Kevin Drum’s shameless cluelessness
Hi Everyone, Ross here. The following are my views. My comments on a certain moderate blogger’s veiws reflect my opinion alone.
In the post before this one, Greg links to Kevin Drum, citing his (rightful) disagreement with that fat Drunken waste of oxygen, professional asshole Christopher Hitchen’s ridiculous homophobia. Unfortunately, Drum isn’t so mindful when it comes to the drive to point out the unexpressable hypocrisy present in conservative war supporters without the balls to serve.
In the same post Greg linked to, Drum also opened his keyboard and allowed this to slip out:
I actually agree with the overall gist of Christopher Hitchens’ latest column in Slate. He argues that it’s absurd to think you’ve scored some kind of withering putdown of war supporters by pointing out that most of them (and their sons) haven’t volunteered for duty. Since I support police, fire, and social welfare programs despite the fact that I’m not a police officer, a firefighter, or a social worker, I think he’s right on this.
Really Kevin? REALLY? I mean, you’re not kidding?
You honestly can’t see the goddamned difference between supporting community protection, and urging the nation to fight an unjust war based on lies, and not having the balls to fight in the war?
You can’t see how ridiculous it is that the biggest supporters of the war can’t be bothered to risk their precious, pathetic privileged little lives, to fight in it?
While friends of mine are one transfer slip away from being blown up in Baghdad because they had the courage to do what these little republican pansies can’t, which is to enlist? While people I know came back from that war unable to sleep, changed into people I barely recognize? For a lie?
Luckily, Digby, who is far more capable of processing outright disgust without resorting to profanities than I am, had this to say about Drum’s absurd inability to see the difference between things that are so obviously different that even difference itself is forced to distance itself from the concept. Here’s digby:
Joining up to fight a war you support is quite different from these other things. A war is a temporary emergency while police work and firefighting are ongoing necessities to deal with everyday occasions of individual misconduct or accident. If there was an earthquake in Kevin’s neighborhood and they called for able bodied men and women to volunteer to help dig bodies out of the rubble, I suspect he’d be there.
But this war in Iraq, like Vietnam, presents an even more obvious illustration of why this is true. Any nation that wages a war of choice wholly for ideological and political reasons, particularly when it is opposed by large numbers of its own citizens, should require that those who share those ideological and political goals help with the physical fighting. In fact, they should lead the fighting. It is unfair in the extreme that stop loss orders and extended tours are being forced upon the “volunteer” army when those who support the war are unwilling to put themselves in physical danger. Self defense is one thing. Requiring others to die for your crusade is another.
The reason, in Kevin’s unjustly snarky terminology, that it’s a “withering putdown”, is that people are in Iraq, right now, today, and they’re dying for a lie. A lie that Kevin was only too happy to push in the runup to war, even if he didn’t think it was a lie at the time.
I don’t mean to make this personal, and I’m trying not to. I dont doubt that Kevin is a good person, but I can’t handle such brazen, self centered myopia.
Kevin got credibility during the lead up to the war as a ‘reasonable liberal’, but like everyone else who entertained notions that there might be a reasonable justification for invading iraq, he was wrong. If only people like Kevin Drum could simply admit, just one fucking time, now, that not only was the war wrong, it IS STILL wrong. And furthermore, that the people supporting it, the ones who don’t fight, are brazen hypcrites, cowards, less than scum who risk everything this country stands for so they can feel like their dicks are enormous.
People are dying for the ego, impotence and greed of sad, miserly cowards too chickenshit to ever set foot in combat, much less risk even joining the military of which they claim to be so proud. Kevin’s obtuse observations are simply disgraceful.
A better comparison than the inept one made by Drum would be, oh I don’t know, how about this one:
Lets imagine a rich unintelligent cokehead, the son of a Senator and vice President, who abused mind erasing drugs, and used connections to get out of well deserved jailtime for Drunk Driving, and then having the audacity to call himself a “Law And Order” type.
Let’s imagine also that same shithead, using daddy’s connections to get out of the war in vietnam, a war he supported.
Let’s imagine even more also that same shithead, using daddy’s connections to get out of the war in vietnam, surrounding himself later in life with people who never bothered to serve in a war they supported, now sending the sons of the poor to die for them.
How’s that? Any clearer?
UPDATE: Thank God that Kevin’s readership is also capable of seeing through this incredible, inexcusable bullshit. Click the link to read through the comments. There’s also something else I hadn’t considered. not only is Kevin just being dickishly obtuse, he’s also being politically retarded:
As one of his commentors said:
His argument may be logical. It may even be mathematically correct.
But politics isn’t about logic and the integrity of axiomatic systems.
….
That the argument may have a fine-line flaw doesn’t matter.
What matters is that it makes repugs recoil.
It is like a hard smash to the tip of the conservative nose.Furthermore it appeals to people’s passions.
Which is to say: you wanted the fucking war moron, now go fight it.
That’s simple and powerful and fundamentally true.
But oh no… leave it to the learned egghead liberal elite to toss this live ammo into the sand by comparing the domestic need for nurses to strapping on an AK-47 and doing Bush’s gamma-minus work in Iraq.
Not only is he being willfully clueless, he’s also dismissing and disrespecting his own side, giving aid and comfort to the Republicans who despise him.
And you know, I didn’t even mention how the Yellow Elephant tactic is also politically effective. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, it’s also fun to point out how the sniviling cowards who started this war are, in fact, sniveling cowards. Kevin’s unnesccesary dis makes me wonder if he’s just uninterested in actually winning against the Republicans.
I admit I’m being prickly about this – I’m sick and tired of seeming yes-men liberals soaking in the impression that people like Kevin are more eager to show how reasonable and agreeable they are, giving the appearance of currying favor, than they are in backing up the people on whose side they claim to be.
This isn’t patty cake, this is a war, and years from now we’ll recognize the defining political characteristic of our age as which side were you on. However, in the meantime, not only is he spouting off a ridiculously easily smashed logical fallacy, not only is he giving us yet another example of “see, even so-and-so doesn’t like the liberals”, he’s also wrong on this issue specifically. Kevin should be ashamed.
20 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Glad you brought this up.
From reading Kevin’s blog for a long, long time, I believe he is legitimately a nice guy. That is, he’s a milk-toast without a trace of cartilege, much less any bone matter in his body.
His game is to game the blog game, and he hopes he can make a living at it. Otherwise he’s going to be asking Radio Shack for his old job back.
I’m betting his gig at Washington Monthly is about to close. I find no joy in this, because I have to admit I think I would like Kevin, dumb-as-fungus as he is.
Comment by Karlsfini — June 28, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
Agreed 100%. Regardless of how you feel about military service anyway, we all have to admit that Operation Yellow Elephant is a great way to draw attention to the fact that people get killed in wars like this and others support it only because it doesn’t affect them.
Comment by Amanda Marcotte — June 28, 2005 @ 9:26 pm
When I chose the “Join or Die” image for this site’s logo, I was thinking in terms of liberals. There are times when I don’t think the left will ever get along well enough to win an election.
Comment by greg — June 28, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
greg, I feel you, but why do I always feel it’s people like me forced to move closer to the appeasers? This is serious business and Kevin treated it like a bad joke. I”m not opposed to legitimate differences, and furthermore, Kevin’s the one starting shit, not me. He didn’t have to agree with that drunken buffon at the expense of legitimate, hilarious criticism.
Otherwise, point taken. Word.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 1:09 am
Hell yeah!
Furthermore, we pay taxes to keep our police force and fire stations. When they propose to close them, people come out in protest. Yes, you don’t actually have to be a firefighter to support them but you have to be willing to pay a price to keep them.
For the Iraq War, we got tax cuts. What sense does that make? Bush wanted a war without sacrifice. Putting a yellow magnet on your car is not supporting the troops.
Comment by Unstable Isotope — June 29, 2005 @ 3:46 am
Great additional point, Isotope. One can clearly point to a shared contribution (if not sacrifice) for a police and fire department, etc. In fact, I’ve lived in many towns with volunteer fire departments. Sidenote: I was too young to pay attention at the time, but somehow I’d be willing to bet it wasn’t manned by Republican businessmen.
Comment by Mr Furious — June 29, 2005 @ 7:00 am
from my observations as a reader and blogger i can deduce that what kevin is suffering from is the intense desire to believe(aka delusion) that the people in power and those who support them are trying to say something meaningful or logical or are trying to do anything that in the old days used to be called sensible.
another thing. if there is anything that i have learned from these past 4-5 years it is that one should never trust columnists when they are giving your side a concession of some sort. this is especially true for republican-supporting(not conservative, because that term is not appropriate here) columnists. it is a shame that Mr Drum does not follow this rule of thumb.
Comment by almostinfamous — June 29, 2005 @ 7:56 am
Maybe it’s because you’re so unwilling to comprimise that you brand people you don’t agree with “appeasers”.
Really? Is disagreeing with the party line always considered “starting shit”?
For the record, I disagree with that portion of Kevin’s post, but I prefer to challenge my fellow liberals in more abstract terms than personal attacks on their “shameless cluelessness”.
Comment by greg — June 29, 2005 @ 8:36 am
Greg, that’s not fair. I’m perfectly willing to endure differences. hell, I have very little in common with Harry Reid other than general Party Affiliation. But I’m happy with him because, for the most part Reid actually stands up for his own goddamned side. (Usually)
I’m not asking people to agree with me on all things. But what i do want is for them to stop using people like me as a useful scapegoat whenever they want to show they reasonableness.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 8:53 am
Interesting choice of words there. When I disgree with someone, I rarely think of it as something I have to “endure”.
How are you being used as a “scapegoat”? And what makes you think that his post was based on “want[ing] to show reasonableness” rather than an honest difference of opinion? The way you’re projecting motives onto Kevin’s writing is incredibly dishonest. As you describe it, he’s a “yes man” who’d rather kiss conservative ass than stand beside his fellow liberals. You’re not a mind reader, Ross.
Would you be happier if Kevin were forced to sign a loyalty oath before logging into Moveable Type?
Comment by greg — June 29, 2005 @ 9:18 am
Greg, I’m not a mind reader, but I am a blog reader. It doesn’t matter if this is an honest difference of opinion or not. Kevin’s analogy was ill-formed and logically suspect. I’m not going to call it stupid, unless I just did. Not only that, his inability to recognize hypocrisy when he sees it is scary.
Not only that, but I do, proudly, consider liberals who support this god awful war, and those who are all too willing to agree with war supporters, something to endure. Those are the types of differences I meant. I don’t have to hate them, but I do have to deal with my personal revulsion and disgust.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 9:47 am
I’ll go ahead and admit that I’m part of the problem Ross alludes to. I try to adhere to some kind of moderation, and, in my moderation, I often ask that people like Ross retreat a little bit from the far left. On most things, I think that pragmatism is the best option, but I can see where on something as divisive as the war, with thousands of lives at stake (and billions of dollars, which I will not equate with the thousands of lives), my pragmatism could be–must be–infuriating to Ross and others. My attitude makes it easier for people to mischaractize people like Ross who deserve, at the very least, a big “I Told You So” on the war.
This argument is going to continue, though, until the left can find out what it is that unifies it. The disparate halves of the right can coexist because of a shared fundamentalism (not religious, just in general). The left needs its “fundamentalism” which I think should be “imagination” in order to be able to have its disparate parts more peacefully coexist.
Comment by E-Rock — June 29, 2005 @ 10:53 am
Let’s get this out right up front. I think George W. Bush is an idiot of the first order. But Kevin is getting a bum rap here. If the logic is that the only people with the moral authority to promote a war are those willing to fight in it themselves (or send their sons), doesn’t it follow that only those who fought the war have the moral right to then oppose it?
Comment by Tim — June 29, 2005 @ 11:20 am
Wow. It’s a wonder that you’re able to even leave the house. For someone who loves Yoda as much as you do, Ross, you sure are letting your anger steer you towards the dark side.
I agree and I count myself among those who deserve an apology, but Ross’s post isn’t about the war itself, but Kevin’s dismissal of the “Yellow Elephant” attack on war supporters.
Damn right. Join or die, my friends…
In case you guiys missed it, Ross isn’t my only co-blogger who felt compelled to respond to Kevin’s post. Tom Tomorrow and Ross make similar points, but there’s a pretty big difference in the way the issue is approached. Tom’s post keeps the response focused on what Kevin wrote rather than going off on tangents about what sort of person he perceives Kevin to be and is, in my opinion, much more persuasive than Ross’ rants about “appeasers” giving “aid and comfort”.
Comment by greg — June 29, 2005 @ 11:23 am
Non-Sequitor Tim. It does not follow.
So what you’re saying is that in order to oppose war, you need to have fought in one? How is that logical? By that standard, there will never be an end to war because we will constantly have to be in wars in order to give people the moral authority to stop them. Or something, I mean, I don’t fully understand why the point of Operation Yellow Elephant isn’t crystal clear.
But really, let’s get specific – War supporters on the right (Of the sort we are discussing here) not only support the war, they bask in the reflected glory of the war. They gain patriotic credibility and an appearance of manly action by their vocal support of the war and crushing inflexibility in defending it. They gloat about the soldiers, brag about the World’s Greatest Military (ary ary ary), and essentially, dress themselves up as valorious patriots, and they don’t do anything except talk.
These people, particularly college republicans, fully intend to make their careers as pro war conservatives. They’re profiting personally from this thing. They’re letting other people die for their own enrichment.
Meanwhile, the war orchestrators are begging for us to sacrifice, but never demanding anything similar from their children. I guess the proletariat are more than enough for their aims.
They ridicule opponents as less than men, and insult their patriotism. They ignore and downplay the very real bad news, and refuse to acknowledge the lies that went into it. They viciously go after anyone who dare criticize this thing, and talk about American plans for remaking the world as if they’re on the President’s cabinet. They are clearly idealogical supporters of this thing. So why does their support end at the risk of their own lives?
It’s also about calling out the elitist entitlement that these people display – They think they’re the idea people, far too precious to risk over there. Check out Digby’s post for examples of Just What I’m talking about.
They do this in a war that is underfunded, understaffed, and under supplied. They support a war that in any measurable sense they are unwilling to back.
Meanwhile, anti-war people actually work to oppose the war. See how that works? If you oppose something, then your duty is to do something about it. My being against this war means I have to do what I can to end it, even if it’s a largely sisyphean exercise right now.
If I were claiming to be some kind of huge anti war activist and leader, gloating about my involvement in the efforts to end the war (Which I’m not), and taking credit for the hard work done by the people of all political stripes to prevent and later stop this thing, and I never once did anything, that would make me a hypocrite too.
The point is, we’re not going after people who casually support the war (even though I may find their apathetic tolerance of a lie-based monstrosity to be utterly disgusting). I’m going after the people who brag, gloat, bask in and vainly preen in the glory of this thing, who are content to let other people die for this thing.
That’s why Drum’s comments are so obtuse. What’s I’m shocked by now is how willing some people are to come to the defense of cowardice and hypocrisy.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 11:50 am
First of all, I admit I go for the gut quite a lot. Certainly a lot more than Tom Tomorrow, but then, I’m not Tom. I have a difficult time separating the comment from the commentator, and I’m also vicious. (though cowardly – I’m writing from behind the safety of my keyboard. I’d feel far less willing to say this to his face. Brave, brave sir robin…)
Don’t worry, I know that by stating these things aloud, I can’t pretend they weren’t said. Should I ever meet Kevin, I fully expect he will rightly (should he know who I am, unlikely) not feel too happy about it, considering that I have gone for the throat and he never makes it personal. I do admire the fact that he handles incredibly personal attacks without resorting to rage.
As for comments on his character, I did actually say that I’m sure he is a good person. I happen to think that when it comes to moderate, policy issues, he’s a valuable voice, but on the issues of life, death, and political power, he’s like a club foot. I was wrong when I called him personally clueless. Perhaps I should have pointed out that it’s the comment, not the man, who was clueless.
I also said quite honestly that I viscerally despise his comment. I stand by that. And I reserve the right to be justifiably angry at such density in the face of such serious business.
But you know that I have been here, and to my mind, it’s people like Kevin who need to bring a little join or Die to the table. They had their chance and they were flat out, inarguably wrong. Now it’s time for them to try listening to us for a change. I don’t want an apology (Though E, totally rad of you to note the situation accurately). I want the left to close ranks like the Republicans, and fight to be back in power. I’m not breaking ranks, I’m mad because someone else broke ranks.
Kevin’s comment amounts to a complete dismissal of a very reasonable response to this nonsense, and an agreement with someone who despises us. The implication is that on the issue of cowardice and moral responsibility, he considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies aho are rightfully pointing out this nonsense. For reasons I can’t comprehend, by the way, and I’m going to call him out for it.
But Greg, I did join, you know that. I’m here. E-rock and I don’t always agree, but we’re close freinds and I respect his opinion – because Earnest doesn’t make a habit of ridiculing and dismissing reasonable positions that he doesn’t share, from people on his own side.
However, you must never, ever, ever question my Loyalty to master Yoda and his teachings.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 11:59 am
That would be a lot easier of people on the left weren’t so willing to throw words like “appeaser” around every time someone on our side says something they disagree with.
I happen to agree with Tim and Kevin that the demand that war supporters immediately enlist is a weak one. That’s why I haven’t joined in this whole “Yellow Elephant” thing. But at the same time, I do think that the people who actively sought this war (that was a diversion from the war on terror) have a moral obligation to address the shortcomings that stand between us and victory by encouraging enlistment, ensuring that the President is accountable for his mistakes, etc. Does my failure to tow the party line (as defined by you) mean I’m giving “aid and comfort” to the Republicans?
Once again, you’re projecting motives on Kevin. If Kevin says anything that agrees with Hitch, he “considers Hitch a more reasonable person than his own allies”. You’re being just as hysterical as the hypothetical wingnuts that I reference in the post I did an hour ago. If Kevin writes something you disagree with and you consider it a stab in the back, that’s your problem, not his.
Perhaps you should reread the post you’re bitching about. The part you quote is just an introduction to a post that attacks Christopher Hitchens for misrepresenting liberal opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
Comment by greg — June 29, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
Yo greg,
You didn’t ridicule it. And thank you for not quoting some conservotard douchebag, and agreeing with him.
You have the right to disagree, and I’d happily engage in a debate with you on this subject. But if you were to make an easily torn apart false equivalency, such as made by Kevin and Tim, I’d be forced to rip it apart. (I hope you’d do the same for me)
More so, I’d like to know how you think that the college republicans, who are the first target of Yellow Elephant, aren’t legitimate targets in this manner. I earlier said:
If you think calling out their cowardice and hypocrisy is a waste of time, fair enough. I am interested in your view on this. But I doubt you believe these hypocrites are somehow morally equal to you and I. And I doubt you agree with Kevin that somehow we’re all hypocrites in this matter because we don’t join the fire department. Rubbish!
Kevin’s and Tim’s (and Your) disagreement may be completely legit, but what they said was just, well, not logical. Honestly, you can’t seriously believe that there’s a comparison between war and law enforcement, between social work and air raid bombings. And you can’t seriously believe that anti-war protestors who haven’t served is somehow even remotely close to pro war supporters who let other people die for their crusade.
Meanwhile, what I said was:
I took some pains here and in the start of this post, to point out that Kevin disagreed with the bulk of Drinky the Drunk Pundit’s article.
Now, I know you think it’s a bit extreme, and perhaps you’re right, but I wouldn’t throw the word “appeaser” out there if people didn’t act like, well, appeasers. Too many so called liberals seem to bend over backwards looking for common ground with these people.
Why is it always people of my political proclivites who are criticized for not being united? Why are we the only ones called out for being disunited, when Kevin’s illogical comments were a direct attempt to ally against a perfectly innocuous rhetorical device on his side?
My wish is not to enforce strict idealogical purity. As a pro second amendment Liberal, I think I have fair credibility in the divergent veiwpoints department.
(There, I just came out to Greg’s readers as a supporter of gun rights. The difference? I NEVER vote republican, and I despise the NRA, first for opposing sensible gun laws, and second for supporting fascism.)
What I want is for the public face of the democrats to scrap, to fight, to stop being so flippin’ mushy and be partisan attack dogs. I want political blood, and I want to win, and I want the moderates to quit trying to make nice.
For example, Greg and I may disagree all we want, but in the past, Greg knows I’ve viciously defended him on this website whenever he’s been trolled or maligned. That’s unity.
Why aren’t people with more authority and credibility than I have lamblasting the moderates to toe the line, to stop embarassing us? The thing is, people like me have no power, and we’re ignored, even as we’ve been proven right, over and over and over again.
Not only that, but I think if you look at the facts, you’ll see that we’re begging for unity. Begging for it.
We were united behind Dean when he said a factual statement about the republicans, while the moderates couldn’t wait to slimily distance themselves from his remarks, and give the republicans more fodder for the Dems hate howard meme.
We were united behind Durbin until he caved.
We’ve been united behind Reid, even considering the serious worries we had in the beginning.
What we do want is to be taken seriously, as a real and valuable consituency, rather than treated like embarassments to be publically avoided until the week before election day.
My final question is this: Why did Kevin feel the need to blithely weigh in on something he obviously doesn’t care much about? To start out his piece on a high note, before laying the critical boom down?
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
If that’s the way you see things then you’re not paying close enough attention. I guarantee you that every centrist Democrat feels the same way you do.
Who said he’s bending over backwards? Perhaps he just agrees with someone that’s not liberal. It happens, y’know.
You mean like Digby, Tom Tomorrow, and Atrios?
Have you tried asking Kevin that? He’s got an email address y’know. Then again, getting answers to the questions you’re asking isn’t nearly as satisfying as taking public potshots.
True. I always take the position that we can disagree all we want, but we’re still friends here. Not just with you, but with liberals all over the place. I thought the attacks on Jeff Gannon’s gay prostitution were lame, but I still think John at Americablog is a good guy. At the same time, I made an effort to attack the John’s posts and not attack him personally. Despite our strong differences of opinion on some stuff, we’re all on the same side here.
At the same time, your willingness to rush to my defense has backfired a couple of times when you’ve branded conservative commenters as “trolls” for doing little more than stating an opinion that challenges what I wrote. I welcome dissent from the right as well as from within our side. If we can’t defend our ideas without attacking our enemies personally, then do we really deserve to win?
Comment by greg — June 29, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
Considering the character of our opponents, the answer is an unqualified yes. OHH SNAP!
Meanwhile, Digby, Tom, and Atrios don’t have 1/100th of the power that the Congressional dems have, the professional moderates, or NYT types. They should, but they don’t.
But point taken. I may just send him an e-mail.
However, my attacks have never backfired. They’ve just been opposed by insurgents. I mean Foreign terrorists. I mean anti-greg’s blog forces. I mean liberals.
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — June 29, 2005 @ 1:42 pm