Gotchaism
I’ve written rather prolifically in the past on neo-progressivism. I’ve often wondered what makes it tick, and what in fact differentiates it from genuine Liberalism. While there are certainly many things, I think one rather obvious aspect is the frequent reliance on “gotcha” politics. An interesting debate took place in the commentary section of my first post here at the Gazette regarding the reliability of an author I had quoted. Point being–he had messed up in the past, had been too eager to prove an erroneous point, and thus all arguments from said author were now null and void.
We see the same reaction today in response to this Op-Ed penned by ex-interim Iraqi PM Ayad Allawi. BooMan is quick to point out Allawi’s dubious record, and even insinuates that the piece lays out the groundwork for an Iraqi coup. Cernig of The Newshoggers jumps on this daffy train all the way, quoting (and highlighting) the following “money quote”:
I am working with my colleagues in parliament to build a nonsectarian majority coalition that will support [a] plan for a “new era” in Iraq and replace through democratic means the current Iraqi government.
Oh, the horror! Will the U.S. stand idly by while this Parliamentarian wonk moves to use all of the proper channels allowed him by the Iraqi government!? What next, a non-binding resolution!!? You know who else liked to build coalitions through “democratic means”? Hitler.
PLEASE NOTE: Absolutely NOTHING in this WaPo Op-Ed even remotely indicates that Allawi is seeking to supplant PM Maliki, aside from the political avenues he could rightfully choose to take. He does take a swipe at Maliki, but why can’t he? Our elected officials attack each other all of the time. Senator Russ Feingold attempted to build a coalition earlier this summer that would have censured President Bush. Remind me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall anyone expressing concerns over a Feingold junta being formed in Oshkosh, WI.
Now, Allawi doesn’t say anything here that’s especially new or groundbreaking. Federalism, stop the sectarian violence, we stand up, they stand down, etc. We’ve pretty much heard all of this before. But I find the knee jerk reaction from the far-Left much more fascinating, and even a little bit troubling.
Once America has withdrawn from Iraq (merely a question of “when” these days), it will be left to the Iraqis who care enough to actually build a sustainable society there. The so-called Netroots have no real investment in the well being of Iraq, hence their frequent and predictable dismissal of Op-Eds and commentaries such as these. A healthy cynicism regarding Iraq, and especially our bumbling president’s mismanagement of it, is certainly fair. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died, and will continue to die under his weak leadership. But when will those critics begin to consider some measure of actual success in Iraq, as opposed to dismissing any and all good news? We witnessed one progressive’s struggle with this earlier in the week. Can we maybe call it “progressives for progress”?
EDIT: Forgive me, as one of the readers kindly observed, it was in fact BooMan who made the following comment:
So, it should concern us that he has taken to the Washington Post this morning to detail a new plan for Iraq. His main conclusion is that we need a coup.
My apologies to Cernig. Hopefully this error won’t forbid any further commentary!
Kevin, you raise a fair point, but I am afraid that the climate has become too polarized in America. The (far) left will not admit to anything. All goes wrong, in their view. Of course it has to, for them politically. If something might work, it will weaken their chances of political success in the short run. At least, that is how they think.
To be really fair though, a good amount of “gotchaism” and refusal to admit things takes place on both extremes.
As Michael points out, the far left will not admit when things are going well. Not only in Iraq, but also in every aspect of politics and life. The left’s agenda of progress, after all, is based on the idea that change is needed and so it relies on rallying the people to rise up for change.
The flip side of that though is that conservatives’ agenda is to hold back rapid abrupt changes, so they are prone to the opposite error: failure to admit when things are NOT going well. It would be far better if conservatives would admit that societal problems need solutions and argue against progressives more on the nature of the changes to avoid overcorrection, drastic measures, or increasing reliance on big government solutions.
Um, how is cernig’s post jumping “on the daffy train?” To me, it’s just a straightforward comment on what he’s doing and how it’ll be a challenge to convince anyone he is capable of carrying out those steps.
There is a reason to dismiss Allawi’s op-ed, and that’s that his support amongst the Iraqis is and always has been very low. He is a bit player that could use his limited power to swing the direction for a particular party, but certainly won’t be setting any agendas.
Agreed. Very well said.
“There is a reason to dismiss Allawi’s op-ed, and that’s that his support amongst the Iraqis is and always has been very low. He is a bit player that could use his limited power to swing the direction for a particular party, but certainly won’t be setting any agendas.”
Which makes the coup theory all the more absurd, no? No popular support, and no internal support.
I don’t know why the extreme Left refuses to discuss ideas. The majority in Iraq probably believes some terribly irrational things, does their numerical status grant them automatic credibility?
Hi Kevin,
I’ve actually written extensively on Allawi’s peaceful and political attempt to overthrow Maliki.
On the 7th August, in a link-rich post:
“It’s a broad-based cross-sectarian coalition including such disparate figures as the Sunnis, secular populist Allawi and the Sadrists. The movement was first mentioned back in December of last year and since then they’ve been moving carefully to establish a position of strength in order to make a legitimate political challenge to Maliki’s government. We’ve been following that developing position fairly closely here at Newshoggers, as has Kevin Drum.
…But if the Iraqi Project is successful in completing a peaceful political coup and ousting Maliki then their other stated aim is to make it the policy of both the Iraqi parliament and government that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq when the U.N. mandate expires (I believe that’s in December). Bush and others have repeatedly said they would leave Iraq if the Iraqi government asked them to. Yet that jars with long-term basing plans and the rhetoric of a Korean-style presence lasting decades.
Should the Iraqi government ask the U.S. to leave and Bush refuse, for whatever reason, then the level of violence so far levelled at occupation forces will seem like a walk in the park in comparison to what will come next. It won’t even matter if the Bush administration can paint the surge as a partial success.
It always amazes me that so much written in the U.S. about Iraq assumes that only Americans can make the final decisions about the U.S. presence there. The Iraqis have a different view and it’s one it would be insanity to ignore.”
And on 7th June:
“There’s an excellent and thought-provoking article by Radio Free Europe today on Iraqi reactions to Shiite secularist Iyad Allawi and Sunni leaders’ attempts to reorder the political landscape. The short version is that DAWA, SIIC and the Kurds - all the people who are most threatened by this new front - are pissed. They’re also openly accusing the new front of being a construct of foreign Sunni Arab governments, with Prime Minister Maliki saying “There will never be any room for plots that are hatched in this or that Arab capital,” and linking the new movement to Arab backed terrorism in Iraq.
Why the fear and venom? The votes, boss, the votes!”
But don’t worry, I’m not offended by an actual mistake, quickly admitted to.
Regards, C