Conservative Conor Friedersdorf Joins The Atlantic

As Stacy McCain points out, Conor (with one N) Friedersdorf how appears to be blogging for The Atlantic. Congratulation to Conor. However, I find certain things in play here so interesting as to be troubling, about The Atlantic, if not Conor, as well.

UPDATE IV: As the perspicacious Professor Donald Douglaspoints out in the comments, Friedersdorf has attained his life's goal, blogging at The Atlantic Monthly, just like his hero. As I have often said, the rule in D.C. is never to attribute to ideology that which can be adequately explained by ambition.

In our recent debate, Conor invoked some of the more frivolous boilerplate Leftist talking points to defend his positions: that hundreds of thousands of innocents died in Iraq due to Bush's war; that America shouldn't be off building "empire" around the world, including in Iraq; and that military intervention didn't work as a means of altering a nation.

These are so old, sub par and mostly debunked, I was amazed that he would even employ them. I refused to let him get away with it. By the time we finished that segment, Conor went from hundreds of thousands, to tens of thousands, to scrambling for Google to support his claim. I told him to try "end the war dot com". Ultimately, Conor admitted he didn't know at all and asked me if I knew, at which point I reminded him it wasn't my argument.

On Bush's "empire building", I pointed out the definition of "empire," and Conor conceded Iraq wasn't quite that. I also pointed out that, while far from perfect, democracy in Iraq has taken root and seems to be growing, so how is it he can insist such efforts can not work. At that point he started invoking Abu Ghraib.

Now, I noticed this in Conor's Atlantic entry:

Consider the two groups of friends I saw in Washington DC this weekend. Group 1 is largely composed of young DC journalists, most of them bloggers. These folks were well aware of events in Iran by Saturday afternoon, getting their updates from blog coverage via Google Reader, or Twitter, or both -- the same way a few of my tech friends in San Francisco and my human rights advocate friends in NYC knew about the news.

Group 2 is more diverse--really just a collection of friends and acquaintances--among them federal employees, interns in several Obama Administration agencies,....

Yes, do consider all this before congratulating Conor on his new gig. And for praising The Atlantic for giving voice to someone who is sure to be but another bright and shining star advancing conservatism in the media.

And they wonder why we don't want them identified with the conservative movement, especially given Conor's ridiculous anti-Bush utterances during our recent debate. Certainly, I too had no qualms in criticizing Bush for not being conservative enough. But at least mine were not hyperbolic, were grounded in reality and based upon facts.

Thanks Atlantic, for giving conservatives another shot in the arm to go along with Andrew ... or perhaps I should say, shot in the back.

Comments

[Peg C.]

This guy is a flea compared to the towering intellect of Mark Levin.

[syn]

Obama's economic Gordian Knot is going to strangle the young DC pups; I've never in my 47 years of living thought the American youth group would be so eager to get on their knees succumbing to slavery. How can Conor fight for human rights when he himself is enslaved to the Slavemaster-in-Chief?

American Rock and Roll is definitely dead.

"Born to Wild" is now "Born to be Enslaved"

Silly Youth Group, the tricks are on the kids.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Conor is where he belongs. If it's true that Andrew Sullivan is his hero, then my guess is soon folks will not be describing Conor as "a decent guy" much longer. They will call him popular, hip, successful, widely-read, even a conservative (depending upon your definition of conservatism that is), biting and occasionally witty. Decent shall fall by the wayside like it did with his hero years ago...

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

As anyone can verify if they listen to the audio of our conversation, I do say that America should not become an empire -- but I ALSO make it clear that I do NOT think America is an empire right now. Rather, I think it is going to be a challenge in the future for America to walk the line between defending itself abroad and becoming an empire. I actually say this very directly in our conversation.

In fact, I think that anyone who listens to our conversation will find your post to be woefully inaccurate at best.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Per:

"Rather, I think it is going to be a challenge in the future for America to walk the line between defending itself abroad and becoming an empire."

Conor, actually you are right on the money here. It is already a challenge for America to defend herself abroad because guys like you insist upon saying the Bush presidency engaged in torture. Why don't you take a page from Obama and stop 'meddling' in the Middle East?

[Philip McDaniel]

Here's a suggestion, Conor, keep a small bottle of Windex and some tissues near the mirror beside your computer. That way you can polish your image if it begins to fog over as you inform us what you think.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor,

Please don't misrepresent yourself here. I just checked the audio. Go to 29:30 right after you invoked "empire." I asked you what countries we have invaded and "taken over" in the last 40 years. You said Iraq and Afghanistan. That implies empire building. We have "taken over" neither and I have seen nothing from any pol in recent memory to remotely suggest America is engaged in Empire building anywhere. It sounds as though you are picking up catch phrases and buzz words here and there and employing them in argument. I don't give that a pass in a debate. If you want to play so loosely with the language and slink away from it when confronted, you aren't going to get away with it here.

[Ran]

I'll take the assumption that the Atlantic (like the New York Times, etc.) bases such assignments on a straightforward economic decision... will so-and-so attract or repel the established customer base that the established advertiser base seeks and vice-versa? Their appellation of "conservative" is rather like an American roadside restaurant menu's "hot and spicy Indian Curry" dish. ("Fries or cole-slaw with that?")

[Rob Crawford]

So, basically, The Atlantic hired another inside-the-Beltway lightweight go-go-government type who poses as a conservative?

*yawn*

Can't wait for Conor to start demanding the truth about someone's parentage.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

Are you serious? The presence of US Troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq as a stabilizing force "implies" "take over" just as much as anything Conor said. You wouldn't appreciate Conor misstating your arguments, so give him the same courtesy. You are deliberately twisting his words for your own purposes - about par for the course with you I think.

Why don't you try actually making positive arguments about what conservatism is, or you know, actually offering a definition before you start acting like judge handing down pronoucements.

Hope those ad hominem attacks keep coming to you, they're clearly easier for you to come up with than actual arguments on the topic at hand.

[Seekeronos]

"--- This guy is a flea compared to the towering intellect of Mark Levin. ---"

More like barely registering against the "towering intellect" of one Mr. Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan. Which sadly, isn't much.

Although I'll take a bite at the "empire building": we are engaging in a type of "empire building", though yet distinct from the mental image of the colonial empire building great Britain or France did over 150 years ago.

A more accurate, and some what less hyperbolic description of this phenomenon would be the term "nation building".

And sadly, that really does not - and should not - fall under the range of activities we pursue as a nation ourselves - the US Constitution rather sharply limits us to using our military to defend our own borders, secure our own territorial waters (and by extension, airspace) with definite limits on the deployment of forces outside our borders.

To displace a regime and prop one up that is favourable to our interests using our military might not be "empire building" in the strict sense of the words, but it certainly is extra-constitutional.

[Jamie Lockett]

I have to ask when did Empire become a pejorative? The British and Roman Empires were two of the greatest things ever to happen to humanity.

[thirteen28]

"As anyone can verify if they listen to the audio of our conversation, I do say that America should not become an empire"

Wow, that's pretty bold and controversial. It's kind of like saying "children shouldn't be placed on an all-ice cream diet."

I'm glad us mouth-breathing troglodytes have "worldly," "conservative," "betters" like yourself to give us much needed guidance on topics like this.

[Jamie Lockett]

His point, Thirteen, was that Dan had intentionally mischaracterized his statement for his own purposes. But I gather you don't care about that.

[thirteen28]

"His point, Thirteen, was that Dan had intentionally mischaracterized his statement for his own purposes. But I gather you don't care about that."

I don't accept your premise that Dan is mischaracterizing Conor's words. So no, I really don't care.

[Jamie Lockett]

If the person making the statement says is was mischaracterized and then offers clarification, wouldn't it be more productive to attack those ideas than to harp on whatever interpretation you or Dan had of the original statement?

[thirteen28]

"If the person making the statement says is was mischaracterized and then offers clarification, wouldn't it be more productive to attack those ideas than to harp on whatever interpretation you or Dan had of the original statement?"

Mischaracterized, misquoted, taken out of context, blah blah blah. Every time someone steps in a pile of dogsh!t when they are making an argument, they run to that sort of defense to try to weasel their way out of it. Conor backed himself into a corner, and Dan hammered him on it.

[Dan Riehl]

Jamie - I wouldn't conflate troop deployments, een extended ones with creating empire as he did. WHy is it no one shouts empire given our presence in Germany, or SOuth Korea?

As to the nation building charge - can't say as I disagree with that, but with an important qualifier. It is being done, or was under Bush, as an extension of foreign policy to combat the growing threat from radicalism in the Middle-east. Conor suggested that threat may be America's real priority for some time to come.

I think economics is currently bigger, but as regards the terror threat - I see Bush's "nation building" as a temporary move required after thrwoing up our hands in failed negotiaons and in the face of failing sanctions, etc. SO while I can agree it isn't ideal, it does seem to me to be the most prudent thing would could do for our own national security over the longer term. Unless modernity eventually comes to the Middle-east - and elsewhere, unfortunately (Africa, Somalia) we will always be facing terrorism. That should not be read as advocating invasion in those areas. The first step was planting the seeds of democracy in the Muslim world. We can only hope that free Iraqi Muslims will eventually emerge as a greater force for an expansion of freedom in the region through political means, than we could ever be. Obviously the jury is out and will be for some time. But that is the challenge we face and must solve somehow.

[Bob]

Congratulations. You vaulted this guy from obscurity to a major magazine slot in just 3 weeks.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

Why does no one shout it about Germany or South Korea? I haven't read my WWII or Korean War history lately but I'm pretty sure people were worried about Empire building in regards to both those situations. While it was necessary to have bases in Germany during the Cold War is it necessary now? Probably not.

I'm still wondering why "empire" is so looked down upon. It is in America's best interests to have friendly regimes in countries with important resources - a prime example of where this can go wrong is Iran. We traded a very pro-America dictator for a very anti-America "democracy" (*snigger*).

I agree that economics is currently the biggest issue facing America going forward - but "nation building" is part of that. We spent vast amounts of US blood and treasure to secure Iraq - this is part of our economic outlook.

Regarding Terrorism - I don't think modernity is the be all cure for Islamist Terror many see it to be. Will it help? Sure. But radicalism exists in many modern countries with large muslim populations - look at the radical clerics in Britain or the riots amoung poor Muslims in France. Modernity hasn't cured their radicalism.

Remember that the Iranian Revolution was one that was created by and continues to be supported by, the people. Whatever "change" people think they are seeing now is just two sides of the same coin. We are trading a bat-shit-insane Islamist president for a slightly less bat-shit-insane Islamist president. They are both from the same governing faction - not much is going to change.

[Dan Riehl]

I agree on Iran - Germany, Korea, as well. I don't know, Conor took exception to Empire, not I. Frankly, we might be better served conquering Mexico, than allowing it to conquer us 12 million at a time.

[seekeronos]

"--- ... I wouldn't conflate troop deployments, e(v)en extended ones with creating empire as he did. WHy is it no one shouts empire given our presence in Germany, or SOuth Korea? ---"

I do. We should have left Germany about 5 minutes after the East and West merged back together.

Korea is a bit problematic, due our desire to keep S. Korea as a buffer state from Chinese expansion via its semi-proxy, N. Korea... and y extension, to keep Japan from creating further regional instability by re-arming itself, especially if nukes were part of the deal.

And in modern times, the "La Brea Tar-Pit of Death" for any world empire - that nasty stretch of land from Persia (inclusive of most of modern Iraq and Iran) to Pakistan.

We are an empire without an emperor, and commanding fealty from our subjects not by sheer military might (though we have that in spades) but through trade and alliances.

A most unusual state of affairs, and one that while aberrant, not likely stand the test of time any more than did that of Britain by the guns of the Royal Navy, nor the Romans by their generals and their legions.

I would much rather see our foreign policy conformed to the wisdom of old General Washington, who once said that a nation would benefit from "avoiding entangling alliances" while "trading with all".

[Jamie Lockett]

I agree with you and George Washington. However, it is hard to ignore that the Roman Empire brought culture, medicine, technology and wealth to more people than at any time in its history before. Alexander the Great's empire similarly enriched many people and cultures and preserved knowledge long thought lost to the pyres of history. The British Empire brought more people to freedom than any other force in the history of the world - how many truly impressive democracies and republics sprung from that empire?

It is hard to ignore the good that empires can do and this clashes with my own sensibilities and belief that America should look to itself and as George Washington said avoid entangling alliances.

[Jamie Lockett]

Dan,

Do we really want to take on the problems of Mexico?

Heh, not that we aren't already I guess.

[Tom Meyer]

I have a partial transcript of Conor v. Dan up at Federalist Paupers. Judge for yourselves whose characterization of the debate is more accurate:

http://federalistpaupers.com/index.php/2009/06/19/freidersdorf-v-reihl/