TheAgitator.com
42 Responses to “My Response to the Kerfuffle with Mark Ames, The Nation, TSA, and the Latest Great Koch Conspiracy Theory”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Pwnd. I’d like to see a substantive response from The Nation.
Excellent piece Radley!
Ok I have a serious question that I’d like someone to answer if possible: What are the chances of Katrina vanden Heuvel actually reading this?
Solid stuff, Radley.
So if I get this straight: the Nation doesn’t care much about TSA encroachment AT ALL? That’s pretty sad, though I suppose it’s consistent, no?
In general, I continue to be amazed at the Obama defenders who will swallow their tongue on his mistakes and abuses, and openly tell you they do this out of some version of partisanship (“better than the alternative” etc.), BUT also mock the Tea-Party/Small government right by saying “where were you when Bush was doing [it]?” the silver-lining of the next Republican administration will be the turn-about on that one.
I really don’t understand why the left is all up in arms against LIBERTARIANS (not just this issue in The Nation, but a lot of general commentary). I wonder if they think its because of the tea party. If so, the left has no f*ing idea about either the TP or libertarians, coz the two of them are not the same. Then again, the MSM has little idea, and constantly call the general TP position “libertarian” which is true on some issues, but manifestly not true on others, especially as the TP morphs into the second coming of the Christian Coalition.
It’s deeply sad and pathetic how many of the comments on the “apology” equate vigorous criticism of the Koch-sniffing Nation piece with censorship.
Like so:
I really don’t understand why the left is all up in arms against LIBERTARIANS
It’s not obvious?
@#6 No, its not, Matt.
The left seems to be spending a lot of effort attacking libertarians, a group that agrees with it on some issues, disagrees on others, but is not (at least as a political party) in no position to take over Congress.
The social conservatives might be just as hard on unions and gun rights as libertarians, but oppose many left issues, like defense, abortion, gay rights, religion, drugs, criminal justice, police reform, etc. They also have a pretty solid voting block in Congress, and a history of destroying GOPers who oppose it.
Clearly we need to buy Radley a new pair of shoes, there is no way he got that boot back after lodging his foot so firmly up The Nations ass.
SJE #7 -
The core premise of liberal/progressivism philosophy is that government can solve problems, and that if it isn’t solving the current problems on its plate then the solution is, of course, more government. The libertarian notion that government requires limits to be effective insults their whole world view.
Conservatives claim to be small government, but these days they are just as bad as the the progressives, but in different directions. However their lip service to small government gives the impression of libertarian leanings. Which is factual countered by their actual support of state enforced religious ethics, American imperialism, and the ever expanding
police“security” state.As to why all the libertarian hate:
Apostates and splitters are always treated worse than heathens. Hence there’s often more vitriol against people who share some of your values, but disagree on others, than against people who are against you on everything.
Or, another theory:
Many people like “if you support X, you must support y” label-based thinking. It’s easy. You don’t have to think or imagine or stretch yourself.
Such people become incensed when you uncouple x from y. Support reducing government without opposing gay rights? Support limits on police power without supporting a welfare state? Heretic! If people pick and choose, they might not pick enough of the things that keep US in power!
SJE “I really don’t understand why the left is all up in arms against LIBERTARIANS…”
I think it’s because the whole left/right thing is outdated and irrelevant. The only real difference in style. Think of it this way-either you believe in freedom and individual rights or don’t and you think that the needs of the collective group always supersede individual desires. Both liberals and conservatives see the libertarian as a threat to their true philosophy of collectivism.
A good, thoroughly link filled rebuttal. As the kids say, Oh Snap.
As is always confirmed, the true partisianship in the beltway media and politicians is their partisianship in bashing those with a truly skeptical eye towards government. The LewRockwell side of libertarianism is flush with Christian evangelicals who, while they may disagree with certain personal choices, still hold that government action is not the solution but the problem. The neo-con Christian right regards them as an enemy as much as the left regards more left-leaning libertarianism as an enemy.
Libertarian/anarchists are considered a bastard child among the “important people.” We can enjoy the distinction of being of differing beliefs but one and the same on principle, and thus an enemy of all (principle being the true enemy of the beltway and their lackeys in the media.)
Don’t you know? The only people allowed to spur a protest movement in this country are liberals! How dare conservatives and libertarians co-opt the liberal duty?!?
This entire kerfuffle could have been avoided if the one salient fact of the matter were known to all kerfuffle participants — namely, that there is no difference whatsover between a Republican and a Democrat.
It is that impenetrable self-deception, from which Ms. vanden Heuvel and her ilk so obviously and desperately suffer, that leads to these kinds of misunderstandings.
Any libertarian understands this, and should understand the wall of ignorance that exists on the other side of the political spectrum.
#9
“As to why all the libertarian hate”
Considering most liberals and conservatives are, well, pussies, I think they have such outward hatred of libertarians because there are so few of us. I mean come on, how much guts does it take to be all hateful to 2% of the crowd?
Or they just have some sick authority fetish where they aren’t happy unless someone is taking their money and telling them what to do. So obviously anyone who doesn’t want someone taking their money and telling them what to do is some kind of freak who must be attacked.
I really don’t understand why the left is all up in arms against LIBERTARIANS
Because right now, libertarians are equated with the tea party movement, which opposes the current Democratic agenda. Before that, they were seen as corporatist shills by the left, but without a movement associated with them, they went largely unnoticed by pundits stuck (mentally) in the beltway.
So far, everyone has come up with different possible reasons why the left is hating on libertarians. What continues to mystify me is why spending this energy on a minority movement, when there are bigger more dangerous foes.
As for the “libertarians dislike government”: true, and that a reason for liberals to disagree with libertarians. However, they could also agree on, say, cutting drug enforcement and the military. All in all, I think that this is a weak argument that oversimplifies the real positions of liberals and other groups. It also still doesn’t get to why libertarians: after all, the neocons and social conservatives under W expanded government enormously, and the liberals were not happy one little bit. Given that the social conservatives are a more potent force electorially, and are more likely to make liberals unhappy, I would have expected them to target that group.
I noticed a shift on the left around the time of Hurricane Katrina. The left, like the trad conservative right, is fueled by meme-of-the-week, lack of historical context, and muddled premises. Before Katrina the left was rightfully angry about the Iraq War, Patriot Act, REAL ID etc and taking about alliances with libertarians. After Katrina it became active-government-is-the-solution and libertarians-are-the-enemy, and the economic crash just reinforced this mindset further.
That and the left has always had a faction obsessed with things like national health care and raising taxes on the rich. When the left’s good issues like civil liberties and peace come to the fore, they bite their lips and bide their time. They treated Obama’s election as their cue to all start stamping their feet demanding their pet issues get top billing, and as part of this, ritual demonization of perceived obstructionists to their agenda, such as libertarians as well as ‘blue dog’ Democrats.
Awesome, Radley. And WTF is with the blackboard, Beck? Is a whiteboard not down-home enough for hicks?
If you’re selling poison as food, the guy selling poison as antidote is your competition, but not your enemy. The guy telling your customers they’ll feel better if they stop eating poison is.
SJE “So far, everyone has come up with different possible reasons why the left is hating on libertarians. What continues to mystify me is why spending this energy on a minority movement, when there are bigger more dangerous foes.”
I think they realize that the biggest most dangerous foe of all are the ideas of liberty that were pretty much never heard in recent America before Ron Paul pwned Guiliani’s ass in that debate.
Leftists who care about liberty are relatively marginalized compared to the economic statists, placing much of the left on the opposite corner of the Nolan chart as libertarians. Libertarian ideas are thus antithetical to them.
When is the government going to get a clue and stop worrying about being PC and do what they really need to do, profile. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
http://independentthinkersunite.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-when-are-they-going-to-get-clue.html
It’s pretty obvious why the left hates libertarians: they pretend to be for freedom, and we actually are.
The ideas of liberty are dead and irrelevant. The leftists are just being paranoid because they mistake the Tea Party movement for libertarians. But there’s always a fairly large intersection between what libertarians are worried about for reasons of principle and what the party out of power are worried about for reasons of principle (sometimes) or economic/political self interest (often) or rhetorical appeal to ordinary, more or less decent, incredibly stupid people (most often).
I didn’t like Mr. Balko’s article. here is how I see it:
(1) the original article criticizes four individual people: (i) John Tyner; (ii) Meg McLain; (iii) Brian Sodergren; and (iv) Rep. John Mica.
(2) the Nation ed. “apology” limits its apology to John Tyner, but does not apologize for the suspicions in the original article that McLain and Sodergren are astroturf, and that Mica is a bought and paid for politician.
(3) If you go back and read the original article, you find out that: (i) McLain is a very bad witness (which doesn’t mean she was bought and paid for, but it could); (ii) Sodergren worked as a lobbyist (and probably as a tort reform lobbyist); and (iii) Mica is bad news for lots of reasons.
(4) Moving to Mr. Balko’s post, it never mentions McLain, Mica or Sodergren. Instead, Mr. Balko interprets the Nation editor’s apology into some kind of assertion that all libertarians only care about civil liberties when there is a democrat in the White House. I don’t think that was the thrust of the apology. More importantly, Mr. Balko doesn’t address the real issue with anything other oblique snark about conspiracy theories. The real issues: are McLain and Sodergren lobbyists pretending to be regular folks? Is Rep. Mica inappropriately turning anti-terrorism-related civil liberties issues into a partisan issue, which it should not be.
4. It is more than fair of Mr. Balko to point out that we all ain’t like McLain, Sodergren and Mica (because we are not), but he really should have addressed those individuals by name — and that is true whether he feels that they are being criticized fairly or unfairly in the original. Maybe McLain, Sodergren and Mica are evidence of partisan capture of what should not be a partisan issue. Maybe they are not evidence of that. Frankly, I can see arguments going both ways. But, Mr. Balko’s exoneration of the Koch family moves the goalposts to a completely different stadium, and is not well taken for that reason.
And even if Editor Vandenheuvel were inviting a Reason/Cato versus The Nation, 2001-2008, peeing contest:
- Reason/Cato was strong on air-travel rights while the Nation was wishy-washy on that.
- The Nation was strongly against The Iraq War while Reason/Cato was wishy-washy on that.
Viewed most favorably to Reason, a draw, at best. But really, I don’t think that is the point. Frankly, my read is that President Obama has moved some margin of security theatre from the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan to US airports. Seems like a real step toward ending security theatre. In an ideal world, he would have simply ended it by fiat, but we live in the real world and don’t want to end up with President Palin in 2012. So he did the Machievellian thing and decided to make the “security moms” put their money where their, err, mouths are. If there is enough sustained opposition then he can roll back later, and still have everybody know, come election time, that he was “too concerned” with their security and not “not concerned enough.”
Buddy, my recollection is that Cato was pretty strongly against the Iraq war. I thought Cato was being too isolationist at the time, but now I recognize that I was wrong.
Buddy, that’s the worst excuse anyone’s ever had for Obama in this security/TSA farce. And I’ve read a lot of them.
Farking A. I knew that people were willing to stretch the truth for “their” party, but that’s just awful.
Remember:
Politicians on your side cynically do popular but evil things to win elections. Politicians on my side occasionally must bow to political necessity even when certain unfortunate consequences follow.
Let’s be clear: I didn’t vote for Obama, and I don’t plan to vote for him in 2012 (although I would consider it if Sarah Palin was a threat). My party affiliation is Republican and my ideology (to the limited extent it can be pigeonholed) is libertarian. I also generally like Radley Balko’s writing and generally dislike Editor Vandenheuvel’s. I am even open to the idea that Meg McLain, Rep. Mica and Sodergren aren’t bad, or at least aren’t evidence of a larger partisan-based trend or movement. I also won’t fly for pleasure and probably won’t fly at all, until they roll back security because the searches are invasive.
Still, I stand by what I said about Mr. Balko’s article and President Obama’s use of security theatre as a (seemingly effective) political gambit.
So we’ve gone from “Here comes the change!” to “He needs more time!” to “He’s gonna fix everything, the worse-than-Bush act is just part of his secret brilliant master plan!” Seems like a bit of a stretch there, Buddy.
Buddy, just so I am clear, you said, “I also won’t fly for pleasure and probably won’t fly at all, until they roll back security because the searches are invasive.”
and you said, “The real issues: are McLain and Sodergren lobbyists pretending to be regular folks?”
So it doesn’t matter that you agree with McLain and Sodergren, what matters is they aren’t regular folks?
Jonathan Rauch @ Reason was certainly “for” the War.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/09/the-war-in-iraq-was-the-right
Rauch then followed it up with one of the lamest articles I’ve ever read on Reason: “The War Was Right, the President Was Wrong” Oct 2007.
I remember being pretty amazed at the lack of reason at Reason regarding the whole “Avenge My Pappy!” war. Not by all, but by too many.
But, Reason is still ahead of the curve since so many still support the Iraq invasion almost a decade later. Incredible.
Buddy, I think you missed the point.
Radley wasn’t getting bogged down in the whole problem with the original article (and honestly, I don’t know where you’re pulling this rule that one has to have a problem with ALL of the article’s points to have a problem with any of it, but no matter). He was responding to the apology. His point was exactly a different conversation than the one you’re having, specifically that the point should be about whether the TSA’s procedures are good or bad, warranted or unwarranted etc.
Radley’s point was that getting bogged down in the motives and backers of the high profile critics of the TSA is stupid horse-race coverage political journalism, and naturally serves a partisan end. And to defend that approach by saying, “well, we’ve ALWAYS been against TSA encroachments, and these people we are criticizing cheered them on in the past” invites exactly the research/comparison Radley performed. THAT is the point.
I mean, really, let’s concede that those other 3 people are political operatives, hacks and shills of the highest order. How exactly would that undermine Radley’s point at all? It wouldn’t because the issue shold still be focusing on the TSA policies and debating them (and not the Iraq war).
Good points Nick T, way to get back to the issue at hand.
I mean, really, let’s concede that those other 3 people are political operatives, hacks and shills of the highest order. How exactly would that undermine Radley’s point at all? It wouldn’t because the issue shold still be focusing on the TSA policies and debating them (and not the Iraq war).
Radley’s point was Reason/Cato good; The Nation bad. Not a real relevant point, and arguably incorrect as a factual matter.
Vandenheuvel’s point was that politics makes strange bedfellows, and sometimes it is a good idea to use prophylactic caution when you get in bed with these bedfellows. While good advice in general, I am not sure her point is that relevant either. Sodergren does not seem to be the next coming of Joe The Plummer. Rep. Mica is not the Manchurian Candidate. Unlike Sarah Palin, Meg McLain takes her bikini top off before posing for pictures with her gun. Still, I get why she is saying what she is saying. when she cautions against becoming one of those profiling-is-the-answer people, her point becomes more clear. However, none of this has anything to do with: Reason/Cato good; The Nation bad, which is the strawman that Mr. Balko pulled from her apology.
You know you have a wild tale when you are suggesting a connection between Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Beck…albeit in spirit!
Buddy, you’re either trolling, purposefully misreading what Radley wrote, or genuinely clueless. I’m going to use Hanlon’s Razor and assume it’s the latter.
Sometimes it is hard to tell with ol’ Buddy. I hope Mr. Balko understands that my comments are genuine and offered in good faith. If he reads them, and he certainly doesn’t have to.
Mark Ames is a total poser fraud. I have it on very good authority that The Exiled Online changes posts in their comments threads that they don’t like.
Check out Ames’ elitist view of Americans:
“If the left wants to understand American voters, it needs to once and for all stop sentimentalizing them as inherently decent, well-meaning people being duped by a tiny cabal of evil oligarchs—because the awful truth is that they’re mean, spiteful jerks being duped by a tiny cabal of evil oligarchs. The left’s naïve, sentimental, middle-class view of ‘the people’ blinds them to all of the malice and spite that is a major premise of Middle American life.”
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20110124/000615.html
Wow. Just…wow. Americans are “mean, spiteful jerks.” I suspect projection.
If Americans as a whole population are mean, spiteful and malicious, and Ames is trying to convince the Left of this so that they can win votes, what, then, is the implied strategy? I guess lies, frauds, deceits…I mean, how else are noble do-gooders supposed to convince a nation of mean, spiteful and malicious jerks to hand power over to them for the good of the country, right?