Monday, February 11, 2008

Che Hillary

The Feministe gals have pictures of some of the shirts being sold at CPAC. For the most part, they're standard, uncreative affairs: Roe v. Wade equals the Holocaust, stop illegal immigration, people are poor because they're stupid and lazy. But one in particular caught my eye: the one comparing Hillary Clinton to Che Guevara.

Over the past few years, I've seen a concerted effort by American conservatives to push back against the image of Che as some hip, cool hero. Che, they argue, was a brutal thug, a wanna-be totalitarian who caused countless deaths [Interesting digression: my roommate, a Republican-turned-Marxist, has a big poster of Che in our room -- complete with a time line of his life. A friend of mine and I spent about 20 minutes looking it over, trying to find "oversaw the deaths of untold Cuban peasants in show trials." "Maybe it's under 'Minister of Labor'?"]. And of course, they're right.

But now they say Hillary = Che. Isn't this unbelievably demeaning to all the victims of Che's barbarism that they say they care oh-so-much about? These are the folks who have a seizure every time some jerk on a comment thread writes "Bushitler". But they're playing the same game, and at one of their largest and most prestigious conferences. It's disgusting.

10 comments:

PG said...

I think the closest comparison to what they're doing with Sen. Clinton and Che would be what some lefties do in calling people on the religious right the "Taliban" (e.g. Brian Leiter's references to the "Texas Taliban"). When one says that, for example, Jerry Falwell was like the Taliban, one means that both had a punitive attitude toward what they deemed to be ungodly behavior, and both preferred to live under a religiously dominated government where laws were based on religious doctrine rather than an overlapping secular consensus. Similarly, the CPAC types are saying that both Che and Sen. Clinton are "socialists."

In both the leftie comparison and the rightie one, the tactics used to achieve one's ends are ignored. As little as I think of Falwell, I doubt that he wanted to have homosexuals crushed under walls as the Taliban did. (Although maybe he just realized that going that far would marginalize himself -- who knows?) Sen. Clinton, even if you accept the "socialist" label for a NAFTA-supporter, has no apparent desire to kill people to achieve her ends.

But in each case, the people making the comparison do so because they find the ideas being promoted so bad that how the promoter attempts to achieve them becomes irrelevant. Leiter finds it so wrongful to want to punish sodomy and to teach religion in schools, he doesn't draw a distinction between achieving those goals through constitutional means and achieving them through cruelty and death. The CPAC folks find single-payer health care to be so incredibly horrible, they don't draw a distinction between seeking its adoption democratically and having it forced on people through brainwashing camps.

Of course, to my mind the Taliban were wicked for BOTH their means and their ends; certainly it's better to put homosexuals in prison than to crush them under walls, but both strike me as very wrong. And while I'm not sure single-payer health care is the way to go, people in most of the rest of the industrialized world seem to be managing OK. (I don't know of an industrialized country that imprisons homosexuals and teaches creationism, so there's not really a comparison point there except to America's own history. And this is the fundamental philosophy of conservatism: we think pretty much everything that's happened so far has been great, so let's not disrupt anything too much, lest we jar our greatness -- even if we can't actually trace our greatness to a habit of irregularly imprisoning homosexuals.)

Cycle Cyril said...

Comparing Hillary with Che is of course ludicrous and over the top. This comparison by right wing groups/groupies is simply wrong no matter how wrong you think her policies and where they may or may not lead.

But look at this link where Obama's supporters, without a doubt without Obama's knowledge, display a Cuban flag with Che's image on it. The small photo to the left of the flag is of Obama. Does it indicate the relative importance of Che to Obama of at least some of his supporters?

Should this cause some people to reconsider their support of Obama? Well let's reverse the situation and imagine a Republican candidate among whose supporters number some admirers of Musolini or worse.

It should definitely cause the general public to wonder how and why any politician could attract those who admire a brutal totalitarian.

I think that the press and the candidate, if he had any hope of election, would come down hard on them and disavow them.

Let us see what, if anything, Obama does.

PG said...

Well let's reverse the situation and imagine a Republican candidate among whose supporters number some admirers of Musolini or worse.

It should definitely cause the general public to wonder how and why any politician could attract those who admire a brutal totalitarian.


Thanks, I really needed a laugh today.

Let's see, Republicans who regularly get reelected with the support of people who are self-declared white supremacists -- not mere admirers of someone who, among other things for which he is known, was a brutal totalitarian:

Ron Paul, who accepts donations from the guy who runs Stormfront, one of the most notorious white supremacists sites, and is favored by David Duke because of Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other anti-discrimination legislation.

The various politicians noted by the Southern Poverty Law Center as continuing ties with the White Citizens' Council, most damagingly Senators Trent Lott and onetime Republican presidential possibility George Allen.

And it's not just who Republican politicians hang out with, but who some of them are: James Hart won the Republican primary for a TN Congressional seat. (To their credit, the state party tried to get a different candidate, but I guess Republican voters in that district knew what they liked.)

I don't hold it against Republicans who are supported by KKK members that this is some of their base. You hold certain positions, you're going to attract certain kinds of people. LBJ reportedly knew he was losing the white South for the Dems when he signed civil rights legislation.

It's a pathetic attempt at distraction to say that because Obama has supporters who are Che fans, he must "disavow" them, rather than state what his own beliefs are on totalitarianism. (I'm guessing it's going to be along the lines of "Totalitarianism bad. Next?")

But hey Cyril, if you're sincerely stressed about Obama's supporters being pro-totalitarianism, I'm planning to volunteer for his campaign for March 3 and March 4 in Houston -- exactly where that office with the Che flag was hanging. I'll do my best to find out the totalitarianism stance of his other volunteers while I'm there.

Cycle Cyril said...

There certainly are Republicans with supporters who are not "desirable" particularly as a presidential candidate.

But the ones you've noted are truly marginal politicians who have been marginalized by Republican organizations or marginalized by their limited appeal to the general Republican voter. This would include Lott.

But my contention is that a presidential candidate, if he was a Republican and supported by rascists or totalitarians, would be hounded by the MSM until he denounces them. But I would be surprised if the MSM runs with this and hits on Obama. Also my contention is that one way of determining the character and policies of a candidate is to look at who he attracts (and whether he accepts or rejects them.)

Finally ascertaining whether Obama's supporters are pro-totalitarian is not enough. They will, in all likelihood say no. Even though they paste a huge image of Che, casting Obama's image into the shadows, on the wall. But the question is do they support policies that can easily lead to totalitarian rule under such rationales as it will make the trains run on time or some other feel good policy.

Admiring Che clearly indicates poor judgment and not rejecting such admirers also indicates poor judgment let alone attracting such people.

Jack said...

Hahahaha. You're hilarious. Trent Lott retired as the Senate as Minority Whip...five years after the Strom Thurmond comment! He won re-election in 2006 with an overwhelming majority!

You don't mention George Allen who was a Presidential contender. What about Mitt Romney taking a picture with a sign that compared the Democratic candidate for President to Osama bin Laden?

The flag was obviously put up by some oblivious staffer who had no idea who Che was. Given that tons of mainstream young people have Che paraphernalia and don't know he was a mass murderer that isn't surprising at all.

Do you really think it would be hard to find a racist Republican?

Cycle Cyril said...

Lott lost his leadership position soon after his Thurmond comments and only regained a leadership position years later and after admitting the errors of his ways. If you don't believe in the redemption of people then I would imagine that you think the Byrd of WV, as a former KKK member should be kicked out the Senate.

Allen has lots of allegations and little proof of racism. Be it as it may he was not re-elected to the Senate.

As for the sign with Romney is it inconceivable to you that someone can legitimately be against Obama and Osama and Chelsea's Mama? (And without calling in the Army to track down Obama or Mama - if they could do it at all!)

But among the issues here is that all too many on the left are not just oblivious but denying facts. All too many people are willing to do anything, like Che did, to achieve their goals because if the intentions are so good then the consequences don't matter.

Another issue is whether the MSM will pick up on this issue of the Che flag. What do you think would the MSM do if McCain had an office which displayed a Confederate flag?

Ultimately the issue is not finding a racist politician of either side of the aisle, the issue is who supports Obama, are they the kind of support he really wants and if not what will he do about it.

PG said...

As even NRO is honest enough to note, the Obama campaign called the flag inappropriate as soon as they heard about it.

Finally ascertaining whether Obama's supporters are pro-totalitarian is not enough. They will, in all likelihood say no. Even though they paste a huge image of Che, casting Obama's image into the shadows, on the wall. But the question is do they support policies that can easily lead to totalitarian rule under such rationales as it will make the trains run on time or some other feel good policy.

What policies would you consider likely to "lead to totalitarian rule"? I'm afraid that to me, policies such as warrantless wiretapping and seizure of information, indefinite detainment without trial, and so forth *seem* like useful tools for totalitarianism, although of course they are really for the "feel-good" policy of protecting us from terrorism.

However, I'm guessing you have different metrics. National health care? (I guess V for Vendetta HAS come to pass in the UK.) Handgun control? (Ditto.)

Seriously, I am happy to ask the Houston Obama folks what they're in favor of, and will report back here. Just tell me what questions to ask to determine whether someone supports leading-to-totalitarianism tactics, because to me, having the president's spokesman declare at a press conference that Americans "need to watch what they say, watch what they do," ain't a good sign.

But among the issues here is that all too many on the left are not just oblivious but denying facts. All too many people are willing to do anything, like Che did, to achieve their goals because if the intentions are so good then the consequences don't matter.

Cyril, who are these "many on the left" whom you seem to be accusing of being on the verge of violence to achieve their ends? You are full of accusation and rather short on details like names.

Admiring Che shows one is ignorant. If ignorance of all of one's hero's record unfits one to be the supporter of a mainstream candidate, I hope no one you're supporting has any supporters who admire Ron Paul. I can point you to plenty of Ron Paul admirers who aren't aware that after despite declaring most federal spending illegitimate and saying that we should follow a strict Constitutional model, he still engages in earmarks -- even though the executive is under no Constitutional obligation to pay attention to Congressional action that hasn't been voted on. Or that Paul has decried the use of the interstate commerce clause to prohibit employment discrimination (even though employment is rather central to commerce), yet voted for the "partial birth" abortion ban, which tells physicians what procedures they can use and takes away their (state-granted) medical licenses and imprisons them if they don't obey -- even if they are performing the abortion for free, with no commerce involved.

I find it really bizarre that instead of looking at the candidate himself, you obsess over what his volunteers might do.

What do you think would the MSM do if McCain had an office which displayed a Confederate flag?

Uh, not be fantastically surprised, given that McCain in 2000 said, "Personally, I see the battle flag as a symbol of heritage." (Possibly part of his own heritage, as he had slave-holding ancestors.)

I think I'll stick to measuring candidates by their own words and actions rather than those of far-removed, unapproved proxies. Despite your obsession with what the MSM cares about, I'm more interested in my own standards for politicians. But perhaps like me, most people in the MSM find it a bit silly to tar a politician for the foolishness of his supporters.

If you really want to start that battle, however, I'm sure there are liberal bloggers who are happy to go out and find Bush's, McCain's and Huckabee's voters who are KKK, white supremacist, etc. Heck, those in Southern states can start combing McCain supporters -- particularly those approved by McCain, e.g. as fundraising chairs for a state, etc. -- who are pro-Confederate flag.

Cycle Cyril said...

Obama, if you read his note carefully does not say the flag is inappropriate. The heading cites “on reports of an inappropriate flag…”, the body (which was added in the last 24 hours) of the comment simply states Obama is disappointed. It does not say anything about Che himself. Makes one wonder if the disappointment is over Che or the negative publicity.

I’m a believer in limited government and, more or less, the precepts of Hayek. The Road to Serfdom is an excellent primer to read to avoid totalitarian rule.

Those on the left are of course encompass a broad spectrum of ignoring consequences. Most are not violent and thankfully most of those who are do not live in the USA. But there are those on the left who enact laws with good intentions and ignore the consequences. These range from enacting minimal wage laws which cause employers to fire entry level workers (similarly in Europe because it is difficult to fire workers employers don’t hire them as freely and thus the unemployment rates are higher) to what I would say is nonviolent aggression such as attempting to force universities from dealing with Israeli universities and pension plans from investing in Israeli companies.

Do I obsess over Obama volunteers and supporters? No, I merely observe who they are, for that is yet another indication of who the candidate is. To flip it around if politician Z had upfront volunteers who displayed the Confederate Battle Flag and maybe even members of the KKK would you discount that in your consideration of the candidate? I would hope not.

Are their own words more important? Of course. But their supporters are also important which is why it is a law to disclose the source of funding. Politicians have to be responsive to those who donate their money AND to the volunteers who donate their time. This is why we need to know who they attract.

PG said...

Which one of us is having trouble with the English language? You say that there was no statement that the flag was inappropriate, only that there was an "inappropriate flag." When I learned grammar, using an adjective before a noun was equivalent in meaning to using a noun, passive verb and a predicate adjective. (E.g., "That is a lazy dog" = "that dog is lazy.") My understanding was that the concern was about volunteers who would put up a Cuban flag with Che's image, not about Che himself, who is fairly well dead and unlikely to walk into the picture. Thus the disappointment is that the volunteers would do this, not that Che existed (really very late in the day to be disappointed about the latter).

If you think the enforcement of minimum wage laws is equivalent to what Che did, your sense of morality is seriously out of whack. If you find the existence of such laws to indicate totalitarianism, then every industrialized country is totalitarian, and totalitarianism crept through the U.S. with states' passage of minimum wage laws during the Progressive Era.

I never said you were obsessed with Obama's volunteers, I said, "Despite your obsession with what the MSM cares about, I'm more interested in my own standards for politicians." You keep saying, "Did the MSM cover this? How would the MSM hypothetically react to that?"

As someone who doesn't have the NYT editorial board do the thinking, I don't much care what the MSM's reaction to anything is.

Politicians don't have to be responsive either to donors' or to volunteers' concerns. If you really believed they did, I devoutly hope that you would be a lot more stressed by Ron Paul's knowing acceptance of money from an avowed white supremacist, than Obama's unknowing permission to have Che-fans volunteer for him.

So what are the questions I'm supposed to ask the Houston volunteers to determine their pro-totalitarianism? Whether they support minimum wage laws?

Cycle Cyril said...

Obama's web page does not directly say the flag is inappropriate. It addresses itself to "On Reports of an Inappropriate Flag...". It then says "We were disappointed to see this picture...it does not reflect Senator Obama's views."

This could be read in a number of ways but it is not a direct renunciation of the flag. It could mean, for example, they were disappointed to see this picture and the publicity it got but not so "disappointed" with Che per se and that Obama's views this as a negative reflection on him primarily as a publicity faux pas but does not view it as an opportunity to directly denounce Che.

And no, I was not saying what Che did to minimum wage laws. My point is that the range of Liberal/Left activities is wide and that rarely do they look beyond their good intentions at the actual consequences of their actions. This can escalate to the point, for a few, wherein they are willing to grab power and curtail laws and imprison and kill opponents. Virtually all of the major totalitarian ideologies of the 20th Century started with socialism in Russia, Italy, Germany and China.

I'm glad to know that you have your own standards for politicians, which I hope you form independent of the MSM. But I am aware and I hope you are aware that the MSM, despite its falling share as a source for news for the general public and being out sync with much of the public, still has a significant influence on the public. So yes, I do have a bit of an obsession with them. I much prefer the British papers which have an outright political bent and makes no bones about it.

Ron Paul was and is a fringe candidate who very well may lose his seat because his views are now widely known. I will shed no tears if this happens.

While politicians don't, strictly speaking, have to be responsive to donors or volunteers they usually are, and overall this is a good thing. For by being responsive it indicates that they are actually listening to their constituents. If they don't listen to their constituents then they are out on street. That is the democratic way in a representative democracy. That is why I am against government funding of elections (but with full accountability of all donations - did you know that at present campaigns don't have to report names and other info on donations of less than $200 and that Obama, as well as McCain, has taken in a large number of such "small" donations which very well may include foreign moneys as suggested in this article.)

I don't have any questions for you but only a couple of books for you to read like
this, this, and this.