Joe Klein Valiantly Battles "Ideological Extremists"
March 2, 2007 -- 1:46 PM EST // //
I swear that I'm not doing this merely to defend Atrios -- but rather because I really want to see if it's possible to cut through the static afflicting Joe Klein and get him to stop attacking liberals and people he generally agrees with without explaining clearly what he's faulting them for and without providing evidence for his charges.
And also to prompt discussion of something else, but more on that in a sec.
In his latest post on Swampland, Klein out of nowhere insinuates very clearly that he thinks Atrios is an "ideological extremist":
I'm as proud of being named "Wanker of the Day" as I am of being Sean Hannity's "Enemy of the State for the week." After 38 years of doing this, I've found that most of the real wankers and enemies of the state--and intellectually insecure bullies--are ideological extremists.
And Klein clarifies:
I meant to say that the real wankers and enemies of the state tend to be ideological extremists--and intellectually insecure bullies--who need to hunt for "wankers" and "enemies."
But why does Klein think Atrios is an "ideological extremist"? What is his evidence for this? Is it merely the fact that he calls people "wankers"? There's nothing "ideological" or even "extreme" about employing this epithet. So again, what is it about Atrios' actual views that leads Klein to call him this?
The point is, calling someone an "ideological extremist" without explaining what makes them one is really no different than calling someone a "wanker." In a sense, it's actually worse, because when you call people on the left and right ideological extremists, what you really mean is that you are superior to them -- that they've failed to think their way out of a rigid set of imprisoning ideas, while you have the intellect and strength to avoid succumbing to this intellectual infirmity. It's intellectual triangulation designed to feed one's vanity. Whereas when you call someone a "wanker," you're showing no such pretension. What's more, when Atrios designates someone his "wanker of the day," he generally links to another post with a substantive argument against that person. By contrast, Klein didn't provide any substance here.
Here is a list of Atrios' positions on around two dozen issues. This is a sincere question: Which ones does Klein agree with, and which ones does he disagree with? And why is it that the points of disagreement -- presuming there are any -- make Atrios an ideological extremist?
Relatedly -- and this is the real point I wanted to get to -- how do we know an ideological extremist when we see one, anyway? How many issues does one need to disagree with Klein about before becoming an ideological extremist? What does the nature of that disagreement -- or the nature of the way one holds one's views -- need to be? How is the term "ideological extremist" as used here anything more than a meaningless slur, just like "wanker" or "jerk" or "shithead" or anything else? Can all of us -- including high-priced columnists turned bloggers -- please commit to backing up our charges with actual evidence?
Please enlighten us on these points, Mr. Klein. They are important questions for anyone who wants to keep the dialogue "civil."
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.