Anybody incapable of wondering why I find the Democrats utterly distasteful should take a look at Matt Yglesias’s dismissal of Michael J. Totten’s reasons for leaving the Democrat party:
One would think that a person so passionately interested in foreign affairs would have bothered to research the foreign policy views of the leading figures in the political party of which he is (for a little while more, at any rate) a member.
Faced with something like this, it’s hard to believe that there’s much going on here besides schtick. Totten’s gotten quite a lot of exposure in places like FrontPage and OpinionJournal as the author of left-bashing articles and it seems to have distorted his view of what his own positions are and how close they are to those of the Democratic Party.
Always pay attention to any statement started with the phrase “one would think” – what follows is almsot guaranteed to be followed by unparalleled arrogance or snarling condescension. Matt and his commenters don’t let us down.
At some point, Totten has to go from being an ex-Democrat-about-to-turn-Republican into a boring, garden variety Republican. At that point, his schtick will become very dull — who wantas to hear yet another tale of a Repub describing how nice it is to be Repub. — and he’ll have to find a new one.
Perhaps he could become a Democrat. Hey, it worked for Winston Churchill.
Posted by: Ikram Saeed at August 7, 2003 10:15 AM
and this gem:
Sounds like Totten’s angling for a traveling panel spot as a talking head. They love the “former” Democrat tag more than most to give the appearance of a “balanced” debate (think Chris Caddall [sp?] “Former” Democratic pollster who, at least for the time I could stand cable news shows, seemed everywhere).
A guy’s just gotta follow the market, right?
Posted by: Thumb at August 7, 2003 10:39 AM
It is simply INCOMPREHENSIBLE to Matt and his readers that maybe he just believes the Democrats are heading in the wrong direction- and it is utterly impossible to the same crew that maybe, just maybe, Totten is right. Instead, he is either wrong, ill-informed, or simply an opportunistic whore trying to capitalize in the pundit market.
mark
Wonder if Matt would write the same about David Brock? Or Jim Jeffords?
Moe Lane
I dunno, John: the rhetoric didn’t particularly surprise me. Civil wars are usually messy, and the one that this exchange symbolizes is shaping up to be pretty nasty. Both sides think that they’re -right-, after all… and it’s hard to compromise on stuff when you are convinced down deep that you’re -right-.
Moe
Brandon
What Moe said, plus nobody likes traitor, or maybe a deserter is more what they see Totten as.
greg
Punditmark is right. As i said at another blog, David Brock is a sincere hero, but Dennis Miller is now an unfunny creep and Christopher Hitchens is a worthless drunk.
I’m sure there’s examples that go the other way, but i don’t feel like looking for them.
Matthew Yglesias
Ever seen me say anything good about David Brock? I don’t think so, and I know you read my site pretty regularly.
As for Totten, the point of the whole rest of my post, which you conveniently neglect to quote, was that the policy positions of the current contenders for the Democratic nomination do not greatly differ from the views Totten claims to espouse. If Totten had written that he’d had a change of heart about his political beliefs, I would have found that very understandable. Lots of people change their mind over time, and it’s especially common for people to get more conservative as they grow older. But that’s not what he said.
He said he was looking for a pro-environment, social liberal, who supports progressive taxation, increased health coverage, and the war in Iraq. That’s a description that fits Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt a whole lot better than it fits George W. Bush. Moreover, though Dean and Totten disagreed about the war in Iraq, Dean and Totten appear to have the same views about how to proceed from here in the Middle East.
Given that Totten, according to his own statements, agrees with the policies favored by the leading members of the Democratic Party it’s a bit hard to see why he finds them so distasteful.
Moe Lane
“He said he was looking for a pro-environment, social liberal, who supports progressive taxation, increased health coverage, and the war in Iraq. That’s a description that fits Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Dick Gephardt a whole lot better than it fits George W. Bush.”
Matthew, you should be aware that you’re giving the impression that you never took into consideration the concept of ‘weighted values’ while writing this comment. I mention this merely because if you’re trying to evoke the Right’s stereotypes of the Left re foreign policy, better by far to do it consciously…
John Cole
Matt- I didn’t conveniently neglect to quote anything. I LINKED TO YOUR PIECE. I was angered many by the tone and tenor of your piece and the commenters. All that is in the rest of your piece is your assertion that the Democrats you named were for the war and wouldn’t cut and run. No mention that perhaps Totten had analyzed their comments over the past few months and regards them as disingenuous, or, *GASP*, has come to the conclusion that Bush’s policy is better.
Whatever is driving his decision or political position, to be met only with what I termed snarling condescension, which is what you offered up, is below someone of your talents. Not to mention distasteful, impolite, and immature.
John Cole
Not to mention, of the pro-war candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt), the only two that have a shred of credibility on the issue are Lieberman and Gephardt. Kerry has tried more positions than Traci Lords, and Edwards is just absurd in his commentary.
Having said that, apart from Lieberman, none of them have come forward ith actual proposals that amount to much more than “This wasn’t planned well enough, I can do better, and we need international help.”
Michael J. Totten
Well, I’m not becoming a Republican any time soon, if ever. So let’s not misunderstand that.
I understand why Matt is confused at my discontent. I do. He even makes me reconsider to some extent.
The bottom line, though, is that I care more about national security and human rights than any of the other stuff. And, as Joe Katzman put it in his Mogadishu Democrats post, which inspired my post in the first place, much of the Democratic hawk stuff is more message than substance. THAT is what really bothers me.
Lieberman is the only one I trust on a gut level, but I also think he’s a boring and uninspiring conservative. I worry about the others, even when they make the right noises.
My reaction to the party is more visceral than intellectual. That’s what Matt does not understand.
Feste
Chris Caddell?
One would think a Leftie would know PAT Caddell lost 49 states for Walter Mondale, and just as many for George McGovern.
Losers all.
John Cole
I really like Pat Caddell. I don’t like his politics, but he is a sincere, decent man, who really cares about what he believes in- I will take that over half my Republican party and most of the Dems who are just frauds any day of the week.
Kimmitt
If one is comfortable with the idea that the President lied relentlessly to the American public to get us into a war which was a boondoggle distraction from the business of going after Al Qaeda and the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 (and which was fought at the expense of actual improvements to homeland security, such as port security and containment of the North Korean nuclear threat), then one probably is not going to be a big fan of the current crop of Democratic candidates. Though one does have Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt to choose from, to the Party’s shame.
Did I miss a mass-Kool-Aid drinking ceremony somewhere? When did an invasion of a country which was not associated with the terrorist attacks on the US translate into being tough on defense? And why does advocating the invasion of a country whose leader actually is tied to Al-Qaeda (Liberia and Charles Taylor) make one weak?
David Perron
I see Kimmitt is reduced to drinking-the-Koolaid metaphor, yet again.
Yes, Kimmitt, the evil moron Bush has got us all under his spell. That’s the only possible reason for the situation we now find ourselves in, isn’t it?