I liked this Tony Judt op-ed quite a bit, but given that it's rather obviously a response to the Roger Cohen column from last week isn't it bizarre that the conventions of op-ed writing prevent him from so much as mentioning Cohen's name? Instead, we get a vague allusion to the idea that "The 'liberal hawks' are back . . . [a]nd they are in a decidedly self-righteous mood." And indeed they are, but there's no better example than a certain NYT columnist who can't be mentioned.
« Reconciliation | Main | The End of an Era »
Weird Conventions
08 Oct 2007 08:40 am
Comments (7)
"They understand evil and the need for America to take a stand. So do we. Our domestic critics simply don’t “get it.” They are appeasers and defeatists."
I don't think many doves are appeasers and defeatists. Many are honorable and have the best of intentions. Judt was attacked unfairly for his writings on the Middle East also.
I'd argue many hawks are in a self-righteous mood, b/c they've been attacked constantly and unfairly. They also see Iran is not going to happen, N. Korea is going better than expected and Bush's term is almost over. There probably won't be another "humanitarian" intervention for a while. Probably not another military invasion unless there's another massive terrorist attack.
While the Cohen piece is clearly the occasion for Judt's op ed, Roger Cohen is not at all the only representative of the tendency.
One of the most obvious dishonesties of Cohen's piece was his failure to cite specific people saying specific things, but instead to attribute views to a strawman "left" consisting of everyone to his left. Judt, in contrast, models the intellectually honest way to characterize the views of those with whom he disagrees: by naming and quoting them (and citing with links).
Given that context, his failure to name Cohen, which may be a New York Times op-ed rule rather than a custom (anyone know?) speaks volumes. The reader who has taken in both columns is enabled to see how fraudulent RC's op ed was without Judt having to lower himself to say so.
Rereading the post, I disagree even more with it: Far from making vague allusions, Judt demonstrates with cite after cite how self-righteous the liberal hawks are.
If the Times has a rule or convention that op ed contributors can't respond directly to already published op eds, I don't find it a bizarre rule at all. It keeps the oped page from becoming a large-scale letters to the editor page, and it keeps disputes from becoming personalized. In an ideal world, it keeps columns focused on the arguments rather than on who's making them.
I have wondered over a similar thing. In Sweden, where I live, newspaper editorialists debate with each other. E.g. "Newspaper so-and-so says this-and-that and that is wrong because...". I haven't seen any of that in America.
"I'd argue many hawks are in a self-righteous mood, b/c they've been attacked constantly and unfairly."
Oh, the poor dears! Somebody criticized their stupid concepts and willingness to let other people die for them...
Fuck them.
"They also see Iran is not going to happen..."
I don't see any hawks "seeing" that at all. Just the opposite, in fact.
Come back on January 20, 2009 and tell us how it didn't happen. Until then, you're simply wrong.
The rules of Senate debate are similar-- senators aren't supposed to attack opponents by name. This is an example of journalists adopting the conventions and habits of the people they want to toady up to.
A similar example would be colonial subjects adopting the religion, language, and dress of their colonial masters.
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Same thing today when it is obvious Paul Krugman is answering Brooks' column on the straying from the Conservative roots of the Republicans
Posted by oratorio | October 8, 2007 10:02 AM