Home | Away

Mister Answer Man:  Special Human Rights Edition

Dear Mister Answer Man:  At Obsidian Wings, Charles Bird asks, “Can we agree that, no matter how the words are weaseled, putting American in the same sentence with Nazis, gulags and the Khmer Rouge has no place in civil political discourse?” Is this just another tendentious wingnut reading of Dick Durbin’s June 14 Senate speech, or is it really the morally serious question it purports to be?  I can’t make up my mind.  – J. Humphrey, Montreal

Mister Answer Man replies: It is a morally serious question of the first order, Mr. Humphrey.  And that is why, if Mister Answer Man ever encounters someone saying, “do you know, the Americans have tortured and killed just as many people as were tortured or killed by the Nazis” or “in the gulags” or “by the Khmer Rouge,” he will declare that such sentences have no place in civil discourse.  Mister Answer Man frowns menacingly at all sentences that suggest that America is exactly like Nazi Germany / Soviet Russia / Cambodia under Pol Pot.

Indeed, one of the most profound things about Mr. Bird’s question is that it implicates numerous other rhetorical maneuvers that have no place in civil political discourse.  Applying the Bird Principle, we can agree that, no matter how the words are weaseled, the refusal to hold all nations to a single moral standard—for example, Article Five of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights—has no place in civil political discourse.  Equally important, in light of recent events, we can agree that whenever an elected American official argues that the United States should not employ the tactics of brutal, totalitarian regimes, smear campaigns against that official have no place in civil political discourse.

After all, it is axiomatic that when morally serious persons encounter horrific crimes against humanity, they do not resort to casuistry, pettifogging, or related forms of bullshit, such as arguing that the crimes are not nearly so widespread or systemic as other crimes.  Still less do they waste their time and ours by parsing the words of those who call attention to those crimes in order to try to stop them, demanding that human rights organizations and elected officials should say “a couple of bad detention centers here and there” instead of “gulags.” On the contrary, they welcome and applaud the efforts of all those who seek to uphold the ideal of universal human rights, and they especially welcome American political figures who seek to prevent the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, from engaging in behavior that undermines that ideal.

Mister Answer Man thanks you for your question, Mr. Humphrey.  It was a bit naive, but perhaps greater familiarity with the work of Mr. Bird will help you think more rigorously about human rights in the future.

Posted by on 06/21 at 09:15 AM

  1. "it is axiomatic that when morally serious persons encounter horrific crimes against humanity, they do not resort to casuistry, pettifogging, or related forms of bullshit”

    Your subsequent examples fall under the example of “bullshit,” but neither casuistry nor pettifogging seems apt as a description.

    By the way, did I ever tell you about the time I made William F. Buckley, Jr.’s face turn black? When he recovered his ability to speak, he accused me of pettifogging.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  10:33 AM

  2. whoops, make that “of casuistry.” Buckley accused me of casuistry.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  10:34 AM

  3. Mr. Answer Man neglects to append a note that despite the restrictions on polite speech he so aptly describes, comparisons of anyone to the left of Nelson Rockefeller to Stalin or Mao are always in good taste.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/21  at  10:54 AM

  4. “It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942: ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.’”

    --Sen. Rick Santorum, referring to his Democratic colleagues

    Now, I know what you’re thinking, but rest assured that the commenters over at Red State have already given Santorum’s remark careful consideration and decided that it is utterly insignificant in comparison to Durbin’s treachery.

    Why? Because.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  10:57 AM

  5. "anyone to the left of Nelson Rockefeller”

    However many people were to the left of him,
    EVERYONE was above him. That guy was short:
    they always filmed him from below to make
    him look taller, apparently. When I met him in person I was shocked by his diminutive stature and his bad complexion. His skin looked like chipped beef on toast.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  10:59 AM

  6. Mister Answer Man respectfully points out, Mr. Clarke, that the rules of civil political discourse do not apply when the subject is to the left of Nelson Rockefeller.  And Mr. Kvetch, there is no reason to object to Senator Santorum’s analogy between the Democratic filibuster of far-right judicial appointees and Hitler’s occupation of Paris in 1942.  Senator Santorum was simply pointing to the little-noticed similarity between Janice Rogers Brown and the French Resistance, while deftly suggesting that the presence of Democrats in the Senate is best described as an illegal occupation.  Nothing wrong with that.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  11:07 AM

  7. I have always believed the rules of civil discourse didn’t apply when the subject is to the left of Augusto Pinochet, or possibly Torquemada for you history buffs.

    Posted by Prudence Goodwife  on  06/21  at  12:00 PM

  8. "I have always believed the rules of civil discourse didn’t apply when the subject is to the left of Augusto Pinochet”

    And was he to the right or to the left of Stroessner?  Living here in Monroe County, New York,
    and indeed in the 28th congressional district, we have Clinton and Schumer for U.S. Senators, and Louise Slaughter (no relation to French Slaughter, a democrat who ran unopposed every 2 years in Virginia) as our U.S. Representative. All pretty left wing.  I am not sure our local sherrifs deputies like that: one of them made some snide remarks about Louise to me once. Ah, the separation of powers is a lovely thing.

    Posted by david r. mcirvine  on  06/21  at  12:13 PM

  9. The discourse would be much better served by use of sports metaphors. Use of referees’ hand signals for “unecessary roughness,” “illegal contact” and “personal foul” would also facilitate television coverage of Senate debate on torture methods.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  12:15 PM

  10. Grant, you’re absolutely right.  Here, we could use some advice from Italian politicians and media, where there is a longtime practice of using sports metaphors.  My favorite is the phrase “scendere in campo” (get on the field) for a politician who makes his/her opinion known about a particular issue while in parliament.  Hell, Berlusconi’s party, “Forza Italia”, is based on a stadium cheer.

    The irony here is that if there’s a place for civil discourse in the U.S., it’s in sports.  My Italian friends still marvel at the fact that you can go to games of any American sport and take your children without fearing for your life.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  01:00 PM

  11. Normally I try to be witty or funny, along with the rest of you, in my comments.  But today I’m just pissed off.  WE ARE KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE in our Iraq war and in our insistence on electing officials who don’t give a shit about the poor, sick, and dying--either in our own country or somebody else’s.

    My sister is client services director of AIDS Project of the Ozarks in Missouri.  Matt Blunt (son-of-Roy)and MO’s republican legistlature have successfully gutted Missouri’s health program for the poor, including greatly reducing the number of services for which Missouri’s Medicaid program has to pay.  Many of APO’s clients are poor, which means they’ll be dead soon.

    Fuck Bird and his “voice of moderation.” Fuck anybody who gets their feathers (no pun intended) in a ruffle when somebody compares systematic murder to systematic murder even if the similarity is only in kind, not in degree.  But we’re getting there on that second part, too, by degrees.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  01:29 PM

  12. Uncle Kvetch: I have to point out that both John Cole and Tacitus have argued, at RedState, on the front page, that it’s silly to waste time thinking about parsing Durbin when we ought to be thinking about torture. Tac, in particular, is not someone I normally agree with, but credit where credit is due.

    Posted by hilzoy  on  06/21  at  01:32 PM

  13. Hilzoy, please note that it was the commenters at Red State I was referring to, not John Cole or Tacitus, who are indeed to be commended for taking the stand they did.

    The comments threads after each of their posts suggests that Cole & Tacitus are, for the time being at least, voices crying out in the wilderness. And at least one of those commenters specifically alluded to Santorum’s “Nazi” comparison before dismissing it as inapposite, because...well, because it’s different, apparently.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  02:05 PM

  14. Mr. mcirvine, I feel obliged to quibble with your characterization of Senator Clinton as “left-wing.”

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/21  at  02:06 PM

  15. Chris: As a fellow constituent of HRC, I second your quibble. If only she was as much of a lefty as the batshit Right has made her out to be…

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  02:19 PM

  16. I think no country in the whole world can stand morally right at certain points of time in history. No one can wash of guilt and history and stand innocent and look the other way and pretend to do not know.
    BUT I do think that for the people in some countries it is harder to know the truth, because their media are not free to speak and oppose. In those countries where the press is really free, the responsibility to stand up is calling louder for the more you know the more you must act against.

    Renee

    Posted by renee wagemans  on  06/21  at  04:21 PM

  17. Bra-freaking-vo, Mister Answer Man.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  04:43 PM

  18. "Mr. mcirvine, I feel obliged to quibble with your characterization of Senator Clinton as “left-wing.””

    All those years of Al D’Amato and she sure seems left-wing.  But the quibble is noted. BTW, I think the Bush pere administration did not give any federal money to road work here. Let’s get some deputy sherriffs out of the dunkin donuts (where they harrass my wife and daughter) and paintin’ lines!!

    Posted by david r. mcirvine  on  06/21  at  05:26 PM

  19. Yes, but Senator Al did give rise to an acceptable lefty party band in Buffalo food coop circles called the Alphonse T’Omato Band. They were the first band I ever heard cover Power In The Darkness by TRB. Maybe the only one, in fact.

    But I went door to door for Elizabeth Holtzman in 1978, and so I know what a real liberal NY Senator can be. Or can’t be.

    Hell, my Mom worked for Javits for a few years, and he was left of Hillary.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/21  at  05:52 PM

  20. #

    “Yes, but Senator Al did give rise to an acceptable lefty party band in Buffalo food coop circles called the Alphonse T’Omato Band.”

    At Saint Alphonso’s Tomato breakfast (where I stole the mar-gar-INE)?

    “ They were the first band I ever heard cover Power In The Darkness by TRB.”

    That old chestnut......

    “ Maybe the only one, in fact. But I went door to door for Elizabeth Holtzman in 1978, and so I know what a real liberal NY Senator can be. Or can’t be. “

    Elizabeth Holtzman: Ruth Scott (city councilwoman for Rochester) and her husband were over at my parents’ house on Douglas Road, just after Liz lost by a whisker to Al ("crusader for the forgotten middle class” was his slogan that year) the Killer Tomato D’Amato.

    I confess!! I’d actually FORGOTTEN to vote that day (I was busy being a literature undergraduate). Ruth’s husband said: “So YOU"RE the one....” well the election wasn’t all that close, but he was almost right. I suffered through six years of D’Amnitall as US Senator, wondering why I wasn’t more organized. I learned my lesson.

    Now, I’ve babysat and house-sat for several different city council members here in Rochester, (Hi Lois!) New York, but Ruth"s husband liked to kid me. I feel old: some of those kids are grown yuppie lawyers now.

    Posted by  on  06/21  at  06:07 PM

  21. well the election wasn’t all that close, but he was almost right.

    It wasn’t all that close?  Ahem.  D’Amato 45 percent, Holtzman 44, Javits 11.  D’Amato beat Holtzman—yes, I canvassed for her too—by 81,000 votes; Javits, running on the Liberal Party line (in a debacle that eventually helped to destroy the New York Liberal Party, and with good reason), pulled 664,544.  And refused to drop out of the race right to the end, even though he was (a) very ill and (b) clearly throwing it to the hideous Alfonse.  A great senator, that Jacob Javits, and well left of Hillary too (which makes him close kin to Mao), but his final legacy to his constituents was eighteen years of D’Amato.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/21  at  06:51 PM

  22. "It wasn’t all that close?  Ahem.  D’Amato 45 percent, Holtzman 44, Javits 11.  D’Amato beat Holtzman—yes, I canvassed for her too—by 81,000 votes;"--*MFB*

    This would be on Long Island ("the island,” to some) Michael?  My admiration for you grows and grows.

    Oh, and I swear....IT WASN’T MY FAULT!!  Liz lost by more than one vote!! (smile)

    Posted by david r. mcirvine  on  06/21  at  07:04 PM

  23. Oops. Damn, it was a long time ago. 1980, not 1978.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/21  at  07:15 PM

  24. whoops, make that “of casuistry.” Buckley accused me of casuistry

    and then Jonah Goldberg accused you of being unserious and you were flung, chastened, from the building?

    Gee whiz. I thought Buckley was proud of his casuistry. It’s practically his only talent.

    Posted by julia  on  06/21  at  10:06 PM

  25. Coruscation does not imply casuistry.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/22  at  01:01 AM

  26. After some consideration, I think I need gently to call Mr. Answer Man to task. There is an issue of potential bias of which his readers must be made aware.

    It’s not that Mr. Answer Man’s responses are wrong, or in any way misguided or unpatriotic. Nor do they fail to sufficiently support our troops. But his origins leave Mr. Answer Man vulnerable to criticism from the right, and I think Mr. Answer Man ought to come clean about those origins once and for all.

    Which is to say that - as many of us on the left know, to our chagrin - Mr. Answer Man has strong organizational ties to Mr. Workers World Man. In fact, many people consider Mr. Answer Man to be, in essence, a front for Mr. Workers World Man.

    This is not to say that all of Mr. Answer Man’s responses are aware of that affiliation. I think it’s clear that some of Mr. Answer Man’s responses merely wish to oppose the war, without regard to Mr. Answer Man’s ties.

    And it’s obvious that Mr. Answer Man is a more reliable source of information than, say, Mr. Not In Our Name Man.

    Still, I think it important for Mr. Answer Man to address this issue, especially as Mr. Red-Baiting Man becomes ascendant.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/22  at  06:35 PM

  27. Point well taken, Mr. Clarke.  But Mister Answer Man has always supported the right of his close associate, Mr. Workers World Man, to oppose the war and take part in antiwar demonstrations.  Mister Answer Man wrote, on the very first page of this blog, that “I have never suggested that the WWP or any other neo-Stalinoid splinter group be driven out of the antiwar movement.  I believe that every mass movement is allowed to have its fringy wingnuts, and we are certainly entitled to ours.” But I don’t believe my friend Mr. Workers World Man can effectively lead a broad antiwar movement—not simply because he’s vulnerable to criticism from the right (who isn’t, these days?), but because he keeps alienating progressive Jews with that “Palestine must be free from the river to the sea” business, and it’s hard to see how an antiwar group can get anywhere on Israel / Palestine matters that way.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/23  at  08:13 AM

  28. While “other rhetorical maneuvers” can be had, Michael, whether they are apt--such as your silly question on Article 5--is another issue.  While I’m glad you deign to deem the question “morally serious”, it seems odd that your real beef seems to be the person who was asking it.

    Posted by Charles Bird  on  06/23  at  05:07 PM

  29. Welcome, Charles.  But I don’t see where I asked a question about Article Five, nor do I see what’s silly about invoking it here.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/23  at  07:38 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: About Durbin's apology

Previous entry: Hannity, Hewitt call for torturing Dick Durbin

<< Back to main