Johan Hari reviews Nick Cohen

You know, sometimes it’s just better to admit that one has been duped.

This bit:

He accuses the left of supporting Saddam Hussein – and then, in his most shocking claim, says the US was right to support Saddam in the 1980s anyway because it was the only way to stop the “Islamic revolution”.

and much that follows reminds me of Bérubé’s famous quip:

Everything changed for me on September 11. I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I’m outraged by Chappaquiddick.

It was an excellent review on the whole. I think he could have made more about Cohen’s hatred for liberals, and how it has been the one consistent thing. When he was radically anti-American “Why it is right to be anti-American” and against military action (in Afghanistan – Come on you liberals if you think you are hard enough!) he blamed it on liberals, and when he swung dramatically the other way, and saw that others weren’t as fervent as himself, that was liberals’ fault too.

I’m in the middle of the piece, and I just want to note that Hari’s snub at Lenin’s Tomb is highly disingenuous:

…condemned Muslims who have “comfortable upper-middle class” lives because they aren’t “interested in subjecting [themselves] to the ascetic demands of religion.”

Lenin’s Tomb writes about the so-called American Islamic Congress, suggesting (as a minor point) that one of its members (Dr. Khaleel Mohammed) is a middle-class American who doesn’t care much about Islam (IOW: his membership in ‘Islamic Congress’ is hypocritical). Whether it’s true or not I don’t know, but it’s a far cry from “condemned Muslims … etc.”.

Why is it always necessary to smear people on the left? Mystery…

It boiled down to “I was and still am right but I was betrayed by Bush.” Hardly a revolutionary self-justification. I think even Judas used that one.

Good to see he still maintains the internecine rage against Galloway and Leninology though. If there is one thing that will make the left relevant for the future it’s surely got to be writers of the left who spend their talents on dissing their fellow travellers for infractions on correct-thinking.

Since Hari has misrepresented me, I’ve written a brief rebuttal, complete with an unflattering portrait of the man himself:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-which-i-become-diverting-anecdote.html

“So, what happens to a neoconservative mugged by reality?”

Posted by abb1

As we’ve seen, there are three responses:

1) Admit it.
2) Deal with reality, but in a very dishonest way.
3) Take a deeper drag on the propaganda pipe, an d sink deeper into lies.

What Johan Hari says about lenin tomb is spot on but I would add that it provides a textbook and interesting example of the extremist methodology :
1) Deflation: reduce, or “contextualize”, the moral significance of the deliberate extermination of innocent civilians by Palestinian terrorists.

2)Inflation: deliberately inflate, and “decontextualize”, the moral significance of errors in military actions by the IDF against Palestinian terrorists.

3)Dishonesty: relentless misrepresentation of the facts about particular events, and misprepresentation of others’ views.

4)Demonization: relentless vilification of one’s opponents. Blair is compared to Hitler; the US or Israel is compared to Nazi Germany, etc.

“…the moral significance of errors in military actions by the IDF against Palestinian terrorists.”

Is there a requirement that right-wingers engage in freudian projection?

It’s not true that he ‘decontextualizes’ the moral significance of military actions by the IDF against the Palestinians. He contextualizes it as well, just not in the context you feel is the right one. So, your 1 and 2 cancel each other.

Demonization is natural in polemics. Polemicists that you like do it too, I’m sure, and most likely much more aggressively than lenin’s tomb.

Misrepresentation of facts needs to be discussed on a case by case basis.

One relatively minor historical quibble with Hari: the neoconservative rhetorical commitment to spreading democracy was not brand new in the 1990s. Certainly, Kirkpatrick’s article is a key neoconservative text, which marks a decisive break with Carter’s human rights policy and which argues against simply supporting democratic (or even quasi-democratic) movements (the Nicaraguan revolution was a key background to Kirkpatrick’s argument).

But back in 1976, Carter’s emphasis on human rights was seen by many Scoop Jackson Democrats as a direct and laudable attack on Kissingerian realism. A lot of neoconservatives, who had abandoned the Democratic Party in 1972 and supported Nixon over McGovern, returned in 1976 in the hopes that Carter would be tougher on the Soviet Union.

This was very much the subtext of the Carter-Ford presidential debate on foreign policy, in which Ford famously declared that “There is no Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe.” There’s a very good essay by historian Leo Ribuffo about the background to this gaffe, which had to do with a leaked internal document in which the Ford administration appeared to recognize a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe (the U.S. had always official claimed not to recognize that nations had spheres of influence). Neoconservatives attacked the Ford administration for this position, and Ford was prepared for a question on it. He got a rather different question, and rather than denying a sphere of influence, he seemed to deny Soviet power (which was, in a way, even worse than recognizing a sphere of influence). At any rate, Carter’s “human rights policy” during the ’76 campaign was, among other things, designed to appeal to neoconservatives.

By the end of the 1970s, in the wake of events in Iran, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan, most of the Scoop Jackson Democrats/neoconservatives had abandoned Carter in favor of Reagan, and many finally completed their departure from the Democratic Party.

#22 – quite. You can’t just use words how you like, and the fact that some people are not only keen to do so, but do so aggressively and in an accusatory manner, tells you that they’re in a different business to the upholding of intellectual standards.

Another issue in regard to #22 and 23 is that Bush and his buddies don’t mean democracy in the classical sense of voting rights and participation in government, but in the Milton Friedman market sense. To me this realization helped crystallize the pattern behind much of what the Bush administration has done and said.

“disinterested observer” at no. 12:

Here is the Nick Cohen standard-issue rant on that favorite subject of neocon culture polemic “why aren’t there any Mooslime bad guys in Hollywood movies.” It’s a subject that’s really going around neocon circles these days. (Why the ethnic composition of bad guys in big-budget Hollywood modern-dress shootemups should be a matter of public concern mystifies me, especially when those concerned show no awareness that any other kind of movie is possible or desirable.)

We should probably retire the word “democracy” since it has become a vague term of approval rather than the name for a concept or even a range of concepts. Prostituted by every side for centuries, it hasn’t so much been deconstructed as denatured. Besides, since very few people actually support majority rule these days, it isn’t just the word “democracy” that’s obsolete. The political tendency it once denoted is itself unfashionable.

I think the implication is clear when “left-wing” credentials denote opposition to both al-Qaeda and the party then governing Spain. Though, assuming Hari accurately characterizes Cohen’s views on such matters, the latter makes similar classficiations, as in “He accuses the left of siding with the far right” (that is, terrorists).

Regarding the use of chemical weapons, here is a story about the background and claims made. Note the last paragraph with a correction (WP was used in that battle for illumination and screening, and to flush out enemy combatants, not as a direct weapon). I haven’t seen any credible argument that WP used in this way is a “chemical weapon” within the meaning of the law of war.

Shelby: I think the implication is clear when “left-wing” credentials denote opposition to both al-Qaeda and the party then governing Spain.

So, if I oppose both al-Qaeda and Canada’s Tory government for leftist reasons, I’m implicitly arguing that they’re equivalents? Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s stupid, and there’s zero support for any such “implication” in Hari’s writing.

I’m aware of the initial US government denial on white phosphorus, thanks. As the story I linked to notes, that denial later had to be retracted when troops in the field admitted to using white phosphorus directly against personnel.

if marred by the usual bashing of people further to one’s left to demonstrate one’s own credibility. Well, I’ve done that too, on rare occasions, but only when the person further to my left really was saying something nasty. And it gives one such a feeling of belonging to do it.

While I don’t enjoy the bashing either, I think it’s vital, since the left still has a few old and also some newly acquired skeletons in the cupboard. How is one to react – smile and nod? In me it creates a feeling of alienation rather than belonging, though.

to glorious godfrey ,barry and ejh : your response to my comment is a tu quoque ( if you dont know why that is a problem why dont you look it up ? ).

Divine right monarchies are totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and often warlike. Louis XIV, a Hitler before his time.

Fascism is a pretty specific phenomenon. I don’t understand the (non-rhetorical) advantage of using the word to refer to movements that are only vaguely analogous to Italy in the 20s or Germany in the 30s. Outfits like the Baathists really are similar to Mussollini’s party and share historical roots with European fascist movements. Bin Laden’s movement, the Muslim brotherhood; but the Iranian mullahs, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the rest all differ in crucial ways, not only with the echt fascists of yore but with one another. Lumping them all together is a strategy analogous to classic racism, i.e. it amounts to the assertion that all these groups are a natural kind with a malign and unchangable essence. That way you can justify not talking to Muslim religious parties or even Arab and Muslim groups that aren’t crazy about American/Israeli foreign policy because they are all the same, Islamofascists.

Comparing a movement with fascism is fine of course, but your “short hand way of bringing that out” is highly problematic. As far as I know there are several small hybrid Christian/neo-Nazi movements, but you don’t short-hand them in a similar way. And you probably won’t defend the word ‘zionazis’ either.

abb1 : “As far as I know there are several small hybrid Christian/neo-Nazi movements, but you don’t short-hand them in a similar way. And you probably won’t defend the word ‘zionazis’ either.”

I do not see why you think that. If they want to replace public reason and hence politics as this is commonly understood , with one particular doctrine and if that doctrine is intolerant of dissent and licenses use of violence to deal with dissent , then I would call it fascist yes. Woulnt you ?

I don’t know, it sound like you’re arbitrarily and permanently attaching unflattering qualifier, which is purely metaphorical, to a random attribute the members of a movement share – while this attribute is also shared by millions of other people outside the movement.

See, the movement in question doesn’t call itself ‘Islamofascist’ or ‘fascist’, like, say, Italian or German fascists. So now every follower of every version and interpretation of Islam has to wonder: who are these Islamofascists, exactly? Is he talking about me, by chance? Maybe I should join some armed group, just in case.

abb1 at # 45 — what is the criticism now ? Is it that the term ‘ islamofascist ‘is

1) *useless* because it is inaccurate ? This has been answered and shown to be perfectly accurate way to characterize certain strains within political islam.

2) it *upsets people* ? This might be true but this on its own does not show that the term is not accurate. If one accepted this criticism it would only show that we should be careful when we use it.
3) it is * islamophobic* therefore it is wrong to use the term ? To level this criticism at people like me involves a confusion because it begs the question at issue which is : is an ideology that the term ‘islamofascist’ denotes bad ?. The criticism from islamophobia assumes without argument that the question must be answered in the negative but that is either patently false or it begs the question.

I think the main criticism is that ‘Islamofascism’ is not a term at all, it’s a metaphor.

Well, if you’re writing a paper about various religious totalitarian movements, then, I suppose, you could use ‘Islamofascism’ along with ‘Chrstianofascism’, ‘Hindufascism’, ‘Judeofascism’ and ‘Buddhofascism’ as shorthands, if that’s indeed your style.

Otherwise it’s a metaphor, a figure of speech. And it’s a metaphor of arguable accuracy, and it upsets people and it’s a suspect for being used mainly to express islamophobic sentiment.

Al-Quaeda and the Partido Popular are both rightwing. There I’ve said it.

If they want to replace public reason and hence politics as this is commonly understood , with one particular doctrine and if that doctrine is intolerant of dissent and licenses use of violence to deal with dissent , then I would call it fascist yes. Woulnt you ?

Zdenek – You either don’t know, or are pretending not to know, that there is a difference between fascism and authoritarianism. Using fascism as an all-purpose pejorative or using it to mean roughly “intolerant of dissent” is acceptable usage for a 15-year-old who’s just been grounded; in a serious discussion about political ideologies it is not.

(lolz @ zdenek)

(yeah, yeah, a more detailed response would be more polite and educational, but 50 is just funny)

doctor slack : “Then proceed to completely ignore thesis T and argue against something else, thereby pretending you’ve refuted T. Yes, you can do that, Zdenek. It’s what I expect of you.”

Slowly this time : T implies that 1-3 are true but 1-3 are false therefore T is false.

In other words : If P implies Q but Q is false P is false. This particular form that my argument is relying on is called modus ponens and is perfectly legit as is easy to show.

So no I am not ignoring T on the contrary I am focusing on it and I have refuted it .

Of course maybe the refutation is defective but that you have to show, which you havent done.

How does “without the corporatist authoritarian state or the centrality of nationalism, you basically don’t have fascism” imply any of these things?

See, if you define ‘fascism’ as, for example, ‘corporatist/nationalist authoritarian state’, you don’t need any of your shallow characteristics. See, it’s hard to define a socio-economic phenomenon by guessing what people do or don’t aspire.

How old are you, Zdenek, anyway?

Who said that the characteristics you describe are necessary, let alone sufficient? They are not very definite or specific anyway: how do you know what people desire, believe and aspire to – by their words? My saying that I believe that Jesus Christ is son of God and savior doesn’t make me a Catholic. I may very well be a Satanist pretending, right? In fact, I probably am.

Zdenek, your’re priceless. As a self-avowed troll, my hat’s off to you, sir. Who woulda thunk that throwing a basic grasp of syllogistic forms in people’s faces could be so sexy.

If all the characteristics of fascism are summed up in #50, 1-4, then your definition of “fascism” is indistinguishable from “violent, reactionary revolutionary agitation with a penchant for conspiratorial thinking and an all-encompassing, oppressive social model”. And you know what? That’s utter tosh. It’s tosh, and it makes your definition of “fascism” so broad as to be rendered entirely useless* . And that’s because the “social model” of islamomuslimfaschistoidniks is radically different from that of actual, historical fascists.

Actual, historical fascism was not only about all the above, but also about the absolute subordination of the individual to the state, and to the notion of the nation and its destiny. You may have even heard that the Nazis in particular were sort of heavily into racial purity, and that it rubbed off onto the rest of the lot. It had little time for religious contemplation, glorified strength and vitality, and was fascinated with efficiency, machines (the Italian futurists may ring a bell) and big things (buildings, dirigibles, Fackelzüge, you name it).

That’s all high-school level stuff at best, but don’t let it deter you. You should try to argue that Afghanistan was a corporatist state under the Taliban next. That would be so awesome.

*: except if, as already stated, you want to adorn yourself with plumes borrowed from ages past…

Hot damn, you’ve posted #60 in the meantime. Moral relativism enters the fray, yay! Having a high-school-level grasp of fascism is, like, being a nihilist and an acolyte of Harman and Derrida and Barbra Streisand.

Awesome, and awesomer still.

Re #62: as somebody who’s lived in Spain for many years and still keeps in touch with the place, I have to say that yes indeed, ejh rules the universe. That’s all.

No, I don’t think that anybody is interested in making a “moral relativistic critic” of your position. The replies you’ve been getting go rather along these lines:

1) The Taliban are islamofascists. [That’s unquestionable because they are called islamofascists by the people who invented the term. I’ll be generous and grant that they’re muslimonazis too.]

2) There’s a plethora of differences between those “islamofascists” and actual, historical fascists.

3) Therefore, the term “islamofascism” is useless, and one should stick to terms like “violent salafism” or “militant qutbism” which, while still often conducive to oversimplifications or misunderstandings, are far less inaccurate. I’m afraid those terms are less sexy than “islamofascism”, but life sucks.

Can the statement “zdenek v is an islamofascist” be also proven by the steps outlined in comment 66?

Another difference between islamofascism and fascism a secas is that the latter is much sultrier than the former. I mean, let´s be honest, it is thoroughly repugnant, but all those jackboots, black uniforms…that´s hawt, man. Western S&M was never the same after WWII. Foisting burqas on the ladies, on the other hand, is not quite so effective.

We know that:

1) Some skrulls are hot (in the tradition of the Barsoom or planet Krishna novels).

2) No islamofascists are hot.

Therefore, all skrull islamofascists have to belong to the contingent of unhot skrulls.

GELDED UNHOT ISLAMOFASCIST EUNUCH SKRULLS ! ! !

Know thine enemy. You are known to him already.

It’s more than a bit silly, but I’m enjoying your wordplay, GG.

Zdenek, I never said this to a man and meant it:

Do you want to have my babies?