Skip to main content

View Diary: Sirota - Tea Party shutdown is about reshaping America (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess it depends on how you define fighting back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  peter beinart (0+ / 0-)

      you'll excuse me if i don't take his analysis too seriously.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 12:19:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Try reading beinart's original piece (0+ / 0-)

        instead of this whiny, self-serving defense from Dreyfuss, which misses the larger point of the criticism of the neo-con label altogether.

        Here is one passage from Bienart's article:

        Call the people who want America to dominate the world militarily without the constraints of international institutions and international law “imperialists.” Yes, the term has negative connotations, but what distinguishes people like Kristol and Abrams from those liberals who also support military force in places like Bosnia and Syria is precisely the former’s open scorn for the idea that America should be bound by rules that other nations help craft. Liberal interventionists trace their intellectual ancestry to Woodrow Wilson, who tried to turn international affairs into a sphere regulated by law. Neocons scorn Wilson and revere Theodore Roosevelt, who believed, at least for part of his career, in unfettered American power

        So, Beinart does not want people to stop talking about the policies and consequences that are now glossed as neo-conservativism. He is saying that the label is leading to a muddled understanding of this political agenda. For example, the neo-con, as opposed to the Imperialist label, still allows the conceit that this brand of hawkishness is pro-democracy, as well as carrying a potential anti-Semitic connotation.

        You may disagree with the label argument but Dreyfus's defense completely misrepresents the terms of Beinart's argument. So, it is good to double check sources once in a while before merrily deciding that some writers should be dismissed out of hand, regardless of their argument's merits.

        •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

          you defend iraq war hawk beinart, you've lost the argument.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 12:36:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

            First, I am capable of distinguishing the merits of an argument from its messenger.

            Second, Beinart in 2006 apologized for his support of the 2006 invasion, declaring it a "tragic mistake." Admittedly, a little too late but a cut above many pundit proponents who continued to justify the war to the bitter end, folks like Christopher Hitchens (On that point, I disliked much of Hitchen's hawkish foreign policy arguments but endorsed his views on the dangers of all forms of religious fundamentalism).

            See how that works, one can say I agree with you on that stance but disagree with you on this other one.

            So, I suppose one could say that you have lost the argument when falling back on absolutist proclamations that do not consider the substance of the claims in question but......

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site