CORRECTED AND UPDATED: Expanding The Former Editor of Entertainment Weekly’s horizons
I wouldn’t call Entertainment Weekly’s former editor a left-wing blogger. I’d describe him as a decent, creative sort who is –with the help of modern digital communications– slipping the confines of his own ideologically, socially and geographically-limited past. I encourage him to continue to broaden his intellectual horizons, but to do so without stooping to inaccurate labeling and narrow type-casting. (Click on his “right-wing” link to see why I’m providing him with this useful advice.)
The former editor of TV Guide [correction: Entertainment Weekly– see comments] says today’s big fight is among various denizens of the Left. Sure, there is a fight going on there, but it’s a subsidiary conflict. Today’s big fight is between those who really do support liberal democracy and those who favor various types of authoritarianism — and this includes the utopians who preach a confused creed of coercive tolerance (a faux tolerance).
I do wish Jeff –whoops– I do wish the former editor of Entertainment Weekly (TFEOEW) all the best in his battle with his former “leftish” mates. Kudos for his condemnation of their knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Their anti-Americanism is a profound lie. Their defense of dictators is equally despicable. They are creationists of a sort– poli-sci creationists. They argue some cultures and nations simply can’t handle democracy– as if these nations and cultures were created with innate, immutable characteristics (characteristics only an Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, or Tehran mullah can properly master). TFEOEW says these folks are a church — and on that point, he’s quite correct. They are a church of a sort, certainly a cult, a cult with a fossilized manifesto, resentful liturgy and utterly failed economic and political faith.
I do hope at some point in the near future someone will tell TFEOEW about classical liberals — in the British meaning of the term “liberal.” That definition of liberal means extending and defending liberty. It also means creating wealth– and sharing the opportunity to create wealth. (Short course: Human beings have the right to life, liberty, property– and the pursuit of happiness.) If we ever meet I’ll provide further instruction (and a personal, flesh and blood, in your face example) free of charge.
I’ll also give Jeff a back issue or two of The Economist.
UPDATE: Jeff responded– with alacrity and wit. Seems he was TV Guide’s Couch Critic and editor of Entertainment Weekly. I hope he’s right — that a significant number of the KosKidz will conduct a purge of their ranks once they discover Austin Bay and powerline support the Euston Manifesto. It will (once again) demonstrate their knee-jerk decadence.
Mr. Bay, I do hope at some point in the near future someone will tell TFEOTVG about classical liberals I keep trying to get those around me to stop referring to those on the political left as liberals and just refer to them as leftists. Just a word but words are important and the use of labeling the left as liberal makes people jump to the conclusion those on the right are illiberal. The funny thing and you point it out is many on the rabid left are quite illiberal themselves. President Bush is way more liberal than the tyrant groupies at Code Pink and the like.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 4/15/2006 @ 2:10 pm
Jeez, Austin, I didn’t intend to offend. I was merely illustrating that people from all sides were coming to like the Euston Manifesto. And I was making a joke. I am sure that once Oliver Willis sees that you said something kind about it, anyone who says something kind about it on Kos will be drummed out of town. Would you prefer that I say “conservative”? “Blogger who supports war”? I called myself left (I can’t stand the namby pamby “progressive” and given the british context of this, I found “left” easier than “liberal” for clarity). I hope the right doesn’t put itself in the position of the left and start agreeing with those who made “liberal” a dirty word. On the real point at hand, we could not agree more: I have argued from before the war that freeing the people of Iraq from oppression and dictatorship was and is a liberal cause. I am heartened to see the Euston Manifesto say the same thing. And I know you agree. So that makes us all liberal, indeed! So did I use an un-PC label for you? I’ll change it: War veteran, conservative, not-left-wing, libertarian, you name it. Oh, and as for my label, just to be clear: I most certainly wasn’t TV Guide’s former editor; when I was there, that was a wonderfully talented exec named Anthea Disney. I was the Couch Critic of TV Guide and was the editor of Entertainment Weekly. Take your pick. ED NOTE: Jeff– Thanks for the note. I’ll make the correction and go with The Former Editor of Entertainment Weekly (TFEOEW)– Couch Critic sounds a bit too suggestive. (Seems I’ve heard of “couch dances.”) We’ll let your “right wing” go this time (”Let it stand” , to quote James Joyce.) After all, you gave me the opportunity to make the case for the real revolutionaries: Adam Smith, John Locke, etc. And to take a shot at the dictator-lovers.
Comment by Jeff Jarvis — 4/15/2006 @ 2:32 pm
As a European it always amazes me whenever I see folks from the US discussing politics. Instead of actually discussing/debating the issue at hand, so much time and effort wasted with the whole ‘left-wing’ Vs ‘right-wing’ crap. I think that sort of polarisation is one of the worst things to have happened to American politics in the last 20 years. Perpetuating those sorts of stereotypes poisons any form of real debate by making it easier for one side to smear the other. Over here, parties are judged more so by their competance (or lack of) and not because of the ideology they market themselves as (or which their political opponents smear them as).
Comment by Sod — 4/15/2006 @ 4:50 pm
Dear Sod, First, please spell competence corrrectly, or people will mock you. Second, it never amazes we Americans how completely dicklessly impotent the majority of European leaders are, considering how parties are chosen on the basis of the populace’s perception of their ability. I imagine that that has some relation to their competence as weenie bureaucrats whose only creed is based on PC politesse and short-term expediency. Contrary to what the narcissism of the sophisticated French and Germans, American politics are much more concerned with ideals than are Europe’s. Having said that, though, you’re absolutely right: the left/right, blue/red crap is moronic.
Comment by Dan Collins — 4/15/2006 @ 6:32 pm
I intentionally describe my worldview as liberal, and say “classical liberal” if pressed. The liberation of Iraq was and is one of the greatest libeal causes of this generation.
Comment by Dean Esmay — 4/15/2006 @ 8:09 pm
I do find it interesting that many of the same people who believe that Arabs are incapable of self-governance will scream “racist” or “Uncle Tom” when someone suggests that ethnic groups’ varying representation in different fields might not be due to discrimination.
Comment by DWPittelli — 4/15/2006 @ 8:09 pm
Bring him along slowly, Austin. Remember his handicapped background. Right now if you mention Edmund Burke to him he’ll probably just think of that old lawyer show…
Comment by richard mcenroe — 4/15/2006 @ 8:23 pm
Sod must not read the comments at Harry’s Place.
Comment by American #5678 — 4/15/2006 @ 10:08 pm
It’s nice that the authors of the Euston Manifesto can bring themselves to eschew anti-Americdanism. I can do without the condescension, however. As for their ideas, they are full of cant. If you look at their economic development section, for example, there is no mention of the rule of law, protection and security of private property, or liberty of economic activity. The whole thing is short on mentions of liberty for that matter. They spend a lot of pixels on equality, as if that was the ultimate political good which, for leftists it is. This is to misread and misunderstand the realities of the last sixty years and what we have learned from them. “The passion for equality made vain the hope of liberty.” Burke knew what he was talking about, but the leftists still haven’t realized that you do much better by putting liberty first, and that putting equality first ruins everything. And regimes that fail to safeguard property rights will also fail to safeguard other human rights, of which these lefties claim to be so concerned. They are inextricable. Go back and do your homework again boys. Start with a through study of Friederich Hayek, Peter Bauer, and Hernando de Soto before you rewrite your economic development section. ED NOTE: I don’t disagree. Check out the bio Normblog did on me– I believe I mention Hernando de Soto’s “Other Path” as an essential book (and it is, if you really want to address the issues of embedded “third world” poverty). The gents at powerline, Jeff Jarvis, and I, however, see Norm Geras’ effort as the thoughtful, courageous expression of support for the “liberty” and “liberating” components of classical liberalism. Norm and other folks like him (for the moment let’s use the term “Traditional Left”) understand the basic issues in this long, difficult, miserable war against Islamo-fascism. Geras, Hitchens, Berman, etc. are part of the genuine “reality based” community. Okay, the guys from the Traditional Left disagree with Bay, John-Scott-and Paul of powerline, and you on “economic liberalism.” So did John Paul II, and that wise old fellow was as tough a fighter for political and religious freedom as we’ve seen in the last fifty years, this side of Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Democratic capitalism –an open market run by free people– requires truth and honest-dealing. It requires cooperation and –often lost in the discussion– respect for customers (if you intend to stay in business for the long haul). JPII’s basic point was that moral element of democratic capitalism (to include justice and generosity) was vital to its success and sustenance– and how the heck can anyone disagree with him? The “Traditional Left” was filled with men and women –like Norm Geras– who were deeply concerned about issues of justice. The “secular” faith of socialism promised that justice. An Irish Jesuit priest friend of mine (he was in grad school with me at Columbia– and my best friend in grad school) argued that socialism was more in line with the Gospels than capitalism. I disputed that, vociferously. (We used to hang out at a couple of Irish bars in Manhattan– he drank rum and coke and I drank Jamesons neat, which always shook the bartenders when they heard his Dublin accent and my Texas twang.) To a degree my friend reflected the moral aspirations of many who confused democratic capitalism with merchantilism (De Soto’s point). The debate wasn’t over the benefits of liberty and freedom– but how to do a better job of insuring justice. Socialism offered a “certainty” of government-backed justice; I said that creating opportunity was the route, because no government could insure an economic outcome. There’s the difference between Geras and Bay–how to best promote justice?– which is a difference we can debate in a free society, but can’t debate in a tyranny (particularly an Islamo-fascist global caliphate). The Cold War conundrum of America supporting “right wing” dictators angered many on “the traditional Left.” I didn’t like cozy relationships with Mobutu and South American fascists, either, but I said let’s defeat nuclear-armed communist totalitarianism and then we’ll clean up the other thugs. Mobutu and Somoza were bad, but let’s not commit the fallacy of perfectionism when we’re locked in a long, intricate war (the Cold War)– particularly one where the enemy plays a calculated game of “war on the periphery” (leveraging ethnic, tribal, and historical hatreds as part of their grand strategy of “strategic attrition”). The character who understood this best was an old Polish business man named “Fred.” He was a WWII vet and had served in the Polish armored division that fought with the British on the western front. He fought the Nazis then lost his country to the Stalinists. (He also reminded everyone that the Soviets had attacked Poland from the east in 1939, as Hitler’s ally.) He said there was no difference between the Communists and the Nazis. He agreed with me — clean the Commies up and then we can take on the other thugs. (”Fred” audited a couple of German lit classes I took — that’s where I met him. The German prof let him take her course.) The Euston Manifesto implicitly recognizes that those of us who enjoy our freedom must defend it. The manifesto’s framers know “you can’t back down to a bully.” The tyrant always thinks the democracy is weak. It’s why democracies can never be pacifistic– they must be militarily superior. WWII and the Cold War demonstrate that. The genuine “reality-based community” has learned that lesson. One of the more interesting comments out of Moussoui’s trial is his comment that “Islam must be the superior power.” (That’s a paraphrase– and I know his name is spelled incorrectly– I’m writing this quickly.) But that’s what the Islamo-fascist fanatics think– the “wrong” powers are in charge. (Unreconstructed Stalinists, like the thugs in ANSER and George Galloway, also believe this– which is why they make common cause with the Islamo-fascists.) So– the Euston Manifesto framers know they must make a choice. The framers of the Euston Manifesto have made the right choice– and the “right-wing bloggers” Jeff Jarvis linked to applaud them for it. We’ll argue about the best way to expand wealth and provide justice as we defeat the tyrants.
Comment by Michael Lonie — 4/15/2006 @ 10:29 pm
“Over here, parties are judged more so by their competance (or lack of)…” Sod, it’s hard to judge what can’t be seen.
Comment by John — 4/15/2006 @ 10:33 pm
Sod, That’s because in Europe, you have parties of the left and parties of the further left. The sound of one hand clapping is only a sort of a “swish”.
Comment by Tom Paine — 4/15/2006 @ 10:44 pm
Sod, Not just on your side of the pond. It’s mighty difficult to make yourself understood in a political context in the US if you start by asserting you’re neither left-wing nor right-wing. Though this first became clear to me when I told my mother I was libertartian, and she said she couldn’t believe her son was a conservative. ??? Alas, that brings us to your point about parties and “compentence”. The Libertarian Party has turned what is probably the single most unifying set of political ideas in the US into a suicide pill for anyone using its name. Jeff, Austin: Love ya both. And now I’ll go read up on the Euston Manifesto.
Comment by Shelby — 4/16/2006 @ 12:46 am
I would call him a “left wing” blogger (or something far worse). He succombed to Bush Derangement Syndrome over Howard Stern making a matyr of himself. While most people saw him just trying to make money by moving to satelite, Mr. Jarvis seemed to blame Bush for Stern’s FCC problems completely.
Comment by JeremyR — 4/16/2006 @ 12:57 am
It is neither liberal nor conservative to extend the hand of friendship after war to those people who have been oppressed and who had no *choice* of their government type. De-linking Transnational Terrorism from Authoritarian state support requires many types of battle, but once finished it is no HONOR upon the United States to just *get up and go*. Doing so makes us no better than those we have brought down and is a stain upon our Nation’s character and history. Peoples who have escaped the yoke of Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism *deserve* the hand of friendship and help of the People of the United States so that they may enjoy the freedom, liberties, accountability and responsibility due to any man or woman. If, after helping, those that have been helped determine freely on their own to be hateful, spiteful, close-minded and generally looking upon those that have helped in disfavor: then so be it. Then the help from the US should also end. The sad part about holding this attitude is that NO party supports it. So I had to take heart with making my own party of one, on the maxim: “One man with courage makes a Majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Comment by ajacksonian — 4/16/2006 @ 5:31 am
Sod’s comment is interesting. I would say that given most of the Anti-Americanism of the European media, that exactly the opposite is true, it is argument from the EU Left about the power/politics/policies of the American Government which is now “right.” It was a different story when Clinton was the beloved of the European media. Then it was a love fest. Or am I just being parochial?
Comment by GM Roper — 4/16/2006 @ 7:57 am
The Euston Manifesto is a start. The needs of the next pass are twofold: First, the compelling underlying first principles need to be distilled from the original along with the arguments that support them. Second, where generalities are used, specifics need to be teased out and ambiguities resolved. I’ve offered a follow-up at Euston Alternative.
Comment by sbw — 4/17/2006 @ 10:36 am
The Euston Manifesto looks like a start - and Mr. Jarvis seems like a very class act as well. The only question is, how will others on the left react? If what is happening to Joe Lieberman is any indication, things do not look good on that front.
Comment by HaroldHutchison — 4/17/2006 @ 2:44 pm