BY JAMES TARANTO
Friday, August 8, 2003 4:49 p.m. EDT
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003862
The MoveOn Mob
Oh dear, now the Angry Left is angry at us. The Wall Street Journal has been hit by a mass e-mail campaign, spurred by our Tuesday item in which we characterized MoveOn.org as a "far-left, pro-Saddam group." The summer intern who's filling in for the Journal's vacationing letters editor reports that the messages started rolling in shortly after 6 p.m. EDT yesterday. In the first 15 minutes, 200 to 250 messages arrived; by 7 p.m. the count was over 600. As of early this afternoon, it was approaching 3,500. At least 1,200 messages have also gone to a Wall Street Journal Online customer-service mailbox.
One enterprising chap even tracked down our home number and phoned to express his outrage that we accused MoveOn of being (his word) "extremist." Later in the conversation he informed us that Saddam Hussein's regime posed no threat and that George W. Bush isn't really the president.
We're a bit mystified as to who's orchestrating this campaign; we can't find any reference to it on MoveOn's Web site or in yesterday's MoveOn e-mail (yes, we're on the list). But to whoever is behind this, here's a word of advice: This sort of tactic just is not persuasive. Normally we read all our e-mails, including those from readers who take vigorous exception to our opinions. Sometimes we write back to our critics, and on occasion they'll even persuade us that they have a point, or vice versa.
But when a commentator or a publication gets hundreds or thousands of e-mails on the same subject making essentially the same point, they aren't going to get read. No one has that kind of time. By orchestrating a mass e-mail campaign like this, you do not advance your argument. All you do is prove that you're capable of commanding an angry mob.
From the half-dozen or so e-mails we've seen, it seems likely that most of the complainers have never read our column and were responding not to what we wrote but to someone else's description of it. Here's how one began: "It was a shock to pick up a copy of the Journal yesterday and read that I am pro-Saddam." We suppose it would have been quite a shock, but this statement could not be true. No article in the Journal has ever characterized MoveOn as "pro-Saddam"; the description appeared only on this Web site. Another e-mail described the language in question as having appeared in "Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post"--the wrong medium and the wrong newspaper.
We did hear from some legitimate readers who took issue with our characterization, so let's address the issue on the merits. This missive, which came from one of the mass e-mailers, sums up the argument well:
Describing MoveOn as "far-left" and "pro-Saddam" not only distorts but, frankly, insults the diversity and the intelligence of MoveOn's membership. Such labeling is terribly inaccurate at best, manipulative extremism at worst. MoveOn has never supported Saddam Hussein.
MoveOn supported further U.N. inspections in Iraq and respect for international law. The unilateral, pre-emptive war on Iraq was denounced by MoveOn (and world global opinion) as bad policy.
The idea that MoveOn is not "far left" is simply delusional. This is the group that held an online "primary" in June in which, as we noted, Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich finished first and second respectively, receiving between them more than two-thirds of the "vote." In this crowd, John Kerry supporters are the "right wing."
As for "pro-Saddam," we suppose some clarification is in order. We will concede there is no evidence that MoveOn's members are admirers of Saddam Hussein himself, his ideology or his style of tyranny. Very few Americans are pro-Saddam in that sense.
But MoveOn is, or at least was, pro-Saddam in this sense: Its position on the major issue of the day, whether to effect "regime change" in Iraq through military force, was essentially indistinguishable from that of Saddam himself. MoveOn advocated continuing a 12-year standoff whose central feature was that it left Saddam in power.
One may argue that MoveOn's objection was to the means ("unilateral" war, as our letter-writer inaccurately calls it) rather than to the end (Saddam's ouster). This presupposes, however, that some means other than war was available to effect this end. We doubt it, and in any case MoveOn never, to our knowledge, put forward an alternative policy aimed at accomplishing regime change. There's no getting around the conclusion that had MoveOn had its way, Iraqis would still be suffering under Saddam's tyranny.
In light of all this, is it fair to call MoveOn "pro-Saddam"? That's a matter of opinion, and this is an opinion column. We'll say this, though: For a group as given to hysterical, hyperbolic criticism of our country's leaders as MoveOn is, these folks are awfully thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of their own positions and actions. The Angry Left can dish it out, but they can't take it.
No Ifs or Ands About It, Anyway
Our item yesterday on Al Gore's MoveOn speech was slightly unfair. We read the transcript in a hurry and missed the rote disclaimer: "The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the president deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan." Actually, this is better than the standard disclaimer; the statement that "the president deserves credit" could not have been popular with this audience. (Come to think of it, we wonder to whom the guy who phoned us thinks Gore was referring.)
That said, guess what the first word of Gore's very next sentence was? It's the same word that always follows the rote disclaimer: "Of course, Saddam was a brutal dictator . . ." We won't give it away, but here's a clue: Chances are you're sitting on a homophone.
Brown-Baiting Schwarzenegger
Wow, is this California recall ever getting zany. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy Wednesday, and as expected the attacks against him have begun. Believe it or not, the chief accusation seems to be that Schwarzenegger is some sort of National Socialist, or at least . . . well, we're really at a loss to explain what it is he's being "accused" of. London's Guardian reports that a Schwarzenegger biographer discovered that his father was "a frequently drunk local police chief who had signed up for the Nazi party after the 1938 Anschluss."
A Nazi? In Austria? In 1938? Who'da thunk it? It's not entirely clear in what way Schwarzenegger père's party affiliation is supposed to reflect on Schwarzenegger fils, especially since the latter wasn't born until 1947. But check out this lovely bit of guilt-by-association:
It would, of course, not be the first time the son of an unpleasant minor official from provincial Austria rose to high office through sheer force of will. But Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger is no Adolf Hitler, whatever you might have thought of Conan the Barbarian.
For one thing, he is quite liberal as far as Republicans go.
One wonders how the Guardian would characterize Hitler's ideology "as far as Republicans go." And did you know that Schwarzenegger's middle name is Alois? Neither did we, so why mention it here? Perhaps because it calls to mind one Alois Schickelgruber?
Meanwhile, Slate's Tim Noah is on another one of his wacky crusades. It seems that Schwarzenegger is friendly with Kurt Waldheim, the former U.N. secretary-general and Austrian president who was discovered in 1986 to have been a Nazi intelligence officer and war-crimes suspect. Waldheim was invited to Schwarzenegger's wedding; he did not attend but sent a gift.
Noah acknowledges Schwarzenegger's no Nazi; the actor "has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel . . ., and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles." Even so, Noah claims, "if Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California." Somehow this assertion seems far-fetched.
Bring 'Em On, Baby
Blogger William Dyer expands on our suggestion yesterday that Schwarzenegger be allowed to run for president:
It drove the Angry Left nuts when Dubya baited the US military's honey-trap by telling would-be terrorists in Iraq to "bring 'em on"--Dubya's Texas drawl simply ruled when delivering that line. But The Terminator can deliver not only an ominous accent but a physical presence that bodes major mayhem. . . . I very much want our President to be someone who can, when appropriate, take a blunt, pithy, and aggressive phrase, and then deliver it into the CNN microphones in just the utterly convincing way that will turn it into the shrieking, bed-wetting #1 cause of recurring nightmares for even non-English speakers like Osama bin Ladin.
Cruz-ing for a Bruising
Remember this story, from our Feb. 13, 2001, column?
California's Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante "referred to African Americans by a racial slur at a Black History Month speech, a word he characterized as a "slip" and said he regretted," reports the San Francisco Chronicle. "This word comes out my mouth, and I didn't know what to do," Bustamante tells the Chronicle. "I kept on going with the speech--when I got done, I just stood there. I couldn't believe what came out of my mouth. I tried to apologize--I told folks there in the room that I can't let you leave and think somehow this is me. I know it came out of my mouth, but it is not how I was taught, it is not how I teach my children."
How can a word just "slip out" like that? Turns out Bustamante's speech dealt with early civil-rights leaders, and the lieutenant governor was using the word "Negro," which of course has fallen into disuse. In one case he misspoke and said what the paper delicately describes as "the n-word."
Blogger Patrick Frey does. Bustamante is now a candidate for governor, and Frey observes: "He'd better be careful how he pronounces the name 'Schwarzenegger.' "
The Eroding Democratic Base
Democratic optimists like to argue that for demographic reasons, a majority for their party is just around the corner. America is increasingly nonwhite, the argument goes, and most nonwhite ethnic groups tend to vote Democratic. Republican optimists rest their hopes on the prospect of winning over Hispanic voters, who are not as monolithically Democratic as blacks. Today's New York Times, however, identifies "what some Democratic strategists fear may be a growing problem: The party is perilously out of touch with a large swath of black voters--those 18 to 35 years old who grew up after the groundbreaking years of the civil rights movement."
"Those shifting away from the Democratic Party are not necessarily becoming Republicans," the Times notes:
An overwhelming majority of blacks still vote Democratic. But an increasing number, especially those 18 to 35, are identifying themselves as independents. Some 24 percent of black adults now characterize themselves that way. Among those 35 and under, said David Bositis, a senior researcher at the Joint Center who conducted the survey, the figures are 30 percent to 35 percent, with men leaning more heavily independent than women.
For Democrats, the downside of weaker partisan ties is twofold. Unlike older blacks, many of whom vote consistently because they remember a time when they could not, younger blacks are more prone to sit out an election if no candidate grabs their interest. And even if they are not registered Republicans, younger blacks are more open to supporting Republican candidates and issues than older blacks.
Still, even a small shift in black votes away from Democrats would be ominous for the party. In presidential elections Democrats have been able to count on overwhelming support from blacks since 1964, when Barry Goldwater, an opponent of that year's Civil Rights Act, was the GOP nominee. Goldwater lost in a landslide, but since then, notwithstanding near-unanimous support from blacks, no Democratic presidential candidate has managed to draw a majority of the nationwide popular vote, with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976, who got 50.06%.
Another theory popular among Democrats has it that the party lost its majority precisely because of its support for civil rights, which ended its monopoly on the South. This may explain Richard Nixon's narrow victory in 1968 (though he carried only five Southern states), but in none of the elections from 1972 to 1996 was the South decisive in favor of the Republican candidate. President Bush would not have won without the South, obviously, but it's preposterous to suggest that more than a few whites in the South, let alone elsewhere in the country, were casting their ballots in 2000 on the basis of resentment over the Civil Rights Act passed 36 years earlier.
The Democrats have trouble winning elections because they are largely flaky on national security and because they are far to the left of the rest of the country on a whole panoply of social issues. A party made up entirely of MoveOn types would be lucky to win 20% of the vote. Democrats would not be competitive at all with such a left-wing orientation if they could not count on the almost unanimous support of black voters, who tend to be to their party's right at least on social issues. If blacks do start to drift GOPward, the Democrats will have to drift rightward in order to avoid oblivion.
What Would We Do Without Probes?
"Hijacker Pilot Crashed Flight 93 on Purpose: 9/11 Probe"--headline, New York Post, Aug. 8
What Would We Do Without Specters?
"Embassy Blast Raises Specter of Terrorism in Baghdad"--headline, "news analysis," New York Times, Aug. 7
It's Not So Secretive Anymore
"U.S. Confirms Secretive Unit on Hunt for Saddam"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 4
What Would We Do Without Generals?
"General: Saddam on the Move"--headline, CNN.com, Aug. 7
Another Reason We Need Tort Reform
"The government of Niger is being pressurised to sue the US for damages over allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the West African country," the BBC reports. "The Chairman of the opposition Alliance for Democracy and Progress, Issoufou Bachar, says that Niger must seize the opportunity and file claims for 'heavy damages.' "
Homer Nods
In an item yesterday (since corrected), we mistranscribed a Reuters headline. It should have read "Iran: Nuke Program Homemade and Peaceful," not "Iraq."
Hawashed Up--II
It turns out that, contrary to our item yesterday, the Free Mike Hawash! site does acknowledge Hawash's guilty plea of earlier this week. (We had looked only at the press coverage page, last updated in May.) It even has a copy of his plea agreement, which spells out what he has admitted to:
Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, by Al-Qaida, President Bush issued an ultimatum to the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden and those of his associates who were located in the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. Defendant MAHER MOFEID HAWASH ["Mike" is a nickname] was asked by defendants Ahmed Bilal and Habis Al Saoub, aka Abu Tarek, to join a group of individuals who planned to travel from Portland, Oregon, to Afghanistan to assist the Taliban in fighting against the armed forces of the United States of America. Defendant HAWASH agreed to do so. Shortly thereafter, the United States and other allied forces began combat operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Defendant HAWASH and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms and die as martyrs if necessary to defend the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Defendant HAWASH knew what he agreed to do was a violation of the law.
Here's how one Floyd McKay described Hawash's "plight" in a May 5 Seattle Times op-ed:
In 1942, they came for the Japanese Americans and herded them into concentration camps in the desert. They lost three years of their lives and many of their possessions. Their offense was improper ancestral heritage.
In the '50s, they came for left-wing professors, labor organizers and bohemians, dragged them in front of cameras and microphones. They lost, in many cases, jobs and careers. Their offense was having radical thoughts.
On March 20, they came for Maher (Mike) Hawash.
If you're concerned about the prospect of wartime violations of civil liberties--and the internment of Japanese-Americans certainly proves that such fears are not without basis in reality--consider how all this wolf-crying by the likes of McKay discredits the cause.
Speaking of Crying Wolf . . .
A Reuters dispatch from Moscow offers a different perspective on the U.S. military's treatment of illegal-combatant prisoners:
A Russian mother said that conditions in Russian jails are so awful that she would prefer her son remain in the "humane" conditions of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (last item) has a priceless quote from the mother: "He writes that he is treated kindly and with respect, that he has good food, cleanliness, and as he says in his letter, he feels better than if he was at the best Russian sanatoriums." Oh, the humanity!
Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead
"By the time The Spectator goes to press, the record for the highest-ever authenticated measurement of air temperature in the British Isles may or may not have been broken."--editorial, The Spectator (Britain), Aug. 9 issue
Reuters Lands Interview With Jesus
"Secret of Walking on Water Uncovered"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 6
Keep Your Sunshine Off My Cinnamon Rolls
"Denver's government-access television station was barred from covering a City Council discussion on the budget crisis Wednesday because a councilwoman served cinnamon rolls and didn't want her group to be taped eating," the Rocky Mountain News reports.
Oh c'mon, how wimpy can you get? If you're going to throw out the cameras over a silly little thing like this, why not at least eat something really messy (not to mention delicious), like barbecued ribs?
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Constantin Dragut, Mary Tarpey, Todd Barney, David Burkhart, Christopher Marciano, Richard Ledwidge, Yehuda Hilewitz, Mike Basham, Steve Ginnings, C.E. Dobkin, Jennifer Ray, Peter Mul, Rosanne Klass, Beth Jackson, Dave Hammond, Marc Rosaaen, Thomas Healey, Mike Luttmann, Mark Hewheiser, Anthony Barrett, Sam Saal, Graig Stettner, Richard Marsh, Hugh Walker, Michael Rooney, Skip King, Reuven Weiser, Jim Lakely, Arthur Kimes, Jerry Bowles, Steve Parks, Michael Siegel, Jerome Marcus, Christian Durrett, Judah Kaplan, Joel Campbell, Chris Copeland, Hillel Jacobson, Mark Lardas, Thomas Linehan, S.E. Brenner, John Kempe, Andrew Morton and Robert LeChevalier. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.) |
