Intellectually Bankrupt? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

What if John Podhoretz, the new editor of Commentary magazine, visited Democracy Arsenal and couldn't find anything substantive to pick a fight with us about?  Couldn't happen, right?  They're not that bankrupt?

Courtesy of Matt Bass at TAPPED, yes they are.   I don't mind being called a poseur for complaining about my ailments -- it's kinda fun to think about when changing diapers with my good arm, and my Puritan ancestors would approve -- but come on.  I wanted to send Podhoretz a thank-you note and a couple complimentary Vicodin, but I fear that would be illegal.  So he'll just have to accept our friendly welcome.

PS.  Attentive reader Neil reminds me that I've neglected to link to my debate with David Frum, ex-Bush speechwriter, over at bloggingheads, which I imagine is what brought us to Commentary's attention.  David is smart and manages to be firm in his opposition without excessive rudeness or ad hominem (ad feminam??  Latin scholars?) which is why I enjoy debating him.  Although his concluding extraterrestrials/neo-cons/religious persuasion riff at the end left me speechless, something that doesn't happen every day.    

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Commentary is more amusing than a painful flipper. A cursory reading can bring you gems like this:

“Democratization represents the best and perhaps even the only way to defeat Islamofascism and the terrorism it uses as its main weapon against us”--Norman Podhoretz

"Musharraf is rightly faulted for many things, especially inadequately purging the army of Islamic militants and a listless pursuit of al Qaeda, but does anyone seriously argue that politicians will better harness Pakistan’s military?"--John Bolton

How about a weekly "Commentary highlights" review? Call it the DA Comics.

[Mike M.]

Hmmph, Podhoretz moderates his comments. Why are right wing blogs so afraid of commenters?

[Neil]

One of the things really I liked about your recent bloggerheads.tv is your style of handling disagreement. Maybe you and John could propose a set of topics to discuss on bloggerheads.tv. It's be good for the debate both your websites.

[Don Bacon]

Heather and John? not a fair match. Heather could whip him with one arm. There's NO WAY neocons can defend the babble that they produce. They're for democracy and they're against it. They're for peace and they're for war. They're for freedom and they're for repression. They're pro-life and anti-child. They're not only bankrupt, they're way overdrawn in anything that makes sense, without even mentioning their foot-tapping and their bribe-taking.

[Neil]

"There's NO WAY neocons can defend the babble that they produce."

Don,

That's exactly why we need the debate. The policies that have been pursued over the last 7 years by a radical Republican administration were never debated. To the contrary, many of these policies were concealed during the campaign and some just maed-up in the course of he misadministration. I don't know if John Podhoretz is someone I would choose to debate - Heather makes a great point, it's worth it if the debate is about the ideas and doesn't descend into ad hominem.

Heather,

I was a latin scholar for one tri-mester and that was not enough study to answer your question. But the Wiktionary is my friend and answers our question: "Shortened from the Latin expression argumentum ad hominem, argument at the man (man as in a human being, not man as a male). From argumentum (meaning "argument") + ad (meaning "to" or "at") + hominem, the accusative singular of homo (meaning "man"). http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem

I found David Frum to be reasonable in his argumentation. I have newfound respect for him as a political activist. The Axis of Evil rhetoric set me back a way. Turns out he may have written Axis of Hate but you never know what to believe.

It would seem he's talking the moniker "neocon" grudgingly. The joke about the man on the train platform in Darien CT was a bit confusing because it seemed racially charged. I don't think he meant it that way. I think he meant that a person might reluctantly accept a untrue monniker to stop the questions. Anyway, he doesn't want to be called a neocon and that's a start.

[Neil]

tags? link yes! tags.

[Don Bacon]

Neil,
*I agree with you. The DRAFT HEATHER movement is hereby initiated.
*The neocon positions can't be defended, as I noted above.
*We need less testosterone-fired confrontation not only in national and international affairs but in domestic debate. How off-setting it must be to a neocon to say: "I don't mind being called a poseur for complaining about my ailments . . . So he'll just have to accept our friendly welcome." (And by the way a man would NEVER respond that way--another advantage for the Blue Team.)
* The bloggerheads link didn't work for me--excessive waiting time. I'll try again later.
* Go Heather. The planets and stars have aligned.

[Neil]

Here are some propositions to debate:

The Bush Administration has irreperably damaged our Constitutional government by

1. arguing and acting as though executive branch power is not limited by the laws of the United States enacted by the legislature or by Constitutional powers invested in the Congerss or the courts but by Article II of the Constitution only

2. arguiing and acting as though the executive is not accountable to Congress, a co-equal branch of government, empowered with oversight reposibility in the constitution. Further, that under the unitary executive theory, the executive can order DOJ to not investigate or charge the executive with contempt of congress or challenge through the legal process executive claims of privilege or state secrets.

3. undermining, corrupting and subverting legal checks and balances within the executive branch such as those traditionally enforced by DOJ and OLC

4. manipulating intelligence by selectively leaking partial insta-declassified NIE and not leaking evidence in possession to the contrary.

I'm just saying...

[Don Bacon]

Neil,
On the Constitution I have some thoughts.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that mentions or even infers co-equal branches. A reading of Articles I and II indicates that the Congress is paramount--it has many powers whereas the only power the president has is commander of the military. That gets us into executive privilege' which has no basis in the Constitution. In other words, why should the people (i.e. Congress), in a democracy, be co-equal with the President? So the present situation, with the President deciding what's best for the people, is bass-akwards.

The USA is a nation of laws, which are the prerogative of the Congress which represents the people in our (threatened) democracy. This gets us into presidential signing statements and other disregards for the law, and also callous disregard for the Constitution (habeas) and international compacts (torture).

Thus as you indicate the executive (one who executes) is responsible to the people, acting through the Congress. This responsibility has been routinely subverted recently, not the least through executive orders. For example, the US argues against a declared emergency in Pakistan while the President has recently renewed the six-year "emergency" in the US, and the President sets the "terrorist threat level" at "elevated" to keep us in fear and justify the repression of our rights (FISA).

Presidential manipulations and lies--ongoing.

See, you got me started! and now we need to defer to Heather, whom I'm SURE has some thoughts of her own, probably better than yours or mine.

[Phoenix Woman]

"Hmmph, Podhoretz moderates his comments. Why are right wing blogs so afraid of commenters?"

Because they're so deathly afraid of liberals doing to their blogs what conservatives do to liberal blogs ("liberal" being defined as "anyone I don't like for any reason"). Many of them don't even *have* comments features -- which is weird, because a blog without comments is just another website as far as I'm concerned.