Playing the “Osama Card”
Y’know that post I did yesterday that included Andrew Sullivan’s infamous “fifth column” quote? Well, reader James forwarded the link to Andy, who had this to say :
u deny that there are some on the far left who would prefer osama to bush?
i’ve seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.
andrew
Sullivan’s ridiculous strawman and lack of capitalization would be funny if he weren’t actually serious. Who are these traitors on the “far left”? Are they a well-organized group actively working to undermine the U.S. government or are they a couple of obscure, pissed-off bloggers who are venting a little steam? I’ve seen some pretty despicable things written by angry liberals and conservatives, but there’s a big difference between ranting against your government and collaborating with the enemy. Let’s go back to Sullivan’s original quote :
“The middle part of the country – the great red zone that voted for Bush – is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead – and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.”
The irresponsible thing about his statement isn’t that he’s warning about fifth column movements, but that he’s implying that pretty much everyone who disagrees with the President is a traitor. You’re painting with pretty broad brush-strokes there, Andy. By citing “the great red zone that voted for Bush” in your first sentence, you’re essentially setting up a false dichotomy that implicates everyone else in this undefined “decadent Left”. If you weren’t trying to draw a parallel, then the quote you’re defending is poorly written and should be explained beyond hiding behind your intentionally vague wording.
But if you really do think the majority of us blue-state, coastal lefties “may” constitute a “fifth column”, then would it be equally valid to make a statement like this?
“In the densely-populated urban areas which are likely targets for future attacks – and heavily favored Democrats in the last election – are serious about capturing Osama Bin Laden. The religious extremists in the south and Midwest have other plans – for they might be more interested in firebombing abortion clinics.”
Would it be okay to contrast John Kerry voters and white supremacists? Or divide the country into secular humanists and hate-filled bastards like Rev. Fred Phelps? Singling out extremists to score points against your political opposition isn’t just unfair, it’s lazy reporting.
Besides that, the whole point of my post wasn’t to bash Andy for a stupid-ass comment he made four and a half years ago, but to spur a discussion (in a roundabout way) about what constitutes a “fifth column” movement, who gets to make those decisions, and what actions should be taken against them. Andy’s gone on record as saying that the “far left” (a relative term if ever these was one) should be under suspicion, Sen. Graham believes it’s acceptable to spy on those of us suspected of being in the “fifth column” without a warrant, and the President rode to victory by repeatedly suggesting that John Kerry and his allies “embolden our enemies” , so where do you draw the line between legitimate dissent and “fifth column” activity?
16 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Greg, do you really need help drawing those lines? I thought it was clear when King George said it:
“You’re either with us or against us.”
Comment by Dr. Pants — February 8, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
“The middle part of the country – the great red zone that voted for Bush – is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead – and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.”
So where exactly does andrew sullivan live. Somehow I’m not guessing that it is in the great red zone but that its in one of our decadent enclaves on the coast (aka where most americans live).
Comment by chris green — February 8, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Those of use who live in the great red middle (actually, Blue Michigan here, but us hicks are largely interchangeable) don’t see things quite as homogeneously as Sully the Pooh might think.
Comment by Captain Salty — February 8, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
Everything beyond the end of his nose is the 5th column. He even dreams about it.
Comment by mdhåtter — February 8, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
I’m still fascinated at the idea of conservative progress, it’s an oxymoron. Conservatism, by definition, is about minimal change. Please note for our mentally challenged readers that Conservative =/= Republican. The Republican party was once quite progressive.
The only example I can think of off the top of my head would be Henry Ford, who was an extremely conservative man politically and abhored labor unions, market intervention, etc, but was very progressive not only in his business and technical process, but also in his labor relations.
While he hated the idea of a mandated minimum wage, he also made a point to pay his employees enough to be able to buy the products they manufactured — quite a stunning move, as it meant paying 2-3x the prevailing wage of his time (and being able to pick and choose the best workers because of it!).
Comment by Nathaniel — February 8, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
I said this somewhere else, but I frankly beleive that Bush is a far greater threat the US than Bin Laden.
As a country, we could withstand a thousand attacks like 9/11. It would hurt, but America need not fail anymore than Israel did during the last intifada when it seemed they had a suicide bomber every week.
What could destroy the US, and quite quickly, is the loss of the rule of law. As soon as the president gets away with breaking the law, the country starts down a path that is very difficult to reverse.
Comment by Dilapidus — February 8, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
The only good thing about the failure to legalize gay marriage is that Andrew Sullivan can’t marry, and it’s not because of people like us.
Comment by ChrisV82 — February 8, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
That last comment was just a swipe at Sullivan; obviously we’re talking about something else. So, yeah, I’ve got a fifth column for ya right here, buddy.
Comment by ChrisV82 — February 8, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
It seems to me that there is an active campaign to get it into the public consciousness that there is no line between legitimate dissent and “fifth column” activity.
I would really like to be wrong about this, the idea that there are people who would relish a one-party state. But I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say that there are folks working towards getting rid of any opposition to their ideas.
Comment by moonbiter — February 9, 2006 @ 4:52 am
Greetings all:
I’m the James who wrote Mr Sullivan. Here’s how the exchange went down (my email addy redacted):
From [james]
To: andrewmsullivan@aol.com
Subject Line: Would that Sullivan Could Take a Mulligan
Andrew:
http://thismodernworld.com/2677
Man, am I glad that I didn’t say that.
I’m also glad I didn’t say (as you did approx 15 mos ago), “When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be.”
Andrew’s reply:
u deny that there are some on the far left who would prefer osama to bush?
i’ve seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.
andrew
My re-reply:
Yeh, right, Andrew, there are *hordes* of us who prefer Osama to Bush. (rolls eyes, looks at watch…) Besides, where in my original posting to you did I even make this a popularity contest pitting the extremist scion of a huge Saudi-related fortune…and Osama bin Laden (ba-dump-bum!)
Seriously, Andrew, must “u” cite the very, very rarified exception as the rule? You called us coastal types fifth columnists. Period. Maybe that was just the 9/11 talkin’, but, judging from the location of your home/s, the offices of your big media employers, and by your very well-documented fondness for many things [Los] Angeleno, I’d say you’re one of those elite coastals, too.
And what, exactly, did you *not* know about Bush in 2000 that factored into your decision not to back him in ‘04? That he mocked a condemned killer on TV, that he mismanaged a series of businesses (possibly escaping from one such debacle by engaging in a bit of insider trading)?
I really like your site, and consider your writings part of my balanced diet of opinion. But come on, Andrew, you’re REALLY reaching here.
[name redacted]
Long-time reader, first time caller.
Point to all this is, it took me all of, like, five minutes to bitch-slap Andrew. And I’m not just frontin’ here. What this exchange did (for me at least) is raise a serious question, especially in light of the James Frey/Smoking Gun debacle: If it took me five minutes to puncture Mr Sullivan’s oft-stated contention about the state of national security merely by thinking off the top of my head, just how much of what Andrew’s written on the subject over the past fifteen years has been utter and complete bullshit? I was sincere in saying that I’ve been a long-time reader of Mr Sullivan’s, but now I’m beginning to believe that he is just a huge, fucking fraud.
Comment by Jimmmm — February 9, 2006 @ 6:24 am
Thanks for the context, Jimmmm; it’s very interesting to see the exchange in full.
I have to agree, I find Andrew’s straw man bizarre. Who said anything about preferring Osama to Bush? But the kicker for me is the next sentence:
Way to cite unnamed sources, Sullivan. “A couple of articles” by whom? Care to provide us with some links?
Comment by Cris — February 9, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
I had no idea Sullivan was Dutch.
I mean, it’s the only language I’m aware of where “u” is a word.
Comment by Teaflax — February 10, 2006 @ 1:04 am
Point of information- Ford paid more because people wouldn’t work for him otherwise. Ford drove the workers so hard that his entire workforce would turn over twice in one year. His secret police were renowned for invading the worker’s lives at home, and eventually Ford hired an actual Nazi (a real one, from Germany) as the chief of his secret police. Nothing subtle about Ford.
Comment by serial catowner — February 10, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Incidentally, to get an idea of what an American fifth column might look like, you could do worse than studying the isolationists of the upper midwest just before WW II. Dave Niewert might have something in his archives, if he does, it probably has some details.
Comment by serial catowner — February 10, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
The fifth-coloumn is on the right. Fascists who want to undermine our constitution, revoke the bill-of-rights, and establish a unitary executive responsive to corporations and the churchs. “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country…”
Comment by Joe — February 11, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
I thought this “5th column” nonsense was a joke till I read it. This is just to let Sullivan know that this particular resident of the “red zone” does NOT support any of his fear-mongering. I reserve the right to dissent freely. I am NOT in agreement with the man who refers to the government as “my” government. I am NOT ready for war. If Sullivan, like his chickenhawk idol, is ready for war then let him put his body where his mouth is: ENLIST in the army! Otherwise it’s just talk, talk, talk, and no more than the neo-con rantings of an administration that consists of “men” who purport to lead a war but who have 0 active duty time.
Comment by Ticked off vet — February 23, 2006 @ 12:07 pm