Since filing yesterday’s blog on Roger Cohen, more critiques of him have appeared. Yesterday, Jonathan Tobin wrote a particularly sharp piece at Commentary’s Contentions website. Referring to the same piece I discussed that Cohen ran on Sunday, Tobin writes: “The result is just as lame as the first one with the added demerit of being a second helping.” Tobin runs through all of Cohen’s rather pathetic arguments, and calls them “straight out of the playbook of previous apologists for beastly regimes.”
For that reason, Tobin offers Cohen “The Walter Duranty Memorial Award,” named for Stalin’s favorite journalist who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for reporting from the Soviet Union for The New York Times. In his articles, Duranty wrote that no famine existed in the Ukraine, and willingly ignored all the evidence that it not only was real, but was a state created famine. Like Duranty, who was a willing dupe of Stalin (and who received many perks from the Soviet regime for his service to them), Tobin calls Cohen a “dupe of the ayatollahs.” I should point out that to this day, despite an official investigation a few years ago by a Columbia University historian, the Times still refuses to hand back its award. It still proudly lists Duranty as a recipient each year when the Pulitzer Prizes are awarded.
So Richard Cohen is part of a proud Times tradition, one later carried on by Herbert Matthews on the eve of Castro’s 1959 Cuban Revolution and by Harrison Salisbury in Vietnam. So those of my critics who are livid with rage that I headlined my blog “Fire Roger Cohen” have no cause for concern. If anything, Cohen will receive more plaudits for his “realism” on Iran, and he will be used by those who argue that despite Iran’s soon to be fulfilled nuclear capability, we have nothing to worry about. After all, according to Cohen, Iran is a real democracy.
My critics, I would add, have no sense of humor. I am not advocating blacklisting of those with whom I disagree. I was only, perhaps not too carefully, trying to suggest the different standard it had when it comes to a conservative columnist. If they could get rid of Kristol, whom the paper’s liberal and left-wing readership despised, then I somewhat facetiously was trying to make a simple point: Why not also get rid of Cohen?
When The Times first announced they had hired Kristol, the paper was flooded with irate letters demanding that it not do so. Kristol was hated by the letter-writers. After all, he was a dreaded neo-con who favored the war in Iraq. Such a person, they argued, had no place in the paper’s op-ed page. When his year contract was up, the Times let him go. And to date, they have not replaced him with another conservative voice.
Look at the current line-up of op ed writers: Thomas Friedman, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Roger Cohen and David Brooks. The first five are certified mainstream left-liberals; only Brooks is a self-described moderate centrist conservative, and as everyone knows, is the “conservative” all liberals love. In today’s paper Brooks admits to having second thoughts about Barack Obama’s economic agenda, calling it “a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.” This is, however, a departure from his previous unadulterated enthusiasm for Obama, and undoubtedly his liberal readers will forgive him for it. Unless they realize that much of what he concludes today is akin to the argument many conservatives have been making for the past few weeks- a perspective that Times readers may not have never come across until today.
So now Brooks entertains the possibility that “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.” Rather than a moderate of the center, Brooks suggests that in fact, Obama “favors a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” Thus, he writes, centrists now have to “block the excesses of unchecked liberalism.”
Well, despite Brooks’ attempt to call this the agenda of a responsible centrism, he will soon be attacked as the brother of Rush Limbaugh and right-wing hardliners who in less restrained fashion, have been making much the same argument as Brooks. Indeed, Brooks goes so far as to write that much of what Democrats have done in the past few weeks amount to “ideological outrages.” I happen to agree with Brooks. I think his analysis is spot on. But let’s be honest: it is in line with much of the conservative critique. It is also what Newt Gingrich argued at CPAC-that we need a movement of Americans of the center, right and independents to stand together for what is in the nation’s best interest.
It also is the perspective of some smart individuals who regard themselves as coming from the tradition of the political Left. I received a lengthy communication a few days ago on Obama’s program from a historian who considers himself a man of the Left, who believes that what is currently called the Left is in reality a “sectarian proto-Fascist” group, for whom Obama is a willing instrument. This historian puts his conclusion this way: Obama, he thinks, is playing the crisis angle not just for New Deal reform, “but to advance a state-command agenda, leading to a party-state regime…=fascism American style.” All who hold “liberal democracy dear,” he writes, “across left and right need urgently to coalesce…and realign for a political movement to rejuvenate American Liberal Democracy.”
Whatever one calls it, the time is ripe for a thoughtful analysis of Obama’s program and to act to change the direction he is leading us in.
“brother of Rush Limbaugh”
David Brooks is not even half as brilliant as Rush Limbaugh. We are talking about the difference between a second string high basketball player competing against an all-star NBA pro. It’s not a fair fight. This is why I find it so funny that Barack Obama dares go after the famous radio talk show host. Who does he think he is ? The president is a shallow and poorly read man who’s not ready for prime time. Limbaugh can intellectually kick the butts of both Obama and Brooks with one hand tied behind his back. Ron Radosh must do himself a favor. He should try and listen to Limbaugh for a minimum of five hours during a one week period. Radosh needs to stop getting his information from second hand sources.
That the President, a man who not only controls the American government with what is for all practical purposes one-party rule, as well as command of the most powerful military force in history, has stooped to defensively slandering a radio talk show host, no matter how accomplished Mr. Limbaugh may be, is beyond parody.
WELL AGAIN I GOTTA AGREE WITH RON RADISH, I MEAN THE “NYT” HAS BEEN GOING DOWN HILL EVER SENSE THEY GOT RID OF JUDITH MILLER, WHO WAS PROBABLY THE LAST HONEST REPORTER THEY HAVE.
WELL ANY WAYS ONE OF MY BEST FREIND’S IS FROM IRAN AND HE SAYS THERE NO JEWS THEIR, ITS’ JUST AN ACT PUT ON BY AH-MAD-IN-A-HEAD TO TRY TO DESTRACT US BEFORE HE ATTACKS ISREAL. MARK MY WORDS, I MEAN SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE ARAB BUT THE IRANIANS CA’NT BE TRUSTED.
You fools are traitors. Look what you have done to the country. You compare a drug addled, morally bankrupt buffoon with a president who is a good family man that any other country would love to have as a leader. You are all brainwashed. Whats wrong with you?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/radosh-on-cohen.html
Radosh On Cohen
A clarification:
My critics, I would add, have no sense of humor. I am not advocating blacklisting of those with whom I disagree. I was only, perhaps not too carefully, trying to suggest the different standard it had when it comes to a conservative columnist. If they could get rid of Kristol, whom the paper’s liberal and left-wing readership despised, then I somewhat facetiously was trying to make a simple point: Why not also get rid of Cohen?
Because Kristol’s columns were dreck designed to promote partisan talking points, not honest pieces of journalism. Cohen’s attempt to see the complexities within Iranian society was an honest one – and certainly worthy of debate. He’s probably too sanguine about Iran’s regime – but he’s surely right that asinine comparisons to Nazi germany are dumb and unhelpful. But my point was that the immediate response to have him fired for not towing a particular line was chilling. Even in his post today, Ron compares Cohen to apologists for Stalin and compares Obama to a “left-fascist.”
Dealing with the world as it is with the fast-diminishing resources at our disposal will not be an easy transition. But it will be harder for those who have changed not a stripe or adjusted not a thought these past eight years.
“Wingnut commenter David Thomson [...]”
Oh gee golly, I’m such a bad person. My mother is going to disown me. Barack Obama has seriously blundered in deciding to target Rush Limbaugh. People are often somewhat negative toward the country’s number one radio talk show host—until they actually take the time and listen to him. Obama is an intellectual second rater, and that’s becoming more obvious by the day. You know things are starting to fall apart when Marty Peretz is increasingly becoming more critical towards his administration. The end is indeed near. I have listened closely to both Obama and Limbaugh. It is no contest. The latter gentleman has the ability to kick serious butt and take no prisoners. Obama merely has the ability to guilt trip gullible white individuals. This wears thin after awhile especially when the economy is sucking wind.
1) Limbaugh is a wretched joke, which is sad, because before he guzzled the Bushie Kool-aid for 8 years, he wasn’t.
2) Krystol is just another purveyor of said Kool-aid.
3) Sad, how few are willing to admit that there is just as much fanaticism amongst Talmudic and Orthodox Jews as there is amongst the Muslim jihadis. Personally, I refuse to support either side any longer. No, I’m not interested in hearing how one side is superior to the other; while Israel is still better than the Arab regimes, the Israeli news services have long chronicled the two-tier system in Israel, where Jews have American-style freedoms and non-Jews have nothing of the sort. The Jews have flushed a noble legacy of decades of being at the forefront of human rights advocacy down the toilet, because they allowed themselves to become like the worst of those they oppose. It’s an object lesson for the rest of humanity. No one is immune to this tendancy. The price of true freedom is eternal vigilance, both within and without.
The Limbaugh affaire is now heading into it’s fifth news cycle. And posters here think that’s great news. Why would anyone want to have as the major image tied to it’s brand a grotesque, fat, red faced loudmouth with a history of marital and drug abuse problems, and a penchant for making crazy comments about minorities and the disabled. His latest offering that he wants national failure went the country is in the worst economic crisis since the depression defies belief and it’s over the TV every night. It’s totally insane. If anyone is in any doubt about what’s going on they should look at this latest WSJ poll it’s appalling for the GOP…absolutely appalling….oh yes I know it’s a rigged poll.
“…and a penchant for making crazy comments about minorities and the disabled.”
Be precise. What crazy comments? I have long listened to Rush Limbaugh—and have never heard him utter a bigoted remark. He does, however, take to task the politically correct establishment on a never ending basis. And he most certainly does wish for “national failure.” He merely opposes the destructive policies of Barack Obama. You need to learn how to make a logical distinction.
“My critics, I would add, have no sense of humor.”
Not a Schachtmanite sense of humor, anyway.
Here are some facts:
Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. He waged war without providing the means to pay for it — thanks to him, the U.S. no longer has the teeth to back up game-changing military threats. He eviscerated our civil liberties on specious grounds. He was defended by a television network that functioned as a propaganda machine, barely allowing a dissenting voice to go on the air, or, when they were allowed, subjected them to harangues from demagogic buffoons.
Now the Republicans in Congress are acting like lockstep Stalinists, but without the brains (oops, that’s a joke…), listening to a wannabe Mussolini, just like the C.P. did when they did a volte-face on Hitler in 1939. Let’s call them Moonies. They nominated a Vice President whose husband is part of a separatist movement, for God’s sake — Kristol was her biggest defender, and you talk about balance? Since Kristol is not an idiot — well maybe a useful one — one can only assume that he did this for reasons of the most opportunistic, venal, cynical variety.
It’s like a mirror image of the McGovern days in the Democratic Party, but without any of the humanistic impulses, however twisted or misguided that initially impelled that misguided movement which cost the Democrats their blue-collar base, and for which the Democrats paid dearly for two decades, and which allowed the dismantling of the safety net.
How can a scholar of your caliber and intelligence, who was once a Social Democrat, be taken in by these swine, this amoral, lying gang of rogues? You’re consorting with the worst sort of nativist elements, who are adopting a Leninist strategy of split-split-split towards the goal of ideological purity, throwing out racial slurs and saying they didn’t mean it, and using the most vulgar hip-hop discourse — probably because that’s all their lumpen base can deal with intellectually. What a shame.
Your distinguished historian “of the left” has a lot of nerve to attack Obama as a tool of “sectarian proto-fascist group” for attempting to clean up Bush’s mess. Who precisely in Obama’s inner circle is a sectarian proto-fascist?
“What crazy comments? I have long listened to Rush Limbaugh—and have never heard him utter a bigoted remark.” How about “Barack the Magic Negro” for a start?
“How about “Barack the Magic Negro” for a start?”
That is not even a slightly bigoted remark. But the heck with what I’ve got say. Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s own words:
http://tinyurl.com/4wgxyg
Pardon me, but when did President Obama slander Rush Limbaugh? When did he “dare(s) go after the famous radio talk show host”? I seriously doubt that the President is sitting around thinking about Rush.
“Who does he think he is ? The president is a shallow and poorly read man who’s not ready for prime time. Limbaugh can intellectually kick the butts of both Obama and Brooks with one hand tied behind his back.”
Rush Limbaugh is no more an intellectual than is Sean Hannity. The President is extremely well read and deeply thoughtful. Rush Limbaugh dropped out of college: “His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, “he flunked everything”, even a modern ballroom dancing class.” —wikipedia
Limbaugh not only could not kick Obama’s butt (though it would be fun to see him try), he could never get his hand behind his very ample back.
Not sure why, but http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2009/03/03/for-change-we-can-believe-in-and-david-brooks-roger-cohen-and-the-new-york-times/ reminds me of that old joke – from which I will spare you. Might just be my warped sense