Ignore those Election Results: Let’s Discuss Dirty, Fucking, Bomb-throwing Hippies
(posted by Mona)
Entertainment! That is, watching the neocons whistling past the graveyard as Americans continue to reject their movement and the GOP (tho at least one Cornerite admits after a Dem won a traditionally Republican seat on Tuesday in Mississippi, that they and their party are “frakked.”) For example, “neo-libertarian” Jeff Goldstein sees fit to post a lengthy “analysis” of the New Left’s fascist tendencies, a perspective he leaps to via approving reference to Jonah Goldberg’s trenchant opus, Liberal Fascism. Is Goldstein really unaware that the New Left is in fact a geriatric ideology, and nearly obsolete? Goldstein also advances the notion that there is some significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who today — you know, 2008, not 1968 — identify as “progressives.”
Then there is Goldstein’s pal, A. J. Strata, who thinks the militaristic foreign policy and economic disasters wrought during the past eight years would be as nothing to the voters, if only so many “purists” on the right would mellow about immigration. Really.
This is all tremendously amusing. Guys! The 60s are dead. The criticism of the Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty and abortion” no longer scares America. Further, the reason so many today eschew the label “liberal” and opt for “progressive” is because — beginning with the rise of Reagan, Limbaugh and Fox, the L-word became an epithet — not because, as Goldstein avers, progressives are cynically hiding a disdain for liberals and in their hearts despise them. Again: an awful lot of liberals have adopted the term “progressive” to get around the way folks like Goldstein have rendered the former label a four-letter-word.
Ranting about Democrats, liberals and progressives as being fascists ain’t gonna save the GOP fellas. Tho it is a ploy so ironic as to be nearly unbearable.
That, as they say, is all.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
As long as we can agree that they’re dirty fucking bomb-throwing hippies, that pretty much settles it.
Significant connection? A relationship, perhaps? Like, oh let’s say a lengthy relationship between Ayers and Dohrn and Barack Obama.
Oh, look! There is one.
How are Gleen(s) these days, Mona?
May 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
How are Gleen(s) these days, Mona?
Read about GG here, Pablo. Not that you are really interested.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Liberals = Fascists? Naaahhh…couldn’t be.
“Road to Serfdom” anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?….
May 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
From the same author as Road to Serfdom, Why I am Not a Conservative.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
That wasn’t much of a response on your part, now was it, Mona?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Sure it was Pablo — I gave you a link to a GG interview posted here recently, in direct response to your inquiry! And I’ll let Hayek speak for me in the essay I linked to. But from blogger-to-blogger, I’ve seen no PW response!!!!
May 14th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Very neat - this post actually harmonizes very well with the topic I emailed you about, Mona - which I’ve now fleshed out from thoughts I took down during lunch today. (The topic is tribalism vs. genuine thoughtfulness, how that is the real choice this November, and how that distinction makes natural allies of liberals, libertarians, and many other political ideologies.)
And you’re right - this kind of 60s-baiting (and other baiting) is really all the GOP has to run on anymore. They just keep reaching into that dry, sad well of hatred, and coming up with less and less water to carry.
This election is going to be an unmitigated disaster for them. That’s why they’re already starting to run around like furious, headless chickens.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Goldstein also advances the notion that there is some significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who today — you know, 2008, not 1968 — identify as “progressives.”
Yes. Yes he did. That is a true statement. He did ‘advance that notion’. You are correct. He certainly did. I read that post. I saw him do it.
Goldstein did, in fact, advance the notion that there is a significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who (self?) identify as “progressives”.
You got that right: He did do that.
Is there a point to making that declarative statement, or is that what passes for ‘an argument’ around here–in the classical sense of ‘argument’.
Maybe if you could post that observation in a snotty voice, like you would say it, then it wouldn’t be an argument, it would be The Mother Of All Argument Begging.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Gray, y’all just run with that, do. That Digby, Firedoglake, Obama, TalkLeft, Hillary, MoveOn, Steven Benen, Cernig, and the Democratic Party are all the Weathermen and Symbionese Liberation Army redux. Please. Do that.
Jeff has drafted the perfect, so-sensible GOP election game plan. Cuz most voters are living in 1968-1974.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Is “Gray” one of these types? I’m still trying to decipher the grand rhetorical importance of his rather strange trifle.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Chris asks: Is “Gray” one of these types? I’m still trying to decipher the grand rhetorical importance of his rather strange trifle.
Dunno, actually. But since I actually made a counter-argument in my post (i.e., that the term “progressive” in contemporary usage is not coterminous with the 60s radicals), I begged no question. (shrug) Gray must not have read me for comprehension.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
So now let me see if I follow this:
Goldstein also advances the notion that there is some significant connection between the 60s radicals and those who today — you know, 2008, not 1968 — identify as “progressives.”
Amazing how he “advances that notion”. I suppose the “recreate 68” web site is part of some Rovian plot?
May 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Gray, y’all just run with that, do. That Digby, Firedoglake, Obama, TalkLeft, Hillary, MoveOn, Steven Benen, Cernig, and the Democratic Party are all the Weathermen and Symbionese Liberation Army redux. Please. Do that.
Why don’t you just run with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux. Do that.
Oh, I see you have….
May 14th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Wow–I’m one of “those” types (shudder) to teh inclusive, diverse left…. Hug? Get a hug here?
Typists!
May 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Rob C writes: Amazing how he “advances that notion”. I suppose the “recreate 68” web site is part of some Rovian plot?
I had never heard of “Recreate 68″ until your link. If Rove were behind it, I would have.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Gray writes: Why don’t you just run with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux. Do that.
Oh, I see you have….
Dear me! As I age my memory has gotten less reliable, but I’d still swear I never wrote that (and would note you provide no link to my saying anything like it).
Whereas, Jeff did write just what I said he did. And as I suggested, y’all should try to sell that ‘68-’74 theme of “dirty hippie, New Left radicals” in election 2008. Hot damn, but it is brilliant!!!
May 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I had never heard of “Recreate 68″ until your link. If Rove were behind it, I would have.
“Rove, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!”
May 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Mona,
I think you missed my point. You said:
his is all tremendously amusing. Guys! The 60s are dead.
Since it’s the radicals on the Democrat side who are pushing whole ‘68 - ‘08 thing then maybe you’re griping about the wrong people.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
A theory emerges: idiocy of trolling is directly proportional to desperation of trolls’ dying, discredited movement.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
As I age my memory has gotten less reliable, but I’d still swear I never wrote that (and would note you provide no link to my saying anything like it).
Find me a link where I asserted that all the leftie things you named are a ‘redux’ of all the other leftie things you named. I swear I never wrote that. But you have already typed me and I responded in kind.
Whereas, Jeff did write just what I said he did.
Yes he did, he certainly did write that. That is without question, as I conceded from the start: “Jeff wrote that”.
However, unlike any position on this site, he doesn’t confuse an assertion with support.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Since it’s the radicals on the Democrat side who are pushing whole ‘68 - ‘08 thing then maybe you’re griping about the wrong people.
Which “radicals” — online and off — are pushing this? Please be specific and provide links.
Thanks.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
A theory emerges: idiocy of trolling is directly proportional to desperation of trolls’ dying, discredited movement.
I’ve seen that kind of thread-fu used on rightie blogs as well. It’s no more effective there and it rings hollow.
fail.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Which “radicals” — online and off — are pushing this? Please be specific and provide links.
Thanks.
Your standard of proof and argument support is clearly much, much higher for others than it is for yourself.
But it is your blog, so you can do that.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Noted: troll does not dispute veracity of theory - in addition to his own attempted “thread-fu” falling flat.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
OK now I’m bored with these fools. ‘Till next time, Mona.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Find me a link where I asserted that all the leftie things you named are a ‘redux’ of all the other leftie things you named. I swear I never wrote that. But you have already typed me and I responded in kind.
I never claimed YOU asserted anything, and in fact told Chris I was unsure of where you are coming from. By contrast, you did claim that about me that I advocated “run[ning] with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux.” Prove it.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Your standard of proof and argument support is clearly much, much higher for others than it is for yoursel
Then you can easily show how poor my argumentation is merely by providing copious (or even some) support for your claims, and contrasting my allegedly not having done so. So please, go for it, and to repeat: ‘Which ‘radicals’— online and off — are pushing this [‘68 - ‘08 thing ]? Please be specific and provide links.”
May 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
A theory emerges: idiocy of trolling is directly proportional to desperation of trolls’ dying, discredited movement.
From the Wiki:
“In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1][2][3][4][5] Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.
In contemporary usage, “begging the question” often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.”
You stated your premise and conclusion in reverse, but I’ll straighten it out for you:
Premise: “The trolls’ are desperate because their movement is dying and discredited.”
Conclusion: “Their idiocy is in direct proportion to their desperation.”
It’s contemporary “begging the question”. Hence: fail.
Is that better?
Now, see what I did: I made an argument: “your thread-fu is bad”. I brought in evidence from a mutually recognizable source, wikipedia, then stated my premises and conclusion drawing on support.
Now you try.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Then you can easily show how poor my argumentation is merely by providing copious (or even some) support for your claims, and contrasting my allegedly not having done so.
But I never claimed that you didn’t provide support for my claims.
See, you’ve already got a problem right there. Lemme go through that sentence for you:
1) You can easily show how poor my argumentation is
2) it is a mere thing to show how poor my argumentation is
3) you can prove it by providing copious (or even some) support for the claim in 1)
4) and I should contrast that with the alledged fact that you did not support the claim in 1).
using the term ‘merely’ is more begging the question, I’m not conceding it is a mere thing.
If it is a ‘mere thing’ and ‘easily done’ why does it take ‘copious’ support?
Who would ever attempt to contrast copious with “even some”? They are already the opposite….
Of course you didn’t support my claim.
Based on my arguments above, I don’t know if you are bright or not, but I don’t think you have a grasp on the whole assertion, premises, conclusion thing.
It seems clear you cannot discriminate between an assertion and support for a position.
I’m banning my own self, this is the short-bus of political blogs….
May 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Gray writes: Si scrutinia de quibus in numeris septuagesimo secundo, tertio et quarto memoratae Constitutionis incassum reciderint, habeatur unus dies orationi, reflexioni et dialogo dicatus ; in subsequentibus vero suffragationibus, servato ordine in numero septuagesimo quarto eiusdem Constitutionis statuto, vocem passivam habebunt tantummodo duo nomina quae in superiore scrutinio maiorem numerum suffragiorum obtinuerunt, nec recedatur a ratione ut etiam in his suffragationibus maioritas qualificata suffragiorum Cardinalium praesentium ad validitatem electionis requiratur.
Now, to repeat, where was it: “that I advocated ‘run[ning] with the idea that proteinwisdom, Belmont Club, John McCain, Freerepublic, Rush Limbaugh, Reagan and the Republican Party are all the NSDAP and KKK redux.’” Please be specific and provide links.
Thanks.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Where to begin…
Goldstein’s post only makes sense if you accept his view that the radicals/progressives/liberals of the sixties were fascists in the first place. I don’t think that’s the way most people see it.
The Democrats of today don’t look or talk like the radicals of the 60s because we’ve moved on. It does not mean that we disavow the past, it’s just that the world is a very different place now. I’ve never heard of the 68-08 thing and frankly see very little parallel between sen. Clinton and Obama and the flower children of the past. But if that’s how some Dems are conceptualizing it, that’s fine. As I said before, I don’t think being associated with the 60s movement is some sort of insult.
I think Mona’s main point is that Goldstein’s post is only going to appeal to the section of the population who believes that the hippies of the 60s were eeeevil fascists and that thread of eeevil fascism continues to taint the left. It’s not going to make sense to the rest of the population because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are so obviously not hippies.
Goldstein’s post is like taking the time to draw a mustache on your opponent’s portrait while your political ship is taking on water.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I am a dirty fucking hippie who lived in Berkeley from 1968-77. I even had a couple of friends who were real leftists. The rest of my dirty fucking hippie friends were just garden-variety liberals like me, Groucho Marxist-Lennonists. (Sigh; I miss the dirty fucking.)
Certainly, to a right-wing authoritarian, any deviation from received orthodoxy is treason, so liberalism is seen as objectively equivalent to either communism or fascism.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Bart Simpson [reading Mad Magazine]: “‘The Lighter Side of Hippies.’ They don’t care whose toes they step on!”
May 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
This is wierd. I left a comment for this post mentioning Paul Berman and the New Left, which Mona then cited. I wanted to see if the conversation had gone beyond that. But those particular comments are nowhere to be found.
What gives?
May 17th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Dain,
We’ve been having severe server issues. did your comment get eaten somehow??
May 17th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Dain,
That’s confirmed. I just got an email from AOTP admin saying that our hosting company, with breathtaking incompetence, deleted the whole site. Luckily we’ve got a backed up copy. But the site is only backed up once a day and so your comment got lost along with a bunch of others.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Mona,
Glad to see they did not lose the whole site forever!
Hang in there.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Yep–I checked in yesterday and it was a website for recovering substance abusers–I thought that someone was trying to tell me somethin ;0
May 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
At least I know what happened now. I felt like that sci fi astronaut that came back to earth to find things slightly different from what he remembered. For a moment.