the politics of contempt…

Posted on Sunday 1 January 2006

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:

“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes – though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Karl Rove’s speech to the
New York Conservative Party
June 22, 2005

I suppose that most political speechs involve setting up a straw man, some very simplified view of one’s opponent, and then arguing against this artificial adversery. But this is no ordinary political speech. It’s a contemptuous indictment of the forces of evil. Karl Rove gave this speech just a few days before Lawrence O’Donnell’s confirmed that Mr. Rove was, himself, a major source for the C.I.A. Leak that dominated the news for the latter half of the year. Rereading it, it’s tempting to argue with Mr. Rove – to actually occupy the fictional character he creates and say something like, "No, that’s not how I am!" or to mount counter arguments, "What about the escalating national debt?" That’s what the Democrats and Bloggers have been doing for the last five plus years to the great delight of Mr. Rove. Such defenses are actually exactly what fuel his success.

Mr. Rove has honed his politics of contempt into an exact science. In this speech, his adverseries are not are not people on the other end of some political spectrum, they are evil people – "Liberals" espousing wrong and dangerous ideas. Their "motives" are treasonous, supporting our wost enemies. They want to use a psychotherapeutic approach to deal with a vicious attack by Satan himself. They are specifically motivated to kill babies. They want to take money from people and spend it on who knows what wrong things. The are objects of contempt, irrelevant – a group to be eliminated.

There is no defense as Rove’s straw man. Arguing with him or Mr. Bush is doomed if you allow yourself to occupy the role they cast you in. You simply become Hitler’s Jew – an object of scorn. The only effective way to combat contempt is to not "catch it." It’s infectous. Harry Reid and Jack Murtha came out swinging, and they both did it well. They didn’t do it by contemptuously attacking Conservatives. They did it by appealing to the human decency in other people. There’s nothing wrong with fighting back or getting mad, but as soon as you allow yourself to become a contemptuous opponent, you’re becoming the exact monster Rove’s created so he or his operatives can point and say, "See what I mean? See how they are." The only counter to his contemptuousness and his dirty tricks is to talk about them, and almost nothing else.

  1.  
    February 6, 2006 | 9:17 PM
     

    […] Karl Rove’s speech to the New York Conservatives is probably to most egregious example of Liberal = Communist Terrorist Supporter. A recent example of Bush equating dissent and subversiveness reminescent of the Nixon Era [quoted by Digby]: Bush said the war’s critics should stop questioning the motives that led him to launch the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it…. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right," Bush said. "I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries," Bush said. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.