 18, 2009 12:17 PMLove me, love me, love me,
I'm a liberal.
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/ochs-phil/love-me-im-a-liberal-11453.html
Substitute "Afghanistan" for "Korea" in verse #5, and you're good to go. Change a few more topical references if you will; the burden of the song still rings true.
That vote for McKinney looks better every day, unfortunately. I would have loved for things to have been otherwise. Not to be. Still Marching, Marching to Shibboleth, it appears.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian at May 18, 2009 12:55 PM"Why shouldn't she believe this stuff? Millions of other people do, even if they're not getting paid for it."
Exactly. Blue ox babe, don't you know any Obamaphiles in real life? There's lots of sincere love for the man. It's annoying, but them's the facts.
That vote for McKinney looks better every day, unfortunately.
Hm, I voted for Nader. And a pretty significant number from the "red states" were holding out for Ron Paul. Each to his own anti-war candidate, eh? What's sorely needed is a left-right grassroots antiwar coalition party. Because that shit is the most important -- both morally, for the treasury, and for our long-term safety as well.
Posted by: Cloud at May 18, 2009 02:33 PMI've been reading vandenHeuvel for over a decade. there's no evidence she's a true believer.
Right, one can't tell from reading, but I get that feeling watching her on various talking heads shows.
Of course she could be a great actress, but then why would've she chosen this particular career?
Posted by: abb1 at May 18, 2009 02:47 PMOh, I dunno, look at the Bushian smirk KVH is sporting on the piccie on her blog. That's the kind of smirk that's saying: "Yeah, I know I'm a mealy-mouthed weasel - and I know you're too chickenshit to call me on it." But either way, La Nation has been a useless DNC rag since before Clinton.
Posted by: AlanSmithee at May 18, 2009 03:29 PMCloud,
Roger that. But I think we're going to have to have that hard rain first before there's any chance of this coming to pass. As long as war appears to be better business than peace, the real change ain't gonna come. I'd settle for things ending with a whimper instead of a bang; but alas, this is not the Way of Empire.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian at May 18, 2009 04:02 PMWhy, it's the face of a typical very serious person.
Posted by: abb1 at May 18, 2009 04:22 PM...La Nation has been a useless DNC rag...
But at least it's not a DLC rug, certainly better than TNR. They even publish Mark Ames sometimes.
Posted by: abb1 at May 18, 2009 04:28 PM...La Nation has been a useless DNC rag...
But at least it's not a DLC rug, certainly better than TNR.
Well, if you set the bar low enough...
TNR is better than WorldNetDaily.
WorldNetDaily is better than Free Republic.
Your turn.
Posted by: SteveB at May 18, 2009 05:14 PMWell, OK: for the general US landscape, the Nation is not too bad. A normal christian-democratic center-right sorta thing. It's not monstrous, I guess is what I'm trying to say.
Posted by: abb1 at May 18, 2009 05:31 PM. . .'Carried to its logical conclusion, it becomes clear that there is no other solution than for President Obama to resign - to save the Obama Presidency, of course."
Now that's witty.
"Surely you're not suggesting there could be a problem that's so big it can't be properly addressed by a solemn, orderly, respectful candlelight vigil?! You blaspheme our powerful candles!'
--If the powerful candles aren't enough, everyone can always chant "the people united will never be defeated!" That's always a crowd-pleaser.
Posted by: Not Exactly at May 18, 2009 06:04 PM"Precisely because he is perceived as "cool", Obama has the potential to become a more dangerous president than Bush ever was.'
So 'cool' is more dangerous than, say, evil? I have trouble following that.
Posted by: Not Exactly at May 18, 2009 06:16 PM"useless" might be hyperbolic to describe The Nation. Among it's editors and contributors are William Greider, Robert Dreyfuss, Mike Davis, Robert McChesney, and Gore Vidal, among many other important writers. Not to mention TomDispatch, frequently linked to here, being a project of The Nation Institute. I still subscribe to it, along with Z, Dollars and Sense, and Monthly Review.
What does it take to pass the purity test here?
Frankly, I think she could have good points if she tied it all in with civillian victims. Those are indeed making us enemies of foreign countries and making our (currently never happening)"future" pull out of Iraq impossible. What can we do about this? Should we campaign to impeach Obama?
Posted by: Jenny at May 18, 2009 09:55 PMBobS: That was AlanSmithee's description, so you'd have to ask him.
abb1: Yeah, I knew what you meant. There are the pure of heart there, as BobS. points out, when KvdH sees fit to publish them.
SteveB: You had me stumped for a second there. The Freepers are better than... Stormfront.
Your turn.
Posted by: Save the Oocytes at May 18, 2009 11:32 PMWell, I guess the Washington Times doesn't out-low Stormfront, but it may rate a higher nasty quotient than Free Republic.
Posted by: gluelicker at May 19, 2009 11:47 AMdo you really believe that hillary clinton would have made better or different choices here? or that the framing would be any different?
i appreciate the content here at a tiny revolution but every once in a while the conversation, as in this instance, really goes off the deep end.
it sounds to me like you guys are the ones with overly large expectations of what obama can/will do, not the "obamaphiles" you sneer at.
Posted by: karen marie at May 19, 2009 12:23 PM"do you really believe that hillary clinton would have made better or different choices here? or that the framing would be any different?"
Uh, no. (Looks around wildly.) Am I in the right place?
Posted by: Donald Johnson at May 19, 2009 12:54 PMHillary Clinton's being considered to replace Katrina vanden Heuvel as the editor of The Nation?
Posted by: John Caruso at May 19, 2009 12:55 PMBut you forgot the "good" part--now we have a Democratic Republican in the White House.
Obama Closes the Democrats’ Historical National Security Gap
http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2009/05/obama-closes-the-democrats-historical-national-security-gap/
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
What does it take to pass the purity test here?
PWOG ALERT!
Posted by: AlanSmithee at May 19, 2009 03:08 PMit sounds to me like you guys are the ones with overly large expectations of what obama can/will do, not the "obamaphiles" you sneer at.
Well, given that he is the freakin' President of the United States, my estimate of what he can do is pretty large, I'll admit. My estimate of what he will do, on the other hand, gets lower every day, and it wasn't very high to begin with.
Posted by: SteveB at May 19, 2009 05:11 PMmy estimate of what he can do is pretty large and considering that he bombed an ostensible, democratic ally within hours of being sworn in and without any consultation with the Congress, pretty large is sort of an understatement.
Posted by: drip at May 19, 2009 05:53 PM"What's sorely needed is a left-right grassroots antiwar coalition party."
No. What's solely needed is for people to stop using the government to force their views onto others.
"What's sorely needed is a left-right grassroots antiwar coalition party."
No. What's solely needed is for people to stop using the government to force their views onto others.
