Two men enter, one man leaves

by John Holbo on August 9, 2004

So I wander for no particular reason to Hugh Hewitt’s blog and he’s quoting an approving review of his new book from the print edition of the National Review.

“Hugh Hewitt is a law professor and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He also has a great deal of joie de vivre, which is on display in his new book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It (Nelson, 259 pp., $19.99). The book is every bit as partisan as its title suggests, but the author comes across as a genuinely nice guy; he believes in personal friendships and civility across party lines, while recognizing with equal clarity that politics is a ‘death match, and your opponents are playing to win.’ Hewitt’s defense of partisanship – as opposed not just to bipartisan accomodationism, but to excesses of ideological purity – is refreshing, and especially timely in a campaign season that will ask the American people to choose between pretty stark alternatives. ‘It’s a war,’ he writes. ‘The stakes are too high to demand special attention and self-defeating gestures.'”

Now I haven’t read Hewitt’s book, don’t listen to his show. I’ve read some of his journalism. I can’t see the rest of the NR review. So this is substantially a priori. It strikes me that if the good people of your country are threatened by an army of implacable decepticon killers – the Democrats – you’re a bit of a quisling if you are ever going out of your way to shake their hands. And a deathmatch is a terrible time to pursue personal friendship. On the other hand, if in fact there are any legitimate grounds for treating some Democrats civilly – even befriending a few – then strongly implying otherwise with your title is hardly going to make you come across as a genuinely nice guy. (It’s obviously not just Kerry, according to Hewitt, otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary to crush the democrats EVERY time.)

And, yeah, it’s all some kinda metaphor: deathmatch. But what is it a metaphor for? (In what sense is Hewitt NOT an ideological purist if he thinks he’s in a deathmatch? You don’t negotiate or split the difference in a deathmatch.)

It could be that Hewitt’s book is more civil than his title indicates. I do understand how and why publishers are wont to throw out slabs of dripping red meat, title-wise. Hewitt has had Matthew Yglesias on his show, which shows good taste. He’s no Michael Savage or Ann Coulter. But you would think it would occur to the author of the review – or to Hewitt, upon reading the review – that the review at least appears to have been written by a disordered mind (even if some unstated fact about the book’s moderate content makes judgments based on its cover deceptive.) This praise reads like a throbbing, Orwell-grade migraine headache of cognitive dissonance. Love is hate, war is peace, snark is civility. A tendency to talk this way is not usually considered to be a good sign.

What’s that you say? Who cares if NR publishes puff-praise of fellow right-wingers? A tough question, but a fair one.

I guess I’m a little curious why Hewitt is apparently so obsessed with Democratic ‘cheating’. I mean, yeah, there used to be machine politics and the whole vote early and often tradition in the big cities. I studied history in school. But the Republicans have been such hands-down winners in the dirty fighting and all-around incivility sweepstakes in recent years that this really seems like the pot calling the reasonably clean white object black. Does anyone out there happen to know what Democratic malfeasance Hewitt deems so heinous it demonstrated the congenital deceitfulness of the breed? Despite the fact that Hewitt seems to think Democrats will profit by engagement with his ideas – “Buy one for your yourself and two for the undecided or Democratic voter in your life” – I find the title off-putting to the point of being unwilling to purchase one for myself. I cannot help feeling somehow he is going to help himself to premises I won’t be willing to grant. I suppose I would be willing to accept a free copy.

Seriously, where are the reasonable Republicans these days? (Like Ted said.) What reasonable REPUBLICAN thinks now – of ALL times – is the time for all good Republicans to abjure all ‘well, how did we get here?’ self-criticism and just hold every inch on every front? What a terrible strategy for the GOP.

{ 41 comments }

1

JP 08.09.04 at 6:14 pm

Clearly, Hewitt discovered the Democratic cheating using the sheer power of the mind! Everything the GOP says is good and true, whereas the liberals are all wicked, wicked people. Ergo, anytime the liberals win elections, it must be because they cheated – what other explanation could there be?

2

Redshift 08.09.04 at 6:22 pm

It’s just another round of right-wing projection — “We assume our enemies do this terrible thing that we do, and since everyone does it, we really have no choice, do we, so it can’t actually be evil. But they’re so terribly evil for making us do it…”

3

Jim Henley 08.09.04 at 6:30 pm

I guess I’m a little curious why Hewitt is apparently so obsessed with Democratic ‘cheating’.

This shouldn’t be a mystery. From the Republican perspective, it was the Democrats who tried to steal the 2000 election and were narrowly defeated. Disagree if you like – for my part, I half agree – but the view is sincerely held and has been since early November 2000.

4

Doctor Memory 08.09.04 at 6:31 pm

Does anyone out there happen to know what Democratic malfeasance Hewitt deems so heinous it demonstrated the congenital deceitfulness of the breed?

In re the I-guess-thats-what-he’s-talking-about subject of voter fraud, I can sum it up in three words: “Motor voter bill.”

This is one of those areas where there is a complete, 100% disconnect between the self-identified Left, Middle and Right in this country: the Left and Middle either see M-V as an essentially benign way of increasing citizen participation (particularly minority citizens) in the democratic process or just don’t care much about it at all, whereas the Right see it as a wildly nefarious perpetuation of Boss Tweed-style voter manipulation, 21st-century-style.

Seriously, do a little googling on it. M-V turns otherwise often-reasonable Repubs into frothing loonies in much the way that school voucher plans have the same effect on Lefties, except with the weird difference that everyone knows about the latter, while not too many people outside the right-wing echo chamber pick up on the former.

p.s. +1000 points for “implacable decepticon killers”

5

praktike 08.09.04 at 7:11 pm

Remember the cardinal rule: if Republicans are accusing you of something, it means they are doing it ten times worse.

6

never mind hugh 08.09.04 at 7:19 pm

Hewitt is the hardest of hardball land-use attorneys in southern California. He has made a fortune fighting against land use regulations on behalf of large land owners. He’s a well-financed bully who’s been very successful finding loopholes and weaknesses in the federal govt’s inadequately funded regulatory system.

Which was why I was surprised about 10 years back, when he was one of the most vocal opponents of The Irvine Company’s “Shady Canyon” development, which was built in Hewitt’s neighborhood. The guy who had never met a developer he didn’t love was suddenly incensed that a long-planned community — one that makes his own look like junk — was going to be built in his precious viewshed. His pro-open space letters were, by the way, quite ineffective.

Anyone who thinks that Hugh’s a “nice guy” or “nonpartisan” is simply uninformed or disingenuous. He’s lame and hypocritical, even by Republican standards, and it’s sad that his views are taken at all seriously.

7

Dave Menendez 08.09.04 at 8:05 pm

Perhaps Mr Hewitt is using “deathmatch” in the first-person shooter video game sense. Inside the game it’s all merciless killing, but in the real world everyone’s still friends. Plus, when you get killed, you just respawn somewhere else and start over.

Of course, “politics as Doom” has its own problems as a metaphor.

8

Doug 08.09.04 at 8:17 pm

oh, and his web site is apparently 404 as of this writing. neither john’s link nor google take you to a working page.

9

hippocopter 08.09.04 at 9:00 pm

Kinda wonder why a smart person would want to read a book like that, even if it was free. Do you think there will be compelling arguments in there that you haven’t already heard?

10

Alan K. Henderson 08.09.04 at 9:05 pm

Remember the cardinal rule: if Republicans are accusing you of something, it means they are doing it ten times worse.

Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?

11

Katherine 08.09.04 at 9:13 pm

It seems like there’s a concerted effort by the GOP to describe partisanship–often fairly ordinary partisanship at that–as “hatred” and “bigotry”. And they do this while continuing to attack the Democrats more than the Democrats attack them. (Compare the % of negative and positive ads from the Bush and Kerry campaigns.)

If you can’t stand the heat…if you’re not going to get out of the kitchen, at least put down the blowtorch.

12

rea 08.09.04 at 9:21 pm

“Remember the cardinal rule: if Republicans are accusing you of something, it means they are doing it ten times worse.

“Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?”

Well, just to give you a couple of examples: (1) Republicans often accuse Democrats of bigotry, and (2) Republicans often accuse Democrats of making assertions unsuppported by evidence. ;)

13

bob mcmanus 08.09.04 at 9:38 pm

“Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism” by Sean Hannity as another example.

Orcinus

Dave Neiwert did an extensive analysis of the symbiotic relationship between the “Mainstream” Republican talk-show world and the Aryan Nations/Brotherhood/Nazi underground. Worth reading, warning:PDF.

14

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.09.04 at 9:56 pm

“It seems like there’s a concerted effort by the GOP to describe partisanship—often fairly ordinary partisanship at that—as “hatred” and “bigotry”.”

It might have something to do with the following expressions of normal partisanship: being repeatedly called a misogynist for expressing qualms about late-term abortions, a racist for expressing worries about the long-term effects of affirmative action and a hater of grandmothers for suggesting that Social Security might need some fixing. And those were just by some of the teachers I had in high school and college.

15

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.09.04 at 9:57 pm

“It seems like there’s a concerted effort by the GOP to describe partisanship—often fairly ordinary partisanship at that—as “hatred” and “bigotry”.”

It might have something to do with the following expressions of normal partisanship: being repeatedly called a misogynist for expressing qualms about late-term abortions, a racist for expressing worries about the long-term effects of affirmative action and a hater of grandmothers for suggesting that Social Security might need some fixing. And those were just by some of the teachers I had in high school and college.

16

abb1 08.09.04 at 10:04 pm

It’s a natural feature of the two-party system – as oppose to proportional representation system with multiple participants – where you’re achieving the same exactly outcome by demonizing the other party as if you were promoting your own.

Of course it’s much easier to demonize the other guy than to credibly blow your own horn, especially when you really don’t have much to brag about. And so, here we are: fighting Democratic psycho killers to save ourselves…

17

yabonn 08.09.04 at 10:10 pm

Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?

Fox news bozos ranting about left wing bias?

Bushco whining about these evil bush haters, letting the media right wing nuts do the job?

Bush side accusing kerry of being a “patrician”?

Bush side critisizing kerry on his military records?

“Nono, there’s no right wing conspiracy. You commie.”

18

Doctor Memory 08.09.04 at 10:33 pm

Of course, “politics as Doom” has its own problems as a metaphor.

Yes, but let’s not be too hasty to abandon it, for it has some rhetorical possibilities not immediately evident in other metaphors. The exploding barrels of toxic waste? Military funding of Israel, obviously. The bloated, floating cacodemon? Rush Limbaugh, naturellement. John Kerry is a dead ringer for the revenant, and I think we can all agree that there are few problems in politics that a well-aimed shot from the BFG9000…

19

Morat 08.09.04 at 10:33 pm

It’s weird, you know, I hear all these anecdotal tales of liberals beating up on poor conservatives in High School and College….and I just don’t really see it.

Perhaps I was too busy laughing at the “Affirmative Action Bake Sale” put on my our local College Republicans.

20

Katherine 08.09.04 at 10:51 pm

Well, that wasn’t normal partisanship. That was inexcusably nasty partisanship, especially from a teacher (Is that hyperbole on your part? If not where the heck did you go to school?) I’d still save “bigotry” stuff like this, however:

The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. … That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.'” – Tom Cobun, republican US Senate candidate from Oklahama, Oklahoma Gazette

And Ed Gillespie defines it even less narrowly than you do, to include “any harsh criticism of the President.” And the host of the highest rated TV news/political commentary program on cable compared Media Matters with the KKK. And praktile’s comment was one of the least impressive examples of “bigotry” I’ve seen in my life.

21

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.09.04 at 11:22 pm

Nope, not hyperbole. That was high school in San Jose and college in San Diego. (Though to be honest it was far more high school than college.)

But it isn’t as if the things I’ve mentioned aren’t commonly used against conservatives. The abortion/subjugation of women linkage is brought up in almost every abortion debate and you a conservative can’t talk for five minutes about affirmative action without people flat out saying he is racist. I seem to remember a cute NAACP commercial equating opposition to a specific form of hate-crimes bill with dragging a black man to his death behind a truck well enjoying a brewski.

And you won’t see a single defense of Coburn from me, he is a complete asshole (and if he wants to take offense at a pun on gay sex he is welcome to it.) And I won’t ask you to defend Cynthia McKinney’s theory that Bush and the Jews planned (or allowed depending on which day you ask her) 9-11.

For me the question is about normal discourse, and it is completely acceptable (especially in many academic circles) to suggest that Republicans are racist and misogynist based on their political beliefs about abortion and affirmative action.

22

JP 08.10.04 at 2:12 am

“Sounds like bigotry to me. Got any evidence?”

How about the Republicans accusing Sandy Berger of attempting to politicize the declassification of national security documents? What disgusting hypocrites they all are.

23

DonBoy 08.10.04 at 2:21 am

“Buy one for your yourself and two for the undecided or Democratic voter in your life”

Well, that’s pretty odd. I can imagine thinking that your undecided friend might need to read the book twice, but I don’t think that friend needs two different copies. Unless maybe he’s brain-damaged and thinks the second book is a completely different book, because there’s two of them? Yeah, Hewitt thinks your friend or loved one is brain-damaged. I’m going with that.

(OK, maybe he meant “buy a second one“…not “buy two…”.)

24

vivian 08.10.04 at 2:30 am

“It might have something to do with the following expressions of normal partisanship: being repeatedly called a misogynist for expressing qualms about late-term abortions…” and “The abortion/subjugation of women linkage is brought up in almost every abortion debate… “

I expect that someone who is motivated only by concern for a near-viable baby (and perhaps the future mental well-being of the woman), would look to reduce the demand for (late) abortion, including some or all:

  • Promote birth control. Affordable, covered by insurance.
  • Teach sex ed in schools, including birth control, failure rates, less risky practices.
  • End the stigma of single parenthood – good, affordable good day care, job training, livable wages. Safe housing.
  • Sensible maternity leave, flexible hours or child care when child gets sick. No “mommy track”
  • Wider availability of early abortions, all over. Support of practitioners, failure to tolerate bombing and harassment of doctors and patients of such clinics.
  • Good, affordable, available care for children with birth defects and severe disabilities – lifetime care in many cases. Respite care for the parents.

Offer some creative solutions to these problems if these are too left-wing for one’s taste – not words about what charities might offer, but concrete commitments – and I will take that person as sincere and not primarily interested in social control. When someone rejects measures to prevent unwanted late-term pregnancies, and refuses to help ensure decent lives for the children once born (their mothers and, yes, fathers), then I figure that person’s main aim is to create a moral underclass to look down upon. Punishing sin, misogyny (or misanthropy generally), the label is less important.

(I don’t accuse anyone here of holding these views, merely showing the logic behind what seemed to SH as rude prejudice.)

25

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 5:07 am

Maybe so, vivian, but it has little to do with me. I completely agree with 1,2,3,4 and 6. In a post on my own board, quite some time ago, I wrote: “You can want to restrict abortions. You can want to restrict contraceptive use. You can want to severely restrict welfare. But you can only want two out of the three of those things simultaneously unless you are an uncaring bastard.”

26

derrida derider 08.10.04 at 5:20 am

Well, Sebastian, its just a counterpart of ‘Saddam-lover’, ‘traitor’, ‘appeaser’,’idiotarian’, ‘America hater’, etc you and others of your ilk have been calling anyone who questioned the veracity or wisdom of Mr Bush’s excellent Iraq advenure.

Do I sound bitter? Sure am.

27

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 8:30 am

That’s Bush’s most excellent Iraq adventure. :)

28

W. Kiernan 08.10.04 at 12:14 pm

holsclaw sez: And I won’t ask you to defend Cynthia McKinney’s theory that Bush and the Jews planned (or allowed depending on which day you ask her) 9-11.

Well, that’s the last time I take anything you have to say seriously.

Show me where Cynthia McKinney ever said anything like that. Links to Free Republic don’t count.

29

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 5:02 pm

Hmm, Washington Post good enough for you? The only reason I can’t give you New York Times is link-rot.

What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?
(but after being challenged on this she pretends to retreat)
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.

And if you think that last sentence is any better than “I am not aware of any concrete evidence that Cynthia Mckinney allows her mechanic to molestt her daughters and their friends, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case, you are the one who can’t be taken seriously.

As for blaming the Jews for 9-11, I must apologize, her father blames the J-E-W-S for her political troubles. Her defeat also caused an interesting reaction in the progressive community–enough so that Stephen Zunes thought it necessary to write an article about not blaming the Jews, but the debate raged as it became clear that some people really did want to make it all about the Jews.

So I’ll apologize for combining two sets of odious McKinney related topics in my mind, but I won’t apologize for failing to keep track of all the nuances among utter craziness.

30

bob mcmanus 08.10.04 at 6:24 pm

“And I won’t ask you to defend Cynthia McKinney’s theory that Bush and the Jews planned (or allowed depending on which day you ask her) 9-11. ” Sebastian’s first statement….note the words “planned” or “allowed”

“I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.” …McKinney’s second paragraph. Is anyone willing to make the case that the Bush administration has not politically profited from 9/11? Is it not beyond doubt that so many friends of Bush have profited from 9/11 as an excuse for the rape of Iraq (and American taxpayers), that, in the usual manner, the Feiths and Libbys will not be rewarded by the Halliburtons upon leaving Government service?

As far as MacKinney’s first paragraph, perhaps ill-phrased, but it will be considered prescient in light of Chapter 8 of the 9/11 commission.

What did they know? Enough to stop it.
When did they know? Early enough to stop it with a bare minimum of effort.
Why did they not warn? Heck, Bush needs his vacation time.
What do they have to hide? Well, considering how hard they fought the commission….well, heck, we all have a pretty good idea of how much there is to hide.

There is enough to hide that there is no way Kerry will become President. Not enough pardons in the world.

31

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 7:05 pm

You think Mckinney’s quote means politically profited?

32

bob mcmanus 08.10.04 at 8:55 pm

I am no fan of McKinney’s. But I doubt she meant that Bush administration officials planned 9/11 in order to make a few bucks off dust masks.

Are you willing to say for certain that Bushco (and you now how this works, for both parties, the rewards come later) have not or will not financially profit from 9/11? Especially if you conflate 9/11 with Afghanistan/Iraq, as they
would have us do?

And although it was not their primary motive, I am willing to guess that potential profits from the Iraq invasion were not utterly absent from Bushco’s minds. And Iraq was on their minds on Sept 11. I wish it were otherwise.

33

robbo 08.10.04 at 9:06 pm

Sebastian, there’s much I don’t understand about you, but do you still grant Bush and his people credit for having done their utmost to stop 9/11? If so, tell me what exactly they did to stop it. For example, they had ample reason to prioritize anti-terrorism actions above the neocons’ then-obsession with a missile defense shield. Or above Ashcroft’s crackdown on head shops. What do you make of Richard Clarkes charges that they were insufficiently concerned about the many serious threat warnings?

If you don’t think they did their utmost to stop 9/11, where does that slippery slope lead? Where does “not going all out to stop” a predicted event merge into “calculating whether our side might stand to gain” from that predicted event? Such questions, which I would have thought ridiculous before the Bush II era, now seem quite reasonable to me. Do they still seem unreasonable to you?

Does nothing in the current or historical record suggest to you that Bush and his people were/are capable of this heinous level of cynicism and miscalculation?

34

bob mcmanus 08.10.04 at 9:24 pm

A) A spike in oil prices was predictable 5-10 years ago. The spike has little to do with the war or terrorism, and is caused by increased demand from China etc, but it was predictable. Whoever has control of oil right now is making huge bucks. Insane bucks.

B) I don’t know what to do about the “revolving door” or the connections of people of high achievement with high margin big corporations. I don’t know if anything should be done. What kind of job should a Rumsfeld or Albright or Rice do when they leave gov’t? Flip burgers? But there will always be some conflict of interest.

C) If I told a Greek or Roman that you should not profit off a war they would think me mad. Leaders took their nations to war for personal and social financial gain. Hell, I think even the grunts are getting some nice checks. That we find this horrifying might mean there is something wrong with us. (This will get the CT gang mad at me.)

35

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 9:58 pm

“Does nothing in the current or historical record suggest to you that Bush and his people were/are capable of this heinous level of cynicism and miscalculation?”

Let us not obfuscate. No. Nothing in the current historical record suggests to me that Bush and his people would find out about a massive terrorist plot to kill everyone in the Twin Towers (40,000+ people) and then let it happen for political gain.

If you believe that happened please state so clearly.

36

bob mcmanus 08.10.04 at 11:17 pm

“kill everyone in the Twin Towers (40,000+ people)”

The level of detail in the denial reminds me of Condi Rice’s “Nobody could have imagined 8 hijackers taking two aiplanes from Boston….etc?”

Sebastian, is it impossible to imagine Bushco would allow a terrorist hijacking that they assumed would cause few or no casualties, if they believed it would facilitate the greater purpose of preventing rogue regimes from getting WMD’s?

37

bob mcmanus 08.10.04 at 11:22 pm

I apologize, that was silly, and I don’t believe it. I do not believe they intentionally allowed 9/11.

What I believe is that there was an incompetence in threat assessment and foreign policy priorities at the very highest level. Bush, Cheney, Rice were too focused on China and NK to notice al Qaeda.

38

Sebastian Holsclaw 08.10.04 at 11:34 pm

Arghhhhh, my denial has nothing to do with the level of detail. I mentioned the 40,000+ intended victims because it is one of the specifics that we are talking about. I think that talking about it as mere “heinous level of cynicism and miscalculation” is what lets some people get away with being foolishly outrageous.

But I think the last few posts make my point about demonization not being confined to Republican tactics quite well.

39

robbo 08.11.04 at 1:03 am

Hey Seb, way to avoid my questions. I never said that Bush knew exactly what the threat was, or what the possible costs could be in American lives. I only suggested that he might have been willing to accept some sort of limited attack on America in exchange for a nice, juicy enemy upon which to focus American ire. Do you think that no leader has ever thought this way, or only that Bush is so virtuous that he wouldn’t/couldn’t?

I believe that almost everyone was floored when the attackers managed to take down both WTC towers, and I don’t suggest that Bush would have knowingly allowed that particular attack to happen knowing what the outcome would be. But I can easily imagine him receiving terrorism warnings, imagining something far less destructive, and thinking, “Bring it on, Osama/Saddam/whomever, and we’ll see who’s left standing in 2008.” Why is this so difficult for you to imagine?

40

bob mcmanus 08.11.04 at 1:39 am

“But I think the last few posts make my point about demonization not being confined to Republican tactics quite well.”

Yeah, well, if y’all wanna get back on topic or something…

I don’t have a syndicated radio show or book contract, and neither does Cynthia McKinney. If public and paid vitriol is any indicator of private and hidden vitriol, Republicans win hands-down.

41

Alan K. Henderson 08.11.04 at 7:25 am

“How about the Republicans accusing Sandy Berger of attempting to politicize the declassification of national security documents? What disgusting hypocrites they all are.”

Excuse me? He STOLE classified documents!

I have yet to see anyone prove the cardinal rule: that GOP misdeeds are ten times worse than Dem misdeeds. An anecdote here and there ain’t proof.

Comments on this entry are closed.