News

Loading...

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Pot Calling the Copper Kettle Black

The apostle Lew, disciple of the savior Murray, is outraged that someone questioned Saint Ron:

"Writes Justin Raimondo:

"Bruce Bartlett, former columnist for Libertarian Review turned neocon, and Andy “Gay Marriage Is All” Sullivan, team up to smear Ron Paul as a 'crackpot' and lie about his view of the Fed."

Well, Bartlett never called Paul a "crackpot": he called one of his ideas "crackpot." (An important difference: Newton was not a crackpot, but his theological notions probably could be described as such.) And Sullivan never called Paul or his ideas anything at all! He just linked to Bartlett, without further commentary. And what lies are being told? Paul does want Congress to have Fed oversight, doesn't he? Maybe there is some "lie" involved (I'm really not following the details of this debate), but what is it? And couldn't it have been an honest mistake? No, let's just assume it's a "lie," as calling your opponent a liar is so much more gratifying than calling him mistaken.

And note: how is it relevant that Bartlett may have "turned neocon", and what is it but an ad hominem attack to throw in "Gay Marriage Is All" in the middle of Sullivan's name? (I'm convinced, by the way, that Raimondo has a big time crush on Sullivan, he is so obsessed with the fellow.) And, not only is it irrelevant, it's a lie! Sullivan's doctoral thesis on Oakeshott was certainly not focused on the issue of gay marriage.

So when someone makes a substantive criticism of one of the ideas of one of the Mises Institute's Church Fathers, that is a "smear," but when the response is irrelevant personal attacks, well, that's just good clean fun, hey? This is not the way one conducts intellectual debate; this is the way one riles up the passions of the faithful in a modern, gnostic revolutionary movement.

22 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:45 PM

    Oh please: Bartlett turning neocon is certainly relevant: we are, after all, talking about Bartlett's politics. Sullivan citing Bartlett's bull without comment is in itself a comment: and no, I don't have a "crush" on Sullivan -- not everything gay men do relates back to their sexuality. Not that you're a bigot, or anything like that ....

    -- Justin Raimondo

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:47 PM

    And Ron doesn't want Congress setting monetary policy: he wants a free market in banking and a 100 percent gold dollar. why are you pretending not to know this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene, these exercises are always so much fun!

    (1) Lew Rockwell simply reproduced Justin Raimondo's email without commenting on it. So what he did with Raimondo is exactly equivalent to what Sullivan did with Bartlett. Hence, if Rockwell is wrong for criticizing Sullivan, then Callahan is wrong for criticizing Rockwell (for the exact same reason).

    (2) As far as ad hominems, how was it relevant that you told us a one post ago that the guy you disagreed with (regarding the interpretation of Rousseau) was a racist?

    (3) Yes I think they are definitely misrepresenting what the bill does. Now are they "lying"? I don't know, I'm not in their heads. I think they have devoted as much effort to the details as you did. So let's call it a draw: Raimondo (not Rockwell, remember) called Bartlett a liar with as much justification as you are challenging the assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry it was a few posts ago (not the last one) where Gene brought up the completely irrelevant fact that a guy he disagreed with was a racist.

    In case it's not clear, my purpose here isn't to argue with Gene on points (1) - (3) above. It's not worth even the effort to do so on a blog. My point is that whenever Gene decides to lecture us on how unscholarly Murray Rothbard is, very often in that same post Gene displays the exact behavior he is criticizing.

    And Justin, set your sights higher man. You can do better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh duh, I forgot the funniest of all the points I intended to make:

    (4) After writing, "And couldn't it have been an honest mistake? No, let's just assume it's a "lie," as calling your opponent a liar is so much more gratifying than calling him mistaken." a mere three sentences later Gene declares of Raimondo's claim that Sullivan only cares about gay marriage: "And, not only is it irrelevant, it's a lie!"

    I hope everyone else finds this as funny as I do. Gene, if you did the above to be ironic, then my apologies. But I'm not sure. If I had to guess, I would say you were quite sure your opponents (Rockwell and Raimondo) were lying about Sullivan, and found it more gratifying to use that word rather than calling them simply mistaken about Sullivan's views.

    (Actually let's drop the posturing. We all know Raimondo was using that as a way to punch Sullivan, as if he called him a d-bag or something. You wouldn't say, "That's a lie! Sullivan doesn't help women when they feel not-so-fresh!")

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) No, Bob, Lew didn't just pass it on: He titled it "Anti-Ron-Paul tag team."

    2) It was relevant because the reason the racist wanted to denigrate Rousseau was Rousseau's view of human equality.

    4) Raimondo implies at least that Sullivan is obsessed with the gay marriage issue, and THAT is a lie, and Raimondo knows it: out of the last 50 posts Sullivan made, for instance, exactly 1 mentions gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Bartlett turning neocon is certainly relevant: we are, after all, talking about Bartlett's politics."

    Sure, Justin. Following Rothbard, you believe that once you have merely identified someone as a member of the "party of evil," you have instantly discredited everything they say. We were NOT talking about Bartlett's "politics"... well, actually, WE weren't talking about anything until just now... we were talking about a very specific policy debate. Now, Paul or Bartlett may have the better argument -- I don't know -- but the fact that one of them may be a "neocon" has nothing to do with answering that question.

    And, no, I don't think everything gay men do is related to their sexuality. I DO think that YOU are obsessed with Sullivan. If I saw a man making posts like this about a woman, I would suggest that maybe he has a crush on her, as well.

    Finally, "we" are not talking abou what "Ron" ultimately wants, we are talking about his support of this one bill. Why are you pretending you do not know this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. And what does that actual, non-LVMI-fantasy Bartlett think about neo-conservatism?

    "What we call neoconservatism today, which more closely resembles imperialism than anything else, was nowhere in evidence."

    http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1109/remembering-irving-kristol

    "I think the party got seriously on the wrong track during the George W. Bush years..."

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2328264/posts

    With neocons running things, hey?

    "Bartlett, who worked for the conservative think tank National Center for Policy Analysis until last October when he was fired due to his criticisms of the Bush administration, has become a major critic of the president's fiscal policy."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-alterman/think-again-second-third-_b_16323.html

    Hmm, so Bartlett was actually fired from his job because he was too harsh a critic of the neocon Bush administration, hey? And apparently he was even warned of this in advance.

    Now, I know, by "neocon," Raimondo only means "someone you don't have to pay attention to, believe me." But Bartlett doesn't look very neocon to me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, I now get the point of Raimondo's comment about "Ron doesn't want Congress setting monetary policy..." Bartlett said "putting the Congress in control of monetary policy--Ron Paul's goal..."

    Ahem. I think it's pretty clear that Bartlett is talking about "Ron Raul's goal with this bill," and not "Ron Paul's ultimate goals for political society," or anything like that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, wait, I correct myself... Sullivan does comment with his headline. I actually didn't notice that until just now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. GilesS7:42 AM

    "The apostle Lew, disciple of the savior Murray, is outraged that someone questioned Saint Ron:"

    Haha, that's great.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gene,

    (1) I'm not going to bother digging up evidence; you can choose to believe this or not. But you can't simply take quotes from Bartlett over time to see what his position on things is, because he changes his views to fit whatever is most fashionable at the time. E.g. do you have a problem with people calling Glenn Beck a neocon, even though if you only listened to him since the Obama election, you'd think he was a real small-government guy? (That's the mistake I made until Glenn Greenwald set me straight.) I'm not saying Bartlett is a neocon--I actually don't know what that term is supposed to mean, precisely--but for sure I don't think Bartlett fights fair. And he definitely has a problem with Ron Paul, which suggests to me that Bartlett is a fan of the Imperial State. (In contrast, people like Jon Stewart or Glenn Greenwald can have their differences with Paul's views, but they don't dismiss him as a crackpot or a hypocrite.)

    (2) Per your own criterion, you must have a ginormous man-crush on Murray Rothbard. Jeez Gene, at least Justin is infatuated with a guy who's still alive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (BTW obviously I do not think Justin Raimondo has a crush on Andrew Sullivan, in case anyone doesn't get the weak attempt at internet humor.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob, his anti-Bush book was written in 2004, at the point Bush was going to easily win a second term, and got Bartlett fired from his job! That doesn't sound like someone just following fashion.

    So, where is the evidence that Bartlett was EVER a neocon? (And no, some War on Terror enthusiasm from 2002 won't do; 80% of the country was enthusiastic about the WOT back then, but 80% had not "turned neocon.") I spent a half-an-hour on Google searching his name and "neocon", and all I found were critical quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5:57 PM

    I'd just like to point out that the irony in the original post is astounding.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5:58 PM

    I use the term "neocon" in this context to mean a sort of "two cheers for capitalism" attitude toward economic issues, and the willingness of some on the right, including Bartlett, to go along with some expansion of the role of government, including new taxes. (I believe Bartlett recently came out for some new form of taxation in the name of "fiscal conservatism," please correct me if I'm wrong.) David Frum is making a second career out of trying to moderate the radical anti-statism that the "Glenn Beck right" is currently flirting with.

    Btw, Bartlett wrote a series on the neocons for Libertarian Review waaaaay back in the late 1970s: it would be interesting to go back and contrast his critique of their "big government conservatism" then, and his own views now.

    In short: no, I don't mean that Bartlett had his own seat in Alcove No. 1. But since "we're all neoconservatives now," as the neocons have been triumphantly proclaiming, Bartlett merely reflects mainstream "conservative" views -- including opposition to Ron Paul's radical proposal to end the Fed (NOT hand it over to Congress).

    -- JR

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I use the term "neocon" in this context to mean a sort of "two cheers for capitalism" attitude toward economic issues, and the willingness of some on the right, including Bartlett, to go along with some expansion of the role of government, including new taxes."

    Thank you for clarifying. In other words, you are making up your own, novel use of neocon.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'But since "we're all neoconservatives now," as the neocons have been triumphantly proclaiming...'

    So, you agree with them?

    "including opposition to Ron Paul's radical proposal to end the Fed (NOT hand it over to Congress)."

    Yes, I'm sure in your fantasy world, Bartlett was objecting to Ron Paul's bill to end the Fed. Here in the real world, he was objecting to Paul's bill to give greater control over the Fed to Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "At this very moment Israel has a great deal of its nuclear arsenal – containing at least 200 atom bombs– aimed straight at Tehran, as well as god-knows-how-many other Middle Eastern capitals."

    You are quite the satirist, Justin. A "great deal" of Israel's nuclear arsenal is "aimed straight at" many Middle Eastern capitals simultaneously!

    ReplyDelete
  20. GilesS11:17 AM

    "(2) Per your own criterion, you must have a ginormous man-crush on Murray Rothbard. Jeez Gene, at least Justin is infatuated with a guy who's still alive."

    Dr Murphy, when are you planning on proposing to Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Murray Tyson4:57 PM

    @Gene,

    "If I saw a man making posts like this about a woman, I would suggest that maybe he has a crush on her, as well."

    LOL

    I knew you had a crush on Karen DeCoster, all along!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:22 PM

    You guys are so funny, whippin each other's asses with flyswatters like my momma used to do with me.

    ReplyDelete