And, once again, the only commentator in the whole world who can address the stab-in-the-back legend currently being constructed by the likes of Morton Kondracke and Glenn Reynolds is Fafblog!'s Medium Lobster:
Posted by DeLong at June 1, 2004 08:43 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postFafblog! the whole worlds only source for Fafblog.: Journalists: The next new front in the war against freedom against freedom
Recently a few distressed voices in the wilderness have been raised in alarm at the newest, darkest, and most dangerous threat to America's success in the war on terror: the media. Morton Kondracke recently pointed out that the media "is in danger of talking the United States into defeat in Iraq. And the results would be catastrophic." He goes on to pin the West's Iraq problems squarely where they belong: on the media's fixation with the Abu Ghraib scandal. How astute, Mr Kondracke! For it was in fact the press's obsession with military torture that allowed the the Shiite and Sunni insurgencies to claim whole cities from the American occupation.
But what to do about this pernicious enemy within? Analytical wunderkind and concerned lover of law Glenn Reynolds muses, "Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn't exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority -- or even a large and angry minority -- of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic." Quite true, Professor Reynolds. And America will likely need that angry minority if we're to inforce patriotism on our press, and end the nightmarish salvo of information and journalism that threatens to cripple the war effort. For this is not merely a war for freedom. Indeed, it is also a war against freedom - specifically, that freedom which seeks to destroy freedom.
These concepts may be too complex and nuanced for the unsophisticated or Democrats to fully grasp, but the Medium Lobster will endeavor to explain. A free-loving society must protect not only its freedoms, but the society which enables those freedoms to be protected, for if that society was to be destroyed, then all freedoms would disappear. In order for freedom to persist, we must outlaw the freedom to destroy or damage society. Thus, freedom cries out for us to destroy those freedoms which would destroy freedom, such as murder, genocide, violent revolution, sedition, criticism of good wars, publication of disheartening news regarding those wars, criticism of the Commander In Chief during wartime, the teaching of seditious literature, obscenity,
Many will still not grasp the importance of this, and will continue to read fifth column columns such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker. The Medium Lobster would caution that those who do so only give aid and comfort to the forces of anti-freedom freedom.
I remember when this same crud was written about freedom of the press (and other softnesses) in the US and Western Europe. Supposedly this would fatally damage our cold war against communism. One author I remember peddling this line was named Revel, I think(?). I suppose there were others. We had to be tougher in some undefined way, and give up some of our soft weak habits in order to prevail.
Posted by: jml on June 1, 2004 09:00 PMI wonder if it is possible for conservatives to take responsibility for their own screw-ups? Or, if they managed to exterminate the last liberal, would they still manage to find a way to blame the mess they would make on the Left? If they can blame us for their many failures when they control 40 or so state governments and all 3 branches of the federal government, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Posted by: rps on June 1, 2004 09:14 PMThe Medium Lobster is the best. In fact, the Medium Lobster transcends bestness.
Posted by: Rich Puchalsky on June 1, 2004 10:27 PMGlenn Reynolds muses, "Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn't exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority -- or even a large and angry minority -- of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic." Quite true, Professor Reynolds.
Gee Glenn, maybe its the damn government that lies and can't be trusted. Oh sorry, I guess you would only arrive at that analytical result if a democrat controlled the government.
For this is not merely a war for freedom. Indeed, it is also a war against freedom - specifically, that freedom which seeks to destroy freedom.
Another stupid statement. Jefferson believed this is what would strengthen the country, not spoon fed conservative lies and propoganda.
Posted by: me on June 2, 2004 05:53 AMI expect Morton and Glenn will come up with this next:
"Clearly, the only way to deal with Islamic totalitarianism is Christian totalitarianism."
these MBF's won't stop until we are all goose-stepping fascists like them.
Posted by: fasteddie on June 2, 2004 06:10 AMhttp://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/06/prof_delong_con.html
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on June 2, 2004 06:46 AMI guess I got it wrong. I thought he was writing a clumsy satire.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell on June 2, 2004 07:12 AMYou mean this wasn't satire?!!!! Yikes!
Posted by: Kosh on June 2, 2004 08:41 AMMK and GR are not doing satire (unfortunately), Fafblog is. At least I assumed so. Do I have that right? In any case, MK and GR are writing crud.
Posted by: jml on June 2, 2004 12:43 PMOkay, can anybody keep score? How much more often is our host distressed by "being ruled by such fools", than wondering "why can't we have a better press corps?"
The constitution sets up a series of checks and balances, NOT LEAST of which is that the government is constrained from interfering with free churches. And free public speakers. Oh, and sequentially listed a distant third among powers designed to balance government's power, a free press.
To the extent that the government becomes prohibitive of the free exercise of religion, we should expect that government as well to begin abridging free journalism. Why not? We can't let knuckle-dragging paleolithic Bible beaters set public policy on gaming, or women's health, or -- I mean, we TRIED IT, it didn't work -- alcohol consumption, or trade on weekends, or determining what must be taught in public schools. It's just not good public policy to let churches have so much freedom, right? So, why in God's Name would we allow journalists and reporters to set public policy on which genocidal dictators to overthrow and which to leave alone; which philandering politicians to expose and which to pardon; which courtroom trials to cover and which to ignore? These incompetents need to be regulated by elite professional government officials, right? Appointed, naturally, not elected -- that way it'll be "non-partisan."
Why would anybody object to such fair and equitable treatment of the press? They're not losing any more traditional power than churches...
Posted by: Pouncer on June 2, 2004 01:56 PMThe Medium Lobster is $10.99/lb. at Meijer (drawn butter sold separately).
Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on June 2, 2004 02:22 PMIf continuing to read the NYT, Washington Post and The New Yorker gives aid and comfort to the forces of anti-freedom fredom, I promise to read all three from cover to cover instead of just browsing.
Posted by: Noel Roberts on June 3, 2004 08:29 AMScito te ipsum - Know yourself
I think 1st Lt. Mark V. Shaney USMC said it best when he said:
"Responsible journalism should include responsibility for one's actions in publishing a news story in such a way that puts many other people in harm's way; has a direct result of publication of a particular story might have on other people."
Raymond Onnard
as always: "Quidquid excusatio prandium pro!
Dum spiro, spero - While I breathe, I hope. (Cicero)
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum - Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble
Inhumanitas omni aetate molesta est. - Inhumanity is harmful in every age. (Cicero)
Pavesco, pavesco - I'm shaking, I'm shaking
A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi - A precipice in front, wolves behind (between a rock and a hard place)