Dumb, Dishonest Or Disturbed?

By the way, lest some find the Conor stuff annoying or unserious, here's an example of why it had to be. Reading an item from Stacy yesterday, I came across this post, only to find conor crawling around the blogosphere spreading a lie about me. One can't allow someone like that to run around unchecked. The notion that he's at The Atlantic only serves to tell us how far down that brand has fallen on the Internet.

I haven’t found the time to listen to the Riehl-Friedersdorf-Payne Skypecast on the future of conservatism, but if Dan Riehl really did say that the defining character of a conservative is favoring “an economy free of government interference”,* then Conor’s frustration is entirely appropriate.

I replied in a comment there. The point I was making was that, one could take the conservative notion of a free market to an extreme to where one argued there should be no government intervention at all. I also pointed out how foolish it would be, but said it would be hard to say the position wasn't a "conservative" one in a broad sense, albeit extreme. All much theoretical crap takes is for someone to write the book. It's lost on Conor that that's precisely what Dreher has done. It doesn't make it worth considering as a practical political position. The ultimate point was that between no intervention and total control there were a host of positions an honest group of conservatives might come together around, but now we were leaving the realm of the theoretical to enter the political debate. And if anyone was being asked to not identify as conservative, it is politically, not theoretically.

What I can't figure out is if Conor is simply dumb and can't understand nuance, or doesn't hear well, or if he deliberately alters the truth to smear an opponent. Whatever his problem is, it isn't something he should be allowed to get away with without being called on it, potentially as just a flat-out liar.

““an economy free of government interference”

If conor said I claimed that, as is typical, he’s misrepresenting someone’s views and creating a strawman - another typical ploy for him. We were talking theory, so I said, if one were to take some “pure” concept of a conservative preference for small government all the way out, you’d end up where the scenario was to support a position with no government control whatsoever. I then added that, everyone knows that is impractical, so the goal is to have the least involvement possible while realizing that the government also had a role in empowering prosperity through making commerce more viable between parties. That was all said to support the notion that there could be a host of opinions around that issue which supported more or less government involvement in the economy and they might all be argued as a “conservative” position. But now we have moved from a theoretical discussion of “what is conservatism,” to “what is the practical face of conservatism around which any so-called movement can agree”. That being a political, as opposed to an ideological discussion.

I’d suggest my point had a much finer edge to it than conor conveyed, or perhaps was even able to understand given my experience with him. Perhaps if I could say it in a quote from Kirk, he’d get it. But his understanding of much of anything doesn’t seem to stray much from what he’s read in books. Not really the best abstract thinker our boy conor.

Comments

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan writes: "All much theoretical crap takes is for someone to write the book." I am genuinely puzzled by what that means. But if Dan has read Rod Dreher's book -- have you Dan? -- why not say what you think is wrong with it specifically, rather than making the general claim that it is about theory?

AND ONE OTHER IMPORTANT POINT:

You've read the blog post that John Schwenkler linked to -- I know that because you've referenced it before, as your readers know. In that blog post, I do not merely say that you think a conservative is someone who favors an economy free of government interference (though I don't know why you'd consider that to be a smear). What I say is as follows (I quote directly):

"As best I can tell, Dan thinks that Ronald Reagan was a conservative, that people who favor an economy free of government interference are conservatives, and that religious conservatives who dissent from the Club for Growth orthodoxy are perpetrating a fraud if they call themselves conservative. Never mind that these folks don’t actually hide their supposedly heretical views, and are very upfront about where they stand on any specific matter you ask them about. They are still somehow being duplicitous or at least misleading if they invoke the c-word as a general descriptor."

"At least that’s my best guess about Dan’s views. I’m forced to extrapolate a bit, because when pressed he wouldn’t actually offer any precise definition of conservatism, or clarify what it is specifically that make David Frum or Rod Dreher faux-conservatives. It seems to me that Dan doesn’t actually possess any coherent definition of conservatism, which would be fine, as it really isn’t necessary to have one, unless you make yourself an arbiter of the word’s proper use."

So you're pretending to take offense at my saying a certain thing in a post I wrote, EVEN THOUGH you've read the post yourself, and know that I didn't actually do what you're accusing me of.

And now your readers can see that plain as day for themselves, which must damage your credibility.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Also, you write: "Perhaps if I could say it in a quote from Kirk, he’d get it. But his understanding of much of anything doesn’t seem to stray much from what he’s read in books. Not really the best abstract thinker our boy conor."

So you're saying that I only understand philosophy in books, and that proves that I am bad at abstract thinking? I'm starting to understand why you shy away from substantive arguments -- that would be almost the exact opposite of the truth if it were coherent enough to have a converse. It is also factually dubious, since I've mention Russel Kirk a handful of times in a single conversation about conservative philosophers. I'm not sure why you regard that as something to be mocked.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor - are they preserving your brain somewhere? You never know, one day they may be able to revive it. Why would you "guess" if, as you claim, you don't know my views. Why not just say, "I don't know, blah blah blah." Stop going out of your way to smear people. Pretty much every blogger in this agrees you've been found out. You're duplicitous tactics are obvious - you even highlight them yourself, just as you did above.

You just make crap up to characterize my positions and confess to it and expect to be taken seriously? Before this I didn't think you were that low, I assumed you're just dumb. Perhaps you're both.

No one has seriously even come after you, yet. Don't invite it upon yourself. Up until now, everyone's been mostly content to jerk you around on a string in their comments area when you're dumb enough to show up.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

At the time of our conversation, you spoke about conservatism but when pressed, you refused to offer a cohesive definition. Thus I had to make my best guess at your meaning from the various bits and pieces you'd given me -- I didn't make stuff up, I laid out the positions you'd offered, characterized them as fairly as possible, and then said right in the post that I'm not certain about your views, because you wouldn't offer a definition when asked for one.

That is yet another example of the fair approach to discourse that I take -- a marked contrast from the constant insults and feigned offense that has become your style.

"No one has seriously even come after you, yet. Don't invite it upon yourself."

Weren't you accusing me of being dishonorable for making threats, Dan?

Another example of hypocrisy that you've shown your readers.

[mark l.]

"At the time of our conversation, you spoke about conservatism but when pressed, you refused to offer a cohesive definition."

it would help if conor offered his own defintion.

I have seen him say that he was a "conservative-libertarian" so I wonder if he can provide a defintion of his own politcal beliefs. Chances are, he can't. I appreciate the difficulty in the defining, but this is getting ridiculous.

conor: what is the exact measurement?
dan: 2.45 inches.
conor: it can't be 2.45 inches, becuase I have a better ruler, that tells me it is 2.4510 inches.

let me guess, conor won the blue ribbon debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in his philosophy class.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Mark,

As I noted somewhere in all this madness, I don't think there is any one definition that adequately defines conservatism, because there are so many different people over the centuries who've staked out ground under its banner. Is Burke the true conservative? Kirk? Someone else? There isn't any one answer. That's why I think we should refrain from getting all bothered when someone like Rod Dreher calls himself a conservative -- I think he has a legitimate claim to make, even if one's own view of what conservatism should be is different (and as it happens, my view is different from Rod's view).

I asked Dan to define conservatism because he took the position that David Frum and Rod Dreher were misleading people by claiming to be conservatives. What definition are they violating? I asked Dan. I don't think people are obligated to definite the c word -- unless they start arguing that other people aren't entitled to use it. If you start heretic hunting, you've got to at least lay out what metric you're using. So I don't think we actually disagree here, Mark.

That said, I am happy to answer any questions you've got about my political beliefs.

[Mrs. Peperium]

mark l. - you left out "worldly nonreligious" after 14 years of religious education.

[Dan Riehl]

conor just wants to run around the edges of discussion, saying nothing of value in the end. The phrase all hat and no cattle comes to mind. He's playing word games so he can justify supporting positions and postures that the vast majority of honest conservatives reject - and doing it while waving a banner saying I'm a conservative. I mean come on, he's the guy who wrote this, not me:

"Worldly, nonreligious conservo-libertarians like me"

conor doesn't even know what the hell he is, besides fancying himself as "worldly" LMAO Why he's so deceptively obsessed with whining about someone else defining themself is a joke - as is he at this point.

By his standard of defining me, I guess I could say, I have no idea what conor's sexual preferences are, if I had to guess based on observation, I'd say he likes goats.

That's precisely the kind of low rent game is playing here. No wonder culture whatever is was was such a flop with him as editor. I've read they had millions, he's bragged of being paid well for it - and all that got anyone was a dismal failure. Maybe he should take some responsibility for that, instead of caring about someone like Levin who has been such a success across so many disciplines. But, failed editor and paid blogger knows better! Riiiiiight! Like I said, what a joke.

[Watcher]

"As I noted somewhere in all this madness, I don't think there is any one definition that adequately defines conservatism, because there are so many different people over the centuries who've staked out ground under its banner. Is Burke the true conservative? Kirk? Someone else? There isn't any one answer."

I don't think there's necessarily any one definition of Conservatism either... but maybe you could define Conorism for us instead, or at least give us the short version of it for those of us unfamiliar with your writings.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Watcher,

On domestic policy, I think getting our fiscal house in order must be a top priority -- it is insane to run deficits as big as we are, to watch the national debt grow as rapidly as it will if President Obama's full agenda is enacted, and to continue a public employee union pension system that is going to bankrupt a lot of state and local governments.

More generally, I think that we've got to get back to a more robust federalism, where more issues are handled at the state and local level.

On social issues, I am deeply conflicted about abortion -- certainly I think that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided as a Constitutional matter, and that returning the matter to the states would be much more intellectually honest. I am also for measures to reduce the number of abortions. But I wouldn't vote to make it illegal in all cases. I depart from many conservatives on gay marriage -- I think that just as marriage is an institution that affords financial and emotional stability to straight people, encourages monogamy, and makes their families more self-sufficient and less reliant on government, the same applies to gay people, and we'd all be better off if the strong cultural goods that come with marriage were enjoyed by gays and lesbians. I do not think that judges should impose that outcome -- it should be voted in by legislatures or the people.

On the environment, I am against a carbon tax and cap and trade. I do think we need to be monitoring climate change carefully, investing in cleaner energy sources, and investigating carbon reducing technology.

Issues we need to pay more attention to: securing nuclear material, preparing for pandemic diseases, making sure that illegal immigrants in federal and state prisons are deported rather than released back into the United States when their sentence is over, and simplifying the federal tax code.

[mark l.]

"I don't think there is any one definition that adequately defines conservatism"...this is endemic among everything that has to do with politics.

you have made the mistake of previously defining yourself as a "conservative-libertarian". Going on the sense of absolutism of a defintion, which you use to gauge dan, reveals your own condition.

dan doesn't understand or cannot define conservatism? applying the same rules of phliospohicla enforcement, you are no better, and no more qualifed to judge.

I do have a question, which may require some philosphical parlor tricks:

What does it mean to be alive?

I am in the nebulous ground of accepting a first trimester abortion, despite the fact that any defintion I can come up with does not exclude fetuses. I favor restrictions. does it make me pro-life? am I a conservative because I favor restrictions, or a liberal becuase I accept 1st trimester abortions? Is conservatism gauged against the individual's beliefs, or is it shaped against the beliefs of the culture?

"Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

(potter stewart-wiki)

I am sure that Dan can perform the same feat with conservatism. You, otoh, cannot.
You have built a wall around dan, which confines you as well.

[Dan Riehl]

Mrs. P - As I argued in our debate and in comments sometime back, the argument is not over defining conservatism. Conor, Dreher, Frum et al are playing a game and the media, which has no love for conservatives, is glad to empower them to do it.

If conor had a brain he'd know I already said that conservativism "could" be almost anything, provided one was willing to go to the trouble to assert the proper arguments. It's a very broad concept once one gets into the theoretical.

There is no disagreement from me on that, which conor conveniently and repeatedly allows to go over his little head.

My point is that, and it has already been expressed before - there is "conservative" as a theoretical construct and then there is "conservative" as a political construct. IE - Dreher, conor, whomever are "theoretical" conservatives, or theortetically conservative. Yet, they hold positions that are out of the mainstream of current conservative political thought.

That all sounds nice up to that point. But let's look at what they do. They capitalize on it and betray main stream conservatives by conflating the two - the theoretical and the political.

All those distinctions get dropped, then they get plucked up by the atlantic, the new york times, and on and on - and they write as "conservatives" and then, just as conor does re Levin, they spend their time running down more mainstream conservatives, far more so than do they spend time advocating main stream conservative political thought, or taking on liberals. conor has his nose so far up obama's bum, it's a wonder he can see his computer screen half the time.

Now, I don't know about you, but, frankly, I see very little to respect about what they are up to. And the fact is the outlets like the ones I mentioned above love to have them, they are their perfect useful idiots to undermine the true opponents of those publications in political terms.

They deserve everything they get, frankly - they take the money to hurt our cause, while wearing its trappings without walking much of the walk. One would be just as justified in calling them duplicitous traitors and whores who cash in for money and a name, as anything else.

I don't care what they call themselves "theoretically," they are sell-outs, mostly unimpressive intellects and traitors to a worthy cause. Screw 'em. I have no good reason to respect them one bit.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan, I haven't been hired to write at The Atlantic as a conservative, nor am I billed that way on the home page teaser to my blog, which is about ideas, or anywhere else on the site. In the course of my time there, you'll see Q&As with some of the best conservative, liberal and libertarian bloggers. I hope you enjoy them.

And you're wrong when you say that I spend my time running down "mainstream conservatives." I haven't any objection at all to mainstream conservatives. I run down conservative commentators -- I think I've mentioned 4 in total -- who hurt public discourse and the conservative cause by using bombastic rhetoric and simplistic arguments that mislead their audiences about reality.

I understand that you disagree with the premise of my project on public discourse. But that is no reason to conflate it with something I am not doing -- that is, attacking people because they are mainstream conservatives.

[Dan Riehl]

Conor - I also pointed out precisely how you damage the movement by what you are doing in substantive arguments some ways back you conveniently ducked. I'm not going to repeat myself here so you can flit away. Go look it up. Certainly you can find the post thread it's in, you've been in them all until forced to disappear when cornered it seems.

[mark l.]

"My point is that, and it has already been expressed before - there is "conservative" as a theoretical construct and then there is "conservative" as a political construct."

a brilliant distinction.

[Watcher]

Conor,

Thanks for clarifying.

I definitely agree with you on the need to return to fiscal sanity... but how much emphasis would you put on spending cuts vs tax cuts?

I'm sympathetic to your overall view on Roe vs Wade, but where do you come down on the issue of late term abortion? If it were possible to make it happen would you favor some sort of federal ban on all third trimester abortions, rather than a ban that singled out a specific procedure?

I'm glad to see that you are against the carbon tax and cap and trade, but I cringe whenever I see the words "climate change"... how much do you buy into the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Where do you stand on matters of foreign policy, if you don't mind my asking?

[Rich K]

Cant we just all get along?? OH Wait,Thats how we got Mr O as POTUS, Never mind. Back to the battlements Dan.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Dan,

Let's be clear -- I haven't disappeared from any thread, and I invite any reader who hasn't delved into the comments to do so. What they'll find are substantive arguments on my part, and a lot of ad hominem attacks from you.

You're free to think that I am damaging the conservative movement. I am happy to consider and address your argument if you'd like to direct me to it, but I'm not going to hunt through a dozen old threads. The protocol on blogs is to direct someone to your argument if you want a response. I'm sorry if I have missed some substantive point you've made, but it's difficult to follow all of the numerous posts you've made about me.

Readers should also note that Dan's last comment don't actually address or rebut the bulk of what I asserrted just above it. That is hardly a coincidence.

[mark l.]

"I definitely agree with you on the need to return to fiscal sanity"

this is the grand unification theory of conservatism.

man is endowed with an inherent element of altruism. the federal govt, in seeking to take property from others(via taxation) to perform its own acts of altruism is creating a society where altruism within the individual is no longer necessary. "a govt for the people, by the people" is going to last when it robs every vestige of altruism within the individual?

I look at donations to charities based on ideology, and have a good idea of the politcal sentiments of the people I do volunteer work with...liberalism cure the immediate defiicencies of society, but it destroys the indivuals and their very nature in doing so.

big fan of utilitarianism,

but when good is measured by how much money can be borrowed, rather than what exists, the system is doomed.

a side note to conor:
I have sympathies in regard to gay marriage and I would offer a short term fix. Given the rise in social networking, would it not be feasible to set up a system where same sex couples get paired with opposite gender same sex couples, for the sake of recieving healthcare benefits? yes, they would have to get "married", but within the gay community, emphasis could be given to 'civil unions' over the legal form of marriage.

worse case?
get the immediate healthcare that is required, and divorce when work is done. I venture a guess that there are singles who would be willing to accomodate such a plan.

add to the cocktail a stronger statement of a "power of attorney" at the civil union ceremony, and you answer many of the problems that same sex couples face.

[zaugg]

I would say it is too late to mention "Don't feed the Trolls". Coner has a mancrush on you Mr. Riehl.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Watcher,

On fiscal matters, there is so large a gulf between what I'd do if I were in charge, and what is politically possible, that I'm unsure how to answer, except to say that my first priority would be significant spending cuts.

One late term abortions, I am generally against them, and favor qualified though not outright bans -- if a woman faces a life-threatening health risk, I think she should be allowed to abort if there isn't any other solution, and I also favor exceptions to any ban if the baby has a medical condition that condemns them to a short, painful life -- I am thinking, for example, of an 8 month old in utero child who doesn't have any lungs and a heart condition that would kill it off within a week even if it were put on a ventilator. I am not sure whether abortion is objectively right or wrong in that case, but I think the parents, not the state, should make that decision.

On climate change, I think there's good reason -- though not absolute proof -- to think that humans are causing some warming. And that makes sense. Carbon is a greenhouse gas, and we've emitted a lot of it since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It would be sort of weird if that didn't have any effect at some point.

Does this man-caused climate change threaten humanity's future as gravely as some claim? Thus far, I am a skeptic, but I am also keenly conscious that it is a question beyond my capacity to answer. The prudent bet is close study, hedging risks, and balancing this unknown against addressing all the other possible but not definite risks that humanity faces. That means asking questions like, "What is the likelihood of damaging climate change versus the likelihood of a damaging asteroid strike vs. the likelihood of malaria killing people." By that metric, I think people like Al Gore want to dedicate vastly excessive resources to climate change.

On foreign policy -- well, that's a big question, isn't it? Could you be a bit more specific? I don't think any of the big umbrella descriptors on that subject are very precise, and I am reluctant to apply any ideology to any global situation that comes up.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Mark,

You write: "in seeking to take property from others(via taxation) to perform its own acts of altruism is creating a society where altruism within the individual is no longer necessary."

I think there's something to that. My sister works for a non-profit that helps kids with various ailments -- liver disease, kidney failure, autism, leukemia. You name the ailment, and they've got some poor kid who suffers from it. When asked about worthy charities, I encourage folks to donate to it, and more than once I've heard, "Can't they get government funds?"

What all this implies is a thorny question, but I do wish there were a way to recapture the private altruism of times past. Anyone who has volunteered at a non-profit knows that the experience is enriching and enhancing to civic culture in a way that paying taxes so that others might take care of the problem never can be.

[Watcher]

Conor,

With regards to foreign policy, yeah I guess that's a big question. I guess my main question is would you consider yourself a hawk or a dove in the war on terror?

Do you consider Iraq to be a mistake? What about Afghanistan? Do you think waterboarding should be banned in all circumstances, or should that option be kept on the table? What do you think should be done with the detainees held at Guantanamo? Do you think Obama is being too soft on Iran?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Watcher,

I find it tough to choose a label.

Certainly I favored the War in Afghanistan, and I supported the War in Iraq when I was convinced that the regime possessed WMDs. Partly due to their absence, and partly due to my sense that the expense and loss of life associated with that war haven't been worth it, I now think the Iraq War was a mistake, and I am chagrined for having thought otherwise, because in hindsight I think I should have known better. I am also troubled by the management of the invasion, and I am pessimistic about the long term prospects for Western friendly democracy in the country, though I very much hope I am wrong.

I do think that waterboarding should be banned in all circumstances. The only circumstance that even gives me pause about that, the much invoked ticking time bomb, simply doesn't happen in real life. A lot of well respected military people object to water boarding, as do many interrogation experts. If a policy of waterboarding causes even 10 percent of those folks to resign in protest or never join up in the first place, it isn't worth the cost.

Haw or dove? Well, I think Islamic terrorism is a grave threat. I favor aggressively killing Al Qaeda members. But I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, or that we should bomb Iran. Does that make me a hawk or dove?

I favor closing Gitmo. It's silly to think we can't hold those folks safely somewhere else, and the closure of the prison would be a PR win. Why not do it?

[Sam]

Conor:

How do you square your concern about the "public discourse" with your continuing obvious admiration for Andrew Sullivan?

I find it hard to think of anything that Levin, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, et.al., have said that comes within light-years of being as dishonest and despicable as his rantings about Governor Palin, or his recent borderline anti-semitic hallucinations about how the neo-cons control the "Washington establishment."

Yet, instead of disassocating yourself from this disgusting excuse for a human being, you and your friends (the former Culture 11 crowd) still treat him with the highest respect and admiration as a "conservative thinker" when he is clearly NOT a conservative, and not much of a thinker, besides being a repulsive, dishonest troll.

How so? Why is Levin denounced but Sullivan embraced? Please explain to us unenlightened ones. Wouldn't have anything to do with you getting thta gig at the Atlantic, would it?

Of course not.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sam,

I've addressed this criticism before, and I am happy to do so again.

I've read Andrew since 2001. It would be weird indeed if I judged his whole career based on one controversy.

Although I disagreed with Andrew's approach to Sarah Palin's pregnancy, and though I disagree with him now and then on all sorts of matters, I've always admired his willingness to post dissenting opinion on his blog -- there is a daily Dissent of the Day feature and a long list of reader e-mails. On the specific matter of Sarah Palin's kid, he encouraged his own assistant, Patrick, to publish a lengthy post on the blog that took the contrary position, and criticized Andrew's own stance. We're all going to be mistaken on different matters sometimes. But what more can you ask than that someone prominently post the opinions of folks who disagree with them?

I'd also say that just as Mr. Levin's rhetoric hurts the conservative cause, those specific Palin baby posts on Andrew's blog probably had the effect of hurting the anti-Palin cause. So I really don't see my stance here as inconsistent. Andrew is one of the most successful bloggers there is, and a damn good essayist too -- and if he's wrong on some specific question, he should be criticized, just as when Mark Levin is wrong on some specific question, he should be criticized.

The difference is that Andrew agrees that people who think he is wrong should criticize him, a rare and admirable thing, while Mr. Levin reacts to criticism with ad hominem attacks and jokes about how small the platforms of his critics are. Andrew's approach is superior.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

I should also note, Sam, that it is disgraceful and inaccurate to imply that Andrew is anti-semitic. That kind of knee-jerk accusation of racism is something I associate with the most witless campus activists. The right ought to be above that kind of thing, but lately, it doesn't seem to be.

[Dan Riehl]

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/conor-friedersdorf-report-to-the-cross-please.html

[Sam]

Conor:

Your response is a joke, right?

"But what more can you ask than that someone prominently post the opinions of folks who disagree with them?"

For starters, you can ask that they tell the truth and not engage in despicable character assassination. We're not talking about disagreements in ideas - Sullivan routinely engages in deliberate, malicious slander of those he disapproves of.

I also find it hilarious that you include in your defense of this POS that he is "one of the most successful bloggers there is" - an argument that you ridiculed when people criticizing your attack on Levin noted that he is a very successful author and talk show host.

Also, if Sullivan is so open to criticism, why does he not allow comments on his blog, instead of cherry-picking e-mails to post? I have read his self-serving explanations for this, but I prefer to apply Occam's Razor - it is because he is afraid to deal with criticism in an open forum. The behavior is that of a coward and a bully.

I will agree with you on one thing - your stance is not inconsistent. You have consistently shown that you will shamelessly accept any behavior, no matter how contemptible, by your little clique of goodthinkers, while abusing those you disagree with.

You and Sullivan are two of a kind.

(That is not a compliment.)

[Dan Riehl]

"I've read Andrew since 2001. It would be weird indeed if I judged his whole career based on one controversy."

Interesting that you would extend that courtesy to Sullivan, who has truly gone off the charts in too many ways to mention, not just one controversy, yet some comments from a far more significant thinker with a far superior record of contribution to the Right like Mark Levin is intolerable to the point you go off on a one buy crusade to convince his fans to turn him off.

Enjoy your stay at the atlantic. Always wondered how people got those gigs.

[Sam]

Conor:

You friend Andrew openly implies that the "neo-cons" got us into Iraq and are trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel. He frequently and aprovingly links to others (Greenwald, etc.) who state the same ideas openly.

What inference can we draw from this? Hmmmmmmm.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sam,

You write: "We're not talking about disagreements in ideas - Sullivan routinely engages in deliberate, malicious slander of those he disapproves of."

I really disagree with this. Throughout the Palin dust-up, Andrew was genuinely suspicious of whether the pregnancy was a farce.

"Your friend Andrew openly implies that the "neo-cons" got us into Iraq..."

Um, how is it anti-semetic to say (forget imply) that the neo-cons wanted to go to war in Iraq? My God. I'd like to see an anti-Semite rise to the editorship of The New Republic under Marty Peretz. That would be a trick.

"Interesting that you would extend that courtesy to Sullivan, who has truly gone off the charts in too many ways to mention, not just one controversy, yet some comments from a far more significant thinker with a far superior record of contribution to the Right like Mark Levin is intolerable to the point you go off on a one buy crusade to convince his fans to turn him off."

As I said, Dan, I criticize Sullivan when I disagree with him, and I criticize Levin when I disagree with him. And I don't want Levin's listeners to turn him off, I want them to pressure him to cut out the nonsense on his program.

[Watcher]

Conor,

I too have been frustrated by Bush's mismanagement of Iraq... but I still support our effort there, and I view the surge as a success. I take it that you either see the surge as a failure, or not enough of a success to keep you on board?

My take on the "ticking bomb" scenario used as a justification for waterboarding is that terrorist operations are themselves like timebombs. I don't think that means we should be waterboarding everyone that gets captured, but I'm not overly concerned about three or four guys in total being waterboarded, especially given that one of them was the guy who planned 9/11. There are times when the milk and cookies approach works, but we don't always have the luxury of time... if we had taken that approach with Khalid Sheikh Mohhamed, there likely would have been a catastrophic attack on Los Angeles.

And I get that you don't want to take military action against Iran... but what are your thoughts about the outcome of the election there and Obama's reaction to it, or lack thereof?

I'm a bit confused about what benefit there is to closing Gitmo, if they will just be held somewhere else... if they get moved to another version of Gitmo under a different name, then why go through that kabuki dance at all? Or are you saying that you want them held in the US and tried in our courts?

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Watcher,

Kabuki can be valuable in international affairs!

In Iran, it is my fervent hope that the protestors get their way. W/r/t President Obama, I think his judgment is that America speaking up too vocally on their behalf will hurt them more than it will help them. Is that true? I have no idea. It's just beyond my level of expertise.

I've never seen convincing evidence that waterboarding KSM prevented an attack on LA, but if you send a link I'll read it. But I think my prior argument stands on waterboarding: it's a practice that lots of respected military and intelligence people regard as torture, and I don't want to lose the services of those folks.

I also don't trust every future president to use it only in the situations that a reasonable guy like you would restrict it to. Better an outright ban.

[Sam]

Conor:

I really disagree with this. Throughout the Palin dust-up, Andrew was genuinely suspicious of whether the pregnancy was a farce.

Then he is a lunatic. Governor Palin's pregnancy was at least as well known and documented as Obama's citizenship.

"Your friend Andrew openly implies that the "neo-cons" got us into Iraq..."

Um, how is it anti-semetic to say (forget imply) that the neo-cons wanted to go to war in Iraq? My God. I'd like to see an anti-Semite rise to the editorship of The New Republic under Marty Peretz. That would be a trick."

Um, why do you leave off the last part of the quote: "...and are trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel. He frequently and aprovingly links to others (Greenwald, etc.) who state the same ideas openly."

That, um, omission kind of changes the whole meaning of my statement, doesn't it? Kind of a dishonest little trick , isn't it?

As far as the New Republic, Sullivan hasn't worked there for several years, so I fail to see the relevance of your remark. Think he could get a job there now? I somehow doubt it.

By the way, using "um" to open your sentences makes you sound like a pretentious little twerp. Thought you would like to know.

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sam,

I didn't address the Iran criticism yet -- I need to check up on it first -- but I don't think I've changed the Iraq part of the quotation. You wrote: "You friend Andrew openly implies that the "neo-cons" got us into Iraq and are trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel."

I am disputing that it is anti-semitic to say that the neocons got us into Iraq. And I've yet to address the charge that Andrew implies that the neocons "are trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel."

By the way, I'd be able to check up on that far more readily if you linked him.

[Mrs. Peperium]

Dan, thank you. I don't believe that I asked a question in this thread but, I loved your answer. I believe I'm also in total agreement (which must make me a Riehl World mind numb robot). Except I don't think you guys are hard enough on the Conor/Brooks/Drehers/Frums of the world. Really. These guys are destructive folks. Oh they talk a good game of building up conservatism like Obama talks about building up our country. Reality is, Obama is tearing apart our country and they are tearing conservatism apart.

Brooks & Co. were wrong with the last election. Remember the ridiculous things they penned? Obama, the cool cat and smart thinker -Christopher Buckley...the 'real'conservative -Jeffrey Hart...the reassuring mountain...David Brooks. (Dreher was different from those as he didn't vote for O, he absented himself from voting because the best case he could make for a President McCain was a brake on unbridled liberalism - which for a true conservative would be a strong enough case but I digress.) I do not know how Conor voted and do not care. After reading all of this, I do not care if I ever read another thing authored by him. Good luck to him at the Atlantic. My original comment on all of this was that he is exactly where he belongs with the odious anti-Christianist Andrew Sullivan. But back to the bigger Koi like Dreher/Brooks, they were more than wrong with the last election they also managed to be sneering and loathsome towards those that didn't see Obama the way they saw him. In other words, the ones who saw Obama for exactly what he was - MEN like Rush, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. The - I'll say it again- MEN who called the election right. Hells Bells Rush was the one who said the UAW would end up owning GM and Chrysler and he said that last November. Last November Brooks' thrill was still progressing up his leg and about to run smack into the spot Brook's tailor's tape measure leaves off.

Now, 6 months into the O Administration with trillions of deficits already racked up by O, instead of doing the honorable thing - a public mea culpa. Instead these guys have the audacity to carp (pun intended) that Rush and Mark et al are what's wrong with conservatism, they commit violence and dishonor to the public discourse, are uncouth, unenlightened, and all around disreputable. Well boys, and I do mean boys, you're wrong again.

And I'm not in the least surprised.

[Sam]

Conor:

I thought the meaning of my original statement was plain, but let me clarify it for you:

Your friend Andrew openly implies that the neo-cons got us into Iraq to promote the interests of Israel and are now trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel.

[Dan Riehl]

Mrs. P: I'm not in the least surprised.

Nor am I, unfortunately. The "conservatives" you mention and like Sullivan have divorced themselves from some critical components of formulating conservative positions and ideals. By that, I mean experience, history, observation, documentable fact. and so on. It's the same trap conor has fallen into.

Cliches aside, conservativism is a reality-based ideology - it takes facts into consideration in formulating its course. The liberal, on the other hand, prefers to live in the realm of theory, amorphous ideals - and simply ideas.

Data from the Great depression that demonstrates the unsoundness of FDR's programs doesn't matter - he "spread wealth" in a time of poverty. It was the "right" thing to do, but only in purely theoretical terms. In practical terms - and conservatism is very much about what is practical, even over what is most "desireable" perhaps - FDR failed as he prolonged the depression.

Look at the tangible effects of LBJ and the horror of what his Great Soceity wrought on the black community. That doesn't matter to the liberal. He did the "right" thing IT WOULD SEEM - so they will happily do it, again. There is no accounting for experience with the liberal view.

So now, conor, Brooks, Frum, Dreher, by longing to be part of the intelligentsia are abandoning practical experience for a world solely of ideas, too. It is why conor can only offer opinions and not facts in his arguments. He doesn't live in that world. He wants a place in the theoretical world, because it is "worldly." That's the very word he used to describe himself. Unfortunately, in doing so, they are cutting themselves off from such a critical mooring for conservative thought, it is only a function of time before they will continue to "think" more and more like a liberal would. And hey will continue to justify it on the theoretical construct of conservatism that exists in their minds, but nowhere else.

[narciso]

Add to that, they were not only singularly wrong about Obama, but they were wrong about Palin, and what she was right about, I recall one particular Culture 11 thread, where the Halloween motif was employed as a way of dismissing the actual argument she was making.
As the saying goes, 'this was more than a crime, it was a mistake' The 'right'peoples would have picked Scranton over Goldwater, Baker and Connally over Reagan, and Heath over
Thatcher. Now the argument seems to be to squander the hard fought gains in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then again having spoken in Mubarak's Egypt where they really do torture, and Islamists do control the street, it's not surprising this where we ended up

[Conor Friedersdorf]

Sam writes: "I thought the meaning of my original statement was plain, but let me clarify it for you:

Your friend Andrew openly implies that the neo-cons got us into Iraq to promote the interests of Israel and are now trying to start a war with Iran to promote the interests of Israel."

On re-reading your original statement, I see that's what you were saying all along. My apologies for misunderstanding. I read Andrew pretty closely. I cannot ever recall him saying that we got into Iraq to promote the interests of Israel. But maybe I am wrong. Could you provide a link?

Also, do you assume that Andrew equates neo-cons with Jews? Why?

[Watcher]

Conor,

Deroy Murdock does a pretty good job of making Khalid Sheikh Mohammed out to be the poster boy for waterboarding:
http://tinyurl.com/ch5nlt

Though this news throws a bit of cold water on that:
http://tinyurl.com/mxcto3

[Sam]

Conor:

I'll give you three links:

This one gives Sullivan the benefit of the doubt, and calls his behavior merely confusing and incoherent.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/the_incipient_iranian_revoluti.php

These two take a less, shall we say, charitable interpretation of Sullivan:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/sullivan_and_khamenei_agree_je.asp

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/70661

I will not link directly to Sullivan.