A Fortiori: Poking Ideologues with Sticks
9 September, 2009 (with an update dated 21 September 2009, available HERE)
Merriam-Webster defines an ideologue as "an impractical idealist" and "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." Mike Reed's flame warrior roster is less kind; he asserts that the ideologue is "smug and self-satisfied" in his certitudes, "genuinely astonished, bewildered, and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as Truth." An idealist, by contrast, is simply (again, according to Merriam-Webster) "an adherent of a philosophical theory," a person "guided by ideals," especially "one [who] places ideals before practical considerations."
I consider myself an idealist. There certainly are philosophies that I believe are more important than pragmatic concerns; I am not a situational ethicist. At the same time, there are those operating -- or playing at operating -- within the field of political punditry who are, quite obviously, ideologues. It is to one of these that I now turn a baleful eye. I speak specifically of a little blog called ConWebWatch, which has obliged me with a few mentions of my work for the arch-conservative website, WorldNetDaily. As you can imagine, these mentions were not what you would call "fan mail."
I first found myself on the blog's nine-volt battery-powered radar back in March, when I won the "Obama Derangement Award" for one of my columns. As you never know when a site like that will be... er... constructively revised, I took a screen capture for posterity.
Now, I'm not sure how you're supposed take seriously any organization with a .tripod web address, but okay; let's stipulate that this is simple Internet snobbery on my part. The little blog is not a watchdog group at all, really; it is just someone (male or female -- I could not say) named Terry Krepel. The ire I managed to draw from this Krepel seems centered on two points: One, that I repeated the "lie" that Mr. Obama has plans to create an Obama-youth-like league of little sycophants in the form of a civilian security force; and two, that I don't understand what a Chief Information Officer is or does.
On the first point, Mr. or Ms. Krepel claims that there is no civilian defense force and no plans to create one, because, well, people in the administration say there isn't, if I follow accurately the somewhat incoherent argument. How embarrassing that this "lie" is so easily supported, then, when Obama himself said, on video, that "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Attempts have been made to excuse this statement as a plea for renaming or otherwise augmenting the Peace Corps, but that's preposterous. Even those making the attempt know it is preposterous. I, on the other hand, simply like typing the word preposterous.
Why on Earth would anyone think Obama meant what he said? You could argue that what he's claimed he wants isn't really as bad as people are worried that it will become, but you cannot simply mewl, with your fingers in your ears, that "La-la-la, it's a lie, it's a lie, la la la." Yet that is precisely the tactic that apologists for Obama take whenever his extra-constitutional power-grabs are criticized. They shout angrily that all criticism of the president is "misinformation," "lies," and "myths," then send their union thugs to beat up American citizens who have the gall to think incorrectly.
On the second point, poor Mr. Krepel expresses his (her?) outrage at my outrage over the appointment of a Chief Information Officer, pointing out, quite rightly, that many organizations employ such individuals. This, of course, is a bit selective on Mr. or Ms. Krepel's part, for the fact that the post has been created was not, in and of itself, the issue. Here is the quote from my article in context:
Michael Friedenberg wrote in Computerworld that Obama has demonstrated, in certain key ways, that he understands the power of today's information technology and is using it to good effect. The president has, as reported by Friedenberg, appointed a chief information officer (a post that sounds disturbingly similar to some form of propaganda ministry, in title if not in fact), allocated significant tax dollars in his stimulus package for establishing electronic health records (the dangers of which we have discussed in this column), and issued a memorandum on "Transparency and Open Government," which presumably, in demanding that government be made "transparent, participatory and collaborative," must of necessity make use of information technology to do so. [emphasis added]
The concern I raised was, therefore, over Obama's technological savvy -- his ability to understand information technology (in a society built on IT) and use it to his advantage. Yes, I did take a poke at this Chief Information Officer and the implications of the posting in the Obama administration, but my primary concern was (obviously) the use of IT policy by Obama and his cronies, particularly where electronic health records and other private and public data are concerned.
The strangest part of Krepel's objection to my column seems to be a complete and total inability to understand sarcasm, either deliberately (which is understandable, if intellectually dishonest) or through a lack of intelligence (which is at least amusing). Krepel seems to think, as you can see in the blog post, that I believe Mr. Obama literally to be Twittering his enemies list to minions downstream of his position. Krepel claims that I "assert" that this is actually going on. Let's look at the quote in context (something left-leaning pundits like Mr. or Ms. Krepel don't seem capable of doing, perhaps out of long, dishonest habit):
President George W. Bush was famous for his lack of technological knowledge. Obama, by stark contrast, is the most technologically savvy president we have ever had. He has become ever-present and all-encompassing in our media outlets and through the technological vessels that carry these outlets' product to our eyes, our hearts and our minds. Barack Hussein Obama is, in word and deed, quickly becoming our first technological dictator. As he Twitters his daily enemies list through his Blackberry while waiting for his latest firearms prohibitions to be uploaded to iTunes as podcasts, we can expect Caesar Obama to record a series of YouTube videos in which he explains why government price controls and salary caps are what's best for a formerly free America.
We can then take to our blogs to complain about the erosion of personal freedom in a nation that once boasted a free market -- until, of course, government spies using Web-crawling search engines identify our seditious speech and order us, via e-mail, to be taken to the re-education camps. We may then all update our MySpace page moods accordingly, to "oppressed."
I'm not sure exactly what part of that strikes Mr. or Ms. Krepel as the most plausible. Does he think some future partisan resistance will really be taking the time to update its members' MySpace pages? Really? Does she understand the idea that when one layers on implausibilities while invoking the various technologies discussed in the paragraphs preceding, that one might just be speaking tongue-in-cheek for dramatic effect? It doesn't seem so. I am, frankly, more than a little alarmed that anyone with access to a computer might be so desperately incapable of basic critical thinking. No good can come from such obstinate literal-mindedness. But let us soldier on.
Some time after the first mention of my work, Ms. (Mr.?) Krepel indignantly exposed my controversial opinion that... drum roll, please... laws that target specific behaviors while driving are oppressive to the cause of individual liberty.
That's right, gentle readers: I actually expressed the idea that there are areas of your private life into which the government has no business snooping. I even said that if you use your phone while you drive, you shouldn't automatically be declared a public menace. On top of that, I took aim at a study purporting to "prove" that increased accessibility to teens and parents using text messaging was robbing our teens of the ability to make their own decisions, while turning them into anxious, nervous wrecks:
Regardless of the tack taken or the appeal to emotion employed, text-messaging is not harmful to your children and is no more dangerous while driving than is any other potentially distracting activity. Each reasoning adult must choose how to conduct his or her life in and out of the car. He may choose to conduct himself responsibly, or he may not – but empowering the government to treat all of us as irresponsible before the fact is not acceptable. This is not the purview of the government of a free society. It is not the proper treatment of a free people. If they can take away your texting, they can take anything else they want to take.
In a world populated by people who think the government should control every aspect of your personal behavior -- people who believe that individuals have no judgment, no reason, and no ability or even right to take responsibility for their own behavior -- you can bet that I caught hell from people more intelligent than Terry Krepel for saying that I think otherwise. I happen to believe that there are any number of things you could do in the car that are dangerous. Texting, reading, eating, and engaging in certain sexual acts are just a few of those in which I've personally seen other drivers engaged while on the highway. But if we set the precedent that the government should be policing each and every one of these activities by name, rather than simply holding drivers responsible for distracted conduct, we march a few baby steps closer to the police state that is ever-more encroaching on our daily lives. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and us pesky libertarians actually do adhere to this principle. It doesn't make us insane, inept, unreasonable, or unpredictable. Really.
What was really funny about this particular mention in ConWebWatch, however, was that Krepel thought there was some sort of insidious conspiracy at WorldNetDaily to remove, quietly, columns Mr. or Ms. Krepel found so offensive as to be worthy of burial. The proof? After breathlessly reporting this conspiracy, in a feat of muckraking journalism that puts to shame the best efforts of Woodward and Bernstein, Krepel was forced to admit that the mysteriously missing columns were deleted only temporarily thanks to a simple file-serving glitch at WND's website.
This brings us to the most recent mention of one of my columns in Mr. or Ms. Krepel's blog. In my September 3rd column, He wants you 'hatemongers' silenced, I 'pummeled' the Obama administration's efforts to demonize its critics (in the words of the columns editor at WND). Specifically, I underscored attempts by the administration to mischaracterize any and all criticism of Obama as racist, unhinged, made up, or otherwise falsified, when it wasn't targeting for imprisonment or legal harassment the people making those criticisms. I talked about the Federal legislation that has been introduced, in recently altered but no less harmful form, that would give Obama "a giant 'off switch' to the freaking Internet." I also described the concerns held by many Americans that the appointment of a Marxist "Diversity Czar" (attorney Mark Lloyd) would lead to the implementation of the euphemistically named "Fairness Doctrine" to silence Obama's critics in conservative talk radio. I cited many examples of silencing and demonizing critics by President Obama, his cronies, and his fellow travelers in politics.
I'll admit that I did something else, as part of the column. I deliberately mentioned my "Obama Derangement Award" because I knew it would be like poking Terry Krepel with a stick, something sure to garner me another mention in his or her "watchdog" blog. I wasn't disappointed:
Unfortunately, this is mostly a rehash of the first mention, though it does include more unsubstantiated invective. I certainly don't begrudge Mr. or Ms. Krepel his or her outrage over my opinion, or a certain amount of mean-spirited rock-throwing as a result. I'm nothing if not indulgent of these little tantrums.
Krepel seems to think that the thrust of my September 3rd column is some sort of injury over the fact that Krepel's far-seeing, deep-gazing journalistic Eye of Sauron fell on me. I suppose I should not have indulged my more self-serving instincts in mentioning the little blog, for this elevates it to a level of scrutiny it probably doesn't deserve. But, still, one can't help but marvel at how representative of the level of left-wing discourse are the posts Terry Krepel seems to think so incisive. After repeating his or her already discredited notions about my "paranoid" lies, Krepel manages to eat a shoe rather spectacularly:
Indeed, Elmore provides a link in his current column to radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, which serves as more evidence of Elmore's own unhinged approach.
If Mr. or Ms. Krepel had bothered to follow the link, rather than simply mousing over it to read the address, he or she might have discovered that the link is to an article written, not by the "conspiracy theorist" Alex Jones, but by a Toby Harnden, writing in the Telegraph. (Specifically, the article was a supporting link to my assertion that Obama and his people see racism under every rock and behind every tree, in this case the famous "Joker" socialism bills.)
The column also includes links to CNET News, talkshow host Glenn Beck's website, WorldNetDaily, Newsbusters, McClatchy, this website, the Huffington Post, and the Examiner. The idea that one cites a link to support one's opinion is lost on this Krepel person, it seems; Mr. or Mrs. Krepel can see no difference between CNET and the Huffington Post, or between the Telegraph and a tinfoil-wrapped conservative blog. They're all one and the same, to Krepel; they're all inconvenient facts that distract this particularly brittle leftist from an ardently, ignorantly held opinion.
I hope my readers will indulge me when I take a moment to address Mr. or Ms. Krepel directly. Terry, I know you think you have a "job" to "criticize the critics," in your own words, and I realize you're really trying very hard. I would caution you, however, to take a more earnest approach to this mandate that you believe justifies using the royal "we" in your prose. You're not a "we," Terry; you're a you -- and I would further caution you not to make my job so terribly easy. In a world of conflicting ideals and ideologies, the ideologue will always lose to the idealist, the leftist will almost always lose to the rightist, and the left-winger will only rarely trump the conservative.
In logic, the term is a fortiori -- the argument made from the stronger position, the opinion expressed, again to borrow Merriam-Webster's words, "with greater reason or more convincing force -- used in drawing a conclusion that is inferred to be even more certain than another." You will never, Terry, grasp which argument is the stronger until you let go of your leftist prejudices and start seeing the truth objectively. An opinion is not a lie simply because you claim it to be; a concern is not "paranoid" simply because you refuse to entertain the idea. If this offends you, I apologize, but it is only the truth.
After all, Terry, if you can dish it out, well, one hopes you can take it. We certainly think you can. >>