I guess it's possible that a "hack gap" has something to do with it, but think the easiest explanation for why Stu Bykofsky's "We need a new 9/11" column hasn't attracted the same kind of sustained criticism on the left that, say, Markos Moulitsas's "screw 'em" reaction to the deaths of military contractors in Iraq attracted from right-wingers is that nobody knows who the hell Stu Bykofsky is. There was plenty of sustained outrage when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, you may recall, because Ann Coulter is famous, and it's smart politics to tar the conservative movement with offensive comments made by one of its best-selling authors. Similarly, Kos's comments about the deaths in Fallujah came at a moment when the left-blogosphere was just emerging as a significant player in liberal politics, with Kos as the acknowledged king, and so his vile (though retracted) comments made ideal fodder for the left-blogosphere's many critics. Whereas Bykofsky is a Philly columnist who mainly writes about local issues (see here, here and here for representative columns), who seems to have basically liberal politics and no national reputation to speak of, and whose connection to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy appears to start and end with his support for the War on Terror. Which makes him a pretty lousy target for sustained left-wing outrage.
« Frum on Rove | Main | Exploring The Infinite Abyss » Where's the Outrage?14 Aug 2007 12:30 pm Comments (19)
Fair enough as to Bykofsky's obscurity. BUT, in contrast to Kos's remarks, which were quickly and widely criticized amoung liberal bloggers, Bykofsky's comments were celebrated and promoted among right-wing media such as Drudge and Fox. The thing is, John Kerry said that we have to “hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.” It's not like there's anyone anywhere near anything resembling power who believes that terrorism isn't a big deal. So what exactly does the right wing, or at least Fox and Drudge, want us to "wake up" from? They just think that a few thousand dead Americans would make purposeless carnage more popular among the electorate, and that critics of ineffective militarism, like Brent Skowcroft and William Odom, would be easier to shout down. 
nobody knows who the hell Stu Bykofsky is I don't know who Stu Bykofskis, but I am sure that some people, including readers of his local column, do. You sound like Pauline Kael ("I don't know anybody who voted for [Nixon]"). And unless you want to be considered an out-of-touch elite, you should stop.
Two-word rebuttal: Ward Churchill. I vote for the "hack gap" theory.
You're right, Matt does misdiagnose the problem with Bykofsky--but your alternative proposal is incorrect as well. Pillorying Kos was less about trying to torpedo him than it was about selling the narrative that the Democrats hate the troops. It was convenient, but by no means essential that Kos was a prominent up and comer in the party. Just see the joy with which warblogs go trawling in lefty comment sections for anything that gives off a whiff of hostility to the military. Likewise, liberals suspect--almost certainly correctly--that Bykofsky is merely giving voice to the seamy underbelly of conservative enthusiasm for war. So, the issue is not that there is a shortage of burning effigies, but that there aren't enough Democratic "hacks" out there beating the drums on how the conservative base is comprised, in large part, by insane "National Greatness"(read:quasi-fascistic) warmongers. Of course, this story is somewhat out of date because the past few years have bred a bevy of new commentators selling exactly that narrative; Greenwald, or Yglesias himself have been doing fantastic yeoman's work in this area.
Actually, the 9/11 Commission report claimed that another 9/11 is not a question of if but when. Bykofsky is merely lamenting the reality that Americans are playing politics with the Jihadi threat and like their wars shorter than the World Series. Meanwhile the latest spook summary report speaks of a resurgence of alQuaeda in Waziristan breathing fiery threats to infidels. I take this stuff somewhat seriously, though coming from Boston, the real threat is the Yankees.
By what are you associating Bykofsky with the Right in the first place? The silly "crazed belief that the key problem in America today is that his fellow citizens "don't have the patience for a long slog" " referenced above? I would think it would take more than support for the Iraq war to make one part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, just as simply being a 9/11 "Truther" isn't enough to make you a Leftist. And it's clear that the "ThinkProgress" site linked by a poster above completely took Drudge and the other linkers out of context. How does merely linking to a story transform into support for it-- perhaps they linked to it because they felt it was outrageous and wanted their readers to be outraged.
Beauceron, "The key problem in America today is that his fellow citizens 'don't have the patience for a long slog' in Iraq" DOES NOT = "support for the Iraq war" Surely you understand this.
Yes, Ward Churchill is a pretty effective counterexample to this post.
Actually Kos has apologized for writing that; in fact he justified by saying it brought some issues
The thing is, John Kerry said that we have to “hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.” If you believe Kerry would actually do anything remotely resembling this comment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you... I think its fair to say that the VRWC wishes there was more unity behind the Iraq war and vigorous prosecution of the war on Islamic terrorism. I don't think it is fair to say that anyone besides Bykofsky actually wishes for thousands of people to be mudered in cold blood in order to generate such unity. I also think it is foolish to think such an event would generate such unity in the first place. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, there wasn't really that much unity right after 9/11. Those who said that 9/11 "changed everything" were wrong.
Yes, Ward Churchill is a pretty effective counterexample to this post. Not really. The right has been complaining about the radical leftists in the academy for years. Churchill was simply so egregiously bad that he got fired - and it still took 3 years! If he had done even halfway decent scholarship, he'd still have his job. But the larger point is that someone like Churchill could only get into the position he got into (department chair without a PhD, risible scholarly production) if there was something very wrong with the institution he was at. And Colorado isn't exactly some unrepresentative backwater institution, so if the problem exists there, it very likely exists elsewhere, too. There is no parallel with Bykofsky - he's just a random columnist who wrote an offensive column. There's no larger significance to him or to his column.
The left has been complaining about the radicals in the right-wing media for years. The larger point is that someone like Bykofsky could only get into the position he got into if there was something very wrong with the institution he was at. And the Philadelphia Daily News isn't exactly some unrepresentative backwater institution, so if the problem exists there, it very likely exists elsewhere, too. There is no parallel with Churchill - he's just a random academic who wrote an offensive column. There's no larger significance to him or to his column. Good point, Mike S.-- especially given that no one endorsed his views, whereas Fox News's John Gibson, among others, endorsed Bykofsky's.
There is MOST DEFINITELY a hack gap. I second all the above comments.
Ward Churchill wasn't famous...
Ward Churchill wasn't famous...
What are you saying, Elvis, that the Daily News is some sort of right wing bastion? That the media world is dominated by conservatives? (Is there any evidence that Bykovsky is even a conservative in the first place?) Or are you saying that Churchill was a mainstream academic who earned his department chairmanship by doing diligent scholarship, but who just published one offensive column? especially given that no one endorsed his views I suppose you're going to tell me that it's hard to find opposition to capitalism, or outrageous statements about how America is the equivalent of the Fourth Reich amongst the professoriate. I'll believe Gibson "endorsed" the column when you show me a transcript. Or did he just "endorse" it by linking to it like Drudge did.
“I think it’s going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up,” said Gibson.
I think Mike S. thinks the only problems with the Bush/Cheney torture and surveillance programs is that they haven't gone far enough. He's probably also disappointed that the US hasn't used a nuke since Nagasaki, and that Jane Fonda escaped the gallows. I've met a few people like Mike S. I sure hope I never meet another one.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I was with you until the very end:
"...whose connection to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy appears to start and end with his support for the War on Terror."
Speaking of hackishness...
No, Ross, his connection to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy appears to begin and end with his crazed belief that the key problem in America today is that his fellow citizens "don't have the patience for a long slog" in Iraq, that the solution to this problem requires us to recapture the post-9/11 "outrage and national resolve" toward the purpose of killing Muslims without any "sideshow squabbling" over trivial details like torture and warrantless surveillance, and that he thinks the lives of several thousand of his fellow citizens would be an acceptable price to pay for America to recapture this national spirit of frightened, vengeful bloodlust.
That isn't a "war on terror" he's describing. That's terror itself.
Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 14, 2007 1:49 PM