Kristol Goes to the Times (expanded)

In response to Abe Rosenthal's defense of the NY Times's providing neocon propagandist Bill Kristol a column on "free-speech" grounds, Mark Crispin Miller responds:

Showcasing Kristol's "views" might be acceptable if they had not been
catastrophically discredited by (what one might dare call) reality. His
lousy record as a pundit should be quite sufficient to disqualify him for
this job. But that's not all that weighs against him here. There's his blunt
"view" that the Times should have been prosecuted for reporting news
unpleasant to the Bush administration. That's no mere innocuous opinion,
but a chirp of fascism; and fascism is, or certainly should be, beyond the
realm of tolerable opinion.

Or is it just a matter of conflicting "views," all equally acceptable on the
op-ed page of The New York Times? If so, the truth is quite irrelevant;
and so the Times should also offer columns to some prominent creationist
(why not Pat Robertson?), and some professed racist (why not David Duke?),and also an established Holocaust denier (how about David Irving?). They too have the right to air their "views"; and, if anyone objects, that too can be dismissed as mere intolerance.

It's not a question of different angles on the truth or of reasonable people agreeing or disagreeing; it's a question of why some people are considered legitimate and others are not. It has often been pointed out how the people who were wrong about the Iraq War have not been discredited or delegitimized in any way, and that our mainstream media institutions have not turned instead to those who were right.  Why do you think that might be?  What is it that legitimizes or delegitimizes certain people and delegitimizes others? 

It's not a question of of the Times providing a platform for conservatives to balance the platform it gives Liberals like Krugman. There are responsible, principled, reasonable conservative voices out there, but Kristol's is not one of them. Neoconservatism in general has proved bankrupt.  Kristol is a propagandist to be distinguished from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter only by his slick, erudite style and lack of a sense of humor. Limbaugh and Coulter, at least, are over-the-top entertainers and good for, if nothing else, a laugh.

So why is Kristol considered legitimate?  Or to ask the question from the other side: What opinions or views can you hold that put you across the line into illegitimate territory? Why are Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul on the other side of that line? Why is Thompson permitted to debate in New Hampshire, but not Paul, for instance?  Why is is it ok for almost everyone to tee off on Mike Huckabee? Again, it's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing; it's a question of why the media legitimizes some people by giving them a platform and denies it to others--or if it can't deny the platform, it does what it can to delegitimate them by mockery.

Who is it that draws the lines that defines everyone on this side as serious, but everyone on the other side as unserious? Why does Kristol get to stand on the side of the line considered "serious"? Why is it that he can say the things he has said and not be mocked for his idiocy? Why was George Bush, certainly one of the more mockable politicians in our history, was never mocked in the 2000 election, while Al Gore was mocked mercilessly.  Is it possible to believe that was no media agenda here? It was just that a substantive person like Gore was inherently mockable and a buffoon like George Bush was not? 

So with regard to Kristol, it's not a question of whether he is right or wrong on the merits of his arguments and I doubt that he cares.  It doesn't matter whether he proves right or wrong in the long run; it only matters that at the time a decision is made that benefits the interests he represents that decision appear to be a legitimate one.The lawyer defending the guilty client doesn't care about being right or wrong on the merits; he only cares about winning the case. And so for a guy like Kristol, it only matters that his advocate role give an air of legitimacy to whatever the militarist bloc within the U.S. establishment finds congenial.

It's not a matter of what is in the public's interest or what's right or wrong.  It only matters that this power bloc have well-positioned propagandists to provide the appearance of legitimacy to its agenda, regardless whether it's in the broader public interest. In order for the agenda to appear legitimate, it's important to insure its spokespersons retain the image of legitimacy. Giving Kristol this platform at the Times accomplishes that very neatly. Whatever role commercial motivations might play (e.g., he's a controversialist who will attract readers), the Times is colluding with the parties that are promoting that failed militarist agenda that all sane Americans should be repudiating. So why is the Times rewarding him instead with a platform?  It's part of what's called "managed consent", and most of us are too willing to be managed in this way.

And so it's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing--it's a question of legitimate or illegitimate. Do we think of David Duke, to use Miller's example, as someone we agree or disagree with--or is he someone we repudiate as outside the bounds of legitimacy?  Duke has a right to his opinions, but we have a right to perceive them as illegitimate nonsense.  And so should Kristol's discredited, pernicious neoconservatism disqualify him from being being considered a legitimate voice. 

If you even for a moment wonder why I am asking these questions, it's a signal to what degree you have accepted the media establishment's frame for what is left and right, what is legitimate or not legitimate. It's to say that I must take Kristol seriously not on the merits of his body of work, but because the mainstream media, for its own motivations, takes him seriously. The first step for any kind of clear thinking is to recognize and repudiate that frame--it's corrupt to the core.

For the Times to give a propagandist like Kristol a platform means that it is colluding with his agenda. If you are NY Times management, you don't do that unless either you've been conned or you're fundamentally sympathetic to the agenda. Which do you think is the more likely explanation? 

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

This is just like the so-called "debate" about the legitimacy or fairness of torture as a practice. What was once beyond the realm of the debatable is now considered part of a broad and diverse marketplace of viewpoints, as though it's just one more offering at the lunch counter.

Go Huckabee and a Democrat other than Hillary!

[anon]

Kristol is considered a 'legitimate' voice right now at least, because his views provide the theoretical framework for America's current foreign policy. As long as the belief that liberal democracy provides the best hope for defeating the gravest threat to Western culture and values (primarily liberal democracy and individual rights) since the Soviet Union, neo-conservatism will always have a place at the table--granted, perhaps not in the particular way Bush has implemented it but in the more general way that provides different means for achieving the same goal. Just as the world has become a much better place since Germany and Japan have become liberal democracies, the world can only hope that Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan eventually reach the same ideal.

Just as an aside, those who believe that isolationism is the key to quelling the Islamic fascist threat seem to hang their view on a dubious premise: that groups like Al-Qaeda aren't totalitarians (and are isolationists themselves).

[anon]

As for Huckabee, the more I watch him the more I like him, but perhaps I like him in the wrong way. He's undoubtedly a charismatic and articulate man, who is probably the best public speaker and debater out of all the candidates in this cycle. He talks about religous values without sounding like an overbearing prophet in the way Pat Robertson is and Gerry Falwell was. He cuts across political lines and displeases many Republicans with his vast spending on infrastructure and his concern for the environment.

However, I don't think America can elect a man who seems almost ignorant about foreign affairs (his failure to read the latest national security reports). Since the most pressing threat of this generation is the rise of Islamic fascism, the need for someone astute in foreign policy trumps all other considerations. If this were 1992, and the economy were the primary issue, I would probably vote for Huckabee--but it's not. Times are much too serious. (But can you imagine a race between Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee. They're probably the two best campaigners I've ever seen!)

[anon]

"This is just like the so-called "debate" about the legitimacy or fairness of torture as a practice. What was once beyond the realm of the debatable is now considered part of a broad and diverse marketplace of viewpoints, as though it's just one more offering at the lunch counter." -Zemak

Jack, or my old BCMU instructor "Mr. Whelan," often comments that he is a true conservative, in the Burkean sense of that word. He correctly points out that circumstances dictate the laws and policies of the time, which is why he said that the New Deal was necessary in order to combat the Great Depression, and so forth. His Burkean conservatism seems to align pretty neatly with American pragmatism in that both Burke and pragmatists weren't so much interested in universal principles of justice so much as making sure societies adopt laws and policies appropriate for their time--to ensure order and stability. One could perhaps perform an historical exegesis of Burke's work to determine conclusively whether he believed there weren't any universal principles of justice or whether he believed that there were such principles but that achieving them required gradual change and evolution. In any case, what's important is to decide what is appropriate for the circumstances. We as Americans praise Lincoln for his leadership during the Civil War, as he found it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Those who fail to adjust to the times become extinct.

Torture, although it makes one morally queasy, is necessary in the times we live in--read about Abdul Hakim Murad for just 'one' example.

[anon]

One more point, both you and Matt seem to adopt a Hegelian view of history. At least with respect to torture, you both figure that the debate over its use should just pass away in the dustbins of history. While I agree that our society has become more moral over time (I don't believe this is necessary, by the way, since Hitler could have and Islamists could conceivably conquer the world), in the case of torture as opposed to many of the other cases you're probably thinking about, there is a contrary principle of morality in question. We must balance the principle of respecting the human dignity of all people (enemy and friend) by not torturing them with the principle of protecting innocent civilians from death when we have the opportunity to stop it. It would be immoral for me to drive a friend to a party knowing someone at that party wants to kill him, and it's immoral to not take steps to protect innocent American citizens. There is a balance in this case that makes it difficult.

[Matt Zemek]

Anon -

I don't know if I have a Hegelian view of history.

I do believe that torture is morally wrong, and that any authentic, healthy democracy maintains accordingly just and humane principles in all circumstances.

Let's not allow these troubling and fear-filled times to lead us to think that we have to lower our standards and check our morals at the door in the name of a primitive and primal attempt to seemingly defend ourselves when, in fact, our "defense" instincts (i.e., various measures in the direction of both torture and warrantless wiretapping, etc.) will only make us that much more vulnerable... to both arguments and, much more importantly, attacks from those who are angry at us precisely because we claim to be this beacon of democracy and goodness, but then play a whole lotta dirty tricks throughout the world.

Good morality and sound ethics consistute good public policy when framed and fashioned appropriately and responsibly. Moreover, morals and ethics--when non-ideologically and competently enshrined into governmental operations and their attendant principles/motivations--promote a whole host of civic and holistic benefits as well.

I close with this thought: politics, at its best, is not about caving in before a robust and fair debate has even begun. Politics, at its best, is about standing on principle at great risk to oneself, selling that principle with genuineness and conviction, and winning as a result of that courageous stand.

Allowing torture is a craven, cowardly act, precisely because it has the surface appearance of being "tough." What the Beltway and our entire political culture needs to realize in America is that real toughness is not found in the realm of the physical, but the spiritual. If this one realization can ever be made and then absorbed into the political bloodstream, our country will heal.

Sadly, it doesn't look that way at all. Kristol is serial offender No. 1 in terms of insisting on defining strength/toughness as PHYSICAL entities.

[Jack Whelan]

Anon--

--Those who fail to adjust to the times become extinct.--

It really is all about survival for you, isn't it. We have a military budget that is greater than the rest of the world's and still you are worried about extinction?! Do your really believe that our survival is at stake? Do you really feel that the the nature of this threat warrants the kind of brutish overkill we have used since 9/11? Do you really think we're in a situation that is as serious as the Civil War? Are you really that easily frightened by the media hype?

Do you really think it makes sense to kill the squirrel in your kitchen with repeated blasts of your shotgun? Does that accomplish anything except blowing holes in the wall that the squirrel will run out of leaving you with the mess. Prudence and intelligent problem solving, yes. Stupid, ineffective, needlessly destructive flailing, no.

[anon]

It really is all about survival for you, isn't it. We have a military budget that is greater than the rest of the world's and still you are worried about extinction?! Do your really believe that our survival is at stake? Do you really feel that the the nature of this threat warrants the kind of brutish overkill we have used since 9/11? Do you really think we're in a situation that is as serious as the Civil War?

When nuclear weapons are at stake, perhaps the existence of the United States wouldn't disappear, but surely one should be worried about mass casualties. If Islamists take over Pakistan, they will have access to hundreds of nuclear weapons with launch capabilities to the US. For people who don't value human life but rather value transcendence, they will care little about 'containment' policies, and thus will have no problem detonating nuclear weapons on the US, should they want to. Nuclear weapons elevates the stakes and can turn a small band of rebels into world destroyers.

[Matt Zemek]

Anon -

With each passing day, it becomes clearer and clearer that Iran has been a lot less active (and a lot more of a team player) than any of the fear-driven Bush/Cheney rhetoric ever suggested... look at the NIE report.

Pakistan is an internally ravaged country that's not about to just launch nukes willy-nilly. The solution, though, is certainly not to prop up Musharraf, which is exactly what the Bush administration--the very same defender/promoter of first-strike, pre-emptive tactics--advocated.

The right thing to do is the opposite of what Bush/Cheney has done and is doing, which is--plainly put--advocating any means necessary to subdue a perceived threat, even if that means torture or active military ventures.

[John]

As an Australian it seems to me that Kristol is a raving psycho-path.