Manufacturing Consent – Wis[s]e Words

Can’t Get Fooled Again

Published on February 6, 2023Leave a comment

Atrios is tired of being expected to take bad faith merchants like Chait seriously when they’ve always lied and helped lurch America and the world from disaster to disaster:

Chait lies and some of his lies are along the lines of, “MY CRITICS ARE NOT ENGAGING WITH THE ARGUMENTS SERIOUSLY,” a neat little debate trick which puts honest people (unlike Chait) on the defensive and encourages them to say, “yes, yes, I am, here’s an example of it,” but by then Chait, laughing, has moved onto the next bit of bullshit. It’s projection and a little trick that helps obscure the fact that he is the one not engaging honestly. No you’re not engaging with my very serious argument!!! Why won’t you stop punching yourself!!!

Tired of being expected to pretend their motivations are pure.

It’s just a game to these monsters. Chait cares about trans kids as much as he cared about Iraqis, which is, at best, not at all. “At best” is a generous interpretation given the number of deaths he encouraged.

I’m with him. Next month will be the twentyfirst anniversary of this blog and on every important subject people like Chait and Singal and Yglesias have gotten it wrong while knowing they were wrong. The only function of these centrists and pretend liberals is to lend cover to the rightwing, to drain the energy of well meaning but naive opponents of whatever disaster they’re cheerleading this time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, the Great Recession, Brexit, austerity, Roe v Wade, trans rights: for each and every one of those their eloquent and nuances arguments served evil. How many times must they get it wrong before you’re allowed to dismiss them out of hand?

On each of these subjects, any random protestor against them would’ve been a better guide than the people paid very well indeed to explain to us that we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes.

The sheer hypocrisy

Published on January 15, 2022Leave a comment

You can’t help but sympathise with the guy being interviewed here, a funeral officer who at the height of the Covid pandemic had had to stop people from saying their last farewells, now feeling a fool for having done so when the government that set the rules never had any intent to obey them themselves

What sticks in the craw is that’s James O’Brien he’s talking to, who with his employer LBC was one of the people responsible for destroying the one credible alternative to a Johnson led Tory government back in 2019. What sticks in the craw is that all of the press currently falling over themselves to explain what a bad ‘un Boris Johnson is and who could’ve guessed, could’ve told us that in 2019 but refused to. What sticks in the craw is the pretence that having an office party is what made Johnson bad, that the failed and utterly corrupt covid strategy of the government as a whole isn’t an issue. That for the second time in a decade the Tories are responsible for mass deaths amongst the most vulnerable, first through austerity, second through herd immunity is ignored or outright denied even. But the chance at taking down a prime minister who has become an embarassment without doing damage to the larger Tory project by using this trivial issue has the same people who championed him two years ago chomping at the bit.

First Cameron, then May, now Johnson. The media install Tory prime ministers to do their dirty jobs, then discards them when no longer needed, but never questions the legitimacy of the Tories as a whole. That fate is left for anything that challenges the established order. Tell me, if democracy means that the press is allowed to ruthlessly monster anybody they take a dislike to, that only those candidates and parties acceptable to it are allowed anywhere near power and that allowance can be withdrawn at any time, how much of a democracy is the United Kingdom still?

A concise list of terfs, nazis, nazi sympathisers and useful idiots

Published on July 7, 2020Leave a comment

The poor man’s Slate tries to be relevant by publishing a whiny wE nEeD oPeN dEbAtE letter, as signed by:

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Kerri Greenidge, historian
Rinne B. Groff, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria

It’s mostly the usual thin skinned numpties from the chattering classes, wanting to spew their nonsense without getting uppity no-ticks criticising them on Twitter. Don’t pay too much attention to them, just keep this as a handy list of people who are not on your side.

Remember Ed Milliband?

Published on June 19, 2020Leave a comment

Remember how when he was Labour leader, during the 2015 election, he was treated as basically illegitamite for wanting to take power? How he, a Jewish man, was made endless fun off for eating a bacon sarnie a bit awkwardly? And that his father was accused of being a foreign agitator?

Speaking of Ed Milliband, curiously how antisemitism in the Labour party stopped being an issue the day Starmer was elected as leader, eh?

Daily Telegraph headline: Man who broke the Bank of England backing secret plot to thwart Brexit

That same rightwing press, having had oodles of fun with that picture of Ed eating that sarnie, suddenly found itself Very Concerned about antisemitism in the Labour Party, didn’t they? The Blackshirt supporting Daily Mail, the notoriously antimigrant Sun, the Spectator, praising the Wehrmach one issue and Greek neonazis the next, the Daily Telegraph busy using Soros conspiracy theories straight out of the Protocols of the Elders as headlines, all suddenly Very Concerned about this issue. And all very, very confident that it’s the fault of one lifelong antiracist activist and not something that’s a structural problem in UK society also manifesting itself in Labour. Of course they were the most convinced that this issue was an isolated case and we need not worry about its equivalent in the Tories, or warnings from inside of the party itself that islamophobia is rampant in it.

Antisemitism in the party is of course something Labour, as a leftwing party needs to get its house in order on. Just as it needs to do with the lingering strains of antiblackness, transphobia and islamphobia also present in it..

Labour 2005 election poster showing Oliver Letwin and Michael Howard as flying pigs

But when you have Alistair Campbell, notorious for using antisemitic election posters against Michael Howard as your spokesperson on driving out antisemitism in the party, when you have his mates sabotaging efforts to get Ken Livingstone ejected for his antisemitism, you wonder how much of the anxiety about it last year was genuine. Especially when you have the oldest Jewish newspaper in the world about to to cease publication because of the policies of its hardline rightwing editor, as he used it as a vehicle to slander Labour and other leftwing activists. The Jewish Chronicle, published since 1841, destroyed to get the Tories re-elected.

That whole deluge of mostly false or half true accussations, that unprecedent weaponisation of antisemitism concerns, is perhaps the most cynical part of the whole campaign to keep Corbyn out of number ten. It and everything around is why, suddenly, as Flying Rodent put it:

the public organically decided they wanted a highly exotic and destructive trade/political restructure and they also decided – all by themselves – that the leader of the opposition hated white people and Britain.

You’re hard pressed to find anything about that in Labour Together’s election review. All of that just spontaneously materialised and nobody in the press has to ask themselves any awkward questions.

And yet: remember Ed Milliband?

First thing to remember is that Israel has the bomb

Published on February 23, 20121 Comment

Arthur Silber is annoyed with a Peter Beinart article that’s supposedly opposed to any war with Iran:

Given the attention it is receiving from those who are nominally opposed to the United States’ foreign policy of criminal, aggressive war and intervention, it is understandable that unwary readers will view Peter Beinart’s article, “The Crazy Rush to Attack Iran,” as strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. And while Beinart’s piece may very superficially appear to oppose such an attack, opposition of this kind is no opposition at all. And it is far worse than that: Beinart accepts the entire framework of those whose warmongering he criticizes, and he thus makes an attack on Iran more likely, not less.

For those of us who paid attention back during the runup to the Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, this is hardly surprising coming from Beinart, who spent most of it cheerleading for them, as well as policing the bordaries of acceptable dissent. Which is what he’s doing here, as in his very first paragraph he frames in such a way as to concede most of the issue to the supporters of a war:

The debate over whether Israel should attack Iran rests on three basic questions. First, if Iran’s leaders got the bomb, would they use it or give it to people who might? Second, would a strike substantially retard Iran’s nuclear program? Third, if Israel attacks, what will Iran do in response?

This framing is of course completely embraced in the mainstream news media, where the question of whether or not Iran is actually even trying to create a nuclear bomb rarely is asked anymore. Any true opponent of war on Iran therefore needs to go back to this basic question: is Iran actually trying to create nuclear weapons and, as importantly, is this any business of ours as long as Israel, which does have several hundreds nuclear bombs and has had them for decades, isn’t dealt with in the same way? If instead you go by the assumption that Iran is building a bomb and that this is a Matter of Concern, you are already conceding much of the rationale for military action, at best you’re now arguing about tactics. Which is just what Beinart wants of course. Beinart isn’t interested in stopping a war or oposing it, he’s just concerned about seeming to oppose it.

In the meantime the whole issue of an Israeli attack on Iran is as much a giant distraction attempt as it is a real threat. For both Israel and the US having the focus on Iranian misbehaviour and the potential, sadly likely to be disproportionate Israel response, rather than on their own internal problems comes in very handy. It’s a distraction measure and while an attack on Iran can’t be entirely ruled out, it is unlikely to actually happen when the mere threat of it is so useful to both countries. Beinart’s weaselly article is just a small part of it.