What David Frum Doesn't Want You To Remember

David FrumToday, David Frum is applauding in favor of gay marriage.

But through the fog of time, we remember that it was Frum as Bush speechwriter who wrote about the “axis of evil” (and was reportedly let go after his wife bragged about it).

And in March of 2003 when the Iraq war was in its infancy, he wrote:

War is a grim thing. But it is sometimes a necessary thing — and very often a clarifying thing. We have learned much in the opening hours of this war. We will learn more in the days ahead. When the Iraqi archives fall into Allied hands, we will learn about the complex structure of international terrorism over the past three decades. We may learn something too about the flow of money from Iraq into France and Germany — not only to French and German corporations, but very possibly to individuals, including senior political figures.

We will learn the full horror of what went on inside Iraq. The perfunctory condemnations of Saddam we hear from so many opponents of the war will suddenly look utterly inadequate in comparison to the nightmare cruelty of Saddam’s regime. Perhaps — is this too much to hope for? — the Arab intellectuals who kept silent about Saddam’s cruelty will be shamed out of nationalist pride into moral awakening; a moral awakening that will at last discredit terrorism and open the way to peace with Israel.

Finally, we will all learn something about ourselves and our political leaders. The months since 9/11 have been a moral test. The Bush administration has passed with flying colours. Its opponents have failed. Politics can be a long, slow business. But in the end, moral failure will be held to account — even in Canada.

So guys who enable bloodthirsty warmongering that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans don’t get a pat on the back, no matter how their new position may be the right one.

  • Bruce Henry

    As a lurker 99% of the time, but one who has been reading this blog almost every day for going on 7 years, I would like to say that this Manju person is the tiresomest, haisplittingest, repetitivest, anal-retentivest troll you’ve ever hosted, Oliver. Worse, waaay worse, than Dennis. Makes me long for Frank DiSalle. Whatever happened to him? Manju makes me miss Frank terribly.

    Seriously, Manju, please – God, please – shut the fuck up about Lyndon Johnson. We get it.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “You’re an idiot”

    Manju says: “Ergo, I’m Will.”

    Did Will run away from every point he couldn’t address?

    For instance, you instance in taking analogies literally.

    Or arguing that progressives and socialist are only 0.1% different.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    Manju is the new Stalker Dennis.

  • Manju

    And who posted the FIRST comment on this thread, implying they understood history more than others,

    Here is my first comment:

    There goes LBJ’s place in history…assuming Vietnam is to Iraq as LBJ’s position on civil rights is to Frum’s on same-sex marriage.

    no where did I imply other’s don’t know this. Indeed, I knew almost all the regulars know this since I’ve referenced LBJs flip many times (and almost everyone knows about Vietnam). Here is my competition for the role of Clark:

    No need to explain yourself, Manju. We get it: if there’s any possible way to work LBJ and civil rights into the thread you will because you read that one book that one time.

    “you read that one book that one time” is sarcastic and condescending, not unlike Clark’s:

    I was just hoping you could give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies.

    I don’t know how LBJ is a Strawman. Strawmen are misrepresentations of another’s argument. I quoted Oliver directly and argued that LBJ would fit his standard.

  • TheRealityBasedDave

    “This fails because Clark is the guy who initates the sarcastic and condescending conversation.”

    And who posted the FIRST comment on this thread, implying they understood history more than others, & bringing up a strawman (LBJ)?

    You are Clark.

  • fafaroo

    Manju, Bernie Sanders can vote with the Democratic caucus one hundred percent of the time but that doesn’t mean that the Democratic caucus or its policies are socialist because Sanders compromises his preferred solution to support the next best solution.

    Bernie Sanders supports universal health care but voted against ACA’s repeal in the Senate. Does that make the ACA socialist? No, not in the least bit because ACA maintains the system of private insurance in this country.

    But even more to the point, Bernie Sanders is much more of a social democrat in the European sense which does not advocate for replacing the free market with a government controlled economy, but rather espouses a mixed economy approach: a free market with a strong social safety net and strong labor union movement.

    A social democrat can agree with one hundred percent of the democratic parties policies without meaning the democratic party are social democrats in disguise.

  • Manju

    Dude, it was your stupid analogy.

    Dude, the analogy of progressives to libertarians was mine but the logic was yours. So lets just forget the analogy and leave the logic:

    How can socialists agree with progressives 100% of the time if progressives disagree with socialists over much of that same time…like over nationalizing the means of production, redistributing wealth to near equal levels, cold war policies, or a Keynesian stimulus.

    Wouldn’t those also be causes that socialists oppose progressives on? To erase all those causes would completely reposition progressivism as a form of socialism.

  • fafaroo

    Dude, it was your stupid analogy.

  • Manju

    If conservatives agree with libertarians one hundred percent of the time, it does not follow that libertarians agree with conservatives one hundred percent of the time

    How can conservatives agree with Libertarians 100% of the time if Libertarians disagree with conservatives over much of that same time…like over same sex marriage, the patriot act, or separation of church and state?

    Wouldn’t those also be causes that conservatives oppose libertarians on? To erase all those causes would completely reposition libertarianism as a form of conservatism. Ditto for progressivism and socialism.

  • fafaroo

    Sure that works. It goes beyond Obama though and is a long standing battle: that progressives are really just socialists in drag.

    This why you’re an idiot. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work logically, it doesn’t work in terms of political reality. Obama is not a socialist because a socialist agrees with his policies. It’s like saying vegetarians are fascists because Hitler didn’t eat meat (oh, wait, are you really Jonah Goldberg?)

    In your own analogy you’ve fucked up the order of association: If conservatives agree with libertarians one hundred percent of the time, it does not follow that libertarians agree with conservatives one hundred percent of the time so you cannot possibly arrive at the conclusion that “Libertarians are just Conservatives in drag” from your initial premise.

    So, again, when you run off on your own, you’ve got nothing but empty talking points and seriously flawed thinking. When you don’t, you’ve empty talking points, seriously flawed thinking and footnotes.

  • Manju

    I didn’t catch this the first time through. “The suspicion.” The suspicion of what, Manju? That Obama really is a secret socialist because Bernie Sanders voted for the stimulus bill and the ACA?

    Sure that works. It goes beyond Obama though and is a long standing battle: that progressives are really just socialists in drag.

    By failing to acknowledge your RW side, you stepped in it.

    By way of analogy, if I were to say Conservatives agree with 99.9% of Libertarian causes I would’ve similarly stepped in it, revealing to Progressives that Libertarians are just Conservatives in drag.

    What about same-sex marriage, opposition to patriot act, what about what about separation of church and state, legal porn and prostitution, abortion, etc…

    Progressives on this site somehow forgot about all the things that socialists don’t like about you.

  • Manju

    If socialists vote with progressive Dems to support universal health care, it doesn’t mean that progressive dems are socialists or that they want to overthrow capitalism.

    This is true. An alliance is not the same as an ideology. However, we were discussing Bernie’s “vision”, not his alliance with the dems or progressives.

    So Strowbridge’s ““Right Wingers are socialist” is meant to demonstrate that their ideology is such. He is not saying they are actually aligned with them.

    So if socialists agree with 99.9% of progressive causes, then that makes progressivism as a system of thought a form of socialism.

    For some reason, commentators forgot all about those issues where socialists don’t agree with progressives, like saving the market based economy. Thats one pretty big ass concept that surely constitutes more than .1% of the issues.

    This was telling.

  • fafaroo

    With a mere “sometimes” the suspicion would indeed be idiotic.

    I didn’t catch this the first time through. “The suspicion.” The suspicion of what, Manju? That Obama really is a secret socialist because Bernie Sanders voted for the stimulus bill and the ACA?

    This is the idiocy you’re reduced to when you go “off topic,” the same old right wing talking points. When you’re “on topic” we get the same old right wing talking points with footnotes! You’re just too awesome for words.

  • fafaroo

    I noticed you switched out “99.9%” of the time out in favor of a mere “sometimes”. With a mere “sometimes” the suspicion would indeed be idiotic.

    I didn’t switch anything. It doesn’t matter if Bernie Sanders agrees with Democrats one hundred percent of the time or if socialists, in general, agree with progressives, one hundred percent of the time.

    The political alliances that one representative or one political movement may form to advance the causes it cares about does not mean that the party it aligns itself with the same, or a subset of it, or equally guilty of whatever flaws you may believe exist in the first party.

    If socialists vote with progressive Dems to support universal health care, it doesn’t mean that progressive dems are socialists or that they want to overthrow capitalism.

    But it’s cute to pretend otherwise isn’t it?

  • fafaroo

    Because this leads double standards which lead to tyranny.

    ROFLMAO! Really? It’s double standards? That’s the slippery slope to death camps and torture? Well, gosh, then Manju. I guess you are here serving a heroic purpose!

  • Manju

    The secret is out!Progressives are evil because socialists agree with them sometimes!

    I noticed you switched out “99.9%” of the time out in favor of a mere “sometimes”. With a mere “sometimes” the suspicion would indeed be idiotic.

    But to position progressivism as a virtual subset opens up the argument. Luckily for you I came along and exposed the flaw, before the RWing caught wind and had a field day.

    You’re an idiot

    Ergo, I’m Will.

  • fafaroo

    …wasn’t I just arguing about progressivism v socialism a moment ago?

    Yeah. And what a brilliant display that was:

    Thats a pretty big gap to fill. The RightWing has long suspected that the two groups were more aligned than they let on, so thanks for the candor.

    The secret is out!Progressives are evil because socialists agree with them sometimes!

    You’re an idiot.

  • Manju

    You clearly only know enough about one specific historic narrative to even try to “push back” on.

    yes, I mean denailistc narratives (plural) in regards to American Racism, like the two I cited. I suppose if someone denied the Holocaust I would call them out, but thats unlikely to happen here.

    I like cold war history too but communist denialism is thankfully rather rare these days. Its not like there are many Americans defending the NYTimes and the Nation’s denial of Stalin’s Ukrainian famaine.

  • Manju

    Why do you have to go to the past in the first place? Why not evaluate Frum on his individual merits and mistakes as outlined by Oliver here?

    Because this leads double standards which lead to tyranny. Oliver justifies his postion on Frum on this principle:

    So guys who enable bloodthirsty warmongering that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans don’t get a pat on the back, no matter how their new position may be the right one.

    I explored the principle by citing the best and historical //, given Vietnam and the CRA. The implication of Oliver’s argument is that LBJ does not even get a pat on the back.

    If one is not willing to come to that conclusion, then perhaps one should reassess the judgment made against Frum.

    I’m referring to when you object to what Oliver says is racist, Manju.

    Here is a case in point. Your argument about accepting the opinoin of Af-ams only applies to me accepting Oliver?

    Why would that be? I don’t see a purpose here other than to justify hackishness an hypocrisy.

  • fafaroo

    My main concern is pushing back on denialistic narratives.

    Oh please. You’re already on shaky ground if you have to make up words and phrases to identify your supposed target. And what’s with the plural there buddy? You clearly only know enough about one specific historic narrative to even try to “push back” on.

    Just stop with the “I’m just here to correct the record!” You’re a pedantic know-nothing, troll with pretensions to scholarship.

  • Manju

    it’s the only subject you want to or can talk about so every thread you comment on has to become about the civil Rights movement or you’ve got nothing.

    wasn’t I just arguing about progressivism v socialism a moment ago?

    http://www.oliverwillis.com/2011/06/22/video-bernie-sanders-vs-rand-paul/

  • Manju

    Manju, what the fuck is your ultimate point? Really, what is it?

    My main concern is pushing back on denialistic narratives. That should not require another justification. In Strowbridge’s case, his attempt to position southern repubs as more racists than southern dems denies the existence of “tantamount to election”, the racially coercive one-party region.

    Stuff like this should not be allowed on any website without being called out. One commentator describes the Jim Crow South as this:

    “The Democratic party at the time didn’t appeal to the racism of the south in order to win them to their side.”

    No one but me called him out.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Manju says: “CS, I explained above why I haven’t addressed your question yet.”

    Yes. It’s because you are a racist asshole. Because you are a racist asshole, you need to declare that Democrats are the real racists to make yourself look better by comparison, and now you are desperately looking for something, anything that will back that up.

    If you actually knew what you were talking about when you said you could answer that question, “soon”, then you would have answered it already.

    But no. You came to a conclusion before you did the research.

    “Since I’m responding to stuff like this, I’m Will.”

    No, since you are the one spouting bullshit that you clearly haven’t grasped, you are Clark.

    Who, if I recall correctly, spent time in a maximum security prison and had severe mental impairment.

    By the way, I’m mocking your tendency to take analogies literally. Although I do believe that’s a sign of mental impairment.

  • fafaroo

    As I explained, there are not many fits here.

    Yes, LBJ and David Frum are the only two people on the planet who have ever supported both immoral and moral causes in the same lifetime.

    Your insistence that a one to one analogy between otherwise completely disparate historical figures, however, belabored is the only possible means of responding to Oliver is a perfect example of both your pedantry and your desire to reduce the complexities of history into a “gotcha” comment on a blog. In other words, you’re a classic type A troll.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    The flaw in your argument is that there are more Af-ams in the USA than Oliver. I too referenced Af-ams to make my case agaisn LBJ. I’m sure there are Af-ams who disagree. When clinton made a remark about LBJ in the primaries, some defended, others attacked her. I sided with the attackers and noticed they were scholars and much more up on the historical context.

    I’m referring to when you object to what Oliver says is racist, Manju.

    As I explained, there are not many fits here. i could go with WFbuckley, John Tower, or Barry Goldwater, since they were pro-war and flipped.

    Why do you have to go to the past in the first place? Why not evaluate Frum on his individual merits and mistakes as outlined by Oliver here?

    But frankly their flip was after 64 so too late in my book. Flum is flipping during crunch time, as LBJ did.

    Thank you, Polonius.

  • Manju

    It would never occur to me to question Olivers’ judgment about racism and who’s a racist, because as I stated a while back, the opinion of any African-American not raised in a cave about racism has more experience and history behind them than I can bring to the table.

    The flaw in your argument is that there are more Af-ams in the USA than Oliver. I too referenced Af-ams to make my case agaisn LBJ. I’m sure there are Af-ams who disagree. When clinton made a remark about LBJ in the primaries, some defended, others attacked her. I sided with the attackers and noticed they were scholars and much more up on the historical context.

    so, diversity problematizes your argument.

    Or it could be that you don’t deal honestly with your blatant attempts to trash Progressives by dragging in LBJ at the drop of a hat.

    As I explained, there are not many fits here. i could go with WFbuckley, John Tower, or Barry Goldwater, since they were pro-war and flipped.

    But frankly their flip was after 64 so too late in my book. Flum is flipping during crunch time, as LBJ did.

  • fafaroo

    Te other reason why you went with LBJ, instead of just shutting the fuck up, is because you are and have been operating under the mistaken belief that democrats and liberals today think he’s some kind of saint or hero. Trust me. We don’t. Not now and not then. Feel free to do more research not he subject, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many dem politicians today wrapping themselves in the mantle of LBJ for precisely all the reasons you think we all need to be schooled on now.

  • fafaroo

    Manju, what the fuck is your ultimate point? Really, what is it? That history is more complicated than they teach in high school and you know this because after you retired you got a library card? That really seems to be what every one of your posts boils down to: you read a book about how the civil rights struggle was not a grand, clear cut battle between good and evil, but rather a series of compromises, failures, setbacks and pyrrhic victories between flawed men and movements that finally resulted in bringing real change to America but which only proved to be the beginning of a longer, more personal phase of the fight for equality. And then you took all that, boiled it down to “Liberals are the real racists because LBJ was a dick” and then started trolling liberal blogs. And since you’ve only bothered to read about that one subject, it’s the only subject you want to or can talk about so every thread you comment on has to become about the civil Rights movement or you’ve got nothing. Take this thread for example. There are a million examples from human history that you could have drawn on to challenge Oliver’s belief that people, like Frum, can’t redeem themselves or rise above their worst decisions. There’s a vast number of examples from history you could have chosen because every politician is forced to make good and bad choices over the course of their career. That’s what politics is all about. You could have gone into a completely different field: Do we ignore the brilliance of Intolerance because of Birth of A Nation? Or even better, do we ignore the Brilliant filmmaking of Birth of a Nation because of it’s racist message? So infinite possibilities, really, to refute Oliver’s position but you went wit LBJ. And even more, you insisted that LBJ was the only possible choice, as if constructing a flimsy, one to one analogy was the only option you had. But it wasn’t. You went with LBJ because you got nothing else.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Here, I’m not addressing civil rights per se, but the idea that “guys who enable bloodthirsty warmongering that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans don’t get a pat on the back, no matter how their new position may be the right one.”

    Which is why, out of all the possibilities from the history of America to use, you zero in on LBJ, and give a pass to the war-mongering Whigs and the 19th Century Conservatives who sought to expand the borders of this country ‘by any means neccesary’, to cite two examples for your consideration.

    I’ve been on RW websites and failed to convince anyone of TP racism or positive stuff about Obama. Does that mean I am wrong?

    Perhaps it demonstrates a certain lack of awareness, at the very least.

    My family has had some encounters with racism because of a Chinese lineage on my mother’s side, and I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject.

    It would never occur to me to question Olivers’ judgment about racism and who’s a racist, because as I stated a while back, the opinion of any African-American not raised in a cave about racism has more experience and history behind them than I can bring to the table.

    Does that mean he’s infallible on this matter? Of course not, he’s just another human being who is capable of making mistakes, and if you’re a friend to someone you try to call attention to that fact without making either party look like an idiot in public.

    You remind me of this joke about Claire Booth Luce and her audience with the Pope:

    Meeting Pope Pius XII, she allegedly instructed him to be tougher on communism in defense of the Church, prompting the Pontiff to a quiet reply, “You know, Mrs. Ambassador, I am a Catholic too.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Boothe_Luce

    You’ve read a few books, you’re getting acquainted with some primary sources, and all of a sudden you’re the Simon Schama of the politics and twisting politicians involved in the events leading up to the CRA passed in 1964 and 1965.

    On more academic (lefty) sites the response is more favorable. I’ve convinced lefties of JFKs collusion, for example.

    Yes, demonizing Progressives would probably bring you pats on the back on those websites.

    So the answer could be that you guys have more in common with the TeaParty sites than you care to admit.

    Or it could be that you don’t deal honestly with your blatant attempts to trash Progressives by dragging in LBJ at the drop of a hat.

  • Marco21

    The veterans of the civ rights movement is online. I’ve referenced it here before because I figured some of you don’t know how to use a library. – Manu

    So it will be our fault you don’t show your work? Got it.

  • Manju

    Manju’s posts remind me of this scene in Good Will Hunting (Manju = Clark)

    This fails because Clark is the guy who initates the sarcastic and condescending conversation. Will is the guy who responds to the condescension with more condescension and more knowledge.

    Take this thread. here fafaroo intiates:

    you read that one book that one time

    .

    Or this thread:

    http://www.oliverwillis.com/2011/06/22/video-bernie-sanders-vs-rand-paul/

    ur understanding of American politics isn’t sullied by any experience in the real world.

    Of course you do, oh expert on the United States.

    Manju is either too dumb to understand the basics of logic. Or he is dishonest enough to try and lie about i

    You are a lying piece of shit. You clearly have no interest in an intellectually honest debate. It’s no surprise you are a conservative.

    Since I’m responding to stuff like this, I’m Will.

  • TheRealityBasedDave

    Manju’s posts remind me of this scene in Good Will Hunting (Manju = Clark)
    .
    .
    Chuckie: All right, are we gonna have a problem?
    Clark: There’s no problem. I was just hoping you could give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War the economic modalities, especially of the southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian pre-capitalist and…
    Will: [interrupting] Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just got finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
    Clark: [taken aback] Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of–
    Will: …”Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth…” You got that from Vickers. “Work in Essex County,” Page 98, right? Yeah I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us- you have any thoughts of- of your own on this matter? Or do- is that your thing, you come into a bar, you read some obscure passage and then you pretend- you pawn it off as your own- your own idea just to impress some girls? Embarrass my friend? [Clark is stunned]
    Will: See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don’t do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
    Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you’ll be serving my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.
    Will: [smiles] Yeah, maybe. But at least I won’t be unoriginal.

  • Manju

    You’re so wise, Manju, it’s telling that you’ve convinced nobody here of your POV since you showed up.

    Why is that?

    I’ve been on RW websites and failed to convince anyone of TP racism or positive stuff about Obama. Does that mean I am wrong?

    On more academic (lefty) sites the response is more favorable. I’ve convinced lefties of JFKs collusion, for example. So the answer could be that you guys have more in common with the TeaParty sites than you care to admit.

  • Manju

    Which is why you bring it and LBJ up at every chance, even with posts that have nothing to do with the politics of the Sixties.

    Here, I’m not addressing civil rights per se, but the idea that “guys who enable bloodthirsty warmongering that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans don’t get a pat on the back, no matter how their new position may be the right one.”

    i was testing this standard by applying it to others in history who meet the criteria. LBJ jumped out. I toyed with Lieberman and Clinton too.

    This doesn’t take as much work as actually untangling civil rights history. its a mere application

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    i think you underestimate how rich and complex civil rights history is. Thats why its still being debated and revised in academia. You have to know an awful lot to answer that question properly since both northern dems and repubs opposed civil rights while pretending not to. Its not as simple as looking at the final vote of the 64 cra.

    Which is why you bring it and LBJ up at every chance, even with posts that have nothing to do with the politics of the Sixties.

    You’re so wise, Manju, it’s telling that you’ve convinced nobody here of your POV since you showed up.

    Why is that?

    Also, insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

    Just in case you didn’t know that one.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    I was being equally sarcastic with my not knowing how to use a library retort. i think thats pretty obvious.

    i’ve likely spent more time here than you

    Unlikely. I’m 52 years old.

    have been reading the American press daily since elementary school.

    I was reading newspapers since I was 4 years old.

  • Manju

    Because I’ve been here a while on this site, unlike yourself, and fafaroo was being sarcastic, not making a serious accusation without the support of facts and logic.

    I was being equally sarcastic with my not knowing how to use a library retort. i think thats pretty obvious.

    OTOH, with your inability to answer the question posed to you for several days, if not weeks now, with a weak excuse, “I haven’t finished my readings yet”, puts you squarely in the incompetent/thinks they’re competent camp, from my POV.

    i think you underestimate how rich and complex civil rights history is. Thats why its still being debated and revised in academia. You have to know an awful lot to answer that question properly since both northern dems and repubs opposed civil rights while pretending not to. Its not as simple as looking at the final vote of the 64 cra.

    I’ve tried to give these long answers before only to be met with extreme resistance and have my long comments reduced to things like “you are saying liberals are the real racists”. So, its not an easy task for this reason as well. I have to address an audience that is largely resistant to this narrative, even though it is not a RW one.

    on more academic sites I do not get this resistance. In fact, I also owe an explanation to a friendly commentator on racism review, a site run by 2 left-leaning academics. She wants the actual smoking gun evidence against LBJ and JFK. Been a few weeks cause I can’t riff it off like i can this comment.

    its serious stuff that should be segregated from low-level politics.

    Perhaps because I lived through the times in question, read what everyone said in the newspapers, magazines, on TV, etc., have read books about the subject since then.

    You know, experience.

    I avoided your line of argumetn b/c I thought you were going down the path of arguing the person not argument, and appealing to authority.

    I don’t mind the latter so much but since your authority is merely your own time (or Oliver’s) spent in the US, its doesn’t mean much. i’ve likely spent more time here than you, to answer your question and have been reading the American press daily since elementary school.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    How do you know this? Why am I an example but not the individuals who initiate? Here, fafaroo could have committed the fallacy you speak of with his, “you read that one book that one time.”?

    Because I’ve been here a while on this site, unlike yourself, and fafaroo was being sarcastic, not making a serious accusation without the support of facts and logic.

    OTOH, with your inability to answer the question posed to you for several days, if not weeks now, with a weak excuse, “I haven’t finished my readings yet”, puts you squarely in the incompetent/thinks they’re competent camp, from my POV.

    Indeed, in the other thread, you initiated this line of argument with “your understanding of American politics isn’t sullied by any experience in the real world”. Why aren’t you suffering from an “illusionary superiority”.

    Perhaps because I lived through the times in question, read what everyone said in the newspapers, magazines, on TV, etc., have read books about the subject since then.

    You know, experience.

  • Manju

    Be that as it may, you’re a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

    How do you know this? Why am I an example but not the individuals who initiate? Here, fafaroo could have committed the fallacy you speak of with his, “you read that one book that one time.”?

    How do you know he didn’t but I did?

    Indeed, in the other thread, you initiated this line of argument with “your understanding of American politics isn’t sullied by any experience in the real world”. Why aren’t you suffering from an “illusionary superiority”.

  • Manju

    CS,

    I explained above why I haven’t addressed your question yet. You know, I actually think about think about things and gather actual evidence. Its not easy to do. Real scholarship takes you outside of the Internet.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Manju: “I decline to respond in kind but I do take a generally patronizing attitude toward Strowbridge b/c I think his bile genuinely reflect the fact that he’s out of his league.”

    Is that why you keep running away from a question you said you would answer?

    You said you would explain why Norther Democrats were more likely to vote for civil rights than Norther Republicans. Now every time it is brought up, you run away.

    Why is that?

    Oh that’s right, it’s because you are a racist asshole, like you admitted in that same thread.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Consider the context. fafaroo on this thread is repeating the line about me only reading one book one time. So my retort is along those lines. A mild and patronizing insult.

    So, in response, you say that ‘some of us’ don’t know how to use a library.

    Perhaps some of us know how to use libraries and what real life in America is like than your patronizing abstractions learned only from books.

    In another recent thread, CS is spewing bile like this

    Then don’t engage him with your wisdom if he is clearly unworthy of it, oh wise one.

    I decline to respond in kind but I do take a generally patronizing attitude toward Strowbridge b/c I think his bile genuinely reflect the fact that he’s out of his league.

    Yes, you’ve been unable to answer his question for a while now, and I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer it.

    Be that as it may, in light of the context I’ve provided you, I submit that my assholishness is mild, appropriate, and restrained.

    Be that as it may, you’re a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, “the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others” (p. 1127).[2]

  • Manju

    Thanks for being concerned and patronizing at the same time, Manju, perhaps we just don’t know how to deal with assholes such as yourself.

    DA,

    Consider the context. fafaroo on this thread is repeating the line about me only reading one book one time. So my retort is along those lines. A mild and patronizing insult.

    In another recent thread, CS is spewing bile like this:

    The world would have been a better place if your parents had smothered you as an infant in your crib.

    Now fuck off and die with the rest of your racist brethren.

    I decline to respond in kind but I do take a generally patronizing attitude toward Strowbridge b/c I think his bile genuinely reflect the fact that he’s out of his league.

    Be that as it may, in light of the context I’ve provided you, I submit that my assholishness is mild, appropriate, and restrained.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    some of you don’t know how to use a library

    Thanks for being concerned and patronizing at the same time, Manju, perhaps we just don’t know how to deal with assholes such as yourself.

  • Manju

    Yeah, so don’t even think about following Manju motherfuckers! Manju ! What he says goes.

    Clarence Mitchel’s papers and the NAACP’s publications are some pretty famous original sources, so you should be able to get them at a decent library, making them not so different than the books I’ve referenced to you in the past.

    The veterans of the civ rights movement is online. I’ve referenced it here before because I figured some of you don’t know how to use a library.

  • Manju

    I’ve asked Manju before and I’ll ask him again — why do non-whites overwhelmingly vote Democrat these days

    Confirmed and acknowledged.

    I was actually thinking about that when Strowbriodge and others started to repeat the “no response line to the norhtern dems v northern repubs question. These are the only 2 questions I haven’t offerred a response to yet.

    In this case, the response includes sources outside of civil rights history books. Its related and concerns the southern strategy, but the scholars here are a different group and are using a very different methodology (statisticians).

    So I have to get you guys up to speed on a field of thought that as far as I can tell you are completely unaware of. Thats a long post and some individuals here are on the slow side.

    I will get to after I answer Strowbridge’s question.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    I’ve asked Manju before and I’ll ask him again — why do non-whites overwhelmingly vote Democrat these days.

    I’ve also asked him to go into an urban neighborhood and tell blacks why they’re stupid to vote for Obama.

    No response yet!

  • fafaroo

    Only to add, you’ve found a wonderfully worthwhile output for your original historical research, Manju: Trolling liberal blogs. What a scholar.

  • fafaroo

    Now I’m convinced that Manju is some kind of robot, programmed to drag every conversation down into the weeds of historical footnotes no matter what the original topic. Did a liberal say they like puppies? Well, LBJ had a dog that he named “Jim Crow” so clearly you’re the racist…

    Sheesh.

  • Marco21

    actaully, fafaroo…I’ve moved on to papers…original sources. – Manju

    Yeah, so don’t even think about following Manju motherfuckers! Manju ! What he says goes.

  • Manju

    actaully, fafaroo…I’ve moved on to papers…original sources. I’m reading The Clarence Mithchel Papers and the NAACP’s Crises mag (the issues published during the civil rights era). I’m also reading the Veterens of the Civil Rights Movement’s website.

    All these original sources keep track of LBJ, JFK, Dirksen, and Mike Mansfield in real time and are quite fascinating reads once you’ve got the basics of the revisionism (starting with Caro). These original sources completely confirm the new view of LBJ and JFK and are not too kind to repubs either. Its only that Ike and (pre souther strat) Nixon were so hosed by the first take done by white liberal historians like JFK fanboy Arthur schlessinger jr, that the revised ones make them appear heroes in comparison.

    Anyway, i know Strowbridge is waiting for a reply. I was going to wait until I finish the Clarence Mithchel papaers first, and until I can find a breakdownon some of teh votes of different cvi righs acts (the Naacp is the best source here, but they didn’t bother with some final votes, which is a story unto itslef).

    i’ll shoot out a reply within the next few days though. it won’t be the final say since I woudl actually like to see the complete data, but I’ll give you guys the basic framework necessary to answer the question on how northern dems compared to northern repubs.

    Its a very complex and nuanced history, so as I’ve mentioned before, I try to be very careful when I post on it.

  • fafaroo

    You should try that sometime.

    Manju, I really hate to break this to you, but getting through one book over the course of your entire lifetime is not something to be particularly proud of or cocky about, unless, of course, you’ve been illiterate for a significant portion of it. And even then, most people who come to literacy late in life prove eager to move on to book number two. Clearly, you’ve set yourself a lower bar.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    Frum is basically a more honest Andrew Sullivan.

  • Manju

    you read that one book that one time.

    You should try that sometime.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Manju says: “I’m having a hard time thinking of…”

    And excuse why Northern Democrats were more likely to vote for civil rights than Northern Republicans, while still accusing Democrats of being the real racists.”

    Is that what you meant to say?

  • http://www.corporate-sellout.com/ Thad

    I don’t see why we can’t say he’s right on one thing and wrong on another.

    I hate Scalia, but I agree 100% with everything he said in the Brown v EMA decision. I can applaud him in this one narrow instance while still thinking our nation would be better off if he hadn’t been put in a position of power. So with Frum.

  • fafaroo

    No need to explain yourself, Manju. We get it: if there’s any possible way to work LBJ and civil rights into the thread you will because you read that one book that one time.

  • Manju

    I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of warmongers who flipped on civil rights. Out of respect for lefty opinion I’m restricting the wars to Iraq and Vietnam, since they are almost uniformly considered bad and this way we avoid a side-argument over which wars qualify.

    So with that handicap who do we have besides Frum and LBJ? Clinton? But her pro-civil-unions stand makes her less than ideal. Lieberman? Similar problem. His role in the repeal of DADT makes him less than sinister. And what the hell is his position on same-sex anyway?

    The dixiecrats don’t quite cut it since most didn’t flip, and if they did, they did it so late after crunch time that who cares. Frum in contrast is flipping during crunch time. Also, we can’t assume they were warmongers since isolationism was popular in south. An then you have folks like Fulbright and Pepper who were straight up lefty anti-war on top of being segregationist. Pepper flipped but I don’t think Fulbright ever did.

    So I’m stuck with LBJ.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Remember when the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers?

  • Christopher Foxx

    That’s right kids: Saddam’s Iraq was a kite-flying utopia!

    That’s right, folks. When he isn’t posting links to things that disprove his own claims, Farris is busys himself arguing against things nobody ever said.

  • SaveFarris

    That’s right kids: Saddam’s Iraq was a kite-flying utopia!

    Though I can’t stress this enough: Oliver is 100% correct when he claims that David Frum is a complete douche. On that, I think we can ALL agree…

  • fafaroo

    It’s like clockwork.

  • Manju

    So guys who enable bloodthirsty warmongering that leads to the deaths of thousands of Americans don’t get a pat on the back, no matter how their new position may be the right one.

    Whoa, tuff standard.

    There goes LBJ’s place in history…assuming Vietnam is to Iraq as LBJ’s position on civil rights is to Frum’s on same-sex marriage.