Freedom of Speech only for Liberals
After word came out that Bill Kristol – the neoconservative commentator – would become a columnist for the New York Times the blogosphere erupted. It didn’t take long until liberal bloggers started blasting the Times for its decision.
Of course, many of our open-minded (and foul-mouthed) liberal friends argue that it’s not about him being a neoconservative – no – it’s about him being wrong on many issues. And what was he wrong about? Why do they hate him with such a passion? That’s right, because he supported the war against Iraq and continues to support it.
O, my, my. How open-minded we are. When someone disagrees with us, we suddenly get our panties up in a bunch and pretend that it’s not about ideology, no, it’s about being wrong. Well, newsflash: quite some liberal columnists don’t have a better record than Kristol.
What becomes increasingly obvious is that the liberal blogosphere has an anger management problem. If they don’t want to read Kristol’s columns, don’t read them. No one forces you to subscribe to the NYT, or to visit its website in order to read Kristol’s columns. And, if people stop reading the NYT, the Times will cut Kristol loose.
Of course, our ‘liberal’ (and I use this word loosely; in its American context which basically means the exact opposite of classical liberalism) buddies know that people won’t stop reading the New York based newspaper, just because Kristol writes for them. In fact, more people might start reading the New York Times now.
And that bugs them. Darn that free market (probably yet another reason for them to oppose the free market and capitalism)!
They’re making complete fools out of themselves. Remember how Kos thought that people would attack Newsweek because he got a column there? Well, guess what: conservatives and moderates showed that they’ve got sense, and that they’re not afraid for free and open debate. In fact, many – myself included – even congratulated Kos with his new gig.
The liberal blogosphere can’t, sadly, do the same. When they disagree with someone politically, they make it personal and want to shut him up completely.
What a sad state of affairs and what an embarrassment for the great thinkers of the Enlightenment who actually adhered to a liberalism that encouraged debate.
The title of the post is misleading IMO, Michael. Even if you don’t think that Kristol doesn’t deserve his slot on the NYT, you must understand that others DO think that, and therefore exercising their freedom of speech, they will complain about it. I, while I find Kristol repugnant, don’t have a problem with him getting the job, it’s not like I’m going to read him, no matter WHERE he puts his pen to paper. However I can think of people I would strenuously complain about being given a venue, Fred Phelps for instance. While he has a right to free speech, I also have a right to make my displeasure about having his (Phelps’) garbage on a prestigious newspaper known. Does that mean that I want to shut down free speech?
Yes Lynx it does. Especially when it’s a pattern (and it is with our liberal buddies).
Will Billy Kristol call for his papers prosecution now that he’s on the payroll, ala SWIFT? Maybe that’s is a BIG problem with Billy the media wh###.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/us_government_terrorist_financ.php
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2006/20060623093557.aspx
Billy is more Buchanan than Bacevich, that is his problem. Pat has a sense of humor, Billy is just a pompous bore.
How dare those immature maniacs make the case that Kristol simply isn’t credible or reality-based enough a writer to get a column in anything more circulated than a pamphlet! Huff, harm, humbug and harrumph!
Well, I beg to disagree. Frankly, their own writing is so absurd (and of a poor quality; they don’t think things true) that they should think twice before criticizing someone like Kristol (who’s actually a fairly good writer, whether you agree with him or not).
What’s more, it’s none of their ff’ing business. Don’t like it? Stop reading the NYT.
Cowards.
How about this:
And, yes, keeping Bill Kristol off of the NY Times editorial page will deny him a voice in the marketplace. If you don’t count his own Weekly Standard magazine and regularly scheduled appearances on Fox.
Edit by MvdG: if you’re wondering why no one with a bit of decency respects far left bloggers, look no further than yourself. No name-calling and no swears allowed.
TBogg: you don’t have to respect me – Lord knows I feel the same about you – but you’d better respect my blog and decency enough not to swear (and insult). Your comment has been edited.
As for your quote: obviously he was wrong about that, which basically was my point. Of course you and other liberal bloggers were basically just as wrong as Kristol was, weren’t you all? You took whatever he said on face value seemingly, otherwise, why would you be so upset / feel so betrayed. Should we then conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about either?
Well, we knew that, but you get my point I’m sure.
Anyway, that’s exactly my point Tboggster: you’re still so upset about the war you so passionately oppose, that all those who supported it are your enemies.
How does it feel to live surrounded by perceived enemies huh?
* Swear again, and you’re banned. And no, I really don’t care what you think about that.
This certainly was one of the biggest nonsense causes to hit the blogosphere. Whether a newspaper which presents a variety of viewpoints includes a columnist who I generally disagree with is of near zero significance.
Michael, you are correct that many liberal bloggers have gone overboard on this. Many others such as myself have ignored this, and I hope that they also did so due to realizing that this is a non-issue. Incidentally, there were a number of conservatives who did object to Newsweek hiring Kos. It is hardly a case of liberals being close minded and conservatives being open minded.
Sully has an excellent response to Billy Kristol. His last paragraph nails it. Two of those writers are on my read list. And I’m a pinko lefty…
Larison(here and here)
Balko((here and here)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/quote-for-th-29.html
I look forward to hear the banter between Dowd and Kristol on irrelevant…
Seems to me that most of the hue and cry by "liberals" is protest against Kristol being allowed (paid) to publish in what they perceive as one of "their" media outlets.
How dare NYT defile the purity of their op/ed pages?
Tully says:
Yes, they’re so pure with the former "pay per view" firewall and Dowd. I just hope Billy and Maureen write on the same day. Pet owners can use the op-ed page to line the kitty box or bird cage…
I disagree, and not a bit. The intolerance – and I’m speaking from the perspective of a European observer – is mainly coming from American liberals these days. Notice also – as you did I saw on your blog – how hostile many reacted to the idea of bipartisanship.
The irony is that they’ll hurt their own party and cause if they keep that kind of behavior up. They’ve got to compromise and reach out, whether they want it or not. Militancy won’t get them anywhere.
The above is absolute gibberish. Pointless nonsense. And quite frankly Michael I don’t care whether you ban me or not. Three blogs later, you have few enough readers as it is, much less to support an "editor in chief" and "assistant editors".
Maybe another "rebranding" is in order.
The only explanation I can come up with is that The NYT is uncomfortable being one of the only organizations in the country who employs a genuine leftist (Paul Krugman), and they want to make up for it by bringing in a completely discredited radical like Kristol. Who actually respects the view of neocons anymore? Haven’t economic conservatives and evangelicals moved on past the notion of ideological fanatics hijacking their philosophies by conducting bizarre and hideous foreign policy experiments?
lol yes, we do poorly don’t we? Ah well, I guess we don’t have 20,000 readers because we don’t swear often enough. A ‘f*ck’ here and a ‘f*ck’ there would probably result in us stealing 50% of your readership, but since we’re not interested in that kind of readership, we’ll just stick to what we’re doing.
Why? Because it works for us and I couldn’t care less about you nor your "reality-based" (cough) opinions and readership.
Funny how you did take the time to comment on such a “tiny” (I wonder what’s “tiny” these days) blog, TBogg.
O, and you have no idea what we can and can’t do "TBogg."
And yes, you’re banned. Bye now.
Michael,
Yes, there is a considerable amount of opposition from liberals to bipartisanship. However this does not mean liberals are any worse than conservatives on this matter. Those who take this attitude (and it isn’t all liberals) are just following the path conservatives have been on for a long time.
Republicans already purged their moderates, and have shown intolerance for opposing viewpoints for years. It is unfortunate that many on the left are now doing exactly the same thing.
This does not mean that it represents the views of all liberals. Sure there are Edwards supporters (and family members) who argue that anyone who doesn’t agree with them isn’t an "actual Democrat." They attack Obama for considering opposing viewpoints. The polls still show that there are far more Obama supporters than Edwards supporters.
You say, " I’m speaking from the perspective of a European observer." I wonder if this is an accurate vantage point. As a European you do not hear the hatred of opposing viewpoints that Americans hear daily on conservative talk radio. You do not see less vitriolic but similar viewpoints from much of the broadcast media, which obviously is most prominent on Fox but extends to many others.
Using the blogosphere to judge is dangerous as there are so many bloggers with a variety of views.
It is easy to make a case that either conservatives or liberals are close minded depending upon who you quote. There are also other attitudes on both sides.
One additional point to demonstrate that some liberals have no objection to opposing viewpoints: You’ve described the New York Times in the past as being virtually a Democratic Party newspaper. If that is the case, then the fact that The New York Times has decided to carry the column of a conservative who previously called for their prosecution certainly must be taken as an example of liberals who support opposing viewpoints, and argues against the universal dismissal of liberals as being intolerant.
But who generalized it so much Ron? I’m talking about the ‘far-left’ and ‘radical liberals’ or ‘militant liberals (or progressives)’ not about liberals in general. I do, however, say that on average, liberals (in the blogosphere at least) tend to be less tolerant than conservatives, but saying "on average" doesn’t mean "all" or even "most."
It means just that: on average less tolerant (TBogg is a fine example).
"(who’s actually a fairly good writer, whether you agree with him or not)."
Did you just use "They do it too" as a defense? Listen, you don’t have to be a cook to dictate when mould tastes like mould.
Quality of prose is completely irrelevant as a kicker for getting that position or not. It needs to be there, but it is never enough for this context.
"What’s more, it’s none of their ff’ing business. Don’t like it? Stop reading the NYT. "
That is really weak. They are not talking about getting their subscription’s worth – they are talking about meritocracy and not promoting the lowest kind of conservatives just because you want to be diverse. As a person who is against cold-turkey withdrawal I also have another point against Kristol – if you actually care about an intelligent, bipartisan and reality-based discussion about Iraq Kristol belong to the stupidest, most stubborn and hyper-partisan crowd. He is a liability and not to be given more credibility or exposure.
I really disliked this post of yours, I felt it to be short in scope and consideration.
"Anyway, that’s exactly my point Tboggster: you’re still so upset about the war you so passionately oppose, that all those who supported it are your enemies. "
Supporting the war on Iraq before the actual invasion meant that you were an enemy, and so does favoring cold turkey withdrawal in my opinion. Chirac was my enemy for snuggling up to Saddam, on a related note. Andrew Sullivan was my enemy because of his stance on this issue, then he became sensible and today I feel he is indispensible.
"Seems to me that most of the hue and cry by "liberals" is protest against Kristol being allowed (paid) to publish in what they perceive as one of "their" media outlets."
Some on the left protest Kristol and anyone right-of-themselves because they fear any political divversity.
Some on the left, myself included, think that if you are going to get a right-wing voice then don’t give people like Kristol the impression that they are good, meritorious representatives of their political clique or their positions.
"The intolerance – and I’m speaking from the perspective of a European observer – is mainly coming from American liberals these days."
These days, maybe. But when this pendulum will swing later and the right-wingers go more intolerant (and they will) I hope you will be principled enough to demand from them what you demand from democrats today – that they dance the bipartisan bolero and the tolerance tango.
From Tbogg: "How about this:
If you think that is wrong, then you have no idea about the Islamic world. Sunnis & Shias, and Christians and Catholics(!) have been living side by side for 100’s of years all over the Middle East in places now called Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Syria and Iraq. Most of the neighborhoods in Baghdad are in fact intermingled with Sunni, Shia, and Christian, and there are many, many people that have intermarried between the sects. It has only been the very far fringes that have been waging war over religious lines the last few years, mainly fanned by spectacular al Qaeda attacks to get it started. Now that things are calming down, churches are re-opening. So, if that is your basis for calling Kristol wrong, spin again. It is understandable, if you have not spent time in the ME to think the way you do – after all, our media has portrayed this as an all-out civil war based on religious lines.
Some on the left, myself included, think that if you are going to get a right-wing voice then don’t give people like Kristol the impression that they are good, meritorious representatives of their political clique or their positions.
Since the only "good, meritorious representatives of their political clique" are generally ones that are universally liked, I will take translate that as "Don’t run conservative voices we liberal NYT readers don’t like." Which pretty much takes me back to my original statement. And I’m NOT a Kristol fan.
Great post, Michael!
"Americaneocon," Michael, in the name block above, Sorry
"Since the only "good, meritorious representatives of their political clique" are generally ones that are universally liked, I will take translate that as "Don’t run conservative voices we liberal NYT readers don’t like." Which pretty much takes me back to my original statement. And I’m NOT a Kristol fan."
I think the kind of liberals NYT should respect are capable of liking anyone who doesn’t spin but actually has a genuine and honest, if dissenting, view on what is to be done in Iraq. Kristol simply is too far away from respectability, no matter his political creed.
The problem, Xel, is that too many lefties define "respectability" exclusively as "agreeing with liberals". It seems that EVERY person that they disagree with about Iraq magically becomes "not respectable". That is certainly the case in huge swaths of the left-leaning blogosphere — disagreement about Iraq is simply not allowed on sites like DailyKos, Newshoggers, WhiskeyFire and Firedoglake. Since they see the NYT as their ideological turf (even while claiming that Times critics who charge ideological bias are off-base), they claim for themselves the right to demand that anyone they disagree with about Iraq is not “respectable” enough for the Times.
The whole "respectability" thing looks like a fig leaf for being just incapable of dealing with disagreement. The claim that his “political creed” is not relevant is laughable — his political creed is precisely what they find to be not “respectable” ever since Reagan and even Goldwater. Replace Kristol with anyone else who disagrees with liberals about Iraq and they would be making the exact same demands that they be removed or “disinvited” (just as they do on college campuses day-in and day-out). It is not like this “no conservatives need apply” attitude is new. In fact, the systematic efforts to exclude conservatives from “respectable” media outlets is precisely why conservative talk radio emerged in the 1980s and created the perceived need for Congressional Democrats to censor them there also.
And I have ZERO doubt that if the ideological tables were reversed, the lefties would be crying about "censorship" without reservation. In fact, in the ONLY such example that I can think of (Ward Churchill), that is exactly what many liberals are claiming.
So if you want to complain about lack of credibility, maybe you should be tending your own ideological garden first.
correction for Jason:
"The problem, Xel, is that too many lefties define "respectability" exclusively as "agreeing with
liberalslefties".Corrected.
I agree, that left can be intolerant to other opinions, plenty of examples abound.
I consider myself liberal though, and I can understand people calling for war on humanitarian premise or as just revenge or self-defense , but I will not respect , ever, academician Utopia of changing the world with military force.
Bolsheviks tried that one once already….
And Kristol is a unique case by itself, completely discredited propagandist who could not find the war he did not like, as long as USA is a participant in it…
No, he’s not. That’s the problem. The attempt to remove Kristol from the realm of public discourse under the pretense of "respectability" is only the latest and highest-profile case in a long line of cases where those who believe the "wrong" things (especially about Iraq) are targeted. David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin get targeted for intimidation and assault every time they make a public appearance. Conservative students who write for college papers are routinely fired by their leftist editors and are sometimes targeted for punishment by the college and or its professors too. Conservative speakers, already a tiny minority on college campuses, are routinely “disinvited” after threats from leftist student groups who object to them as “not respectable”. Any graduate students or junior faculty that believe the “wrong” things about Iraq learn VERY quickly to keep quiet or else put their careers at risk before they even get off the ground. I could go on and on and on and on.
“Not respectable” is just a fig leaf and a very old one at that. The truth is that there exists a large and influential group of leftists (especially in the blogosphere (Michael already cited several examples) and academia) for whom any disagreement on the issue of Iraq is BY DEFINITION “not respectable” and unworthy of inclusion in the public debate. These people do not merely have a problem with Bill Kristol. They have a problem with freedom of speech whenever they disagree with the content of the speech.
Let me add that as a professor of international relations specializing in security studies, I disagree with Kristol’s prescriptions more deeply and intensely than almost any of his leftist critics in the blogosphere are capable of doing so. I equally disagree with the prescriptions of radical anti-American critics like Noam Chomsky. But I do not attempt to remove EITHER from positions of commentary and I assign and discuss their views in my classes. I even initiated a discussion of Ron Paul (and you KNOW what I think of his views). Any genuine commitment to the principle of free inquiry cannot accommodate ad hoc exceptions like those being deployed by many on the left against Kristol. I don’t even need to discredit the “respectability” exception itself — the mere fact that they even TRY to cook up an exception reveals their true stance.
I understand, Jason.
And I am well aware of your position on the war and towards Kristol’s ideas ( you mentioned it before ).
Like I said, I do not see any liberal trying to stifle the likes of Kristol or the debates with him ( even personally as a human being I may not respect the guy ).
My correction to your reply to Xel was about lefty vs. liberal, here is where we disagree. Somehow the liberal term has been attached to the left in general, and that rankles me very much (being from USSR) when the respected definition of liberal gets attached to a simple socialist or ultra-lefty ( who are intolerant indeed)
Sashal, your correction was unnecessary. The actor in my sentence was "leftists" who demand compliance with "liberal" positions as the exclusive defining condition of what is "respectable" and therefore allowed full free speech rights.
Leftists who do so are not themselves liberals, although they act in the name of liberal ideas. They are rather a watered-down brand of totalitarian, claiming (as most totalitarians do) the mantle of liberal ideas while pursuing them in deeply illiberal ways.
It is an important irony that it is conservatives who disproportionately are the defenders of real liberal ideals in important areas of modern American society, including the media and academia. The leftists who claim to act in the name of those liberal ideals often betray those ideals in their actual methods.
That’s also due to the fact that many truly classical values are conservative values (old values). In fact, I believe that conservatism is the only way to keep liberalism ‘liberal.’
I agree, indeed.
Then if we agree on the idea that the true meaning of liberalism was corrupted and inappropriately appropriated ( sorry for non-English English) by lefties, I can not find disagreement with you, Jason, or with Michael.
Happy New Year everybody