Comments on: So Now Dissent Is Patriotic!

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:34:58 +0000

Of course, at the time the piece was written the war had not yet begun, and the war was a product of a certain ideological agenda. It is convenient to forget this now after the war went so badly and that agenda was discredited. Frum defined anyone who objected to certain policies and, yes, a certain ideological agenda as unpatriotic. He also engaged in tendentious and selective readings of antiwar arguments, but that is a distinct issue. There is no obsession with his hit piece. I have written about it perhaps five times in the last six years. However, it does come to mind when Frum’s former colleagues make arguments that make it seem as if they have never denounced their opponents as unpatriotic and collaborators with the enemy, when it has been SOP for a great many of them for some time. Seriously, Steve, why would you defend these people at this point?

By: sburton

sburton — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:25:23 +0000

The ongoing paleo obsession with that ancient David Frum piece gets more and more ridiculous as the years go by.

Moreover, an ideological agenda is not the same thing as a war – and wishing failure on an ideological agenda is not the same thing as wishing for failure in war.

Steve Burton

By: cbh8377

cbh8377 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:02:47 +0000

Hah! Great post. The rule is simple for these people: It’s not unpatriotic if the they do it. Corollary: It’s unpatriotic if they oppose it.

Another important rule: Jonah is a nitwit.

By: David Tomlin

David Tomlin — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:32:56 +0000

An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal says that Obama’s proposed federal budget would take 27.7% of the national income in fiscal 2009, noting that this would be a post-WW2 record.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

Here is some official data for comparison, unfortunately going back only to the 1960s.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

Click ‘Historical Budget Data’, and select Table F2.

The federal share of the national income peaked at 23.5% in 1983, the third year of the Reagan administration. It has not gone above 22.3% since Reagan left office.

It is one of the pieties of our civil religion to suppose that everyone wants the president to ’succeed’, leaving vague the matter of what he is to succeed in doing. Wishing presidential failure is a bold heresy, provoking the question ‘fail at what?’ It calls some needed attention to what the president’s agenda is, and why we might want it to fail.

By: Derek Copold

Derek Copold — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:22:15 +0000

Your post is spot on, but in fairness to Goldberg, in his blogginghead pieces, I’ve heard him express some contrition for the Iraq War. It’s grudging and framed with excuses and throat-clearing, but he is coming along.

By: gsmart

gsmart — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:25:34 +0000

Nice post, bulls-eye.