In the midst of confusion surrounding Doug Kmiec’s missive at Commonweal, I thought I would offer as a public service a guide to help people know if they might be running a right wing hate site. Admittedly this confusion seems to be of the sort as finding impropriety at a brothel, but I will act in good faith. This is not intended to be comprehensive, nor is it a checklist.
- Your blog/site typically referred to Obama supporters as ultimately wanting to increase the rate of abortion. The supporters were either stupid or devious.
- Your blog/site uncritically accepted as gospel that support of Obama were grounds for refusal of communion in your milder moments or outright excommunication except for those spineless bishops in your less tender moments, unless the Obama supporter were irredeemable stupid.
- Your blog/site continually speculated that a person’s stated reason(s) for supporting Obama were impossible to believe and substituted theories of personal corruption being more likely, no matter how poorly researched or plausible.
- You or your blog/site engaged in campaign to deny employment and or speaking opportunities, even grossly speculative employment like an ambassadorship raised on a blog post for crying out loud, for the sin of having publicly stated the election of Obama would be preferred over McCain.
- The idea that someone disagreed with you over who to support for the President leads primarily to a debate over whether that person was stupid or evil.
OK, I know I don’t qualify — several of Kmiec’s most prominent critics — Douthat, Bainbridge, Rick Garnett, etc., don’t qualify.
I am sure this net catches a large number of blogs (and BTW, what about a blog that on several occasions speculated that most of McCain’s support was motivated by racism?) But that still leaves a large number of criticisms standing, which Prof. Kmiec leaves unaddressed in his bid to portray himself as a martry to the hate-filled blogoshpher.
…what about a blog that on several occasions speculated that most of McCain’s support was motivated by racism?
That was hardly speculation. We heard outright “I ain’t racist or nothin’ but I just couldn’t vote for a black man” from an adequate number of people to know that race was an issue for many people who voted for McCain.
I won’t say so about you in particular because I haven’t read you enough to know, but I will say that playing the hypocrisy card without knowing my position on the particular matter is a pet peeve.
There are many times when one chooses not to specify specifically whom one is criticizing. There have been several blogs that have given I can’t understand what he could be referring to replies. Start there.
I am not saying Prof. Kmiec is making this stuff up — I am quite certain all of his accusations are grounded in reality.
I am saying that I think Prof. Kmiec (and, to a lesser extend, Vox Nova posters), should be able to engage in a higher level of discourse than pointing to his most uncivil critics and feeling sorry for himself.
Prof. Kmiec was subject to a lot of nasty criticism and unfortunate pastoral decisions, that’s true. He was also subject to a large amount of legitimate and measured criticism.
If he (and you) are really interested in elevating the discourse, that should be his focus.
“Your blog/site continually speculated that a person’s stated reason(s) for supporting McCain were impossible to believe and substituted theories of personal corruption being more likely, no matter how poorly researched or plausible.”
“The idea that someone disagreed with you over who to support for the President leads primarily to a debate over whether that person was stupid or evil.”
I hadn’t considered Vox Nova a hate site, but I guess it is…
Not long before the election, MM said, “I have a sneaking suspicion that more people oppose [Obama] because of his race and background than because of his views on the right to life of the unborn.”
So by the standards presented here, Vox-Nova is a “hate” site. I’m not accusing Forrest of being a hypocrite, I’m just saying that his logic leads to certain conclusions.
“Signs You May Be Running a Right Wing Hate Site”:
(6) Prominently displayed among your “Inspirational Catholic Reading” links are:
obamacrimes.com
anncoulter.com
obama-ayers.com
worldnetdaily.com
obama-antichrist.com
What is the percentage of people who are primarily right to life voters in America?
In my state, 1 out of 5 people actually told pollsters that Obama’s race and background was a primary factor in their vote against him.
Maybe MMs claim is a historical verity.
As a note, I believe MM is not checking the site presently and in the immediate future due to other engagements.
Mark,
While I would suggest that the burden of making a charge of racism falls on the accuser, and MM offered no evidence whatsoever for his assertion, there is evidence to the contrary. Public opinion surveys show that about 62% of Republicans ‘sympathize more’ with the pro-life position, and over half identify as ‘pro-life’. In M.Z.’s phasing MM was making an baseless accusation, ‘no matter how poorly researched or implausible’.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Didn’t see your comment about MM prior to posting M.Z. In any case, I think your post is basically an exercise consisting of pots, kettles, and blackness, or, alternatively, specks, beams, and eyes.
This was Kmiec’s saddest piece so far. Again so much more about him than Obama or anything else. It is a repeated theme
What is missed and I guess is being missed on here as to the one time communion issue many conservatives lept to his defense.
He is pretty much a guy that launches great generalizations but can’t take criticism or very well explain the fact that he has some radical changes of heart in a short period of times.
Prominent US Catholics that were Demcorats Flynn , and Lindy BLogs that were pro-life but supported Pro-Choice nominees were not held to the same examination for obvious reasons. At least they were consistent.
For those that are are saying that it was improper to speculate about Kmiec’s possible motives many of us are still scratching our heads how Kmiec could switch to Romney (that was actually less friendly to Catholic Soical Justice Issues than McCain- think immigration) and go to Obama. Again a lot of unanswered questions.
I hope Kniec can recover take a break and become a real part of the dialouge
At this point, there isn’t much to say about Obama (of course if he wanted to be worse than the murderous lunatic Bush, he’d really have to try hard). Cheers to Obama for this (notwithstanding his “having it both ways” stance on other gay rights issues – I assume that’ll subside).
President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that marred President Clinton’s first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama’s agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.
“Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, ‘Is the new administration going to get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy?’” said Gibbs, looking into the camera. “Thadeus, you don’t hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it’s, ‘Yes.’”
The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on that one-word answer when asked by FOX News on Wednesday about a timetable for repealing the policy, which was enacted by Clinton after a protracted public debate. Obama officials also would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Obama hasn’t mentioned a SINGLE policy that I agree with. In fact, every single appointment he is putting on the cabinet, and every single stance on any issue is un acceptable. You don’t need to run a hate blog to have that opinion.
People’s hopes of Obama being a uniter have shriveled, unless you’re ready to be assimilated.
What does “right wing” add to hate? Isn’t hate hate, plain and simple? Or does this imply that there are other varieties of hate sites (left wing, centrist, and so forth)?
Kmiec referred to right wing sites. There is plenty of hate to go all around.
Centrist hate sites ?
There certainly are left wing sites that get very nasty. Overall I’d say the right has a significantly higher percentage, in particular when reactionary politics form an unholy alliance with what passes as Christian.
To sum up vox-nova’s point here: “You’re either with Obama or you’re with the terrorists.”
In October my ordinary said:
“To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.”
I guess that means that the website of the Archdiocese of Denver is a “Right Wing Hate Site”.
I guess MZ has overcome his hesitancy of criticizing bishops.
If you think your ordinary qualifies, that is your evaluation. It is not mine.
Admittedly, your ordinary is the gift that keeps on giving. No matter what side of the argument one is on, one will eventually be able to quote him as an advocate.
Well, at least he can’t be accused of being lukewarm.
I don’t know that there’s any “confusion” over Kmiec’s Commonweal article. Who’s confused?
But it’s actually a great article. Think of all the people out here who have spent so much time wondering, “Have there been any obscure bloggers somewhere who talked bad about Douglas Kmiec”? Well, thanks to Kmiec’s selfless and thankless service in writing that Commonweal article, no one needs to spend countless hours reading through every result for “Kmiec” on Technorati or Google Blogsearch. Doug Kmiec has thoughtfully done that on behalf of all of us, and he is able to list all of the Kmiec trash-talking that has occurred anywhere on the Internet. From now on, anyone who is troubled by the pressing question, “Did anyone say bad stuff about Doug Kmiec before January 2009,” can just look up that Commonweal article and rest easy.
This is yet another reason that Commonweal stands apart as the intellectual and literary magazine that it is.
I’ve decided to censor myself. After having made the statement, I considered deleting but having seen SB respond didn’t think there was much point. I apologize for the ill considered comment.
Thanks!
M.Z.,
Respectfully, do you really think saying ‘You’re not very smart!’ and ‘You’re boring!’ is helpful to anyone?
It’s probably about as helpful as saying, “There’s some nasty right wing bloggers out there.”
Mr. Kmiec did not, before, make any strong impressions on me. I knew he was a Catholic voting for Obama, but that does not mean much to me, since they are a dime a dozen.
However, I recently read a eulogy he wrote about the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and I have rarely been so disgusted in my life. A eulogy is supposed to be concerned with the deceased, but Mr. Kmiec somehow managed to make it all about himself. I understand that Mr. Kmiec may be experiencing some hurt feelings, or wounded pride … but that it is a really childish, tasteless thing to do.
Doug Kmiec refers to him as “Father John”, something that no one ever called him. Reference
I never ceased to be amazed how many people seem to think ‘you too’ is a real argument. It is indeed possible for Kmiec to have implied false familiarity and for the right wing Catholic blogosphere to be jerks. It is also possible for those on the left to be jerks and for those on the right to be jerks. And it should be possible to discuss one side’s jerky behavior without someone offering fait accompli of ‘you too’ and thinking it should it should be taken seriously.
I don’t think “you too” is an argument. If someone crticizes Bush on torture, I don’t think, “but Obama’s worse on abortion” moves the conversation forward.
But for murky criticisms like Kmiec’s and yours, where there is not a specific person being criticized, but rather an attempt to discredit one side of an argument by establishing a guilt-by-association with the worst parts of the movement. In that case, pointing out that the other side of the argument engages in similar behaviors makes clear the bankruptcy of this tactic.
Michelle Malkin receives a lot of hate mail. Sarah Palin was subject to vicious, personal attacks. So what? Does this mean Michelle Malkin is right about everything? Does this mean Sarah Palin really was the best candidate for vice president? Of course not.
Which brings me to MM’s posts implying that most support for McCain was motivated by racism. I think it would be unfair to dismiss either MM, Vox Nova, or Obama supporters generally based on this unfortunate post. Same is true for critics of Kmiec. Some of them let their rhetoric get away from them. It happens. It doesn’t mean Kmiec was right, or that more restrained critics didn’t raise good points.
If you want to make a point, be specific — “John McG said this about Doug Kmiec, and it was unfair.” If I respond to that with, but “you do it, too,” then call me on the carpet for it. But don’t try to paint all criticisms of Kmiec with this “hateful right-wing blogger” brush.
—
For the record, one of the reasons I was so disappointed with Kmiec is that I, too, favored Obama, and was hopeful that Kmiec would be able to articulate a solid pro-life rationale. Instead, he fell back on the same arguments pro-choice candidates have been using for years, and helped validate pro-choice stereotypes about those who advocate for the unborn. To me, this was a profound disappointment.
Mr. Kmiec didn’t just imply false familiarity. He used the occasion of a man’s death as a vehicle by which to advance his view of politics and of how he has been unjustly attacked.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a good argument. It is a really effective strategy in forensics.
I am not particularly moved when Ann Coulter comes under malicious attack. She says and does rude, childish things. The rude and childish people in the liberal camp respond to her in kind. Are either of them really victims, deserving of condolence or support?
An apparently tactless, self-involved person makes an awful lot of noise about how other tactless, self-involved people have treated him unfairly. Should we really make a federal case out of it?
Pointing out hypocrisy is a good argument.
No it isn’t. In its worst forms, it is relativism and the denial of objective truth.
In it’s worst forms, it is relativism and the denial of objective truth.
Right, except this particular case isn’t in its worst forms.
If my wife asks me to pick up my socks, and I respond by pointing out the dirty dish she left on the table, that’s me avoiding responsibility for my behavior. That’s “It’s worst forms.”
This is something different. In this case, some amorphous third party is being criticized, and their behavior is implicitly being used to discredit a class of people who hold the same opinions. It is perfectly valid to point out that similar bad behavior hasn’t led the person launching that accusation to discredit other classes.
One of the people Kmiec was criticizing was George Weigel, “stupid, decadent, in need of basic education, etc” was the reference. How does your argument change because of this? I would speculate why Kmiec didn’t name names was the same as my reason: it doesn’t change the arguments. If anything, people would want to debate the merits of the inclusion of the particular example. The danger of not naming names of course is that whatever is alleged will be dismissed as a straw man.
The meaness kind of misses the point. I’ve gotten messages from outright kooks before; I’m not talking about them. The people I’m criticizing allege that they want to bring people together for the cause of ending abortion. One would hope that the goal of such of movement is to persuade people to fight against abortion. How are they going to persuade people for the cause if they can’t dampen their level of contempt for people that deviated from their agenda over the relatively inconsequential of who is the President for the next four years? People that brought the BAIPA to you did a lot worse things than voted for Obama for President. A number of them supported 1st trimester abortions even. But that piece of legislation actually amounted to some progress in the fight against abortion. Call it a character defect if you would like, but the only thing keeping me from wishing that the boisterous opposers of abortion would lose and lose badly is that abortion is so evil itself. At a time when the movement should be mending fences and figuring out what they should be doing going forward, they are out actively shooing people away.
>>Pointing out hypocrisy is a good argument.
>. No it isn’t.
Hear, hear! And the way those silly Christians keep repeating the one about specks-in-the-eye vs. beams-in-the-eye… it’s as if God himself came up with it.
It is perfectly valid to point out that similar bad behavior hasn’t led the person launching that accusation to discredit other classes.
It is valid if you believe that to be the case. Such is often an act of bad faith. That I didn’t offer a comment on MM’s statement means nothing. I don’t comment on a lot the posts here. Despite some contrary claims, VN has never had an editorial opinion that its authors were to subscribe. As to the actual substance of MM’s statement, I don’t see what’s unreasonable about stating others may do something for an unstated reason when some have explicitly said their reason was due to racism. This is different than the allegation repeated numerous times that Kmiec offered his endorsement to secure a court appointment.
No, MZ, I am positively sick of this argument that if only pro-life people were a little nicer, and resonable pro-life people did a better job of policing the kooks, the pro-life movement would gain traction in the movement.
This is nonsense on stilts.
There hasn’t been an abortion clinic bombing in a dozen years, yet the stereotype of pro-life clinic bombers remains.
There will always be kooks and uncivil people as part of the pro-life movement. Just like there were as part of the civil rights movement, the abolition movement, the anti-war movement, and every other movement people gave damn about. And with an issue as hot as the legal killing of babies, yes, some people will let their rhetoric get away from them. That is not going to change.
And it will continue to be the case that pro-choicers and the media will attempt to discredit the pro-life movement by presenting the pro-life movement as a band of hypocritical religous fanatics. And you and Kmiec are helping them do it.
Yes, you couldn’t do it if there weren’t material provided, but there will always be such material so long as the pro-life movement is populated with fallible human beings. So there will always be an opportunity for you to gain “strange new respect” by lambasting the extermists and kooks in the pro-life movement. But I don’t think it’s worth it.
—
As for Wiegel:
1.) He can probably speak for himself.
2.) I agree that the tone of the quoted comments was probably ill-considered.
Not naming names shielded Kmiec from being accountable for what he wrote. He can just claim that he wasn’t referring to his more civil critics, and if you’re not hateful, then you shouldn’t be upset about it, so you being upset about it is kind of telling, isnt’ it?
—
I do not believe that the pro-life movement is perfect, and couldn’t stand for some criticsim. It does often seem more interested in punishing pro-choice people than saving lives.
The defeat you might have been wishing for has happened. You can either throw more dirt on the pro-life movement’s face, or help build it up. I suggest we do the latter.
MZ —
Morning didn’t just say that some people might be voting for McCain out of racist feelings towards Obama. That’s certainly true. What he said was far more dramatic, insulting, and completely without evidentiary support: That there were MORE people voting for McCain out of racism than out of genuine pro-life beliefs. He was trying to insinuate that the majority of the pro-life movement is basically insincere and racist. That’s way more insulting than anything that has been said about Kmiec.
Someone needs to take Logic 101.
“More people are voting for McCain because of racism than pro-life beliefs ” does not equal or yield “More pro-lifers are voting for McCain because they are racist then because of their pro-life beliefs.”
Maybe another way to think about it is just-war type thinking.
There are parts of the pro-life movement that are in need of criticism.
We can do the a hard work of focusing on them and criticizing them, or we can just toss a granade at “hateful right-wing pro-lifers,” and accept the collateral damage.
Mark,
Here’s the post in question. It includes the quote, “
http://vox-nova.com/2008/10/21/abortion-and-racism/
“And I have a sneaking suspicion that more people oppose him because of his race and background than because of his views on the right to life and the unborn.”
You’re right, Mark, in the realm of strict logic, which is precisely why I used the words “trying to insinuate.” Typical MM unpleasantness: do everything in his power to create a nasty insinuation about pro-lifers even while leaving some wiggle room to say, “Oh, but I didn’t actually say that.”
That set A is larger than set B, even within set C, is an empirical claim. That set B is larger than A may be an error in particular rather than logic. The reasonableness of such claim is generally based on how close it approximates the actual. This is different than making an allegation of quid pro quo.
Why am I not surprised to return to a typical SB smear campaign? Mark says it correctly. My claim (which was mere speculation, not backed by any empirical knowledge) was about (i) the effect of Obama’s race– especially in many southern counties where (against all odds), McCain improved Bush’s 2004 margin– was large; and (ii) the abortion issue was a relatively minor one in this election, losing salience to economic issues.
If (as you now admit) you were just speculating without any evidence, why was there any need to talk about how your (invented) numbers would compare to each other? The only reason for doing that was that you were engaged in a . . . smear campaign. (And this was far from the only time; I’m not even mentioning all the prevarication about McCain’s position on torture.)