Thinking in black & white

Slippery insinuations about a “climate of hate”:

People have been having a hard time holding two ideas in their head at the same time:

1. What Paul Krugman calls “eliminationist rhetoric” is bad.
2. Contrary to his suggestion, there is no evidence that such rhetoric caused Saturday’s events. Even if such evidence is later found, it would not justify the evidence-free claims that have been made in the last 48 hours.

It is interesting how selective people have been when reporting Jared Lee Loughner’s literary tastes.

This entry was posted in culture, politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Thinking in black & white

  1. J. says:

    Miller’s another sexpert, with the obvious salon/slate mommy-rhetoric. No sh*t, Laura.

    To claim that the right-wing’s “eliminationist rhetoric” necessarily resulted in the shootings would be a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, IIRC)–and some of the leftist rants may be close to that. However by suggesting the Rand book, Mein Kampf, Marx, etc as well as Foxnews/NRA bloviation had some impact on or relevance to Loughner’s motives leading to his insane act, one does not offer a strictly deductive argument, but something like CS Peirce’s “abduction”: a probable, or at least not implausible hypothesis (which could be supported inductively, with evidence–posters with crosshairs, the teabag-like rants about “fiat currency” etc). Ayn Rand, enemy of the State.

  2. Susan says:

    I don’t think anything much can be extrapolated from Jared’s reading list. He named a bunch of books of which everyone’s heard. Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto were probably tossed into the mix for their shock value, or what he hoped would be their shock value. According to his friends, he liked to do and say things in the hope of epater-ing le bourgeoise.

    As a rule, asking people what their favorite book or books are is a fruitless question, because they’ll answer it in such a way as to make themselves look good, like the Playboy bunnie who cited Shakespeare as her favorite author.

  3. Gimlet says:

    Prof Jim Lindgren has gotten into some of what we can tell about Loughner’s politics here: http://volokh.com/2011/01/10/jared-loughners-anti-war-views/

  4. Panglos says:

    J

    The shooters high school curriculum was a special national program that was initiated by Obama and Ayers. The shooters list of politico caves were all leftists ( commies , Hitler, Orwell, Obama)

    None of what he listed connoted a Reagan or Goldwater.

  5. Don Kenner says:

    I’m conservative on some issues (defense, economy) and liberal on others (marry who you want; no business of mine), but this has put me off the left for good. As in, I spit on them. Making political hay on top of this nine-year-old girl’s corpse is one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen in politics in a long time. Much worse than those on the right who said the unibomber was environmentalism taken to it’s logical conclusion.

    And if Tuscon elects that idiot Sheriff again, I’m joining the Arizona boycott, but not because of immigration.

  6. J. says:

    Hitler and the nazis were not leftists, Pangloss, regardless of what a Jonah Goldstein chants (google Night of the Long Knives. Der Fuhrer and the nazis agreed with the aristocrats and industrialists to purge the nationalist-labor types, aka brownshirts). Loughner did claim to be an atheist however and had a rather sinister looking shrine with a skull in his backyard.

    The liberal pathos may have been overdone yet the AZ handgun law issue remains. Some Bubba at the Tuscon semi-auto boutique sold this punk a glock–really that should offend even rational moderates or something (didn’t even Miss Ayn support gun control once…).

  7. panglos says:

    “Hitler and the nazis were not leftists”

    So the Nazis believed in decentralized republic forms of govt? Lots of state rights and individual constitutional rights?

    And free market control of the economy?

    I must have missed that. BTW, many including Hayek established the socialist nature of the Nazis well before Jonah. The so called communist/nazi dichotomy was generated by the embarassed Stalin shortly after Barbarossa and it hilarious that the United Auto Workers (shills for the CPA) had to do 180 deg changes in their negotiations as the politicial winds turned.

    Finally, the sine qua non of Marx’s material dialectic is the arbitrary nature of truth and words.

    This is the shooter’s nuttiness in a nutshell.

    PS – He purchased the pistol last Nov after the requisite FBI screening process. He probably would not have passed the test had the sheriff not dissuaded the earliest victims from pressing charges.
    (Probably protecting the a fellow county employee, Mrs Loughner)

  8. Polichinello says:

    J,

    I agree that it’s silly to label the Nazis “leftists.” They were on what would be the European right. It’s horribly lazy, if not libelous, to compare them to American liberals (the early-20th century progressives…not so silly, though). However, they were nothing like American conservatives either.

    As panglos points out, your ire should be focused on the sheriff, who’s been exposes as about as shameless a hack as you can find these days.

  9. panglos says:

    J,

    No thanks. I am a confirmed Platonic Dialectician and will continue to rail against the Material Dialectic until, at the very least, I find someone who understands the term.

    Oh yes, tell me once again how the Nazis did not socialize healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, the energy sector, the financial sector, and construction.

    I’m still not quite there yet and do not see anything resembling right wing doctrines of free markets and decentralized republic forms of governing.

  10. J. says:

    However, they were nothing like American conservatives either.

    Nazis glorified militaristic and imperial power, opposed Due Process and liberty, broadly speaking, and were racist (and anti-semitic). Now, Cheney or Karl Rove may not be Der Fuhrer but cousins, ideologically speaking. The extreme right in the USA, however, does not have anything like the unity of the german people in the 30s (the nazis did not stage a coup but came in via elections..a nationalist coalition)–

    The economic issue’s a bit different. The german industrialists who supported the nazis may have had statist elements, but also capitalist. Then anyone who claims statism = leftism has never read the cliffsnotes to Hegel (or roman history for that matter). The nazis purged and defeated the few labor-oriented socialists, anyway. It wasn’t about equality either–the Wehrmacht for instance depended upon forced conscription.

    Tory-monarchism–and even free markets– are not the only form of right-wing govt. except to the Goldberg types, who take conservative to mean something like Bloombergism, and therefore “good”.

  11. panglos says:

    J,

    If you want to discuss this in the vernacular of front page politics, I would suggest the tea party as a better label for the right wing.

    Relatively speaking, the Bush strategists you mentioned were statists.

    Also I am concerned for your reliance on “nationalism” because the soviets fomented as much blind nationalism as the nazis.

    As for purging the interests of the laborers, the Nazis heaped far more on the working class than the Soviets – they gave them the People’s Car aka the Volkswagon which is one of the biggest material success stories of any socialist movement. They also enjoyed far better national health care and living conditions. Stalin had to isolate returning veterans who had seen how well the workers lived in Germany.

  12. Polichinello says:

    Nazis glorified militaristic and imperial power, opposed Due Process and liberty, broadly speaking, and were racist (and anti-semitic). Now, Cheney or Karl Rove may not be Der Fuhrer but cousins, ideologically speaking.

    This is a lie. Either you believe this lie and are a fool, or you’re just wicked. I’ll let you decide which of these two you want to be.

    The Nazis glorified the idea of racial conquest under one man’s rule. The Bush Administration toppled two regimes in a misguided attempt to spread democracy and respond to an attack on our territory. Moreover, even the Iraq war was the logical extension of the previous administration’s policy, so much so that the Clinton’s themselves supported. The policy writ large is rooted in Wilson’s ideology, an ideology of liberal America, BTW.

    Cheney’s a liberal on the issue of homosexual marriage, and Rove is one of the main backers for amnestying illegal aliens. The current crop of Republicans are stridently Zionist and philo-semitic (even though most Jews vote against them). Tell me again how the nazis were all for letting non-Europeans immigrate to Germany. Yeah, they were open borders types. And we know how much they honored the Jews.

    You should hang your head in shame for that comment, but of course, you won’t. That’s the state of leftism in this country today.

  13. The con here is to first associate laissez-faire with “right-wing politics,” and then when abusing the “right wing” for any position not connected to laissez-faire, smearing laissez-faire with it. Thats the effing game. For, pray tell, which “extremist right wing” movement or any extremist movement in the 20th century included laissez-faire at its heart? None that caused any violence.

    If you wish to debate and/or denounce nationalism, race-realism etc etc, those definitely are “right wing” positions, but laissez-faire has nothing to do with it.

  14. J. says:

    Nazis glorified militaristic and imperial power, opposed Due Process and liberty, broadly speaking, and were racist (and anti-semitic). Now, Cheney or Karl Rove may not be Der Fuhrer but cousins, ideologically speaking.

    This is a lie. Either you believe this lie and are a fool, or you’re just wicked. I’ll let you decide which of these two you want to be.

    Which part of the phrase? All, some or none? Alas, Polchi’s not quite made it to Aristotle 101. The historical claim– regarding the nazis’ militarism, or opposition to Due Process and liberty, or racism/anti-semitism– was NOT a lie, whatsoever. Rove and Cheney engaged in imperialism of a sort (and also false pretenses–exaggerated claims of WMDs, etc–similar to nazi tactics, ala Reichstag fire), opposed Dur Process (ie PatAct/FISA), and at times promoted racism (I didn’t say they WERE nazis, anyway– but “cousins”–ie, wannabes, kept in check by what’s left of American democracy). Ergo, you lie, Polchi.

    As far as rightist regimes and laissez-faire, well, USA and UK, Europe for starters. Nixon-Kissinger were not quite nazis,perhaps (Kiss’s latest comments make you wonder) but….counting the dead NV (civilians and military), you will note something like atrocity brought about by a western capitalist nation. Then, the history of colonialism itself shows that as well. Capitalist exploitation involves more complexities than body counts do. Walmart’s not…Bush-Cheney, but…not unrelated.

  15. Polichinello says:

    Which part of the phrase? All, some or none?

    Being cute does not acquit you of being a liar.

    Your attempt to compare the Bush Adminstration to the Nazis is a whole package, and you know it, so you’re resorting to quibbles to get out of the charge. Utterly contemptible.

    Rove and Cheney engaged in imperialism of a sort…

    Yeah, of a sort practiced by Wilson, Roosevelt and Clinton, too. Bush engaged in propaganda and distortion to push for a war? Wow, like governments never did that until the nazis, I guess! Clinton was being honest injun about that soccer stadium in Pristina. And Wilson was on the up and up about the Hun, and Roosevelt was nothing but purity itself when talking up American 5th columns.

    …opposed Dur Process (ie PatAct/FISA)…

    First, compare the provisions in the Bush laws to what Roosevelt did during World War II. Internments of citizens, executions of saboteurs and spies and the outright harassment of political dissenters. Franklin Roosevelt–the patron saint of American liberalism–was a helluva lot closer to being a Nazi than Bush ever was. So if you’re going to convict Bush and his supporters of nazism, you’d better be ready to toss American liberalism into the heap.

    The acts you cited were also passed by the duly legislature, and FISA was even further validated by the Democrats in 2008. That’s not exactly how the Nazis operated.

    …and at times promoted racism…

    YGTBFKM.

    If anything, the administration’s mulish refusal to recognize the ethnic and religious dimension of many American problems was the problem, not racism.

    I didn’t say they WERE nazis, anyway– but “cousins”–ie, wannabes, kept in check by what’s left of American democracy

    Oh, I see, they weren’t nazis, they just wanted to be nazis. WTF? Really? Are you trying to say that that’s a serious moral distinction?

    Going through your answer, I’m going to have to go with both a fool and wicked.

  16. J. says:

    You’re the cute one here, Polchi. The historical claim was accurate. So YOU are the liar. The comparison of Rove-Co to nazis was….a qualitative claim–examining the secrecy, false pretenses, skullduggery, etc–an objective observer would note parallels to nazi-like tactics. Yet requiring an “objective observer” would count you out Polichi.

    Franklin Roosevelt–the patron saint of American liberalism–was a helluva lot closer to being a Nazi than Bush ever was. So if you’re going to convict Bush and his supporters of nazism, you’d better be ready to toss American liberalism into the heap.

    A separate point—
    not to say false dichotomy. That someone points out BushCo’s imperialism (false premises, FISA, war profiteering) doesn’t mean he approves of Clinton, or LBJ, FDR etc. IN ’68 or so, many democrats opposed both LBJ and Nixon. So, your usual emotional and irrational response, Polichi.

    WWII was a bit weightier than the Iraqi war effort. The internments may have been somewhat harsh but a bit understandable. Warrantless searches of college students for posting anti-Bush/FISA messages to d-Kos or something–not.

    The acts you cited were also passed by the duly legislature, and FISA was even further validated by the Democrats in 2008. That’s not exactly how the Nazis operated.

    Wrong again. The nazis came into power visavis the nationalist coalition. So, in fact, they did initially rely on support from the center party–at least until the Enabling Act. And for that matter, I grant most democratic leaders are as corrupt as the GOP– Little difference there is between a HRC, Feinstein and teaparty, even Cheney.

    Wilson was on the up and up about the Hun

    Your usual snapshot view of history. Wilson was hardly the only one reluctant to enter WWI–he had isolationists in his cabinet, and they were a power in Congress as well.

    Not your finest hour of spam, Polichi.

  17. panglos says:

    “The con here is to first associate laissez-faire with “right-wing politics,””

    Association? It is by definition that laissez-faire is right wing.

    It really is quite obvious to see that the leftist Soviet Union and the leftist Nazis were far more similar than dissimilar. Any but the most strident Mother Goose Marxist can see that their control of the economy and govt was very similar.

    After all, the sine qua non of any successful leftist regime is huge amounts of non-laissez faire behavior like genocide. The Nazis murdered 15 million and the Soviets managed over 30 million. Including other leftist regimes, the total is over 100 million in the last century.

    Now how does this compare to Cheney?

  18. John says:

    Fascists and Communists are two peas in the same pod. The only significant difference is that fascists generally have some racial group that they want to favor, and communists don’t need one. Other that that, their aims, goals, and methods are exactly the same.

    Mussolini was smart enough to realize this when he banned the anticommunist We the Living because he realized that the exact same arguments used against communism apply to fascism.

  19. J. says:

    It really is quite obvious to see that the leftist Soviet Union and the leftist Nazis were far more similar than dissimilar.

    AS Penn Jillette would say, bullsh**t.

    The industry owners and aristocrats of Germany backed the nazis from the 30s on–the Kaiser included (and his son, relatives, etc). Bankers supported the nazis–the Deutsche Bank funded nazi operations, including camps. The Bolsheviks once having gained control abolished money and shut down banks, finance, trade, etc. Nothing like that occurred in Germany. That poltroon Goldberg’s cheap PC prevarication obviously has taken off in SR land as well.

    And Ayn Rand…well, her books might have some use. You might stash one in yr backpack while hiking, and nature calls, no TP…wow, Miss Ayn-pulp. Always knew there’d be some reason to tote around “We the Living or Fountainhead. I doubt even Miss Rand however defective, would make the facile comparison of stalinists to nazis either

  20. B Lode says:

    Generally, when people argue against the idea that Hitler was a leftist they only present arguments that he wasn’t a Communist.

    Here Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s opposing view (p. 164):
    “The economic order under the National Socialists was thoroughly socialistic. And this although German manufacturers and other entrepreneurs continued in their positions. ( The same anomaly occurred in Mao’s China where the “patriotic capitalists” retained jobs for which they had both the experience and the qualifications. ) German entrepreneurs became mere stewards in a planned economy; they worked for a totalitarian state that admitted neither genuine private property nor individual decisions. In explanation, Ludwig Von Mises pointed out that, in the end, the entrepreneurs preferred being reduced to the status of shop managers by the National Socialists to being “Liquidated” by the Communists in the Russian manner. Conditions being what they then were in Germany, no third way was open to them.”

    So I suppose we have to clarify, when talking about leftism, if only Communists count or if mere socialists (e.g. National Socialists) count as well. EKL goes on to talk about the enormous degree of coöperation between Hitler and Stalin, e.g. in destroying Poland, and the welcome hand the Nazis extended to ex-Communists, whom the considered natural allies against “reaction”.

  21. J. says:

    Hitler and the nazis disagreed. Anti-communism was a big part of their agenda

    In 1930, Hitler said: “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”

    Even Der Fuhrer supported property rights. The small businessmen of Germany generally favored the nazis–not to say Lebensraum, which had an economic aspect as well. Actually the nazis were somewhat like Teabagger-populists, but with a bit more gear

    Goldberg’s argument-lite seems to be something, like nazis had some socialist aspects. And US Liberals at times support socialist policies. Ergo, US Liberals are Nazis! The Goldberg fallacy, about like saying, you like some music by Wagner, and Hitler did too–so you’re a Hitler! In technical terms, that’s known as “idiocy.”

  22. panglos says:

    “The Bolsheviks once having gained control abolished money and shut down banks, finance, trade, etc”

    You must be joking.

    When FDR recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, they sold the 50 million tons of grain they stole from people’s mouths in Ukraine to buy huge amounts of equipment from the West. Roosevelts son made a $500m commission on the sale of Fokkers to the Kremlin in just one of the deals.

    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/elliott-roosevelt/

    Plus there were secret trade agreements between the Nazis and Soviets – Hitler built munitions plants in Russia and trained his pilots there too (to circumvent the treaty of versailles). In return they bought vast amounts of raw materials from the soviets.

    http://tinyurl.com/5vcyguy

  23. Polichinello says:

    That someone points out BushCo’s imperialism (false premises, FISA, war profiteering) doesn’t mean he approves of Clinton, or LBJ, FDR etc. IN ’68 or so, many democrats opposed both LBJ and Nixon.

    That may be, but we’re discussing the propriety of comparing both liberals and conservatives to nazis. To link the Bush Administration to Nazi Germany using your policy examples would implicate American liberals to a far greater degree. If you do that, fine, but it just means your a crank. Better than a liar, I suppose, but not any more worth listening to.

  24. Polichinello says:

    WWII was a bit weightier than the Iraqi war effort. The internments may have been somewhat harsh but a bit understandable. Warrantless searches of college students for posting anti-Bush/FISA messages to d-Kos or something–not.

    Targeting an entire ethnicity (citizens, no less) for removal to internment camps, still better than checking the e-mail of some self-important hipsters (who, no doubt, relive that one day of “oppression, man!” till shitting their depends in the rest home).

    Okay, gotcha.

    Kook.

Comments are closed.