C'MON ANDREW
Jonah Goldberg
The Corner
This quote by Glenn Greenwald is objectively inaccurate and stupid and yet Andrew Sullivan makes it his "quote of the day" and says it "accurately" diagnoses the current situation. Greenwald writes:
<<< It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.
Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush." >>>
Me: I defy either of them to attempt to demonstrate this assertion factually. Andrew has quoted countless conservatives' criticisms of the President (the merits of the criticism vary widely). They aren't all suddenly liberals -- even in the eyes of Bush "loyalists" -- for criticizing Bush. Just off the top of my head: John McCain, Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan (and the entire staff and contributor's list of The American Conservative), the whole gang at Cato, everyone on the right who opposed the Miers nomination, Christopher DeMuth, Robert George, George Will, Brian Riedl and the usual slew of deficit hawks and many, many others. Oh: I should also probably add that National Review opposed the formation of the Dept of Homeland Security, published very, very critical pieces and editorials against Bush's spending priorities, immigration proposal, various nominations -- including Miers -- his drug policy, his faith-based initiative, his punting on affirmative action and Title IX and lord knows what else. I personally have criticized Bush countless times, and it's pretty much a staple of every speech I give for me to denounce "compassionate conservatism."
Now, I really could go on for a very long time but I don't see why it's necessary, since Greenwald and, by extension, Andrew are absolutist and categorical. In none of the above cases am I aware of an instance where these various voices were automatically and unreflectingly labled "liberal" by anyone of any substance or prominence on the Right. None of these people have pledged "blind loyalty" to Bush and Andrew should know better. Simply because he gets a lot of email calling him a liberal doesn't mean he represents a trend, a cause or a movement. As for Greenwald: I really couldn't care less.
corner.nationalreview.com
time.blogs.com |
