Redesign Blogging

Under the new design of The New Republic's website, the Spine -- TNR editor in chief Martin Peretz' blog on politics and culture -- is less visible than under the earlier design. As a result, I haven't been reading it as much lately. That's too bad, because I've been missing out on batshit insane smears against liberals like this:

I suspect that many Democrats are so deeply hostile to a forward foreign policy and their minds so deeply embedded in the notion that you can negotiate successfully with fanatics and tyrants that they wouldn't mind a prophylactic victory for the enemy. Which raises the question: is this enemy their enemy? I suspect not.

Classy. I know the next time The Weekly Standard starts making allegations about the treasonous motives of TNR editors I'll be leaping to the barricades in their defense. Meanwhile, TNR really ought to elevate the Spine's placement on their site. Since the magazine obviously respects Peretz' ideas and journalism enough to give him the editor-in-chief title, surely they should be trying to give his work as much prominence as possible and not stuffing it beneath the Plank and the Stump so as to suggest they're vaguely embarrassed to be associated with this sort of thing.

Comments

So does this mean you consider Iran to be an enemy of the United States?

Posted by Dave | November 26, 2007 6:05 PM

Actually, I think it means that antiwar people like me should admit that when we go out on a fine sunday with our scimitars in hand and saw off the heads of people who either oppose shari'a law or the homosexualist agenda before retiring to a relaxing spot where we can relativize the moral worth of the U.S. and Al Qaeda, we are chosin' sides against the high IQ white race. Objectively, of course.

I think that covers the bases.

Posted by roger | November 26, 2007 6:13 PM

We have to admit the thing about belief in the efficacy of negotiation with fanatics and tyrants is true. Just look at this congresses efforts with the White House. No amount of failed outcomes seem to deter their willingness to sit at the table and be lied to, dissed and humiliated.

Posted by rapier | November 26, 2007 6:34 PM

I'm not really a liberal now if I ever was, and my foreign policy beliefs are pretty far removed from most liberals, who, as much as they may describe themselves as anti-war, could best be described as supporters of a kinder, gentler imperialism; in other words, Bush light.

Me, though, he does have sort of nailed, but for one little fact. I suppose that this crazy fuck of a nation would react to defeat by unleashing nuclear horror. But for that, yeah, I'd love to see the US defeated, badly, sort of like Japan and Germany were after WW II.

Posted by LarryM | November 26, 2007 6:34 PM

I don't see the difference between what Peretz says and saying that the U.S. is ruled by an untrustworthy regime of religious fanatics. I guess maybe the point is that insulting Upper West Side liberals is considered rude in Yglesias's social circles, whereas insulting conservatives from the rest of the country is considered the height of good manners, like sniffing rumps among dogs.

Posted by y81 | November 26, 2007 6:38 PM

@ y81

This may be a bit hard for you to follow, but calling Bush's hacks untrustworthy and/or religious fanatics does not insult people in Texas (or my mother in Wisconsin).

You see, my mother believed Bush when he called for a "humbler nation," and for "compassionate conservatism," or a "culture of life." People of integrity were free to believe him, especially when the media refused to expose his history of corruption and lawbreaking.

Since the media did not do its job, our noble Texan brethren should not be insulted. Instead, they should now be mad as hell and determined to make the Republicans pay for misleading them. I hope they figure that out before we do start insulting them for willfully staying blind to evil.

My mother has figured it out. Have you?

BTW,what part were you objecting to? Untrustworthy? No, you know they are corrupt liars. Religious? No, you are sure they are religious, or you wouldn't support them. Fanatics? How else do you explain their colossal errors in judgment?

Posted by Dollared | November 26, 2007 6:54 PM

Dollared, you are a classy guy.

Posted by y81 | November 26, 2007 7:16 PM

Why doesn't Marty P. just bite the bullet and register with the GOP already? He spends all his time bashing liberals and cheerleading for wars anyway, why not become a part of a movement that will insure a long and well-compensated career for doing the same stuff?

Answer: he has Zell Miller syndrome. His novelty is in being a "liberal" who attacks other liberals. Conservatives love these sorts of dudes because such things are entirely alien to them. At least most Democrats don't try to curry favor with him to go easy on them. Or patronize his rag. Or support him for President.

Posted by Lev | November 26, 2007 7:53 PM

I hear Birdie and Sandy are starting a blog of their own called the Invertebrate.

It will be a ball-less collection of anti-war tyrants spewing the same limp wristed propaganda one hears all over talk radio, at the water cooler, and in the halls of power.

Posted by Linus | November 26, 2007 8:02 PM

I don't see the difference between what Peretz says and saying that the U.S. is ruled by an untrustworthy regime of religious fanatics. I guess maybe the point is that insulting Upper West Side liberals is considered rude in Yglesias's social circles, whereas insulting conservatives from the rest of the country is considered the height of good manners, like sniffing rumps among dogs.
Posted by y81 | November 26, 2007 6:38 PM

Gee Y81 since being called a traitor is a hanging offense and being called a religious fanatic is just an insult. Yeah real moral equivalence.
You limousine libertarians are such twisted arrogant sobs. Sniff your own rump, we're tired of your shit.

Posted by Attack | November 26, 2007 9:08 PM

Still got 30-90 dead bodies turning up in Iraq daily, according to the news tallies at antiwar.com. Probably at least 1,200 a month, undercounted.

I'd say that's fairly bad, if not as bad as the 2,000-3,000 a month they were having a few months ago.

And of course, as everyone has pointed out, it's strictly because of three things: 1) al-Sadr stood down for six months for his own reasons; 2) the ethnic cleansing of major neighborhoods is mostly over; 3) the Sunnis decided to go on American welfare rather than shoot Americans - while they plan to shoot the Shia and wait for the Americans to leave since they know the US has lost.

Once it's clear again to the Sunnis that the US is not leaving - as was made clear today by Maliki and Bush - they'll be back shooting Americans. And sooner or later al-Sadr's crowd will join them.

Anybody who thinks the Iraqi population - as opposed to Maliki - are going to allow 50-100,000 US troops to stay in Iraq for the next five, ten or twenty years is simply out of his mind.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 26, 2007 9:26 PM

"...forward foreign policy..."

I don't know what this is but if it's anything like a forward flirtation policy that usually ends - in my experience - with people throwing drinks on you or trying to hurt you.

Posted by Linus | November 26, 2007 10:00 PM

"I don't see the difference between what Peretz says and saying that the U.S. is ruled by an untrustworthy regime of religious fanatics."

Which group launched an unprovoked war and is trying to gin up another one? Don't be intentionally stupid.

Posted by Reality Man | November 27, 2007 2:30 AM

Doesn't Peretz's statement effectively capture the position of some of the commenters here, e.g., Bob McManus, Bengt Larsson, etc.?

Posted by Fred | November 27, 2007 2:37 AM

TNR ought to disband itself in shame, over the crap that Peretz writes. Marty lacks even the unintentional comedy of, say, Steven Den Beste.

Maybe, after calling liberals a bunch of treasonous, Caliphate-loving sleazebags, Marty should switch gears and wonder why nobody reads his damn magazine.

Posted by Jalmari | November 27, 2007 3:31 AM

"minds so deeply embedded in the notion that you can negotiate successfully with fanatics and tyrants"

Well, that *does* describe those Congressional Democrats who seem to think they can negotiate successfully with Bush and Cheney.

You can, of course, negotiate successfully with tyrants provided that you aren't seen to be threatening the tyrant's area of power. This is why you can negotiate with them in foreign policy, but you can't get them to democratize. It's why it's impossible to negotiate with Bush on his destroy-the-Constitution, warmongering, and handouts-to-the-superrich schemes, but possible on things he doesn't really care about.

As for negotiating with fanatics, that's very possible. Fanatics are usually pretty honest, unlike tyrants. It's usually quite clear which points they will never compromise on, and you can negotiate with them on other points. Negotiating with dishonest fanatics is much more difficult.

It should be easy to deal with Iran; the government is basically honest, it's not particularly hostile to the US except when the US is hostile to it, and it's less tyrannical and less fanatical than the Saudi Arabian government, who the US government seems to have no problem dealing with.

Arguably the US should have a problem dealing with the most regressive, dictatorial, theocratic, anti-human-rights government in the world and the country which produces the largest amount of financial backing for terrorism and the most anti-US terrorists. But no, the Saudis are Bush's buddies!

Posted by Nathanael Nerode | November 27, 2007 9:11 AM

You know what this antiwar liberal would like? I'd like to see an end to the bloodshed in Iraq. Our record on being able to make this happen is downright terrible, notwithstanding the relative lull of the past few months.

There's still no basis for expecting Iraq to become a peaceful place anytime soon: everybody - Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Hakim's Shi'ite faction, al-Sadr's Shi'ite faction - all want more than what they've got now, and they're ready to resume fighting for it as soon as they see a good opportunity.

What you do about that, I don't know. But it's clear that we're not helping. So we might as well head for the exit. We may have broken Iraq, but we don't have the skillz to repair it.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 27, 2007 9:42 AM

y81-
It is the difference between saying that Bush is the best US president that the Iranian mullahs have ever had (true) and saying that Bush is the best US president that the Iranian mullahs have ever had because he hates America (false).

There are serious policy differences between the right and the left. And I have to admit the neo-con policies often seem so unhinged that it is hard to believe they do not see how counterproductive they are. But there is something totally different in actually accusing the other side of fighting for the other side because they disagree with you about what an effective policy would be.

It is true that it comes off as sillier when it comes from the people who have been wrong about every prediction along the way and is an accusation of bad faith on the people who have been right.

Posted by Lon | November 27, 2007 10:24 AM

This brings up an important issue: the concept of "the enemy" in Iraq, namely: who is it? There are a multitude of Shia and Sunni factions, plus foreign fighters who came to Iraq to take advantage of the opportunity we gave them to attack us, plus the so-called "Al Qaeda in Iraq," which had nothing to do with Al Qeada, and took that name to make us angry. Which of these groups are the enemy? All? Anyone who attacks U.S. troops? Regardless of their other motives, it is pretty safe to assume that any Iraqis who attack us do so because they are angry that we took over their country (presumably to control their oil, in light of the fact that the stated rationales of the Cheney regime were transparent lies). Can we blame them for feeling that way? If Iraq took over the U.S. to control our oil, we would welcome them? Would we appreciate them? Would we like them? Would we refrain from trying to kill them? Is there something about us that makes us intrinsically "better" than them? That gives us the right to occupy countries, when (according to us) other countries have no such rights? Why?

Posted by Doug | November 27, 2007 11:15 AM

Doesn't Peretz's statement effectively capture the position of some of the commenters here, e.g., Bob McManus, Bengt Larsson, etc.?

No, I don't think that.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 27, 2007 2:20 PM

"Still got 30-90 dead bodies turning up in Iraq daily, according to the news tallies at antiwar.com. Probably at least 1,200 a month, undercounted."

More likely, that's significantly over-counted. iCasualties shows a third as many casualties.

Posted by Harry | November 27, 2007 2:26 PM

iCasualties shows a third as many casualties.

iCasualties also says, "Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site."

Harry, can you really be that dumb?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 27, 2007 3:26 PM