Comforting the Comfortable

A frighteningly large number of my friends seem to think Anne Applebaum is something other than a pernicious force in American life, a rightwing hack who spends her days exploiting mass killings abroad as a bludgeon against domestic progressive forces in the west. So, I dunno. Maybe I should hail today's column with its thesis that Saddam Hussein was a bad man and that human rights groups who pointed out what a farce his trial was are churls. After all, what does the world need more in its moment of crisis than a pundit with the courage to speak the uncontroversial (Saddam bad!) in the service of bolstering popular support for a dismally failed war on the very morning of America's midterm elections.

She even manages to mention how awesome it is that Iraq has a prosecution in motion over Anfal without mentioning that the trial will never happen since it's going to be ruled moot by Saddam's pending execution and that this whole thing has been arranged to avoid political embarrassment for the Bush administration.

Comments

Your friends are right. She's a female David Brooks.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 7, 2006 9:13 AM

Gee, a 3rd world trial that wasn't up to Western standards. I've never heard of such a thing.

Posted by ostap | November 7, 2006 9:28 AM

jeez, you need to take a breather. "a pundit . . . in the service of bolstering popular support for a dismally failed war on the very morning of America's midterm elections"??? maybe she actually believes what she writes - as presumably you do. not everyone who disagrees with you is on the take or in cahoots with the dark side.

Posted by chris | November 7, 2006 9:35 AM

Blog readers! HELP! Change your pjs for a warmup suit, put on some dark glasses, get out of the house and VOTE!

Posted by ferd | November 7, 2006 9:40 AM

Isn't her husband, the defense minister of Poland, like a quasi-neo-fascist? Isn't the current Polish administration rather anti-Semitic and racistly nationalistic? Also, people who have been involved in the trial have seen their relatives killed and have been at threat themselves. Isn't one of the reasons the ICC was made in the first place was that local prosecutors, defense lawyers, witnesses and judges wouldn't be put at risk? Hello?

Posted by Reality Man | November 7, 2006 9:43 AM

Oh that's nothing. Haven't you read John O'Sullivan's (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061107.wcosaddam07/BNStory/specialComment/home)?

"What [Saddam] would have dismissed as absurdly utopian is a formal death sentence after a manifestly fair trial in an Iraqi court... After all, he would have thought, the Americans are plagued by an insurgency largely conducted by terrorists loyal to him...

"Some of the nuttier Netroots of the left even speculate that the Iraqi court's verdict and timing were masterminded by Karl Rove himself (possibly wearing a burka on his clandestine visits to Baghdad.) Such beliefs are absurd and their accompanying anxieties almost certainly groundless."

Posted by BruceR | November 7, 2006 9:49 AM

not everyone who disagrees with you is on the take or in cahoots with the dark side

Probably worth separating those two positions out: she seems entirely sincere, and, yes, she's in cahoots with the dark side. I liked this bit about her, from eXile:

Anne Applebaum, one of the Post's resident neocons, went the extra sleazy mile when she got ahold of Politkovskaya's corpse. In her October 9th column, "A Moscow Murder Story," Applebaum simply lied about the circumstances of her murder, and quite consciously so, when she essentially blamed Klebnikov's inconvenient death, as well as other provincial journalists killed for investigating local corruption, on Putin. Interestingly, in her article she openly narrows her focus on "journalists killed after 2000" -- gee, how convenient. Because that means she wouldn't have to mention all the journalists killed during Yeltsin's term, since that would muddy up the good/evil picture that her entire thesis rests on.

Applebaum is a special case, one of those moral crusaders, the American Anna Politkovskaya, who has made a living courageously exposing state crimes committed by...get this...not her own country, oh heck no! Because her own country only does good! Nope, Anne Applebaum makes her living by sitting in the safety of Washington DC, and exposing crimes committed by a country on the other side of the globe! That country being Russia of course. Hey, give that woman a Pulitzer, will ya?! Hence her book Gulag, packed with all the affected moral outrage that you'd expect. Indeed, one thing that has always filled Applebaum with rage is wondering why Russians don't take her seriously (a question she poses as more abstract -- ie, why don't Russians care about the Gulags as much as Anne does?). Here's why: Can you imagine how much moral authority a right-wing Russian journalist's book about the American genocide of Indians would have in America? Answer: about as much as Anne's book has in Russia. None.

Yes, it's dangerous work to dedicate your life to exposing the horrors committed by a country that your husband hates. Applebaum's husband is Poland's right-wing Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who also serves in the neocon American Enterprise Institute, the same institute that essentially invented the current Iraq war. The current government that Sikorski serves in, by the way, includes the extreme right-wing party The League of Polish Families, leading to protests from Israel because of the party's open anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and its notorious skinhead youth group. But that's okay by Anne, because Poland likes America and is a member of the Coalition of the Willing. Meaning no hissy articles from Anne Applebaum about her husband's pals or Poland's repulsive history of Jewish slaughter. Nor will you read too many articles by Applebaum about her own country's atrocious crimes committed in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands her government has killed.

No person could be as far from Politkovskaya as Anne Applebaum. Given all of Applebaum's influence and access, she only uses that power to demonize Russia and whitewash America's fascism. Politkovskaya, on the other hand, speaking from extreme weakness and danger, used what little influence she had to risk all for the victims of her own goverment's cruelty, fighting from within.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 7, 2006 9:49 AM

maybe she actually believes what she writes - as presumably you do. not everyone who disagrees with you is on the take or in cahoots with the dark side

I'm fairly sure she does believe what she writes. Nevertheless, as SCMT says what she believes in is the goodness of the dark side.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 7, 2006 9:52 AM

ah, SCMT, I see - Applebaum is a tool because she had the audacity to criticize the USSR, and to honor the millions of people murdered and enslaved by the Soviets by carefully compiling a record of those horrors. I get it.

oh, and this is choice - 'Given all of Applebaum's influence and access, she only uses that power to demonize Russia and whitewash America's fascism.' how can one 'demonize' the USSR? and Tim, if the US were fascist, i doubt you would be freely posting your thoughts on this blog.

also, Matt, if you think she believes what she writes, then your charge that she is 'in the service' of others is off, no?

you can be a persuasive and thorough writer. I read you b/c I gen don't share your take on things and like getting the other side's view. but this kind of junk makes you sound like a left wing Pat Robertson, waving a cross at the devils who don't agree with you 100%.

Posted by chris | November 7, 2006 10:02 AM

I've been irritated with Anne Applebaum since she used to write for Slate in the late 90s (the Foreigners column). I'm her book was good in its field (Gulag: A history), but on general topics, she's awful.

Posted by Ikram | November 7, 2006 10:02 AM

She's also responsible for one of the stupidest arguments of our time (and we all know there is a lot of competition out there) -see Bob Somerby just tear her apart http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111704.shtml.

Posted by peep | November 7, 2006 10:03 AM

Anne's one of those who cast scorn on the use of the word 'gulag' to describe the US's system of secret prisons and tortures. She said that it wasn't big enough.

However, she didn't give a 'gulag-go' threshold.

Posted by Barry | November 7, 2006 10:14 AM

How come I used to like her columns in Slate? I can't remember what they were about, but my bullshit detector wasn't going off. Was I a sucker, or was she better?

Posted by Chris M. | November 7, 2006 10:17 AM

not everyone who disagrees with you is on the take or in cahoots with the dark side.

You don't understand the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - the difference that explains 99.9% of liberal and conservative opinions:

Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

It is the basic animating difference between us.

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 10:21 AM

New York Times: Hussein Trial Was Flawed but Reasonably Fair, and Verdict Was Justified, Legal Experts Say

Damned "legal experts"! Who are they to contradict the Reality-Based Community?

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 10:24 AM

"Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Good one, Al. Very true, although my genuinely conservative friends all think liberals are not just wrong but also hopelessly naive.

Posted by ostap | November 7, 2006 10:26 AM

"Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Given that conservatives regularly state or imply that liberals are anti-American traitors who would like nothing more than to live out their lives in "dhimitude," I'm not sure it speaks well of conservatives that they think we are "wrong" but not "evil." Maybe that's because the Republican base sits in a region that was, in fact, treasonous, and it's important that the historical understanding reflect that those people were merely "wrong" and not "evil." Maybe there's another explanation.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 7, 2006 10:35 AM

maybe she actually believes what she writes - as presumably you do. not everyone who disagrees with you is on the take or in cahoots with the dark side.

I've never heard of her. How does she handle evidence that conflicts with her? Does she face it and rebut it or does she attempt to neuter it with sneers and sarcasm or simply ignore it? Does a reader need a counter for the ad hominems? Do her words and example cling too closely to readymades from the White House? Has she ever denied obvious facts, like "stay the course"? Are her domestic opponents, in her view, in league with terrorists? Simple tests for a legitimate believer or a dweller on the dark side.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 7, 2006 10:36 AM

BTW - question. Matthew seems to be saying that the US has arranged the entire trial of Saddam for domestic Bush political purposes. Why are we back to the idea that the US is controlling everything in Iraq. That completely contradicts Matthew's points elsewhere that the US CAN'T impose its will on Iraq (e.g., that the US can't just divide up Iraq into 3 regions).

So, which is it Matt? Is the US in charge in Iraq (such that it is controlling the court case) or is the US not in control in Iraq (such that the US cannot impose a 3-state solution)?

Or does your opinion vary based on whichever explanation is more convenient to bash Bush?

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 10:41 AM

"Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

I think that Al and Ostap are silly, not evil. Perhaps by "conservative" they mean some little rump group that's been expelled from the Republican Party -- the Trotskys to the Rove-Bush Stalin.

As for me, I know I'm not evil. I just hate America, want the terrorists to win, and pray that my granddaughters will be dhimmi girls in some sheikh's harem.

Applebaum described my letter to her as "despicable" awhile back, and I will remember that wonderful day forever.

Posted by John Emerson | November 7, 2006 10:48 AM

ah, SCMT, I see - Applebaum is a tool because she had the audacity to criticize the USSR, and to honor the millions of people murdered and enslaved by the Soviets by carefully compiling a record of those horrors. I get it.

Chris, that just made you look really, really stupid, without saying anything at all about SCMT. Get out of the cave more, meet some real people instead of the caricatures in your head.

Posted by Anderson | November 7, 2006 10:51 AM

So, which is it Matt? Is the US in charge in Iraq (such that it is controlling the court case) or is the US not in control in Iraq (such that the US cannot impose a 3-state solution)?

You really got Matt there, Silly Al. How could the US possibly be able to force an expedited verdict to a court case without also being able to force the partition of Iraq? Matt obviously is not serious about this stuff the way you are.

I think that a new Al should be hired. This one is not on a par with the Als I remember.

Posted by John Emerson | November 7, 2006 10:53 AM

oh, and this is choice - 'Given all of Applebaum's influence and access, she only uses that power to demonize Russia and whitewash America's fascism.' how can one 'demonize' the USSR?

Learn to read. He's pretty clearly saying that she's out to demonize Russia, post-USSR, not the USSR. I think that (a) the US is not fascist, and (b) Russia could do with some negative attention. But her inability to assign blame for our lack of attention at this moment is telling. And while it is worthwhile to police our understanding of the horror of the gulag, her column about (I think) Durbin's comments read as if she were pimping her book.

If she wants to be a respected voice on authoritarianism, she might want to focus on the very real moves along that vector made by this Administration. She might want to acknowledge that her side is not merely in the wrong, but well past the boundary line. Instead, she generally does the same thing as Brooks: she tries to establish her credibility with some minimal version of "mistakes have been made." (Notable exception: She was good on Gonzales, as here.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 7, 2006 10:55 AM

al, given that the verdict itself still hasn't been released, could you please explain how in the world the sentence could be read? and why it was so important that it be read in the absence of the verdict? i'm sure you've got a ready explanation, and you aren't just wrong, because, after all, no one on the left thinks that "conservatives" are wrong, just evil.

otherwise, what John Emerson said (of course!).

as for anne applebaum, my recollection of her is that she was OK in Slate and is a mixed bag (when i read her) these days, unlike the "other" anns, coulter and althouse, who are completely deranged.

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 10:59 AM

unlike the "other" anns, coulter and althouse, who are completely deranged.

It's the less-deranged bad guys who are the most insidious. Coulter is entertainment for conservative believers, Applebaum actually influences the way people think.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 7, 2006 11:20 AM

matthew, i'm perfectly happy to stipulate that you follow this kind of thing closer than i do, and i certainly don't want to celebrate any bad guys, whatever their relative level of derangement, but does anne applebaum actually influence the way people think? i certainly didn't realize that she had achieved the level of a friedman or a broder (i'm actually not sure that they "influence" the way people think so much as they "reflect" the way a certain insider pundit class already thinks, but let's not split hairs!).

maybe it's a dc thing?

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 11:23 AM

hey SCMT--

I think something may have gone wrong with your first comment up above.

Matt's friends think AA is *not* a pernicious force ("something other than").

You say:
"your friends are right: she's a female David Brooks".

did you intend to say that "female David Brooks" = "not a pernicious force in American life"?

Cause if you want to criticize her, as your later comments suggest, then maybe what you meant to say was "your friends are *wrong*," i.e. she *is* a pernicious force, i.e a female D.B.

Or am I just missing your stance?

Posted by kid bitzer | November 7, 2006 11:28 AM

Applebaum is sort of a second-string niche person-of-influence. Her manner is pretty mild and reasonable, and she's able to slip stuff by you. When I wrote my angry letter to her I didn't realize that she was normally pretty awful; I thought that I'd caught her trimming and hedging, the way weak liberals always do when they want to show that the're really not bad people.

Posted by John Emerson | November 7, 2006 11:30 AM

The idea that right wingers think liberals merely wrong and not wicked is not reflected in the historical record. It's a new twist. Like the complaint that W is so much more vilified than Clinton was. Like the rejection of "stay the course" or "privatization". Ann Coulter. Michelle Malkin and their like are not so squeamish. They've brayed their accusations loud and long. When the Iraq War was it is first dewy, bloody blush, we were traitors. Fifth columnists. A traitor isn't simply mistaken. He's actively evil. If you're now embarrassed by the rhetoric, you should have spoken sooner.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 7, 2006 11:30 AM

I've always considered her to be one of the finest center-right pundits in America. This is clearly an honor on par with being one of the tallest members of the lollipop guild, but I still tend to take her opinions seriously.

That said, either she's slowly descending into pure hackery, or else perhaps I was just reading her with the soft bigotry of low expectations all along. For one whose bailiwick is exposing abuses of state power, she has developed a mysterious blind spot the size of a Republican Administration.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 7, 2006 11:33 AM

Applebaum was born in DC and went to elite DC private school Sidwell Friends. DC is a small, provincial town (that happens to run the world), so I imagine her influence is outsize there.

As applebaum wrote in her last WaPo column before leaving for Poland,

But Washington -- not the metaphoric Washington, but the real Washington -- still cares about its offspring. And I hope it always will.

Posted by Ikram | November 7, 2006 11:33 AM

al, given that the verdict itself still hasn't been released, could you please explain how in the world the sentence could be read?

Huh? The verdict was announced, as was the sentence. The opinion hasn't been announced. It happens often in America that an opinion is released some time after the decision is announced.

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 11:37 AM

kb: you're right, I misread that. It turns out I could stand the refresher course on learning to read, as well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 7, 2006 11:47 AM

Al:

You don't understand the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives - the difference that explains 99.9% of liberal and conservative opinions:

Conservatives think liberals are wrong. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

It is the basic animating difference between us.

Wow. That is by far the most (unintentionally) revealing thing Al has ever said.

Again: wow. What a glimpse inside his mind. And again, the best part is he has NO IDEA what he just said about himself.

Posted by grh | November 7, 2006 11:47 AM

This post is extremely disappointing. Matthew, you are the premium brand in left blog commentary -- smarter, fairer, the best writer, and with the most civilized group of posters. A centrist like me reads you every day with high expectations for thoughtful commentary and creative approach to the issues. (Whereas sites like Kos and Atrios' make you figure the right will reign forever if those clowns are the alternative.) So it is that much more disappointing when you do something like this.

I was intrigued by your disapproval of her column, which I hadn't read yet, so I jumped to it. I can only assume that you figured most of your readers would accept your characterization and move on. What she writes is nothing like what you describe. It is most definitely not designed to "bolster support for a dismally failed war." You're willfully misreading her last two sentences by saying that. Here they are:

"For the first time, an Arab dictator was held accountable for crimes against his people. Thanks to American incompetence in Iraq, it may be the last time for a long time, too."

Some rallying cry. She also bemoans the state of Iraq now, which she clearly observes as muffling the positive impact of verdict. And your sneering at her mention of the Anfal trial? I looked and looked and nowhere does she say "how awesome" it is. (What is this impulse you have to make Applebaum seem like a teenage girl excited about a Justin Timberlake concert?) She simply reports that hearings have begun, and that these hearing are today (not in the future, today) educating Shiites and Sunnis about the atrocities committed in their name against the Kurds.

What's the deal? It's one thing to criticize Cheney & co. for their unrealistic, naive and ruinous optimism about the war. But are pundits required, according to you, to ignore or deny facts about the war that fail to contribute to the "fiasco" meme unless they want to be called "hacks?" If being on the left means we're supposed to only feel empty and surly about Hussein's conviction and sentence, it's going to be a lonely place.

Posted by John S. | November 7, 2006 11:51 AM

Anderson, if you want to debate, then debate. don't just wade in with a bitchy little comment. stop overbilling your clients and join in if you're interested in the topic.

Tim, the writer was bashing Applebaum both for her current critique of Russia and for her work on Gulag. (I'm much more familiar with the latter than the former, hence my focus there.) But I'm glad you recognize that calling America 'fascist' is a bit off, it being election day and all.

Posted by chris | November 7, 2006 11:51 AM

al, ok, to be precise: the "verdict and sentence" were announced on sunday, while the "full verdict" of several hundred pages was to be released (and may still, i haven't seen any update) this thursday.

imagine that!

not that i think the trial will make the slightest difference today, but of course the announcement was timed for political impact and could otherwise have waited until thursday. don't go soft-headed on us just because barca's having a tough time!

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 12:15 PM

It's really amazing that all the coincidences that have occurred in recent history have favored Republicans. The date of release of the American hostages held in Iran, the date of the announcement of Saddam punishment without a formal verdict, the butterfly ballots and the purging of black voters off the rolls in Florida in 2000, the long voter lines in Ohio in 2004, the release of Osama video as if on cue in 2004, all the terror alerts during the 2004 election cycle.

Perhaps not only does God exist, but he is also a Republican.

Posted by gregor | November 7, 2006 12:37 PM

In the item below this, Matt has an extensive and very favorable quote from an editorial by Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative. I guess he must think they're evil. Pat Buchanan and all.

In truth, contemporary liberals are more open-minded to other points of view than contemporary Republican party ideologues (I refuse to call them "conservatives), because they are not captive to an ideology that worships political power at all costs and demonizes its enemies.

Posted by MQ | November 7, 2006 12:57 PM

In the item below this, Matt has an extensive and very favorable quote from an editorial by Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative. I guess he must think they're evil. Pat Buchanan and all.

In truth, contemporary liberals are more open-minded to other points of view than contemporary Republican party ideologues (I refuse to call them "conservatives), because they are not captive to an ideology that worships political power at all costs and demonizes its enemies.

Posted by MQ | November 7, 2006 1:08 PM

Whoops. Maybe liberals are dumber after all.

Posted by MQ | November 7, 2006 1:09 PM

not that i think the trial will make the slightest difference today, but of course the announcement was timed for political impact and could otherwise have waited until thursday.

I imagine (although I don't have any knowledge) that the announcement of the verdict and sentence, with full opinion to be released later, was structured that way for the same reason we see the same in the US - the court wants to get the decision announced as soon as it is ready, even if the written opinion is not yet ready.

Since I don't think the US can control the timing of the court - just as I believe that the US cannot control most of what goes on in Iraq these days (and judging by Matthew's other posts, it seems he agrees) - I don't think it was timed for political effect. Unless you think the judges at the court want Republican Congressional candidates to win, for some reason.

Posted by Al | November 7, 2006 1:11 PM

Al's right. Iraq is a free, autonomous nation with a rigorously independent court system. The idea that there could be anything fishy here is laughable, and it shows great disrespect for a proud legal system which stretches uninterruptedly back to the Achaemenids.

And as we know, in the Muslim world, court decisions are always announced on Sundays, because Sunday is the second day of their week, and two is a very important number to Muslims.

Posted by John Emerson | November 7, 2006 1:46 PM

Al, c'mon, surely you remember that when saddam was captured, there was a great deal of discussion about the importance of doing his trial correctly from the standpoint of the iraqi people, as a combination of a sort of truth commission and a cleansing process.

there is nothing in current iraqi civic life such as it is that would lead us to think that the courts wanted to behave just like an american court (and, while my experience isn't comprehensive here, i'm not sure why you think it's so common in american courts to announce a decision and then days later release the reasoning - it seems to me that the gap is more like hours, when it exits at all, and even on an important decision like bush v. gore, the decision and the reasoning were avilable at the same time). in addition, there is nothing resting on this that would justify an immediate announcement of the "verdict" the way that sometimes a court will issue an emergency stay or something and then explain it or leave it to be fought out.

no, the US has limited influence on the ground in iraq, but its influence isn't so limited that it can't urge upon the iraqi court to declare that saddam would be hung on sunday while the "full verdict" waits until thursday. this is a matter of power relationships (such as still remain), not a matter of an iraqi judge sitting around thinking "what can i do, short of naming George Bush Square, that will help chris shays hang on in CT?"

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 1:49 PM

or, i could just have waited long enough for john emerson to explain!

Posted by howard | November 7, 2006 1:49 PM

Applebaum is a moral coward who encourages moral cowardice among others in the deceitful guise of bravery-towards-elsewhere, at-a-safe-distance. That's why she's pernicious.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 7, 2006 2:43 PM

RealityMan:

She's married to Radek Sikorski, who has, along with occupants of previous Polish governments, aligned Poland, ineptly and disastrously (and I suspect, by bribes and blandishments), with the U.S.'s neoconservative foreign policy. My suspicion is that she's a Judith Miller type who fucked him for the cause.

It's fair to generalize that Poles on average are anti-Semitic, but their government sure as hell isn't.

Thank you for saying this, Matthew Y.

Applebaum is pernicious precisely because she seems reasonable to your reasonable friends. She does this by doing "soft" neocon propaganda, e.g., the democracy schtick about Putin (the excerpt from ExileRu up above states the case well). She's also one of those brave souls (all, coincidentally, Iraq war supporters) who devoted op-ed space to exposing the horrors of "The Passion" to us (a movie I didn't see and could give a shit about), thereby reminding Americans of their latent, biological anti-Semitism and inclination towards pogroms at the sight of Christ on the cross.

She's also a goddamned moron. In her last incomprehensible piece comparing the Hungarian uprising of 1956 with the Middle East she said that "post-Revolutionary France was for decades wracked by the battle between royalists and Bonapartists".

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 3:50 PM

I have ties with Poland, by the way, and their press, for sure, is on the take from us.

I should have said "historically anti-Semitic" in my last post; the comment slandered the country as written.

Posted by brendan | November 7, 2006 3:58 PM

You need more perceptive friends.

Posted by David in NY | November 7, 2006 6:05 PM