Serial Idiot Goldberg Annoyed At Fascist Name Calling, "Not What I Hoped"

I have a love/hate relationship with Jonah Goldberg. I love to write about him because he is such a rich source of material, one of my "serial idiots" that provides a column in just about everything he has to say because it is so ridiculous. Hate, because by writing about him, I give him and his delusions more attention than they deserve. Holding on tight to his post at the National Review, received shortly after the Monica events for which Jonah held a minor, supporting role which he inflated to get himself on the tv machine as often as possible, Jonah weighs in on the teabag use of the term "fascist."

Speaking on C-Span this weekend, he was quoted as saying:

"One of the great failures of my book is that it has popularized the use of 'fascism' as an epithet. And one of the things I was hoping to do, and I failed miserably, is shut down the use of the word 'fascist' as an epithet. Instead it's become bipartisan. And I don't like it. I don't think it's all that helpful. It might help my books sales, but that's not what I had hoped to do."

After one moves beyond the breathtaking egotism involved in his first statement (after all, fascism has been a discredited political movement since basically forever) you have to consider that one does not write a book with the title "Liberal Fascism" with the intent to remove the word fascist as an epithet. As a member of the "conservative movement" (that's Jonah, always after the main chance, a Democrat who flipped when he saw that that's where the money is) use of the term liberal is an epithet. Attaching anything to it makes it a pejorative and adding a term commonly used to characterize negative political ideology to the term liberal, he has attempted to equate liberals with negative politics. As the two--liberal and fascism--are ideological opposites with fascism typically a preserve of the extreme right, trying to link the two is nothing more than an attempt to demonize liberals.  According to dictionary.com, [emphasis added]

FASCISM:
[fash-iz-uhm] –noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
LIBERALISM:
[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]–noun
1.the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Not sure I can find anything that equate the two or even links them other than they each represent a political philosophy. But, the mindset of someone who could equate the two, or believe it, is the same mindset that would believe that socialism and communism are the same thing, and that what was embodied by the Soviet Union was what was envisioned by Marx.

Ah well. Perhaps Jonah hadn't been able to get outside of the pages of the pages of his column lately and needed to get some face time on the tv machine again. If you are unfamiliar with Jonah, he has an amusing history and typically wacky ideas which I have written about here, here, and here.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Another Chapter in Serial Stupidity - Jonah Goldberg, Serial Idiot on Elitism

Jonah Goldberg is such a rich source of material although I write about him infrequently as I hate to give him and his delusions too much importance. Making the leap from his so-called expertise on affirmative action and all things racial, Goldberg ties those beliefs to elitism.  He takes issue with progressive concern over the teabags' rage against the elites who, according to him, want to "boss us around." From Media Matters, Jonah is quoted as saying:

"To date, I've seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who've emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren't bossing anybody around."

In Tuesday's Washington Post, Anne Applebaum writes about the teabaggers' "anti-elite" rage. Applebaum illuminates the growing resentment of the Ivy-League educated by teabags by saying:

"...Nowadays, successful Americans, however ridiculously lucky they have been, often smugly see themselves as "deserving." Meanwhile, the less successful are more likely to feel it's their own fault -- or to feel that others feel it's their fault -- even if they have simply been unlucky..."

To paraphrase Applebaum's point, when Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and others call people elitist, they are usually referring to people they don't like, don't agree with, and who don't agree with them. I would add that after all, Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller is a Harvard graduate --an education that is about the most elite possible-- and he would be nowhere without the backing of Sarah Palin. O'Donnell is in trouble partially because of her claims --false-- that she is a graduate of Columbia graduate school. So, fairly good evidence of the validity of Applebaum's claim if teabags feel the need to claim an ivy-league education, true or not.

A point that is brought out in Applebaum's piece, is that the American dream that we are all raised with is the same one that is held against many of those who today most exemplify that dream. We are taught that we can be anything we want, do anything we want, and that we are limited only by our willingness to work hard. Unfortunately, I believe that this dream has caused more harm than good over time as conversely, it tells us that if we do not succeed, that it is our own fault --something that as a sociologist I can say is often not true. Yet, here we have a president who is the embodiment of the American dream, the true rags to riches story, yet considered by the right to be the most elite of the elite.


In his quite derisive piece, Goldberg begins by setting a tone that attacks Applebaum personally before he even starts his analysis of her argument. Referencing a stand she took on an unrelated issue, he conflates the two to suggest that since she has a (to him) inappropriate belief in one area, it carries over to all of her opinions. Goldberg says that use of the term "ivy league" is code for elitism (good to know) and that progressives have it backwards when they see complaints about progressive goals as attacks against the ivy-league elite. Huh? Both Goldberg and Will Collier who he quotes in his update state that Applebaum is clearly biased (she is a Yale graduate) and that her thesis is that only those with an ivy-league education are intelligent. I must say that after reading her piece several times as I write this, I fail to come to that conclusion and believe me, one of the things you must learn in any college education (full disclosure, I went to a state university), is to discover the thesis behind any piece of writing.

Goldberg says:

"For Applebaum, the fact that the elite graduated from top-tier schools is all the proof she needs that these people deserve to be in charge. Indeed, Applebaum — without a moment’s pause to cite any evidence — insists that universities have diversified without dropping standards at all. (But I don’t want to have an argument about quotas and all that, because it’s a distraction from my real objection)."

Then don't bring them (quotas) up. I am so tired of the continuing belief that affirmative action included quotas. It did not. In fact, quotas were illegal. I wrote a thesis on affirmative action and feel somewhat qualified to speak to the right's deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose behind affirmative action and its policies, and the truly ridiculous notion that one generation or less was sufficient to redress the inequities of 300 years. Anyway. I'm not finding where she says that only the "fact" that the elite graduated from "top-tier" schools makes them deserving of being in charge. And, you shouldn't demand that others include evidence in their work when you do not include it in yours.

What is truly bizarre, is that the teabags resent the educated, calling them elite, equating them with an ivy-league education when in fact, what they resent is the education, period. In the past, the ivy-leagues were available only to those with the proper pedigree regardless of SAT's, community service, or gradepoint average (think George W). As a result of affirmative action, it was the ivy-leagues who offered the most in response and thus created the most diverse alumni --people who came from all races and ethnicities, and social classes. The graduates of the ivy-leagues over the past 40 years are truly representative of the American dream that is so hard to reach for most.

Trying to explain what it is the teabags are angry about when they complain about elitism, Goldberg says of Applebaum: [emphasis added]

"She doesn’t seem to grasp, let alone acknowledge, that it’s only one subset of Ivy Leaguers that seems to bother anybody on the right: the lawyer-social engineers-journalist-activists they churn out by the boatload. No one begrudges kids who’ve made good from tough backgrounds. What bothers lots of Americans is when those kids then think they are entitled to cajole, nudge, command and denigrate the rest of America. To date, I’ve seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who’ve emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren’t bossing anybody around."

This last is so breathtaking I almost don't know where to begin. "No one begrudges kids who've made good from tough backgrounds." Umm. Okay. Unless you're President Obama or a Democrat.

He goes on to say:

"...it is the agenda of a very specific and very self-styled elite, not the existence of an elite that is pissing so many people off. Some of the angriest and most dedicated people I meet at Tea Party events are quite wealthy and successful, often with shiny educations equal to Applebaum’s. What infuriates them is that they see a country that once determined merit in the market place or in civil society, becoming a country where what counts as merit is determined by government directly, or indirectly."

What does that mean? Merit was determined "in the market place or in civil society." When? Okay. I understand the market place, but civil society? I guess he's saying that if you exhibit the correct values (conservative perhaps?) then you have merit? And where does he get that merit is determined by government directly or indirectly? What does that mean? And what does he mean by "what counts as merit?" Perhaps Jonah doesn't understand definitions. Merit:

• Noun - something that deserves a reward, or the the fact of deserving
• Verb - deserve
• Adjective - based on (ie a raise)

Pretty clear to me. Of course, this idea is one of the primary distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, including teabags. Republicans equate success with money in the bank and morality with church attendance and how much they tithe. Democrats equate success with personal fulfillment and satisfaction and morality with how one makes choices when no one else is looking. Granted, hugely generalized, but you are unlikely to find someone with the later values in the Republican Party or vice versa. Look at this campaign. The 1st Amendment was designed to protect the media from government so that we the people may have the information we need in order to make good decisions about who to elect to represent us, the theory then being that those running for office (and holding office) have an obligation to provide that information. Right? Now, we have teabags who refuse to talk to the media unless they can solicit funds and control the questions. A true return to our Constitutional roots as demanded by the teabags would be a requirement that they stop running away from the media and actually present their policy ideas. Radical concept, I know.

Anyway. Jonah is an interesting character and believes himself to be an expert on affirmative action and has written extensively on that subject. Trying to style himself as an academic type, Goldberg is the author of the oxymoronically titled "Liberal Fascism" and weighed in during the Sotomayor hearings. His "expertise" on affirmative action was highly valued by the extremist right as they used the very program designed to help her and others succeed, to attempt to disallow that success. His comments on affirmative action parroted the continuing Republican mantra of reverse discrimination that hurts those poor, white men. You can read more about it here.

A few days after his intrusion into the Sotomayor affair, Goldberg, suddenly an expert on foreign affairs and the middle east, wrote about what President Obama should do about the situation taking place at that time in Iran (this was during the protests during the summer of 2009). As I pointed out at the time, Goldberg holds a prime position on my serial idiots list.

What are the teabags really doing? In blaming the elitists who are trying to "boss us around" and equating anyone with an ivy-league education as an elitist, they are refusing to acknowledge those who are the embodiment of the American dream if that dream culminates in progressive ideals. Sure there are elites, and there are elites who are graduates of ivy-league schools. But what is truly the definition of an elite? Personally, I believe it is someone who is admitted to an ivy-league school because of their family background and maintains their place despite near failing grades (George W) or believes that because of what they have they are somehow special.

Teabags are really attacking progressive ideals, and equate elitism with being told what to do. They are angry with a government interfering in their lives and telling them what to do and conflate those in government who hold ideas and make policy decisions they don't like with those with a good education because we now have a president they don't like who went to an ivy-league school. My question? A government that wants to move into my bedroom, doctor's office, and re-write scientific texts to match a minority point of view is far more intrusive than a government that is there to provide for the public welfare. I reject, again, Goldberg's premise and his and the teabags continuing attempts to build strawmen (see Fallacies above) rather than address the actual issues.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jonah Goldberg, Serial Idiot Speaks Out on Iran

Oh Jonah. I hadn't paid any attention to you in years. And now, two posts in four days? What's up with that? Now you're an expert on Iran? Foreign affairs? Nation building? Obama can't win for losing with you.

Obama takes a calm, studied approach to problems. He always has. So far, it's worked out well for him and for all of us. Every crisis so far, pundits on the right and on the left have jumped in with opinions, politicians on the right and on the left have opined on what he should do - the right usually demanding some sort of military response. But Obama calmly weighs the information, studies the situation, and waits as long as possible until making a decision (well, except for Dept. of Justice rulings but that's another post altogether), and then either acts or not, makes a speech or not, or has someone say it for him. He's usually spot on in gauging the right tone to take when it comes to foreign policy matters.

But now Iran. Protests, riots, uncertainty. Information is limited, confusing, and either manipulated by the government or received from the younger, tech-savvy pro-Mousavi side able to get information out. In the midst of this, you say:

"During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an investigation into his "landslide" victory found. Then there was your pre-election mumbling about "robust debate [that] hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways."

You write about the grand ideals of liberal "nation building" lost during the Bush years when the Republicans embraced the idea out of need when we went to war with Iraq. Funny. I seem to remember Bush going on, and on about the need to spread democracy throughout the Middle East (including Iran) in order to ensure peace for Israel. That all people wanted democracy and to be free (of course, they all wanted American style democracy and freedom which he must have intuited by gazing deeply into their souls).

Then you say that:

"So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished."

"Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. "

You don't want Mr. President to prove you wrong. He couldn't if he tried. If he did, you'd find some way to find fault and discover another test for him to fail.

The point, that you and your other villagers fail to understand, is that the reason we are well-hated in the Middle East (or were) and in much of the world is because of the George Bush's of the world and his ilk. Because of the attitude that everyone wants to be free and live in an American style democracy. This attitude that America is the greatest nation on earth doesn't play well outside our borders. It's okay for us to say it to each other. It's okay for others to say it to each other and dream about coming to America. But it's not okay for us to say it to them. It's sort of like saying to your neighbor that "my house is bigger and better and more expensive than yours." Or saying that because your house is better, you're better. It's stupid. It's not how to make friends, gain allies, or earn respect.

There is this belief amongst the villagers, the right, and the previous administration that it is somehow the duty of the U.S. to take our style of democracy out into the world. That if there is a problem, it is our duty to solve it. That if there is a war, it is our duty to fight it (or start it). That if there is a different belief system, or religion, that they are wrong, and it is our duty to correct their thinking. Not a way to win popularity contests. The conservatives still talk of America as a "melting pot" when most progressives understand that we have long since moved beyond that and embraced the concept of a plural society that values our diversity. A "salad bowl" if you will, that does not expect everyone to "melt" into a blended, homogeneous sameness but appreciates the differences that make up not only the whole of our society, but the whole of our world.

In 1953, we overturned the democratically elected government of Iran because we didn't like it. Obama didn't have to say anything about it in his speech in Egypt. They already knew it. By acknowledging it, he was saying that there was fault on both sides and it was time to move on (their fault? the hostages). Whether or not they like their government or not, Iranians have believed that they had a democracy. For the first time since 1953, they now know, that they do not.

If Obama and the other nations stay out of it and let things play out as they will, they have a better opportunity of finally resolving things for themselves. If we come on too strong, the hard right, the Mullahs, can claim that the reformists are American-backed, which at this point, they are not. They and we cannot afford for the current government to be overturned by American-backed means. Peace in the Middle East will fail if so, but has real hope of being achieved if the people of Iran are able to successfully elect a new President who has the support of the world community but was not put into power by the world community. There is a huge difference.

Read more of Jonah's column here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jonah Goldberg, Another Serial Idiot. This Time On Affirmative Action

From an article he wrote in 2006, the expert in all things affirmative action, Jonah Goldberg, says of affirmative action:
[...]

"The greater irony is that it is far from clear that diversity is good for black students either." ... "Black students admitted to universities above their skill level often do poorly and fail to graduate in high numbers. UCLA law professor Richard Sander found that nearly half of black law students reside in the bottom ten percent of their law-school classes. If they went to schools one notch down, they might do far better."

[...]

"But all this misses the point. Today’s diversity doctrine was contrived as a means of making racial preferences permanent. After all, affirmative action was intended as a temporary remedy for the tragic mistreatment of blacks. But as affirmative action drifted into racial preferences, it became constitutionally suspect because racial preferences are by definition discriminatory. If I give extra credit to Joe because he’s black, I’m making things just that much harder for Tom because he’s white." [emphasis added

The problem with graduating numbers and success levels, is not the fact that students are admitted above their skill level (good lord, look at George W!), but rather because of the lack of support once they get there. Tutoring, pre-admit summer programs, and mentoring available at many, many institutions are essential not just for affirmative action admits, but also for all non-traditional students and are often seen for foreign students, older returning students, and disabled students. Kind of curious then that you don't see it for students of color.

And then, of course, is the issue of temporary. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Ten years? Twenty? Who decides when we have reached parity? Is it possible that it might take two or three generations of less than stellar graduates before we have graduation levels of minority students equal to that of white males? When we have employment levels equal to that of white males? Entry (and graduation) into law and medical schools equal to that of white males? After all, the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and enforcement didn't begin until the feminist movement realized that they could use the act to push some of their issues, so we're talking the 1970's before anything even began to happen. For true affirmative action to work, you need at least fifty years, which we'll never see now, especially as those persons such as Judge Sotomayor who have succeeded as a a result of affirmative action are pushed back because of affirmative action.

And if things are a little harder for Tom for awhile? So what? This is a problem because? Maybe white men should have to work a little harder for awhile to understand what people of color and women have endured for hundreds of years. Just sayin'. Because this kind of thinking seems to predominate among successful, upper-class white males.

In a web conversation on June 10, 2009, still the self-styled expert on affirmative action - the topic of the moment because of the upcoming Sotomayor confirmation hearings, Jonah Goldberg is asked why discussions of race as a basis of college admissions are wrong when legacy admissions based on wealth are not? His answer?

"People say, 'well, why should we be neutral on race when people aren't neutral about whose family gave more money to a school and all the rest?' And there's a longer answer, but a short answer is simply that, you know, we fought a civil war over race. We amended the constitution a couple of times because of race. We had the civil rights act because of race. Seems to me that race is different, and that we've learned from bitter experience with lots of dead people that government getting in the business of picking winners and losers by race is a bad way to go." [emphasis added]

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Jonah ... I hate (truly I do) to bring this up, especially as I was one of the original 5 or 6 members of the original NPR forum thread "Clinton: Move On" from which the founders of MoveOn broke off and founded, well, MoveOn dot org. But, I digress again. Anyhoo. Jonah. Remember Monica? And her friend Linda Tripp? Of the infamous late night phone calls that Linda recorded? Well, Linda handed those tapes over to her friend Lucianne Goldberg, Jonah's mother who permitted then 29-year old Jonah to listen to them with her. Jonah wrote about 6,000 words about the tapes, sold it to the NY Times (who cut it to a 900 word blurb) and his career was born. Jonah was a has-been at 29, working as vice-president for his mother's minuscule publishing company. He had gone to Europe after college planning to "...be a starving fiction writer, but failed on both scores." Seeing a chance to stretch his 15-minutes of fame, he made the rounds of the talk shows attacking President Clinton, reportedly saying that he found being on television "seductive," until he got a job at the National Review spouting conservative talking points, which he has held onto ever since.

So, you see why I hate to even mention his name. But, he's inserted his name into the conversation as a self-styled expert on affirmative action when in actuality, he parrots talking points that he neither understands or probably, believes (until the Lewinski scandal, his best friend was "Reagan's favorite Democrat" and a Clinton supporter - he's just all about the main chance). He is afraid, as are many white men, that the things that they have, that they have not earned, will be taken away from them. So, such programs as affirmative action, designed not to take anything away from anybody but to lift others up to parity, scare the hell out of them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k