David Brooks: neo-conservative creepy spendthrift fascist
(Minor updates to fix typos)
David Brooks doesn’t want to be called a neo-conservative anymore. There was a great deal of hub-bub last month over his Op-Ed column in the New York Times, in which he opines that there is no coherent group of neo-conservatives, and that critics of the influence of neo-conservatism in the Bush administration are nothing more than full-mooner anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists:
In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for conservative and neo is short for Jewish) travel in widely different circles and don’t actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle’s insidious power over administration policy, but I’ve been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he’s shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.
Now, this is a particularly silly bit of revisionism, well debunked by Michael Lind in his essay,
A Tragedy of Errors (or, for that matter, by Irving Kristol, who explains at length what neoconservatism is, why he and others adopted the term for themselves in the 1970s in his Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea and more briefly in his recent essay for The Weekly Standard from August of last year, The Neoconservative Persuasion).
Nevertheless, it is possible for legitimate terms to become meaningless through uncritical overuse and misapplication, and there may be a case to be made that the uncritical uptake of the term by some anti-war activists to mean nothing more or less than pro-war Republican has at least made the use of the term a bit iffy. And in any case, it is kind of rude to call someone by a label that they would no longer like to be called by.
Therefore, in respect of David Brooks’ wishes, I will no longer use the word neo-conservative to describe him, or other conservatives advocating powerful, Executive-centric central government, traditionalist paternalism in domestic policy, economic command and control under the State-subsidized management of corporate leaders, belligerent military colonialism, a permanent wartime footing, and the revival of a sense of National Greatness. But then we need a new name to describe Brooks, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, et al. I suggest: creepy spendthrift fascists.
In weather today, the forecast for Hell is cloudy and below freezing, with a chance of snow:
WASHINGTON – Conservative television news anchor Bill O’Reilly said Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.
I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this, O’Reilly said in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America.
What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera? asked O’Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.
O’Reilly said he was much more skeptical about the Bush administration now since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction. . . .
He added: I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be.
I have no kind words to say for Bill O’Reilly; I think that he is an ignorant raver and his show is an on-going exercise in the worst sorts of thoughtless, anti-intellectual bullying. Moreover, on this particular issue I don’t have any sympathy at all: he was suckered in by a not-so-subtle propaganda operation producing ahistorical, politically expedient lies—propaganda that anyone should have been (and many were) able to see through without any great difficulty. Be that as it may, O’Reilly’s admission is an admirable act from a mostly regrettable man. He may be a bully, but he’s not a charlatan.
The same cannot be said, alas, for Donald Rumsfeld. Thus Tom Tomorrow:
He’s either a complete liar or he’s completely senile. Either way, he should resign tomorrow. This is just outrageous.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he did not recall British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s pre-war claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed in 45 minutes.
I don’t remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest, Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference.
General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he didn’t remember the statement either.
The claim made headlines around the world after Blair leveled it in a 55-page white paper presented to the House of Commons in September 2002.
I can’t even begin to express my astonishment. . . .
…this is the biggest problem I face as a satirist these days: these guys keep outdoing my cartoons. How am I supposed to stay ahead?
The sorriest fact about this whole affair is not so much that Rumsfeld is mouthing such bald lies, but that the Bush administration has created and institutionalized such an environment of half-truths, duplicity, and deceit that it may actually be plausible to say that Rumsfeld and his gang actually believe this stuff; in their own echo chamber they may have begun to believe in the lies that they have created.
But if this is so, then the very insularity and deceit and secrecy may be a reason to take hope: the senior officials of the Bush administration, surrounded by yes-men and PR twists on every side, has become routinely accustomed to its spin and while Democrats are looking increasingly invigorated for the upcoming election, Bush increasingly seems simply out of touch with the fact that he might possibly have some difficulties being re-elected:
First of all, he’s [John Kerry’s] not the nominee, and I look forward
Are you prepared to lose?
No, I’m not going to lose.
If you did, what would you do?
Well, I don’t plan on losing. I have got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and there is good reason to hope that the American people are more and more prepared to rise up against Bush and his gang for what they have done. Even George Will and Bill O’Reilly are starting to think that this ship may be going down. I know that it’s very hasty to make predictions at this point, but if things continue to go as they have been going, then when will Bush and his gang realize it, and what will it do to them? As an administration that has spent the past 4 years feverishly working to construct their own pseudoreality and to break the whole American public to their will, what will it mean if they suddenly realize that they are on the brink of losing it all? Let’s hope that they find out—all too late.
And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dûr was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other senior government officials in the U.S. and U.K. told us that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. They told us that they were actively trying to find nuclear weapons. They told us that they had connections with the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and that therefore Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Therefore pre-emptive war was necessary, and nothing short of regime change would do.
Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq had no connections with al-Qaeda.
Iraq was not any threat to the United States whatsoever.
Or, to put it another way: they are a bunch of big fat fucking liars and as a result some 600 British and American troops, and somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.
The administration’s line now is that in spite of all of this, it was really no-one’s fault that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom went off to war on a lie. We got it all wrong, the story goes, but from the evidence that we had in front of us, it looked pretty reasonable to us at the time. To which the obvious response is: What you mean we, paleface? As Scott Ritter points out, IHT: Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq’s weapons [IHT].
In case you have forgotten, there were lots of people—gosh, maybe even a whole movement of people—who said that Iraq posed no imminent threat.
We showed that the administration’s case for war was based on shaky evidence, leaky-bucket arguments, politicized manipulation of data, and constantly shifting rationalizations.
We argued that there was no good reason at all to believe that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
We also said, by the way, that the assault on Iraq would kill thousands of civilians and that it would result in a nasty, rudderless, destructive, costly, and hopeless occupation.
I am all for careful examination of the data on the table. But when the data on the table is this clear there are certain sorts of politically expedient mincing—much loved by blowhard teevee experts and newspaper columnists—that common decency demands we put to one side.
We didn’t get it wrong, Messrs. Bush and Blair and Cheney and Rumsfeld. You did. The facts are: the anti-war movment was right, and you were wrong. We told the truth, and you lied. But because you had the guns and the tanks and the bombs to do it, you unleashed this dirty war anyway. There’s no way to fudge that or qualify that or get around that, and the blood of the dead and maimed is on your hands. There is no we about it. There’s some moral clarity for you; stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Bill Pryor (this is one of his more flattering portraits)
I’ve never liked Bill Pryor.
Why not? Well, there is, for example, his amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, in which he opines that gay sex between consenting adults is fundamentally akin to necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia and that a right of privacy protecting the former would logically have to extend to the latter. Or there is his on-going one-man war to waste as much of Alabama tax-payers’ money as possible (in a time of fiscal crisis) by defending the state’s idiotic sex toy ban from the neferious machinations of the federal court system.
One might also mention his winning record on women’s rights–not only as a militant opponent of Roe v. Wade, but also as the only state Attorney General in the nation to file an amicus brief opposing key sections of the Violence Against Women Act in Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute. (The court agreed and struck down the provisions, which empowered rape survivors to seek recompensation through a civil suit in federal court. Thanks, Bill.)
Bill Pryor has, in short, made some enemies. Not surprisingly, as a dangerous theocratic Rightist, he’s a prime candidate for a Bush Administration judicial appointment to the federal bench. As much as I like to see a hometown boy making good, I can’t say that I disagree with the on-going effort by women’s rights, civil rights, and religious liberties groups to stop his nomination. And I have to say that I’m rather glad that Senate Democrats are filibustering his nomination.
But liberals and Internet anarcha-feminist weblogs are no longer the only people calling for Pryor’s nomination to be scotched.
A group of supporters of ousted Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore asked Friday that President Bush withdraw
the nomination of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to be a federal judge.
The Rev. Frank Raddish, founder and director of the Washington-based Capitol Hill Independent Baptist Ministries,
said Pryor abandoned his previous position supporting public Ten Commandments displays when he prosecuted
Moore before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
The court removed Moore from office for refusing to obey U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson’s order to move a
5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.
Given my frequent fulminations of Roy Moore’s anathemas, you may find it a bit surprising that I actually welcome Roy Moore’s supporters to the fold. And not just as a matter of political expedience–they are actually right that Bill Pryor’s stance on the prosecution of Roy Moore make him completely unfit for a federal judgeship. This may strike you as odd, since I vociferously lauded Moore’s prosecution and removal from the bench, and I think that Bill Pryor’s prosecution of Moore was entirely the right thing to do. So what gives?
The short answer is that Bill Pryor chose the right action, but he chose it for entirely the wrong reason. Pryor has urged in repeated public statements that he agrees with Moore about State-sponsored display of the Ten Commandments, but that he is prosecuting Moore because Moore defied a federal court order that both he and Moore consider to be fundamentally mistaken. Pryor’s mouthpiece put it this way: It’s one thing to support the idea of having a monument in a court building. It’s an entire [sic] different issue to support defiance of federal court orders. So Pryor’s position is this: the federal court order is a mistake; it has no foundation in Constitutional law, and is in fact an illegal violation of the prerogatives of the several states; and yet Roy Moore has no business disobeying it.
It’s bad enough to be, like Moore, a dangerous theocrat with complete contempt for the law. But how much worse is it to combine, like Pryor, theocratic Right-wing politics with blind obsequiousness to federal power? If the federal court order were in fact illegal what possible argument could there be that Roy Moore should be forced to comply with it? Roy Moore’s position in this fracas is pernicious; but Pryor’s is beneath contempt.
So welcome to the fold, Mooreans! Écrasez l’inf?@c3;a2;me.
