by Editors

	Neo-Contentions  IV   Lieberman’s Lament

 

EDITORIAL NOTE:

In this “spicy” exchange, Democrats.write.com commentator, Lenard Carrier challenges Richard Benedetto,  syndicated Washington columnist, to defend his defense of Connecticut’s Senator, Joe Lieberman…a Democrat currently struggling to defend his own defense of increasingly-unpopular Bush’s Iraq War policy.

When a Democrat defends a neo-con fascist war, he risks taking flack as a “neo-con”, and we might say, as Len does here, rightfully so.  Thanks,  Len for not being passively peaceful.  If the Democratic party (now the U.S. party of international hope) has an Achilles heel, it’s being wishy-washy in regard to our nation’s regrettable “Bush Doctrine” and resulting preemptively-declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Now for the stimulating exchange between neo-con (by association and acceptance) , Benedetto and our own Ashevillian (N.C.) resident philosopher and democratic ally,  Len Carrier:

 

 

Dusty,

    I thought you might be amused by the exchange I had recently with Richard Benedetto, syndicated Washington political columnist.  First, there’s my response to a column of his lamenting the troubles Joe Lieberman is having holding onto his Democratic support.  Other parts of the exchange follow separately. — Len

 

Carrier’s response to Benedetto’s column:

 

    I read your column about the troubles Joe Lieberman is having in Connecticut.  To many of us, he brought it on himself.  Three years ago I had an op-ed piece published in my local newspaper.  In it I claimed that the impending invasion of Iraq was fueled by three motivations:  (1) control of oil production in the Middle East, (2) construction of permanent military bases in Iraq, and (3) removing a thorn in the side of Israeli Zionists.  I see no reason to take back anything I said then; and Joe Lieberman, in still supporting Bush’s war, is, by implication, saddled with these motives, too. We in the anti-war movement think this is reason enough to replace Lieberman in the Senate, despite his views on other matters.

 

P.S. My cousin was active in the “No blood for oil” movement in New Rochelle, NY, and  still participates in local politics.

 

 

 

Benedetto’s response to Carrier:

 

 

   None of my [family] would ever be part of any “anti-war movement,” or any other “movement,” for that matter.   ”Movements”  these days, left or right, smack of elitism and a “we know-better-than-you” mentality.  We believe Americans can figure things out for themselves.

 

 

 Carrier’s response to Benedetto:

  

     I think you read me wrong.  I’m no elitist, and I’m not a pacifist, either.  I think Americans can figure things out for themselves if they’re given the facts. They were not given the facts about the Iraq invasion.  A movement needn’t be elitist when it’s a grass-roots movement.

  

 

Carrier’s further response to Benedetto (with family name deleted to protect the innocent):

 

    After sending my initial response to your mistaken claim that I’m an elitist, I wondered why what you said still rankled.   Now I think I know what it was.  It was your cavalier attitude toward those who disagree with you about the Iraq war.  Maybe you’re right, and that we are from different [families].  None of my [family] had anything but disdain for fascists, and none of them would have anything to do with cheer-leading for a misbegotten war that has killed countless thousands of civilians. Perhaps your years of hobnobbing with the politicians in Washington have blinded you to what really smacks of elitism:  the belief that our leaders know so much more than we do.

 

 

 

 Benedetto’s (fiery) response to Carrier:

 

 Your elitism is in your sanctimony, your absolute conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I have never declared my support or opposition to the war. You have made an assumption.

 It is one thing to “disdain” fascists. It is another to put your life on the line against them, as my [family] all did as members of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps during World Wars I and II, including my Italian immigrant grandfather. Maybe yours did, too. I don’t know. Your epithet imperiously implied that my relatives were not against fascism. I would never make such an assumption or accusation about yours. Elitism again.

 I am neither a cheerleader for the war nor a blind follower of those in power. I figure things out for myself. But I never, and I mean never, assume that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I have a view, I explain it. People can agree or disagree.

 Moreover, I am not an evangelist. I am a reporter with many years of experience and some ability to analyze. I have a legitimate forum to do that.  And I learned a long time ago from a very wise professor that you know you are doing a good job of reporting when the more you look into an issue, the grayer and grayer it becomes, not blacker and whiter.

Just your choice of words suggests elitism and condescension –  ”cavalier,” “cheerleading,” “misbegotten,” “hobnobbing” and “blinded.”

 

 

 

Carrier’s response to Benedetto (who has not responded further:

    Think what you might, Richard, I just wanted to let you know why your note ticked me off, and why I thought that you were being the elitist, not me.  I’m somewhat foxed by your calling me the sanctimonious one.  Your original implication was clear that [your family] was in a more elevated position than mine because they would never be part of any “movement.”  I didn’t assume that you or your family were fascists, only that my family had always been part of any anti-fascist movement, and for any movement against waging preventive war.  My father served in the army, and I was myself a SAC officer for four years, so I hope that my patriotism isn’t being questioned.

    You should also know that I never assume I’m right, and everyone else is wrong.  I look at the empirical evidence and try to come to a rational conclusion. The fact that you said you have never declared either support or opposition to the war tells me that you haven’t yet decided whether it was a good or bad thing. Is that so?  When I decided that it wasn’t a good thing, it wasn’t based on any assumption.  It was based on taking into consideration all the evidence, pro and con.  Facts have since indicated that I was right.  Had the facts been different, I would have admitted my mistake.

    Sometimes, Richard, you’ve got to take a stand.  Hegel said that all theory is gray, but we don’t live in a world of theory.  We live in a world of fact.  As a journalist, you may think it the better part of valor to keep weighing evidence and not announce a conclusion; but, as William James said long ago, there comes a time when action becomes more appropriate than further thought.     

    I’m sorry you didn’t like the words I chose in my reply to you, but sometimes a sharp descriptive word carries more punch than a merely pedestrian one. But then, being a journalist, you knew that–otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen “epithet,” “sanctimony,” “imperiously,” “evangelist,” and “condescension” to pin on me.

 

Len Carrier May 27, 2006

 

*(Dr. Leonard Carrier received his B.A. and M.A. from the University of Miami in ’56 and ’58, respectively, and his Ph.D from Stanford in 1967.  He taught at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and the University of South Florida (Tampa) before spending the rest of his teaching and research career (29 years until 2000) at the University of Miami. )

This entry was posted in Political, Repubilcans. Bookmark the permalink. ← Raise Your Own Phony, Plant a Tony Sit, Abu…Sit →