While I will agree with Pejman that calling Bush (or any Republican) a Nazi is stupid, inaccurate, and self-defeating, I would argue that it is not so different from calling Clinton a Communist, which was a refrain I heard often enough down here in North Carolina. The internet is entirely more pervasive now than it was during Clinton's term, so the voices of fringemonkeys are amplified in a way that they weren't before.
But what I read on the internet about Bush, hyperbolic and bile-filled as it can often be, is emphatically not more extreme than the loony rhetoric heard on talk radio throughout the '90's. They went after his adolescent daughter for not being sufficiently attractive, as I recall. Called his wife a lesbian. Accused him of killing Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Spread rumors of a "black love-child" in racist circles.
This all seems to me rather more personal and vituperative than referring to Bush as a Nazi. It's untrue and thickheaded, but get real - read Usenet for a week and you'll see hundreds of people called Nazis. For Pejman to insist that this is some new level of attack, he is either blinded by his own sympathies or being willfully obtuse.
I've already said plenty on this topic here, so I doubt anyone wants to hear more. I do think it wrong to draw a bright line between Clinon hating and all other partisan hatred in our nation's history. No one example will convince, you may recall that Johnson ran a comemrical with the basic thrust: Goldwater = apocalyptic madman. Longer (much longer) thoughts are on my own site.
Wait until Bush is (finally, mercifully) out of office. The Clinton-haters on the right simply cannot get over the object of their hatred.
I, for one, will be perfectly content never to think about Bush himself or what he's doing after he leaves office (may it happen soon). Most of the "Bush-haters" I know feel the same way. We don't want anything bad to happen to him (like getting killed, for instance -- we do of course want him the hell out of our White House) and certainly not to his family. We just want him to stop screwing our country over.
Pej and the other Republican apologists are just wrong. Ranting is one thing: "Clinton is a commie, Bush is a fascist, etc." Sure, that's extreme, but it's just loudmouthed venting.
It's quite another to make wild accusations of *fact* that are surprisingly widely accepted, such as "Clinton had Vince Foster murdered" or "Clinton dealt coke from the governor's mansion."
I can't figure out if these guys really don't get the difference, or if they're just making stuff up. Either way, they're way off base. Clinton hatred was in a class by itself.
I don't want to get dragged into discussion of which fringe is worse -- we can all agree that both are horrible embarassments that discredit the notion of democracy! But (and didn't you know that was coming) I find Kevin Drum's disctinction too neat. No claims of *fact* against Bush? I would have thought the claim that the adminstration instigated the war to secure contracts for Halliburton (or an Afgahn pipeline) a claim of fact. You don't have to move far into the fever swamps to find that one.
I agree with BAA that the Afghan pipeline claim is fully as nutty as anything said about Clinton. (The Halliburton is claim is nutty, but more understandable. I'd put it even with Clinton "Wag the Dog" scenarios.) But the volume of Clinton conspiracies seems much greater than
What was truly puzzling about the Clinton hatred is how it seemed unconnected with anything he actually did. Bush at least invaded Iraq: if you're a pacifist that's genuinely a big deal. Bush has done any number of things to endear himself to his base, so it's not surprising that leftists hate him. Clinton snubbed his base fully as much as he pandered to it. So why was he so hated by the right?
"This all seems to me rather more personal and vituperative than referring to Bush as a Nazi."
I'm so sure that accusing a known philanderer of having a half-black bastard child is more personal & vituperative than comparing someone to the genocidal sociopath who slaughtered millions.
Thanks for the deep insight!
I think what's fair to say is that the left-wing goes to its own limits in smearing Bush in the same way the right-wing did with Clinton. The nazism charge is the maximum. Someone on the left cannot conjure a worse accusation. Period.
Comment by comment I discover that BAA is the man, whatever her gender:
"I don't want to get dragged into discussion of which fringe is worse -- we can all agree that both are horrible embarassments that discredit the notion of democracy!"
I think there first needs to be a distinction between the "bush is a nazi" crowd, and the left crowd in general. I mean, really, how widespread is that? If it is, I, though I spend hours going through news everyday, am not aware of it. I've seen it in the past on a couple web pages, but never any serious argument or attention paid to it. Yet while this charge seems to be circulated among relatively small-scale outlets, such as personal webpages, the stream of vile against Clinton was often main-stream mass media. It's kinda like Bush-hating is Minor league, and Clinton hating was the Majors.
Also speaking in general, the charges against Bush seem to be often based in fact. (although the nazi charge is a gross hyperbole http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html) Yet the numerous hateful charges against Clinton were either plainly drummed up, exaggerated, or just really, really stupid.
And, of course, one can compare how what should have been little stories (white water, paula jones, linda tripp) got turned into national sensations during the Clinton admit, yet, comparable Bush deals (the ballpark scam, Haliburton's sweet deal,[which we don't claim caused the war, but we still object to] the exposing of the CIA agent, and others which writing this is making me too depressed to remember) were just brushed aside by the media. So, if anything, it really seems the anti-Bush volume is turned down too low.
Magik is right that this issue is going to resist analysis -- it's not like we can pull out our pocket loathe-o-meter and find out that Bush scores 7.5 vs. 11.6 for Clinton. No, we're just indulging in the kind of fact-free speculation in which the bloggosphere excels!
As to the why of Clinton-hating: it's the man, not his policies. There's something about him -- his personality, his cultural stance, his demeanor -- that deeply, deeeply revolted a segment of the country. And this happened way before any scandals. Again, I think there's a similarity to Bush here -- the dislike and the "spoiled, smirking, idiot frat-boy" trope predated any of his more divisive actions.
No thinking person takes such accusations of Naziism seriously, any more than anybody took seriously John Birchers screaming that Clinton was a Communist. In both cases, the charge itself makes the accuser look like an overheated idiot and signals that they have no substantive argument to make. Hence the provenance of Godwin's Law.
You may believe that there is no worse charge to be levelled against another human being, but the charge has been tossed around so often in so many situations (I say again, spend a week on Usenet) that it now signifies precisely nothing, just like calling Democrats Communists. It's the quickest way to get oneself ignored and marginalized.
Save your manufactured outrage for someone who will believe it.
I was arguing against your manufactured outrage about the criticism of Clinton. All I did was equate the actions of the two sets of extremists. Current case in point: the ongoing campaign to smear Arnold Schwarzenegger as a nazi or white supremacist.
My hope is that we'll all "mute" the extremists and talk about the issues.
BAA: But what is it about Clinton? That's always stumped me.
When someone calls Bush a Nazi or a fascist, they normally don't mean he's warming up for some serious genocide. I doubt they really do know what they mean, but they don't mean that. Nazi and fascist have become almost totally emptied of meaning on the left.
BAA again: People were inclined to hate Bush for the reasons you stated, but since then they have all new reasons to hate him. If the new reasons existed, they would still hate him for the old reasons, but they wouldn't bring the same level of passion to it.
It's quite another to make wild accusations of *fact* that are surprisingly widely accepted, such as "Clinton had Vince Foster murdered" or "Clinton dealt coke from the governor's mansion."
You mean sort of like the "wild accusations of *fact*" that are found here or here or here or here?
I can't figure out if [Kevin Drum] really [doesn't] get the difference, or if [he's] just making stuff up. Either way, [he's] way off base.
While I will agree with Pejman that calling Bush (or any Republican) a Nazi is stupid, inaccurate, and self-defeating, I would argue that it is not so different from calling Clinton a Communist, which was a refrain I heard often enough down here in North Carolina. The internet is entirely more pervasive now than it was during Clinton's term, so the voices of fringemonkeys are amplified in a way that they weren't before.
But what I read on the internet about Bush, hyperbolic and bile-filled as it can often be, is emphatically not more extreme than the loony rhetoric heard on talk radio throughout the '90's. They went after his adolescent daughter for not being sufficiently attractive, as I recall. Called his wife a lesbian. Accused him of killing Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Spread rumors of a "black love-child" in racist circles.
This all seems to me rather more personal and vituperative than referring to Bush as a Nazi. It's untrue and thickheaded, but get real - read Usenet for a week and you'll see hundreds of people called Nazis. For Pejman to insist that this is some new level of attack, he is either blinded by his own sympathies or being willfully obtuse.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 1:35 PM
I've already said plenty on this topic here, so I doubt anyone wants to hear more. I do think it wrong to draw a bright line between Clinon hating and all other partisan hatred in our nation's history. No one example will convince, you may recall that Johnson ran a comemrical with the basic thrust: Goldwater = apocalyptic madman. Longer (much longer) thoughts are on my own site.
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 4:10 PM
That's a very cool layout you've got at your site, Ben.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 4:37 PM
No! Don't encourage him!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 4:39 PM
Wait until Bush is (finally, mercifully) out of office. The Clinton-haters on the right simply cannot get over the object of their hatred.
I, for one, will be perfectly content never to think about Bush himself or what he's doing after he leaves office (may it happen soon). Most of the "Bush-haters" I know feel the same way. We don't want anything bad to happen to him (like getting killed, for instance -- we do of course want him the hell out of our White House) and certainly not to his family. We just want him to stop screwing our country over.
Posted by obeah | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 4:49 PM
I can claim no credit. My vastly more talented co-blogger doug is reponsible. It is nice to know that tastes differ...
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 5:16 PM
I think you have that wrong. The saying is, "there's no accounting for taste."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 5:20 PM
Pej and the other Republican apologists are just wrong. Ranting is one thing: "Clinton is a commie, Bush is a fascist, etc." Sure, that's extreme, but it's just loudmouthed venting.
It's quite another to make wild accusations of *fact* that are surprisingly widely accepted, such as "Clinton had Vince Foster murdered" or "Clinton dealt coke from the governor's mansion."
I can't figure out if these guys really don't get the difference, or if they're just making stuff up. Either way, they're way off base. Clinton hatred was in a class by itself.
Posted by Kevin Drum | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 6:23 PM
I don't want to get dragged into discussion of which fringe is worse -- we can all agree that both are horrible embarassments that discredit the notion of democracy! But (and didn't you know that was coming) I find Kevin Drum's disctinction too neat. No claims of *fact* against Bush? I would have thought the claim that the adminstration instigated the war to secure contracts for Halliburton (or an Afgahn pipeline) a claim of fact. You don't have to move far into the fever swamps to find that one.
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 6:36 PM
I agree with BAA that the Afghan pipeline claim is fully as nutty as anything said about Clinton. (The Halliburton is claim is nutty, but more understandable. I'd put it even with Clinton "Wag the Dog" scenarios.) But the volume of Clinton conspiracies seems much greater than
What was truly puzzling about the Clinton hatred is how it seemed unconnected with anything he actually did. Bush at least invaded Iraq: if you're a pacifist that's genuinely a big deal. Bush has done any number of things to endear himself to his base, so it's not surprising that leftists hate him. Clinton snubbed his base fully as much as he pandered to it. So why was he so hated by the right?
Posted by Walt Pohl | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 10:16 PM
Blah blah blah. If you asked a right-leaning crowd they'd say the Bush bashing was more vitriolic than the Clinton bashing.
-Magik
Posted by Magik Johnson | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 11:30 PM
Dear Impostropher:
"This all seems to me rather more personal and vituperative than referring to Bush as a Nazi."
I'm so sure that accusing a known philanderer of having a half-black bastard child is more personal & vituperative than comparing someone to the genocidal sociopath who slaughtered millions.
Thanks for the deep insight!
I think what's fair to say is that the left-wing goes to its own limits in smearing Bush in the same way the right-wing did with Clinton. The nazism charge is the maximum. Someone on the left cannot conjure a worse accusation. Period.
-Magik "I'm even-handed and you're not" Johnson
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 11:34 PM
Comment by comment I discover that BAA is the man, whatever her gender:
"I don't want to get dragged into discussion of which fringe is worse -- we can all agree that both are horrible embarassments that discredit the notion of democracy!"
Bring the heat, baby! That's right on...
-Matt
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 08-26-03 11:37 PM
I think there first needs to be a distinction between the "bush is a nazi" crowd, and the left crowd in general. I mean, really, how widespread is that? If it is, I, though I spend hours going through news everyday, am not aware of it. I've seen it in the past on a couple web pages, but never any serious argument or attention paid to it. Yet while this charge seems to be circulated among relatively small-scale outlets, such as personal webpages, the stream of vile against Clinton was often main-stream mass media. It's kinda like Bush-hating is Minor league, and Clinton hating was the Majors.
Also speaking in general, the charges against Bush seem to be often based in fact. (although the nazi charge is a gross hyperbole http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html) Yet the numerous hateful charges against Clinton were either plainly drummed up, exaggerated, or just really, really stupid.
And, of course, one can compare how what should have been little stories (white water, paula jones, linda tripp) got turned into national sensations during the Clinton admit, yet, comparable Bush deals (the ballpark scam, Haliburton's sweet deal,[which we don't claim caused the war, but we still object to] the exposing of the CIA agent, and others which writing this is making me too depressed to remember) were just brushed aside by the media. So, if anything, it really seems the anti-Bush volume is turned down too low.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-27-03 12:24 AM
Magik is right that this issue is going to resist analysis -- it's not like we can pull out our pocket loathe-o-meter and find out that Bush scores 7.5 vs. 11.6 for Clinton. No, we're just indulging in the kind of fact-free speculation in which the bloggosphere excels!
As to the why of Clinton-hating: it's the man, not his policies. There's something about him -- his personality, his cultural stance, his demeanor -- that deeply, deeeply revolted a segment of the country. And this happened way before any scandals. Again, I think there's a similarity to Bush here -- the dislike and the "spoiled, smirking, idiot frat-boy" trope predated any of his more divisive actions.
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-27-03 6:51 AM
Magik -
No thinking person takes such accusations of Naziism seriously, any more than anybody took seriously John Birchers screaming that Clinton was a Communist. In both cases, the charge itself makes the accuser look like an overheated idiot and signals that they have no substantive argument to make. Hence the provenance of Godwin's Law.
You may believe that there is no worse charge to be levelled against another human being, but the charge has been tossed around so often in so many situations (I say again, spend a week on Usenet) that it now signifies precisely nothing, just like calling Democrats Communists. It's the quickest way to get oneself ignored and marginalized.
Save your manufactured outrage for someone who will believe it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-27-03 7:50 AM
Impostropher,
I was arguing against your manufactured outrage about the criticism of Clinton. All I did was equate the actions of the two sets of extremists. Current case in point: the ongoing campaign to smear Arnold Schwarzenegger as a nazi or white supremacist.
My hope is that we'll all "mute" the extremists and talk about the issues.
-Magik "Fairly Balanced, I'm Afraid" Johnson
Posted by Magik | Link to this comment | 08-27-03 12:35 PM
BAA: But what is it about Clinton? That's always stumped me.
When someone calls Bush a Nazi or a fascist, they normally don't mean he's warming up for some serious genocide. I doubt they really do know what they mean, but they don't mean that. Nazi and fascist have become almost totally emptied of meaning on the left.
BAA again: People were inclined to hate Bush for the reasons you stated, but since then they have all new reasons to hate him. If the new reasons existed, they would still hate him for the old reasons, but they wouldn't bring the same level of passion to it.
Posted by Walt Pohl | Link to this comment | 08-27-03 5:30 PM
You mean sort of like the "wild accusations of *fact*" that are found here or here or here or here?
I can't figure out if [Kevin Drum] really [doesn't] get the difference, or if [he's] just making stuff up. Either way, [he's] way off base.
Posted by Pejman Yousefzadeh | Link to this comment | 08-28-03 10:55 AM