The great Robert Higgs makes the best argument yet against the idiotic neo-conservative “blame America” accusation in his latest commentary.
Higgs writes:
In discourse about public affairs, words matter much more than most people appreciate. We live immersed in language so twisted and abused, in part by the design of interested parties and in part by the sloth of inattentive speakers and listeners, that we often fail to notice or object to linguistic miscarriages that pass for intelligent expression. The examples are legion, but here I have in mind a particular turn of phrase that American conservatives, especially neocons, have employed in recent years as a counterstrike against critics of U.S. foreign and defense policy: They describe such critics as “blaming America” or sometimes as “blaming America first” for attacks against this country or its citizens abroad.
Thus, for example, those who fault U.S. Middle East policies for creating the conditions that caused Muslim fanatics to attack Americans, both at home and overseas, are said to be blaming America for what the policy’s defenders’ take to be the unprovoked acts of terrorists bent on imposing Sharia on the United States, destroying this country’s freedoms, or attaining another such farfetched objective.
Applications to earlier events and policies include use of the expression to fend off the arguments and evidence of those who maintain that the Roosevelt administration waged economic warfare in 1940-41 to provoke a Japanese attack that would justify and lead directly to full-fledged U.S. engagement in World War II; and use of the expression against those who argue that the Truman administration bore at least partial responsibility for the onset of the Cold War. People accused of blaming America are commonly called “America haters.”
Although this riposte to criticism is the rhetorical tactic of first resort for the more simple-minded, flag-waving species of self-anointed patriots, it is by no means their exclusive property. Neocons writing in such elevated outlets as the New York Times and the Washington Post have not been bashful about smearing their critics as people who “blame America.” I noticed this linguistic resort most recently in a commentary by an intelligent, reasonable economist and was shocked that he would embrace this trope while suggesting that “pacifists” and others who criticize U.S. foreign and defense policies are unrealistically imagining that international disputes and warfare can somehow be eliminated from human affairs.
In my view, replying to policy critics by accusing them of “blaming America” is worse than linguistically crude and ideologically twisted; it is stupid.
Ron Paul and incoming Kentucky Senator Rand Paul sat down with an interview with Anderson Cooper earlier tonight. It was an interesting contrast of styles with a similar message.
Editor’s Note: After a long hiatus, we’ve just received another article submission from Richard Deekbag. His previous submission was posted here in an effort to represent a perspective opposite of Liberty Maven’s typical material. You can read that previous article, Why Ron Paul is wrong on every damn thing!, here. This new submission is being posted for the same reason. Remember, he’s an anti-Ron Paul neocon who runs the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):
What a joke! All these idiots complaining about their junk being touched by the TSA. I say we should just stand there and take it like real men. I say, “If it’s for national security then TOUCH MY JUNK, PLEASE!!” It’s the patriotic thing to do. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then the terrorists win, pure and simple. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then you hate America!!
I do think there is room for the TSA to improve this process though. It appears that all females get to be felt up by female TSA agents and all males get to be fondled by male TSA agents. This is a discriminatory practice. The TSA should ask the traveler if he or she is a homosexual. If the answer is affirmative then the traveler should be appropriately touched by a member of the opposite sex.
Yes, all touching in the name of national security is appropriate. Other than that small change I applaud the great work of the TSA over the past few weeks. The skies are infinitely safer and there can be no one who says they aren’t friendlier with this policy in place. In fact, they just published a children’s book to help children adapt to the new policy. Here’s is the cover:
With all of the “sky is falling” melodrama over Wikileaks all over the media, I find Robert Gates refreshingly honest in this answer to Michael Yon. Yon asked Gates an intriguing question regarding Wikileaks and the potential damage it may do to sharing information between intelligence agencies. Among other things, Gates said the following:
Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think — I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.
So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.
Of course, now some people are making the claim that the information leaked may end up benefiting the Obama administration and the source of the leak may be the administration itself. Is this some kind of weird reverse trutherism? I doubt this claim is true, but it’s an interesting thought when coupled with Gates response above. Read more about this claim at reason.com.
While touring in support of his recently released children’s book, the self-proclaimed pro-lifer and Christian, Mike Huckabee, called for the death of the WikiLeaks leaker.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says execution is the appropriate punishment for the leaker who provided thousands of State Department documents to the website WikiLeaks.
“Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty,” Huckabee, a likely presidential candidate, told reporters Monday during a stop at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library to sign copies of his new children’s book, “Can’t Wait Till Christmas!”
Sometimes, the irony just writes itself. I do not heart Huckabee.
Rand Paul was interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” by Christiane Amanpour. I thought it was a good interview, but of course, I’m a bit biased. One item that Paul reiterated from his campaign was that we have “to look everything” for cutting government spending. Check it out below.
Today is the anniversary of the September 17, 1787 ratification of the Constitution of the United States. While the federal government no longer even pretends to follow the Constitution, I would like to write for a moment on the second-most important safeguard the founders tried to leave us. (The most important safeguard being sound money, which by itself greatly inhibits rash war-making, as beautifully illustrated in this clip.)
Earlier tonight Ron Paul appeared on CNN with Anderson Cooper and boldly stated, “We live in revolutionary times”. He’s right. You can watch that appearance below. There’s been a lot of discussion lately about a fractured Republican Party following Christine O’Donnell’s win in the Delaware GOP primary over establishment moderate Mike Castle.
Jim DeMint endorsed O’Donnell and is being criticized by some for being too ideological. DeMint is having none of it. From Politico.com:
Asked if he were concerned that O’Donnell’s nomination could cost his party a seat, DeMint said he wasn’t “interested in political ideology or party right now. We need people up here to understand we’ve got to get back to limited government, and we can’t afford to have other Republicans who don’t get the message.”
Like Ron Paul, DeMint is, of course, exactly right. On CNN Ron Paul spoke about building coalitions while not compromising principles. That is something he has done his entire career in politics.
I don’t believe Ron Paul can win the presidency in 2012 should he choose to run. He has too much baggage for some ignorant people and there are a lot of ignorant people who vote. However, should Jim DeMint make a run in 2012 and team up with Ron Paul as his running mate… well… I think that could be a compelling ticket for Republicans and all of the truly limited government conservatives, independents and tea party revolutionaries out there.
Some of my fellow Ron Paulites will scoff at the thought of having DeMint, a foreign policy interventionist, at the top of the ticket. For as wrong as DeMint is on foreign policy, he is exactly what America needs for economic policy. There will be plenty of time for Ron Paul to bring him around on foreign policy, especially as it relates to economics. In the meantime, they could unite on cutting spending and taxes, auditing the Federal Reserve, repealing Obamacare, and so much more.
Mark Sanford’s affair killed his chances. Sarah Palin is much too polarizing. Gary Johnson just doesn’t have “it”. Mitt Romney’s hair may be tight, but his positions are over-cooked spaghetti. Everyone else is too moderate to really affect change.
If Ron Paul is willing to form uncompromising coalitions to focus on areas of agreement then I’m all for it. I hope the rest of the Ron Paul faithful would be as well.
Welcome to the DeMint/Paul Evolution Revolution of 2012!
Today, Ron Paul, released the following regarding Obama’s speech last night.
And of course, he’s spot on as usual. Note that the picture associated with this post was not released by Ron Paul as part of the press release.
“The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003.
“Once again, we are being told the mission has been accomplished and our brave men and women are coming back home. Though the people are hopeful they remain skeptical, and rightfully so.
“The biggest problem is that success in Iraq is undefinable since the mission was never defined. The reasons given for the invasion were based on misinformation. Now, the war has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and this has contributed significantly to our economic woes.
“Forty-four hundred Americans are dead, thirty thousand severely wounded, and more than a hundred thousand are suffering from serious health problems related to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This alone should tell us that it was not worth the investment and the needless sacrifice of our young people and the taxpayers.
“It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:
the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq
the 100,000 contractors that remain with more expected to go to Iraq
the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
Dozens of military bases that will stay
Al Qaeda organizations that did not exist before the war
Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist who has gained much political power
The fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr
“Osama bin Laden wins by ‘proving’ that America has an agenda of occupation in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to incite hatred and terrorism against the United States.
“What’s worse, President Obama made it clear last night that the troops and resources leaving Iraq will not come home to defend our country or ease our economic woes. They will instead be diverted to Afghanistan, perhaps also Pakistan and, I fear, even Iran.
“From my viewpoint we are the losers in this fool’s errand of endless war. Tragically, this new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade that will severely undermine our national security and continue us down the path to bankruptcy—a threat that we best not long ignore.”
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
