<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Pragmatic Ideologues Vs. The People Who Actually Have Ideas</title>
	<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: MDCLXVI</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6036</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:13:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6036</guid>
					<description>I don't understand, was Francis a mean person? Did he ever cheat on his taxes or something? How would Goldberg explain his statement? "I think Sam Francis is probably in hell because...." People only use the hell thing with genocidal dictators, right? Was Francis ever even in a position of power?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand, was Francis a mean person? Did he ever cheat on his taxes or something? How would Goldberg explain his statement? &#8220;I think Sam Francis is probably in hell because&#8230;.&#8221; People only use the hell thing with genocidal dictators, right? Was Francis ever even in a position of power?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James Newland</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6027</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6027</guid>
					<description>GOM wrote: "When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was at some pains to check out Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap."

Of course it was, just as almost every charge made by our enemies have been bum raps. The accusations are not intended to be either truthful or debatable. They're mere slanders, intended to allow the other side to have their way unimpeded. It's fashionable these days to bash Ann Coulter, but she's certainly right about this. It's been the Left's weapon of choice since way back...which explains perfectly why neocons like Goldberg don't hesitate to use it.

Something like 70% of the American people were opposed to intervention in Europe until the attack on Pearl Harbor--and even then, the American people only agreed to go after the Germans because Japan was allied with them. So according to the Left, 70% of Americans were blatanly anti-semitic, and it was only by being taught the error of our ways through fighting and dying in Europe that we came to our current enlightened state. It's all obvious horsesh**, of course, but that's the official dogma believed not just by the hard Left, but by neocons as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GOM wrote: &#8220;When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was at some pains to check out Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course it was, just as almost every charge made by our enemies have been bum raps. The accusations are not intended to be either truthful or debatable. They&#8217;re mere slanders, intended to allow the other side to have their way unimpeded. It&#8217;s fashionable these days to bash Ann Coulter, but she&#8217;s certainly right about this. It&#8217;s been the Left&#8217;s weapon of choice since way back&#8230;which explains perfectly why neocons like Goldberg don&#8217;t hesitate to use it.</p>
<p>Something like 70% of the American people were opposed to intervention in Europe until the attack on Pearl Harbor&#8211;and even then, the American people only agreed to go after the Germans because Japan was allied with them. So according to the Left, 70% of Americans were blatanly anti-semitic, and it was only by being taught the error of our ways through fighting and dying in Europe that we came to our current enlightened state. It&#8217;s all obvious horsesh**, of course, but that&#8217;s the official dogma believed not just by the hard Left, but by neocons as well.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Grumpy Old Man</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6022</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6022</guid>
					<description>When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was &lt;a href="http://globaloctopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/america-first-redux.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;at some pains&lt;/a&gt; to check out Lindbergh's Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap.  Some of Lindbergh's language was un-PC by today's standards.  His argument was essentially that although many Jews, understandably horrified by Hitler's antisemitic policies, were opposed to Hitler and favored entry into the war; as were the British, then badly in need of military help, and FDR's administration, the views of those three groups did not exhaust the question of whether intervention was in the interest of America as a whole. 

Whether Lindbergh was right or wrong, it was a reasoned argument. I tend to believe that once St. Woodrow bit into the forbidden fruit of intervention, US intervention in World War II became Nemesis, almost impossible to avert.

Opposition to intervention today makes even more sense than it did then both because no hostile power  threatens to dominate all Europe or all Eurasia, and we have learned just how ineffective our cultural ignorance and our institutional failings make military intervention a clumsy and ineffective means of spreading what we perceive to be our virtues.

Because the rhetoric of intervention favors terms like "freedom," "human rights," and "democracy," as opposed to realist concepts like "national interest," its opponents are invariably denounced as opposed to all three (never mind that the first and last of these are often opposed to each other), and therefore not merely mistaken but wicked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Daniel posted previously on Lindbergh, I was <a href="http://globaloctopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/america-first-redux.html" rel="nofollow">at some pains</a> to check out Lindbergh&#8217;s Des Moines speech as far as the charge of antisemitism goes, and concluded it was a bum rap.  Some of Lindbergh&#8217;s language was un-PC by today&#8217;s standards.  His argument was essentially that although many Jews, understandably horrified by Hitler&#8217;s antisemitic policies, were opposed to Hitler and favored entry into the war; as were the British, then badly in need of military help, and FDR&#8217;s administration, the views of those three groups did not exhaust the question of whether intervention was in the interest of America as a whole. </p>
<p>Whether Lindbergh was right or wrong, it was a reasoned argument. I tend to believe that once St. Woodrow bit into the forbidden fruit of intervention, US intervention in World War II became Nemesis, almost impossible to avert.</p>
<p>Opposition to intervention today makes even more sense than it did then both because no hostile power  threatens to dominate all Europe or all Eurasia, and we have learned just how ineffective our cultural ignorance and our institutional failings make military intervention a clumsy and ineffective means of spreading what we perceive to be our virtues.</p>
<p>Because the rhetoric of intervention favors terms like &#8220;freedom,&#8221; &#8220;human rights,&#8221; and &#8220;democracy,&#8221; as opposed to realist concepts like &#8220;national interest,&#8221; its opponents are invariably denounced as opposed to all three (never mind that the first and last of these are often opposed to each other), and therefore not merely mistaken but wicked.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James Newland</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6021</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6021</guid>
					<description>Right now I am exceedingly sorry I went into the National Review entry on Wikipedia and erased the line "His biological father was LBJ" from the reference to Goldberg.

His was the only reference defaced in this manner. Does anyone wonder why?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right now I am exceedingly sorry I went into the National Review entry on Wikipedia and erased the line &#8220;His biological father was LBJ&#8221; from the reference to Goldberg.</p>
<p>His was the only reference defaced in this manner. Does anyone wonder why?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Christopher Hayes</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6020</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/03/28/the-pragmatic-ideologues-vs-the-people-who-actually-have-ideas/#comment-6020</guid>
					<description>The Ponnuru quote is a great compliment to "Buchananism".  With that quote and Goldberg's use of it in mind, I'd think whatever he or Goldberg have to say would probably be the opposite of the truth.

Jonah can test that infuriating "ideas have consequences" tripe quite simply by walking into a room of average people. suggesting something like "If I say something stupid, please beat me with this chair", and then proceed to speak.  If the "beat me" idea has no consequences, he's safe and he's vindicated himself and Ramesh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ponnuru quote is a great compliment to &#8220;Buchananism&#8221;.  With that quote and Goldberg&#8217;s use of it in mind, I&#8217;d think whatever he or Goldberg have to say would probably be the opposite of the truth.</p>
<p>Jonah can test that infuriating &#8220;ideas have consequences&#8221; tripe quite simply by walking into a room of average people. suggesting something like &#8220;If I say something stupid, please beat me with this chair&#8221;, and then proceed to speak.  If the &#8220;beat me&#8221; idea has no consequences, he&#8217;s safe and he&#8217;s vindicated himself and Ramesh.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
