Is John Hood a Robot?

Somehow, I'm not familiar with John Hood's byline. This post he did on Iraq, however, reads like it was put forward by an automatic text generator or something:

Basically, anti-war Democrats think that their statements and policy proposals are a response to an impossible situation in Iraq. They have it backward. Their statements and policy proposals are a main reason why the situation in Iraq is so dire. Like it or not, the enemy is counting on them — it is trying to manipulate American public opinion, because it can't win on the battlefield. Their goal is an ignominious American retreat. It cannot be in our interest to comply.

You also learn in his post that this is exactly what happened in Vietnam. You can tell Hood's not an actual human being, because not only does he put this forward in a totally humorless manner, he does it utterly without self-consciousness like he thinks he's expressing novel ideas rather than warmed over hackneyed propaganda.

Note that this is all grounded in a kind of tawdry knock-off of the Green Lantern Theory. Rather than actual indomitable will, Hood is proposing that what we need to win in Iraq is the appearance of indomitable will, with said appearance to be achieved by stifling domestic political criticism and press coverage. He doesn't, however, actually call for the implementation of the sort of comprehensive media censorship and establishment of a one-party dictatorship that would be the only way to implement his preferred military strategy. Which, of course, is because it's just political propaganda aimed at deflecting blame for the disaster in Iraq away from the architects of the policy and on to its opponents.

Comments

Matt,
I don't think it is "just political propaganda aimed at delecting blame for the disaster in Iraq away from the architects of the policy and on to its opponents."

This is too generous a reading of NRO and Hood. The dictator-worship over there is palpable, so long as the autocrat is one that guards Capital rather than Labor, e.g., Pinochet (remember our mutual friend Jonah's enthusiasm for him?). The reason Hood doesn't just come out and _say_ we need to suppress the NY Times and Wash Post while sending Democrats to mental institutions is because it's impolitic to say so. It's not that it doesn't reflect their actual desires. Give them a nuclear terrorist strike, a population addled by "24", and a complacent press, and the hardcore Conservative authoritarians would probably try to make an actual coup.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 22, 2007 11:33 AM

on a smaller level, the inanity of referring to "the enemy" in iraq always catches my attention: it's a signifier that the scriber is a total idiot.

Posted by howard | May 22, 2007 11:54 AM

FYI, John Hood is President of the John Locke Foundation here in Raleigh -- our own little Cato or AEI. Their website says he was a New Republic reporter in the '80s.

Posted by JBJ | May 22, 2007 11:57 AM

Matt,

I know this has been addressed previously in this blog (prior to your move to the Atlantic) and on other blogs; however, can you (or another commenter) provide (again) recommendations as to which blogs are worth visiting in order to get genuine, honest, and thoughtful conservative viewpoints.

Right now, my limited internal blogroll includes the following sites:

1. Dan Drezner

2. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish (I realize that Right-wing bloggers would strenuously disagree with my referring to Sullivan as a "conservative", but he sees himself as one, and wrote a book about it, so tough.)

3. Gregory Djerejian's Belgravia Dispatch

4. Ross Douthat

5. The Volokh Conspiracy

And that's all I have. I know that some of above sites could be described more accurately as libertarian rather than conservative, but there seems to be sufficient crossover, and besides, they still constitute (for me) a different and valuable point of view.

I know that you had at one point a while back defended Jonah Goldberg as a person/writer to be taken seriously.....however, I just don't see it. I have found that he is much more interested in promoting a political and/or ideological viewpoint (at the expense of reason) than in pursuing what (to the best of anyone's determination) is the truth.

Many thanks!

Emes

Posted by Emes | May 22, 2007 12:00 PM

Yes, it's pretty clear the Bushified Republicans are eventually planning a juicy "stab in the back" myth to deflect anger from their Iraq disaster.

Since they routinely charactize their (sensible) opponents as weak-kneed hippie peaceniks---hence anathma to America's blue-collar masses---strong efforts should be taken to preempt this vicious slur.

It seems to me that the easiest means of doing so would be to combine an Iraq withdrawal with rounding up those smarmy DC neocons, executing them all for treason, then grinding them up into dog-food to protect dear Fido from contaminated Chinese products.

Since the conservative base is pretty suspicious of Red Chinese dogfood, I suspect this stratagem would prove quite popular.

Posted by RKU | May 22, 2007 12:02 PM

Emes,

I recommend James Joyner at www.outsidethebeltway.com.

Posted by LaurenceB | May 22, 2007 12:17 PM

FYI, John Hood is President of the John Locke Foundation here in Raleigh -- our own little Cato or AEI.

Greetings, JBJ, from someone else in Raleigh. I was going to add the same information, with the introduction, "If this helps. . ." This doesn't sound at all like the hardcore libertarians I usually associate with the John Locke Foundation.

Posted by RSA | May 22, 2007 12:30 PM

The John Locke Foundation? Jesus Christ. There's no way Locke would have tolerated this shit. I doubt he would have remained civil or governed his temper either...

Regarding noncrazed conservatives - Bob Bran was pretty good, but he hasn't posted in ages.

Posted by Alex | May 22, 2007 12:31 PM

Thanks LaurenceB.

I'll definitely check out James Joyner's work.

Posted by Emes | May 22, 2007 12:54 PM

Re John Hood

The tune being warbled by Mr. Hood is nothing but the tune previously warbled by the late and unlamented A. Hitler with only the names changed. "The German Army won the First World War on the plains of France only to have the fruits of victory snatched from their grasp by the traitors back in Berlin," said old Adolf. Replace German Army with American Army, First World War with Iraq war, plains of France with sand dunes of Iraq and Berlin with Washington, D.C.

Posted by SLC | May 22, 2007 12:58 PM

Um... I'm a conservative here, but I can't help but point out that Hood is admitting that the Democrats represent popular public opinion on the war.

Posted by Chris | May 22, 2007 1:17 PM

I feel so guilty! Gosh! You know, just after the invasion was over, it became apparent the administration had no plan for the occupation and reconstruction. I worried about it and expressed my fears regarding what might happen to my friends. Little did I suspect that all would have gone swimmingly if I had not sapped US morale. I will go turn myself in for treason. I apologize to everyone.

Posted by anon | May 22, 2007 2:01 PM

This is definitely a rote version of the old "stabbed in the back" canard. This is why I like Edwards' "Patriotic About Something Other than War," frame, we have to be ever careful to fight off the right's inevitable attacks on our patriotism.

On the substance of the matter, Hood is ridiculous. Hood's position amount to a slow motion stage posed version of shock and awe, but no amount of posturing is going to convince Sunni or Shiite's to lay down their arms at this point.

Posted by AJ | May 22, 2007 2:02 PM

I will try to be patriotic from now on. I am reporting that wicked fifth columnists below are maliciously pointing out that the new Bush/Cheney 'post-surge' makes no sense, is incoherent and senseless. These liberals are doing more harm to national security this very moment. Report these traitors to... whatever... the Central Traitor Reporting Agnecy, Backstab Central, or whatever it's called:

What fools these mortals be
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6044.html

Posted by anon | May 22, 2007 2:07 PM

Matthew Yglesias:

Want to burnish your Kaus-like contrarian credentials? Here is a big, fat softball over home plate, courtesy of the brilliant Joe Biden: U.S. Senator calls for American troops to move from frying pan (Iraq) to fire (Darfur)

Swing away!

Posted by Fred | May 22, 2007 3:32 PM

Hood is not a libertarian, but a right-wing conservative. Given how badly institutional libertarians (by those, I am referring to libertarians engaged in think tankery) have behaved since 2001, it's no surprise that liberals would have trouble seeing the difference.

And, though it may not make a difference to some left-of-center partisans who read MY, it does make a difference to me, a "hardcore" libertarian if by "hardcore" one considers civil liberties and the war to be the preeminent issues of the day. I guess that's why Matt's blog is top on my list, and why I will vote Democratic, though.

Hood and his ilk like to use the language of libertarianism when it suits them, because libertarians are, they think, hip with the kids!

Such people are more or less glibertarians.

But libertarianism is bad for the business of think tankery, which is funded by right wing conservatives who are cultural neanderthals and prowar. I knew I was not long for the world of think tankery when I attended my last Heritage Foundation gathering two years ago.

So while my left-of-center friends are fully justified in taking shots at institutional libertarians and glibertarian, I do hope they understand that truly thoughtful libertarians with whom they might strenuously disagree are out there.

My favorites are www.highclearing.com, juliansanchez.com/notes.html, willwilkinson.net/flybottle and reason.com/hitandrun

Posted by Joe Strummer | May 22, 2007 3:40 PM

Thanks Joe for the recommended links, and for the informative post.

I always believed that there were thoughtful libertarians out there (just as I know that there are also thoughtful conservatives).

It just seems that, over the past 6 years, libertarian and conservative voices of reason have been drowned-out by their much more vocal, and much less thoughtful, imitators.

(Thanks also to Alex for recommending Bob Bran. You're right that he hasn't posted in a while; but I'll definitely check out what he has posted so far.)

Posted by Emes | May 22, 2007 5:21 PM

Emes wrote, "I always believed that there were thoughtful libertarians out there (just as I know that there are also thoughtful conservatives)."

If you're looking for anti-war libertarians, why not go over to antiwar.com?

General non-crazed conservative: John Cole at balloon-juice.com.

Posted by liberal | May 22, 2007 9:48 PM

If you're looking for anti-war libertarians, why not go over to antiwar.com?

Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com is pretty much an extreme-right winger of the most unpleasant sort. Cosma Shalizi has the details.

Posted by Bryan | May 22, 2007 11:18 PM

Scratch the "pretty much".

Posted by Bryan | May 22, 2007 11:22 PM

I hope the above comment is tongue in cheek! The link posted reveals a most superficial reading of some googled bios or wikipedia entries. Look at all the links antiwar.com posts in a week or two and then get back here and say such ignorant things again. Impossible. Unless you are an idealogue. If preventing unecessary war is an unpleasant attribute to you, then please refrain from living. By the way, I am a registered Democrat and have always voted that way but I would gladly vote for Ron Paul over any of the big shots running. Or Kucinich. Or Gravel. Or Hagel. Pax, Phil

Posted by P. D. | May 22, 2007 11:34 PM

Justin Raimondo is, indeed, a nutcase, and not what I'd call thoughtful, self-concious though I might be that the word thoughtful is akin to "someone I like."

There are many varieties of right-winger-ness. Often when people use it here, they seem to lump in a Raimondo with, say, a Glenn Reynolds, though they are worlds apart. For all his looniness, Raimondo is far superior to Reynolds to the extent that Raimondo is concerned about concentrations of (political) power, and Reynolds is not.

That said, I've read Raimondo twice in the past year, and wish someone would give me those 30 mins back, so I carry no brief for him, other than to say there are Varieties of Right-Wingerness.

Posted by Joe Strummer | May 22, 2007 11:35 PM

If preventing unecessary [sic] war is an unpleasant attribute to you, then please refrain from living.

If you read what the link I posted says, it is really clear as day that Cosma agrees that the Iraqi war was a terrible mistake, and what he (and I) find unpleasant about Raimondo has nothing to do with that. Also, it is not clear how you think Cosma "misreads" the biography on Raimondo's own site.

Posted by Bryan | May 23, 2007 12:00 AM

I have no love for Raimando, but your cite is a smear on him. It's a pack of guilt by association (which I've actually called him on regarding Pat Buchanan) and lies (He did not ever say the Mossad caused 9/11, he coughed back a bunch of things that happened and were reported by mainstream media so get yourself a bigger anti-semitic net) and an embarassing partisan affection for U.S. intervention in the Balkans.

I don't like the guy, but I'll take him over your liberal interventionist bomber.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 23, 2007 12:28 AM

Justin Raimondo represents what the conservatives ought to be. He was first to call out the war party and their shenanigans when the rest of the liberal/neocon/conservative lot were cheering on the war. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for he has been steadfast in his reporting. I know he's a pain on the collective statists, right and left wingers, butts but he was right all along.

Posted by ron taylor | May 23, 2007 10:41 AM