« No sex please, we're revolutionaries | Main | The free market set his compensation »

The hell with standards

By Michael J. Smith on Tuesday October 14, 2008 10:03 PM

A recent comment on an earlier post raises some questions that deserve above-the-fold treatment. I had written about the silliness of lefties getting worked up about The National Enquirer throwing muck (think of that!) at Frank Marshall Davis, an early mentor of Obama's. Djur replied, in part:

... The question of whether "the Left" should promote this attack on Frank Marshall Davis is completely distinct from whether Obama deserves to be protected (which he doesn't).

For one thing, regardless of whether the allegations are true, the idea that Obama's youthful association with this man can be used to attack him is odious. I don't consider myself squeamish about politics, but expanding guilt by association to that point has dire consequences....

This evokes a number of thoughts. First among them: opposing the National Enquirer -- or treating it as anything but a louche carnival attraction -- falls into the category of futile acts that an Irish friend of mine warned me against years ago: "Nivir wrrestle with a pig. Yez both get dirrty, but the pig enjoys it."

All right, this is a little frivolous, and Djur is being serious. Let me try a different tack.

The Enquirer is prominent among the ancestral enemies of well-meaning, high-minded, intelligent, educated liberal folks. I have a kind of instinctive reluctance to join in any tut-tutting against these bogeymen. It's too much like joining forces with the liberals -- in defense of standards, or objectivity, or civil society, or good taste, or something else at least as illusory as the space aliens who populate the Enquirer's pages.

One grants too much, I think, to the bien-pensanterie, in deigning even to deplore the Enquirer.

The high-minded need a low-life to despise. But personally, I despise the whole sick symbiotic mutually self-serving charade: faux-populist Bronx cheers from the Enquirer, and expressions of pious horror from folks with more educated tastes. Everybody comes away smiling from these encounters: the Enquirer because it has sold papers, and the noblesse de robe because they have shown what superior souls they are.

Then there's the question of consequences. Djur writes: "expanding guilt by association to that point has dire consequences."

No doubt. But we've been living with these "dire consequences" for generations. Guilt by association is how American politics works. Just a couple of days ago I put up a post about the Obama campaign's guilt-by association approach to Muslim organizations. In this context, the Enquirer's mudslinging looked a lot to me like poetic justice.

And granted that the consequences are "dire" -- granted that we all wish our society ran on a different basis -- what are we Lefties supposed to do about it? Well, we might reason, the Day of Jubilo appears to be some ways off, so perhaps in the meantime we should tidy up our cell and try to step on some of the biggest roaches. Like the National Enquirer.

The problems with this argument, to my mind, are two. First, I don't believe in tidying up the cell. I'm kinda with those IRA lads at Long Kesh who decorated their cells with their feces. (At least in principle -- I'm fairly cleanly in private life.)

Second, though, and perhaps less controversial: who, after all, are the biggest roaches? I would argue that the National Enquirer is a roach so diminutive that you need a microscope to see it -- unless you're on board with the liberals and their dictatorship of standards.

Naah, if you ask me, the New York Times is the biggest roach. That's the one to take a whack at, whenever you get the chance. The Times knows the secret of misinforming and deluding people who think, by virtue of their superior qualities of mind and their expensive first-class educations, that they can't be hoodwinked. Compared to the damage the Times does, the National Enquirer is very small beer indeed.

Comments (4)

Nicholas Hart:

Very insightful. There are far better things to be doing with our time than defending Obama--and the primary effect of engaging in this kind of debate is that it distracts attention and discussion from issues of *actual* importance.

Djur:

Well, I obviously didn't make my main point very clearly, and I apologize for that. Besides the secondary concerns of poisoning the well of discourse, &c., my main issue is that a man who has nothing to do with the Obama campaign is being needlessly and viciously slandered on the basis of no evidence.

op:

complete agreement

excellent slant father S

and
rough justice to the non crushed
but propmtly expunged
nyt scribbler types ????

might it not involve ALLO-PATHY..

but then banishment
to a career at the Inquirer
might create too much space
for self serving
winston smithery

After his bus-toss of Reverend Wright and the prior super-cynical exploitation it revealed, I wouldn't walk across the street to defend Obama -- against anybody.

And trying to defend Ayers in this context would only validate the claim that leftism is beyond the pale.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Tuesday October 14, 2008 10:03 PM.

The previous post in this blog was No sex please, we're revolutionaries.

The next post in this blog is The free market set his compensation.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31