Good god.

I almost never waste my time on Kirchick's posts anymore.  Do people still call him "Mini-Me?"

I guess the point of this post is that you don't much care for Robert Dreyfuss, or The Nation.  Fair enough, I suppose, but who cares?  

As far as I can tell, Dreyfuss holds fringe views - at least that is what emerges from this post.  If so, why bother to argue against those views - is that really any better than setting up a straw man?  Is it worth your time, or does venting your animosity for this man serve psychic purposes of your own, rather than the interests of your readers?

Having exposed the bankruptcy of the man's views, is it necessary to call him a fascist too?

I don't know why I bother to express my dismay with your writing, Mr Kirchick.  Perhaps I am mistaken to believe that there is somewhere at TNR an editor who is equally appalled.  It would appear to be so.

I saw this headling, "Blaming America First .  .  .  " and thought, Oh, this is probably another Kirchick whine, but went to it anyway because I have this compulsion to stay current with what is being said by TNR writers.  I shouldn't have bothered.  I couldn't care less what some The Nation columnist is saying.  I would appreciate a thoughtful piece about the real politic of why we can't get Russia and China on board in Zimbabwe, and what we might be able to do to get Russia and China to stop being obstructionists, but that is not Mr. Kirchick's style.

The Kirchick blog entries seem to be different in kind, not just different in conclusion.  They do not seem to fit in at TNR.  Why is Kirchick still writing here?

Incendiary headline: check

Obssessive commentary on fringe magazine: check

Good message smothered under a ton of needless snark: check

Personal attack: check

Use of the signature words "fascist" and "shallow": check

Post by Kirchick: check

Jamie, I don't blame America for this mess, but this Presidency's policies.  The dollar is in the tank and China hold two trillion dollars of US debt; the US military is over stretched; the US cannot provide security coverage to its allies; the rise of oil prices, a direct consequence of Bush'd policies, has made Russia a rich and far more powerful country than at any time during the Cold War.  Reflect on that a little bit, and you will see how moronic these posts of you sound.

A substantively good post almost ruined by bad writing and poor impulse-restraint. And then the closing paragraph ruins the piece. It's both ad hominem and nonsensical. If Dreyfuss were really a fascist, then he would, yes, want the Zim malcontents to just shut up already. But he would also want the United States to be stronger, not weaker, and a world where an American leader with the values of Putin had greater say. Plus, the causality that Jamie implies -- but note, is too cowardly to assert outright -- gets the real world exactly backwards. As Jamie would perhaps know if he had the life experience of your average 25-year-old shift worker, people don't believe foolish or crazy things because they've joined an unsavory group. People join unsavory groups because they're foolish enough to believe crazy things, or crazy enough to believe foolish things. The mindset precedes the group-joining; it does not follow from it.

Which is to say, the fact that Dreyfus might still be a member of the Larouche cult doesn't make his writing suspect. Rather, the fact that he would write foolish or nasty things suggests that he might be the kind of person who would join the Larouche cult.

Also, to suggest that Mbeki and Putin share "values" is ridiculous on its face. But how, Jamie would ask, can two people who agree on any given subject not share entirely identical worldviews and moral values? Since Ron Paul may be a bigot, doesn't it therefore follow that all libertarian activists are therefore bigots? QED, right? By way of example, there are a lot of people who supported the Iraq invasion because they're cryptofascist assholes. But there are also a lot of people who supported the Iraq invasion because they are committed antifascists, albeit kind of dim and gullible antifascists. Jamie supported the invasion; the fact that so did a number of cryptofascist assholes doesn't mean that Jamie is also a cryptofascist asshole. Possibly, like most supporters of the Iraq war, he's just not actually very smart. (I say as someone who recognizes in his own prior support for the war a great deal of poor judgment.)

Likewise with Mbeki. Just because Putin would seem to support the Mbeki position on Zimbabwe, and Putin is a pseudofascist, it doesn't follow that Mbeki is a pseudofascist himself. He's clearly not. Rather, Mbeki is a stubborn, self-righteous fool. Just look at his domestic policies: He's an inflexible know-it-all, not a true authoritarian. He is, essentially, a South African Woodrow Wilson or George W. Bush, not a South African Mussolini or Franco.

Is it just me or is James Kirchick just a poor man's Oilver Kamm [Google if you don't know him]?  Now, I don't hate James' writing as much as everyone else seems too, but he does need to vary his act a little more...

Which is more interesting: (a) Original analysis of the politics the Bashir indictment; or (b) a snarky, invective-filled rant in response to a short blog post by some obscure, uninteresting leftist analyzing the politics of the Bashir indictment?

If you picked (b), you might be Jamie Kirchick.

Rhubarbs: Well put, as usual.  But "dim and gullible antifascists"?  Ouch.  

But then, I believed that the United States would plan properly for both the invasion and the occupation, because they had done so in '90.  

Dim and gullible: check

Androscoggin:  Turning to the indictment itself, over the summer I taught a course alongside some of the former prosecutors of the ICC;

As well, the President of the ICC used to be my boss in an earlier incarnation (for both of us) and I know him very well.  It'll be interesting to see how matters develop if the case does fall into his lap.  He is a highly intelligent and wily operator and Darfur would be precisely the kind of case that he would be very good at judging ... if Bashir is every brought to justice.

But then, you know, when the diminutive Mrs. Arbour (now the Commissioner of Human Rights for the UN; yet another notable Canadian) read out her indictment of Milosevic, who'd have thought that the old fascist would end up in jail, eventually killing himself by refusing to take his heart medicine?  At the time, there were a lot of people who questioned the judgement of that indictment; but it was a far-reaching and prescient move.  I doubt if Bashir will come to grief over this - Ahmadinejad has already supported him and Iran will, presumably, offer sanctuary should Bashir leave office - but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the days of immunity for leaders have passed.

Rhubarbs, right on as usual.

This is another predictable offering from little Peretz. The headline said it all; it should have read: "Obscure nut provides opportunity to flay the usual suspects and battle strawmen." As for Mbeki's laughable approach, we agree on that. No worries, Zuma will be in charge soon enough. That should be a real treat. He's a rapist, a racist and fool but he doesn't like Mugabe. Guess those are the trade-offs.

In any event, where's the Carter blame? Jamie must be a little off his game.

Thanks to the author for pointing out the continuing wingbat nutty crap that often comes form "the Nation".

Kirchick, well done. No wonder that the usual Talkback nuts are at you. It went beyond their little mental capacity, all spent watching Austin Powers movies. Write something mnore pop culture, then the imbeciles addicted to pop culture comparisons -the Mini-Me cretins- will like you.

Quite predictably, they have a mob mentality and condemn you before reading - TV addled their brains too much for reading. Then they're upset that you dislike their far Left nutty fellows. How dare you criticize The Nation? The old ones among the Talkback mob were Commie sympathizers. The young ones wear Che Guevara T-shirts and "understand" suicide bombers, especially against Jews.

Keep at it, Kirchick - who you annoy shows you are doing a good job.

I was goingt to post another withering comment on kirchick's tired schtick but after chuckling through the queue, what for...

Also, I want to read exaclty what Dreyfess actually wrote before making judgment. Kirchick has earned a reputation - at least with me - as being one of most dishonest reporters of the words of others. Many times, I have read his [outraged and shrill] take on what others have "said", only to learn, after I take the time to read those words, that the person didn't say that at all...

Now, this Dreyfess guy does seem to fit the perenniallly dissatisfied and sulky The Nation type - I outta know, I have read that magazine for as long as I have read tnr - but again, I do not trust kirchick on this stuff and will read it for myself...

I find Kirchik's articles a refreshing addition to TNR after reading the usual leftist trope of EVERY SINGLE WRITER here except for Marty.  TNR is beginning to sound like an echo chamber.  Note ethelfrug's comment which doesn't address at all why Russia and China have voted time and time again on the side of despots from Afghanistan to Iraq to the Sudan to Zimbabwe.  I've said this at least 50 times, the UN Security Council's inclusion of Russia and China's veto power is like giving a gangbanger a jury by his "posse" in court.

Dear TNR,

Please consider releasing Mr. Kirchik from the staff of your magazine.  His writing is putrid, his personality abrasive, and his ability to actually analyze and communicate information non-existent.  Paying customers deserve better.

Sincerely,

James F. Elliott

Does immolatiing strawmen contribute to climate change? If so, should the EPA regulate Jamie's posts?

Does immolatiing strawmen contribute to climate change? If so, should the EPA regulate Jamie's posts?

That dopamine rush triggered by reading Dreyfuss' blog must be mighty addictive.  I can't think of any other reason why you bother with it.    

Funny thing sleepy, there wasn't a single defense of the Nation or what RD wrote, yet you seem to think the previous posters were doing just that. That means there are three possibilities: 1) You're not bright enough to actually comprehend what you read 2) You failed to read the previous posters and just assumed they defended RD's incoherent rants 3) You're just plain dishonest and prone to use the same sort of strawman arguments as JK. I'm guessing 1 and 3.

In any event, I'm fairly certain that most of the posters here are not sporting Che Guevara t's and lamenting the plight of suicide bombers. They just find this type of tired strawman argument useless and boring. If you don't, my sympathies, life must be tough being so easily stirred up by fake outrages.

Again, JWL, this is a center left magazine; don't be surprised to find comentary from the Center Left. If you're looking for republican talking points, you can find them at NRO.

mpatrickhendri: there is a fourth possibility, that sleepyavl is just a computer algorithm programmed to patch together "mob mentality", "Che Guevara", "Far Left", "anti-Semite" or "against Jews", and "Commie Sympathizer" in various combinations in response to any and all posts.  I mean, it is downright impossible for a sentient human being to be so stupid or patently dishonest.

mpatrickhendri:

You're absolutely right.  Key word is "CENTER-left." There's been nothing Center about TNR for 6 years.

James Kirchik, people like Dreyfuss think as they do for the same reason that people like Eric Hobsbawm do.  In other words, "who the hell knows." They're somewhat immune to logic and reason.  Like the mouse that bites on the electrified cheese time and time again.

www.city-journal.org/.../bc0709jk.html

Regarding sleepyval, part of the reason I object to Kirchick's tired, dishonest rantings about obscure writers at "The Nation" is that I don't like "The Nation." I don't read it, I don't want to read it, and I don't want to read _about_ it in publications I do read. And if I am going to be forced to read about "The Nation," is it really so wrong to demand that the article be original, interesting, reasonably argued, and competently written?

In other words, I find Jamie's work in this post distasteful for precisely the same reasons that I find "The Nation" distasteful. It's not a matter of whether I agree with the content or not -- and in fact I basically do agree with what Jamie is so hackneyishly saying here. It's a matter of whether an article I agree with is any good. And this one is not. It's unoriginal, uninteresting, poorly argued, and badly written. Just like much of what one finds in "The Nation."

The third paragraph of the Dreyfuss article is:

-- First, there's the indictment today of Sudan's President Bashir by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Hague-based body that was rejected by the Bush Administration but is now embraced by Washington over Sudan. The indictment, not a surprise, was widely feared by world diplomats, who concluded that the consequences of indicting the Sudanese president were unpredictable and probably both dangerous and counterproductive.

Which Kirchick converts into:

-- He doesn't like that the International Criminal Court has indicted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Why? Because Russia and China -- those paragons of democracy and human rights -- were opposed.

This statement by Kirchick is a flat out lie.

The New York Times also had an article on the request for an arrest warrant. The New York Times didn't wait until the third paragraph to introduce concerns about unintended consequences of the request. The second paragraph of the New York Times story is:

-- The prosecutor’s pursuit of Mr. Bashir introduced new volatility to the already chaotic situation in Darfur. While some diplomats and analysts worried that the move would undermine efforts to negotiate peace and provide aid to the millions displaced by violence, others said it offered new leverage to pressure the Sudanese government to end the conflict in Darfur.

www.nytimes.com/.../15sudan.html

For the record I support the request for an arrest warrant but remain aware there could be unintended consequences. One of which is the opportunity it afforded James Kirchick to once again demonstrate he is not a journalist and that he should have no place at The New Republic.

rhubs,

I do agree tnr is a better magazine than The Nation, and generally - peretz and kirchck excepted of course - the quality of writing, the balance of perspective, and the reality based nimbus found here at tnr is more to my liking. That said, I find the columns of Eric Alterman, Patricia Williams, Gary Younge, Katha Pollitt, and Naomi Klein to be top notch and comparable to any writer here at tnr.

Re Kirchick: This guy spends way way too much time on the fringes. Very very weird and revealing that covering wackos and fringe shouters is his chosen cup of tea. Bizarre. I suppose someone has to do it but why do we have to have tnr polluted with this stuff?  Do I care about Ron Paul anymore?  Do I give a rat's ass about that the recent bigotries of Pat Buchanan?  If I choose to skip over this Dreyfuss weirdo when I actually read The Nation, why then do I have to step in his piles here at tnr?  Why is Dreyfuss becoming a staple of the ever growing stable of kirchick grudges and freak show obsessions?

Oh, and though I am not a huge fan of the self professed, Senor Suave (LW), his Arts Section is fabulous and of the highest quality. The Nation's is so bad that it is almost laughable. Incoherent, very little in the way of theme or concept, haphazard at best in terms of quality. TNR is for me, the gold standard in the Arts category.

ndmackenzie: The RD paragraph you quoted proves Rhubarbs' point about low brain activity at the Nation.

I have dealt with diplomats and international diplomacy for most of my career, and frankly I have not met a single "world diplomat".  Proper diplomats never "fear" and rarely "conclude", even if a body of diplomats can be found to express a single view or conclusion without appropriate qualifications.

This is not journalism or opinion-writing; its crap.  To waste anyone's time to attack this crap is also crap, and to do so while writing badly and sneeringly, is crap squared.

I'd happily discuss the negatives and positives of the ICC indictment - and while, in principle,  I agree with it, I don't think it is without complications in a highly volatile region.  Let's then discuss the pros and cons; I'd like to see some original reporting of named diplomats of specific countries, or of analysts, who know the region and who can examine in some detail what these pros and cons are.  I don't read The Nation, but I do subscribe to the TNR; it is the TNR that should do its work on this issue; and Kirchick's obssessive and poorly written diatribes do not, frankly, measure up to any standard of journalism.

Anyone who defends Kirchick on this post is a certifiable lunatic. (I added this last line specifically to draw out another Sleepy frothing-at-the-mouth post: "are you board certified? lunatic comes from luna and refers to the Moon, and everyone knows the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, and so you are anti-Semite to use the work lunatic." )

icarusr -

I pointed out that The New York Times wrote broadly the same thing as did the Nation with regard to the worries of diplomats - although the Times used the word "some" where the Nation used "world," and the Times did the "some say, others say" routine typical of the MSM. Dreyfus didn't do the "others say" part perhaps because his article was looking at the negatives.

ND: Indeed; I was not objecting to your own post, but noting the RD excerpt.  

There is a world of difference between "some" and "world" when talking about diplomats, experts, or garbage collectors for that matter.  And while one might not like the "routine typical of the MSM", sometimes, as in this case, "fears" and "worries" are not the only sensations that are evoked by the indictment, and one cannot trade in absolutes when talking about assessments.  If you only mention the one side, then you are writing not an analysis but a polemic; if you replace "some" with "world", you are exaggerating; if you trade in absolutes in a gray situation, you are simply wrong.  Any way, this is why I prefer not to bother with The Nation.

This is also why Kirchick's posts appear to me misguided, in target, in substance and in tone.  Let's discuss the subject matter, and let's weigh the alternatives.  Insults and sneers will not get anyone anywhere.

icarusr writes -

-- If you only mention the one side, then you are writing not an analysis but a polemic;

But surely this applies in spades to each and every article about the Israeli-Palestinian problem in The New Republic.

I don't read The Nation and have only - following the recommendation of thejauntyboulevardier -  bought the issue containing Eric Alterman's smackdown of Martin Peretz. But I really don't see the problem in an article that says there are potentially quite significant and unforeseeable side effects from the request for an arrest warrant and here are some of them. We know for example that the UN is withdrawing staff as a consequence. That being said, however, I believe this request and hopefully its issuance is a positive move.