[lit-ideas] As long as I'm still here . . .
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:35:41 -0700
Mike:
Thanks.
I already took my "Syria bombed/Iran about to be bombed" discussion over to
Theoria . . . that is, I posted a note to see if I could get anything
going. Actually, the reason I spent more time over here on Lit-Ideas than
on Theoria in the past is because I usually got more of a response to my
arguments - not always as well reasoned and well-supported as I would like,
perhaps, but that's another subject.
I didn't spend a huge amount of time puzzling over what I perceived to be
Andreas' motives. His "racism" allegation totally escaped me unless he
counted opposition to the 10-15% of the Muslims called Islamofascists as
Racism. I was more amused , but also bemused (Julie), at Andreas apparent
reaction to Ann Coulter - that somehow my reference to Ann Coulter was the
last straw for him.
Ann Coulter is a strange lady. I occasionally see her on TV when I go
downstairs for coffee. She must be on Fox News quite a lot. That is the
only news station my wife watches. I don't watch any - only CSPAN & CSPAN2
- unless something really interesting is happening like the bombing of Iran
and then if that happens I'll probably watch CNN. But when I see her I
usually stop for a few moments. She is very funny and quick witted. My
wife, who is very conservative, doesn't like her. She thinks Coulter gives
Conservatism a bad name. I did read one of her books and took offense at
her dislike of one of my heroes, Harry Truman, but for the most part . . . I
think she's funny.
But I posted the note not to harass anyone but because we have had several
discussions here about labeling nuance. I have had to defend my use of the
term Liberal and Leftist several times. I like Paul Berman's book, Terror
and Liberalism because Berman takes a classic Liberal stance in regard to
Terrorism, Islamism, and Saddam Hussein. Berman keeps his eyes clearly on
being Liberal. Supporting or defending or wishing Saddam Hussein not
removed from his vicious dictatorship was according to Berman not being
Liberal. And this is true. This becomes immediately complicated in my
thinking because on the "Left," or perhaps the term "Radical Left" would be
better in this case, there is opposition to the US when it is engaged in
conflicts, because the US embodies CAPITALISM and Capitalism can never be
abided. That is the radical Left which derives itself from
Marxism-Leninism.
But on the Right, there was non-Liberal opposition to the removal of Saddam
Hussein in the form of the political position called "Realism." This is the
position made influential in modern American politics by the two Germans,
Henry Kissinger and Hans Morgenthau - and it turned out to be based on a
false assumption , namely that it, the USSR, wasn't going away and that we'd
just better make the best of it. So, you see, we could have taken a
"realistic" position in regard to Saddam Hussein. Realism taught that
"Stability" was all important. It set morality aside and argued that
getting along with a dictator like Saddam Hussein, as long as the region
could be kept stable, was better than trying to replace him.
So, moving back to the Left for a moment, if someone makes that argument,
then he (or she) comes athwart of Paul Berman's argument that no
self-respecting Liberal would ever support the retention of so violent,
vicious and utterly un-Liberal a dictator as Saddam Hussein under any
circumstances. Regardless of the motivation for getting rid of him, a true
Liberal would rejoice at the idea of seeing him gone - he would not invoke
Realpolitik (the German term for Realism) and argue that it would be better
to leave him in place.
But Ann Coulter uses the term Liberal as an all-encompassing one. It seems
to mean everyone who isn't Conservative. She attributes more
radical-leftism to Democrats and Liberals than I would be inclined to. And
yet . . . this becomes very murky . . . Liberals and Democrats, that is,
people who are normally Liberals and Democrats, seem to have bought into
preferring Realpolitik when it pertained to Saddam Hussein. I typically
would assume, perhaps erroneously, that a Liberal or Democrat was really a
Radical Leftist because he believed in keeping Saddam Hussein in place when
. . . but perhaps . . . he was merely an inconsistent Liberal by advocating
Realpolitik in the case of Iraq. Liberals could, after all, apply a moral
gloss by assuming that there would be less loss of life by leaving a vicious
dictator in place than by removing him - and that is a modern Pacifistic
position, namely that loss of life trumps other principles - like
Liberalism.
Now, I didn't say all that in my note on Ann Coulter, but I had it in mind
and would have said it had there been a discussion. This is a subject that
interests me.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:32 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Am I still on Lit-Ideas? A Test
Apparently you're still on Lit-Id, Lawrence, which I greet with great
relief. I'd hate to have to leave this list. I enjoy it very much, but I
couldn't in good conscience stay having been kicked off Theoria for nothing
more than displeasing the head honcho. So, if you're still on Lit-Id in the
morning, I think you should send a correction to Theoria, with maybe a dig
at LK. : )
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Lit-Ideas <mailto:Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Am I still on Lit-Ideas? A Test
Andreas sent me a somewhat ambiguous note that could be read as either 1) he
was blocking my notes from his personal computer, 2) he was blocking me from
Lit-Ideas or 3) he was making a joke. In his note to me he said I had "gone
too far," which was an allegation Ann Coulter said that Conservatives often
made against her. And he was responding to my Ann Coulter note as though my
posting of it had gone "too far." I responded to Andreas as though he were
making a joke, but later when I attempted to respond to John Wager I got the
following:
Mail System Error - Returned Mail
This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
Your message was not delivered because the return address was refused.
The return address was "<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
Please reply to Postmaster@<PostmasterDomain> if you feel this message to be
in error.
I had no reason to feel the message to be in error. I assumed that Andreas
note must mean that I had been booted out of Lit-Ideas for invoking Ann
Coulter, albeit in a minor way - and primarily because of her collective
term "Liberal."
I therefore said farewell to a few people and shuffled off to Theoria.
But, but, but, said Judy, "The thing is, your reply to John Wager reached
the list -- if this is the one you mean." And then forwarded the very note
that had been returned to me.
Cough, cough, cough. Could that be true? Am I still on Lit-Ideas or not?
I can't really ask Andreas if he has blocked me from his personal computer;
so I shall have to put this to the test.
Lawrence, only modestly amused by this whole experience
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] As long as I'm still here . . .
