Imagine If A Republican Said This, Mark MCXXXIII
In to the ever-growing list of cracks from liberals that would have resulted in a firestorm of outrage if a Republican had said them but which instead result in a deafening silence from the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere, we can today add Joe Klein’s comment that Charles Krauthammer’s wheelchair makes him unqualified to take a position on Iraq policy because it results in of a lack of first-hand observation by Krauthammer:
“There’s something tragic about him, too,” Klein said, referring to Krauthammer’s confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. “His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s writing about.”
The quotation is so over-the-top out-of-line that it begged the question as to whether Klein was misquoted. But Klein himself offers a confirmation/clarification which narrows the scope of his criticism, though not a lot. Klein’s modified position is that not all disabled people are prohibited from commenting on subjects without first-hand observation, but rather only those who have ideological predispositions Klein disagrees with:
So it is possible to write brilliant, nuanced commentary—on the war in Iraq, for example—without visiting there. But it sure does help to understand a complicated situation in an unfamiliar culture if you can see it for yourself. Indeed, I believe the leavening effects of direct experience are especially valuable for those who are blinkered by ideology and debilitated by extreme views.
Personally and logically offensive double standards from some arrogant liberals. What a shock.
BTW, I disagree with Krauthammer’s approach to Iraq and Iran and, well, pretty much everywhere. But Klein’s particular reason for dismissing Krauthammer’s views is a betrayal of everything liberals are supposed to stand for, and what far too many of them including Klein have long since sacrificed in their partisan vendettas.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
The notion isn’t outlandish per se, but you need to argument for its relevance and justification to a *very* high degree before you just throw it out there, especially before you try to apply it to a specific person put in a circumstance like this one. What has Klein done that he can show as evidence that you need to see Iraq before you can be an authority on it? Has he done a detached and respectful critique of Krauthammer’s writings that explains how you miss out on a nuance if you don’t experience Iraq first-hand? No, he just defaults to a disrespectful dismissal because he can’t bother with the substance, like some of the right-wing attack dogs Klein no doubt lambast. What the heck? If you can’t back it up with your own work and a strong dose of civility, humility and respectfulness you can’t raise the notion in a transparently off-hand way like that.
The notion that some relevant observations can come from first-hand assessment is valid.
The notion that only first-hand observation can produce relevant observations is beyond elitist, as it would say that only those wealthy or privileged enough to have access to international travel accounts shall be allowed to speak on global affairs.
The notion that first-hand observation is a required prerequisite for speaking only for those who hold a particular ideology compounds elitism with ideological arrogance.
Bottom line: Joe Klein put his foot in his mouth and then decided to double-down on the technique.
P.S. I find it interesting that the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere is dead silent on this. Does anyone doubt the massive outcry that would have come if Rush Limbaugh had said something like this?
“The notion that some relevant observations can come from first-hand assessment is valid.”
Sure, that was what I was talking about.
Re: “What has Klein done that he can show as evidence that you need to see Iraq before you can be an authority on it?”
Well, what he has not done is reflect on the fact that Obama delivered his big speech outlining his plans for peace in Iraq and Afghanistan just *before* making his first visit there.
Of course there is no immediate comparison because, obviously, Obama is not debilitated by extreme views or blinkered by ideology.
“Of course there is no immediate comparison because, obviously, Obama is not debilitated by extreme views or blinkered by ideology.”
The thing is that I can’t tell if you are being ironic. It’s disconcerting.
Garland: I’m pretty sure Tom’s being ironic. Hint: he has a blog of his own. Read it.
Tom, good to see you here and: I agree completely. Obama is moderation personified.
“Garland: I’m pretty sure Tom’s being ironic. Hint: he has a blog of his own. Read it.”
The preview I just got in his comment didn’t really make me think his blog is that interesting to anyone. If I wanted the sort of convoluted irony that requires present knowledge of the writer’s ideological peeves and fixtures to figure out the actual message, I’d read Mark Steyn. And I don’t. Let’s just say it’s my loss.
I guess Garland is himself a bit blinkered, as Tom Maguire is one of the most famous bloggers in the entire constellation of blogdom. It was Tom’s relentless truthfulness in the light of Dan Rather’s relentless slithering that sent Danny and his producer Mary to a rightful retirement, IMHO.
BTW, I am a State Dept. Arabist who has spent most of a decade living in the Middle East in U.S. Embassies as a Political Officer, so I guess that disqualifies me from thinking Joe Klein is a compleat fraud in matters concerning Iraq. My thought is blinkered from so much context that I have to agree with Krauthammer, despite his obvious “disabilities.”
“I guess Garland is himself a bit blinkered, as Tom Maguire is one of the most famous bloggers in the entire constellation of blogdom.”
So anyone more famous than Maguire is therefore of even more interest and value to a prospective reader, and deserving of its readership to the point that people who don’t want to read it must be “blinkered”. Interesting hypothesis with interesting implications.
You mean like this quote:
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
PS I am anything but a Limbaugh fan.
If we take Klein’s argument as it is, nobody is qualified to comment on matters related to Christianity, even the Pope, because nobody has actually ever met Jesus.
Klein’s point of view is actually quite anti-intellectual. If the only person who can comment on any subject is someone with first-hand experience, it eliminates all need for public schooling and any life of the mind. No one would need to read literature, history, or any other subject – just go out and fumble through life.
Klein proves himself to be an utterly heartless, cruel man, and an anti-intellectual to boot. No surprises here. Klein makes Rush Limbaugh look positively thoughtful by comparison – and I am not a fan of Mr. Limbaugh, folks. Stay classy leftists – the same guys who think “Bomber Bill” Ayers is just another kind hearted social activist.
Klein is espousing a variant of the left’s beloved (flawed, dishonest, and self-contradicting) “Chicken Hawk” argument. Under that standard, of course, only a very few elites are qualified to have opinions on anything. How…democratic of them.
What Klein said was that some nuances simply are unavailable without first-hand experience, that is a valid criticism for anyone, wheelchair-bound or not. What I found so disagreeable is that he didn’t explain why this pertained to Krauthammer – that is, what nuance he could provide about Iraq that Krauthammer could not. That, and the “tragic” remark is either insincere and unbelievably crass or simply a haughty posture.
Another thing I find disagreeable is how every left-wing breach and misconduct is a suitable basis for generalized snark about a sizable and diverse group of people, but we all have our scabs to scratch at, I guess.
that is a valid criticism for anyone, wheelchair-bound or not.
Not really. Certainly not when one fails to detail which “nuances” are being referred to, as you yourself just said. It’s an artificial stricture that claims that emotional experiences are more valid than objective knowledge, but only if they are the approved emotional experiences, the current party line. And yes, that’s a perpetual scab on the body politic of the pseudo-elite, and substantively the same as the “Chicken Hawk” argument. Nor is that bad logic restricted to the left, that’s just where it’s most notably and frequently displayed. As in this particular example.
That same argument in many variations is used to discredit anyone not of a certain group or class from having any “valid” opinion about issues pertaining to that group or class that run contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy of the group or class, regardless of how well that contra opinion may be grounded in actual facts and events. It’s defensive thinking, and one of the certain hallmarks of such attempts at discreditation of others is that the groups and individuals espousing the argument never apply it to themselves. It is a tactic exclusively reserved for sustaining orthodoxies by discrediting critics, regardless of the validity of the criticism.
Using the same logic, only those of us who have been elected officials can have valid opinions on legislation. Etc.
“It’s an artificial stricture that claims that emotional experiences are more valid than objective knowledge, but only if they are the approved emotional experiences, the current party line.”
Not necessarily, though I see what you mean. I think that sooner or later there will be knowledge about a general area or subject that can’t be synthesized without loss into any second-hand form of information. It’s not on an emotional but on a cognitive level, and is therefore not possible to convey second-hand yet relevant with regards to the subject.
“Nor is that bad logic restricted to the left, that’s just where it’s most notably and frequently displayed.”
I checked the dictionary and the plural of “example” is “examples”, not “data”.
“That same argument in many variations is used to discredit anyone not of a certain group or class from having any “valid” opinion about issues pertaining to that group or class that run contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy of the group or class, regardless of how well that contra opinion may be grounded in actual facts and events.”
The thing with “first-hand exclusive” awareness of a subject is that it is difficult to put into words, but anyone who invokes that line of defense must at least be willing to try and explain why his or her perspective has resulted in a higher degree of authority. It’s such an easy way out that attempting to take it must be accompanied with severe humility and honesty. Klein snuck out quickly and with poor poise.
Since you and most other liberals remain silent when the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere does the same and even worse on a daily basis, your complaint carries no weight.
Also, it is not like Klein’s behavior here is unusual. There is a pretty strong pattern of liberals finding reasons that those who disagree with them are supposed to be disallowed from speaking at all. Klein’s reason here is based in his opponent’s physical disability. Liberals on college campuses use the excuse of enforcing “tolerance” to enact speech codes with the same effect. Liberals pressuring the New York Times and other newspapers to remove all conservative voices from their op-ed pages use justifications that boil down to “they think bad thoughts”. But regardless of the presence or absence of justifications, the pattern IS valid, Garland. If that fact is “disagreeable” to you, perhaps you should start confronting some of your fellow liberals and get them to actually change it instead of just trying to ask us to be pretend it doesn’t exist.
“Since you and most other liberals remain silent when the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere does the same and even worse on a daily basis, your complaint carries no weight.”
Even if you could prove this was the case it wouldn’t change the fact that “we” are perfectly right to complain. The “they do it too” or the “you don’t apply it everywhere” excuses can’t defend a transgression against the basic expectation of extensive data backing up extensive claims. Your claim that what “we” say doesn’t carry weight doesn’t carry any weight, and so on. All this would go away if people stopped taking every opportunity to make assertions that feel good to throw around but can’t be reciprocally backed up with respect to the magnitude and scope of the assertions. I’m not planning to send you to a reeducation camp (but “we” have those. Or we will soon.) or anything, but I don’t want anyone to think those sort of claims are persuasive in the slightest unless you already agree with them.
Yet you frequently fail to either provide data yourself when making the “Republicans/conservatives do it too” responses or to make any such demand when other liberals do so. Here we again see your hypocrisy and double standards on display, ironically while you are in the very process of trying to excuse your own hypocrisy and double standards.
Anyway, if data is what you need to prove the existence of a general pattern of liberals finding excuses to suppress speech they disagree with, I urge you to check out the database of college speech codes at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. You can also review the recent controversies where the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere loudly and uncompromisingly insisted that the New York Times, Philadelphia Enquirer and other major left-leaning newspapers either fire or refuse to hire conservative op-ed writers. You can also review the statements made by many liberals calling for the return of the Orwellian-misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” as a tool to shut down conservative talk radio. I’m comfortable asserting the existence of the pattern because the pattern is so clear across multiple domains. The data exists and is easily found, as are the pathetically ad hoc and unprincipled efforts of liberals to try to deny it or explain it away rather than deal with it honestly as a problem within their own movement.
And I will remind you again that if you really want to object to the pattern, the best way to do so is work to change the pattern instead of whining about it with your effectiveness hobbled by your own hypocrisy.
P.S. Let me guess — the examples I provide above aren’t “extensive” enough to be treated as “data”. I saw that evasion coming the first time you made a demand for “extensive data” as a prerequisite to your willingness to deal honestly with a criticism.
“Yet you frequently fail to either provide data yourself when making the “Republicans/conservatives do it too” responses or to make any such demand when other liberals do so.”
The thing is that you can keep making assertions every time you are criticized. You are probably perfectly right, and it doesn’t change a thing. This isn’t a case of a subjective complaint used selectively or with bias. This isn’t a case of judging paintings differently depending on the painter, it is a matter of pointing out what sort of wood was used in the frame. When a person happens upon a painting with a mahogany frame and says that the frame is mahogany, his lack of a history of pointing out every mahogany frame he sees doesn’t suddenly make the frame in question turn into sandalwood. Inherently assertions in this thread had the quality of not being backed up; they were framed in mahogany. I point out that quality and I am perfectly accurate. Doesn’t mean that I’m not biased – but my bias doesn’t take away this quality from the assertions. I don’t see many liberals on this site who I can fail to criticize for making generalized statements that lack any serious attempts at foundation, maybe this could explain your point of contention.
“Anyway, if data is what you need to prove the existence of a general pattern of liberals finding excuses to suppress speech they disagree with, I urge you to check out the database of college speech codes at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.”
Link didn’t work, but I checked it out. So apparently you’ve devoted some time to research this – good work. Have you studied the contemporary contentions over free speech in general? Naturally, if you focus on either left-wing encroaching on free speech or only the situation in academe, you are going to be given the impression that they are worse on free speech. I still think your corpus doesn’t lend itself to say x about left-wingers or leftists every time an anecdote crops up. The statement is still too sweeping and heavy to be carried by the examples of college speech codes, sinister and unacceptable thought they may be.
“Liberals pressuring the New York Times and other newspapers to remove all conservative voices from their op-ed pages use justifications that boil down to “they think bad thoughts”.”
The NYT and other newspapers are a part of the market. Of course you can use your free speech to persuade a newspaper to drop a columnist – if left-wingers are better at using their free speech to that effect, so be it. If it was the other way around, so be it. That’s not a constriction of free speech from my point of view. “They think bad thoughts” is probably not an inaccurate summary of their “reasoning”, but the way I see it they are not limiting actual speech, something that can’t be justified anyway.
“You can also review the statements made by many liberals calling for the return of the Orwellian-misnamed “Fairness Doctrine” as a tool to shut down conservative talk radio. ”
*Public* conservative talk radio. Yes, I agree that despite the rationale about there being a limited range of public FM bands, it makes no sense to somehow keep things 50/50. It’s impossible and arbitrary to create those proportions.
“P.S. Let me guess — the examples I provide above aren’t “extensive” enough to be treated as “data”. I saw that evasion coming the first time you made a demand for “extensive data” as a prerequisite to your willingness to deal honestly with a criticism.”
Course they are data. I’m simply pointing out that the scope of the data is not supposed to be dwarfed by the scope of the statement.
The thing is that from the beginning I was objecting not to the idea that left-wingers might be prone to limit speech (the assumption that I was just came out of the blue, which is another observable pattern) but rather questioning Orson’s, Michael’s and Tully’s attempts to sneak in a few lazy blanket jabs.
A few lazy blanket jabs? Heh.
The apologists really hate it when you’re on target.
The “You are saying I’m wrong, which means I’m close to the truth” canard. More laziness.
That’s not what I said, but I’ll leave the misrepresentations and ad homs to you.
Garland, you have been repeatedly warned about willfully lying about what other people did or did not say. You are now banned for 7 days.
Jason;
That will make it a very quiet blog.
Garland’s not here, so he can’t see me defend my statement. Oh well.
But I stand by my point. It may not have been the best constructed argument, and so perhaps Garland is right to call me out on that, but Klein is saying that without first hand experience, it is easier for ideology to blind you.
I simply disagreed, and thus pointed out that all the priests, popes, bishops, and pastors of the world have no first hand experience with the tenets supposedly taught by Jesus, and yet claim to be able to write about and make proclamations on these things.
On the other hand, a huge number of people had first hand experience on the Iraq War, and still disagreed on how to go about it. Likewise, a huge number of people had first hand experience on detainee interrogations and still disagreed on how to go about it.
So the assertion that first hand experience necessarily gives you the ability to clearly see the truth of a situation is wrong. It may do that but it also may not.
The core of the claim is that one can’t truly comprehend an issue/event without first-hand experience to fire up the old nuances. But “nuance” in the context used is generally just code for an unstateable subjective emotional “understanding.” The idea is that without that unstateable subjective emotional nuance impact on one’s psyche one cannot reach a “valid comprehension” of the issue/event. “Valid comprehension,” of course, means “agrees with the person claiming to understand the proper nuances through first-hand experience.” If you differ or dissent, your opinion is automatically invalid. And if you agree, no nuance is required!
As I noted, regardless of who is making that claim about what, the claim itself is universally used near-exclusively to invalidate and discredit and disqualify any observation or opinion that differs from the orthodoxy of the group or person claiming unique understanding, regardless of actual validity — even if they themselves have no first-hand experience, and are simply supporting the orthodoxy of others. As with the Chicken Hawk meme pushed by the anti-war crowd, the vast bulk of whom have zero military experience.
Also routinely seen with minority-status issues. Even there, the qualifying nuance is often borrowed from generations previous, as if the qualifying emotional nuance was genetically transmitted. Unsurprisingly, that genetic nuance memory is only acceptable if you agree with the orthodoxies of the claimant.
Michael, that is precisely the point I was gently making earlier. Thank you!
If we only allow people with first-hand experience to comment on an event, we deprive ourselves of the wealth of comment, much of it good, which comes from people who study events or write about the human condition from a different position. As a historian, I recognize that I cannot personally observe what happened at an event in the past. However, I can examine the evidence left by the participants, read what other people at the time thought, and try to make an intelligent comment on what took place. Historians and writers constantly work with events they did not personally observe. Shakespeare may not have been in Rome, but knew enough about human nature and the history of Rome to make Julius Caesar an effective play, one that we continue to read.
First hand experience can be very important, but it is also wise to remember that participants often have emotional ties that prevent them from being impartial reporters. This comes back to a point I made earlier regarding presidential actions in war time. If we had investigated the actions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR during their lives, we might have treated them differently than we do, having had some time to put their decisions to suspend civil liberties into a larger historical context.
I do not believe that it is necessary for Charles Krauthammer to visit a battle field to write intelligently about the war in Iraq. Klein is welcome to his opinion. If he really believes that one should have first hand experience before writing, I would like to know how much experience Klein has with the subjects he writes on. I don’t know how much experience Klein has with living in a wheel chair, but I suspect it isn’t much. I don’t wish him the misfortune to find out what it is like. I do think Klein’s way of arguing his opinion that first hand experience is the most important way of understanding events was handled in a singularly tactless and hurtful manner. In that sense, Klein shows himself to be a very small man, indeed.
OK so not so quiet