Gerard Baker: "The US is a great place to be anti-American"

A fascinating must-read by Gerard Baker of the Times Online via RealClearPolitics. Excerpts:

"It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves.

It has always been this way. The fiercest and most effective opponents of US foreign policy in the 1960s were not the students in Paris or the Politburo in North Vietnam. They were Jane Fonda, Bobby Kennedy and Marvin Gaye.

Today I can only laugh when I see the popular portrayal of George Bush’s America in much of the international media. Supposedly serious commentators will say, without evident irony, that free speech is under attack, that Bush’s wiretapping, Guantanamo-building, tourist-fingerprinting regime is terrifying Americans into quiet, desperate acquiescence in the country’s proliferating crimes.

The truth is that America not only harbours the most eloquent and noisy anti-Americans in its own breast, it provides a safe haven for people to come from all over the world to condemn it.

Take a stroll through almost any American university campus and you will hear a cacophony of voices in a hundred different languages, slamming everything America does, from fast food to hedge-fund capitalism. For years one of America’s most celebrated academics was Edward Said, the Palestinian agitator-cum-professor, who lived high on the hog at Columbia University, near the pinnacle of the American intellectual establishment, dispensing his wisdom about US wrongs in the Middle East.

Hollywood is the global mecca for angry denouncers of everything American. From all over they come, forcing themselves to live in their green-lawned mansions carefully tended by cheap migrant labour from south of the Border. This autumn, unsuspecting Americans (and everyone else, of course) will be treated to an especially unsettling stream of antiwar, anti-American propaganda, much of it produced in Hollywood by foreigners – such as this weekend’s likely box-office hit, Rendition.

And where would the world get its daily media diet of horror stories about what a ghastly country the place is if its reporters weren’t all comfortably pavilioned inside America, where they make a generous living happily devouring the hand that generously feeds them?" (emphasis ours)

Read the whole thing. Josef Joffe once correctly observed that the American anti-Americans are the very vanguard of worldwide anti-Americanism, in no small part because they lend foreign anti-Americans (including those in Germany) convenient cover and a veneer of legitimacy with which they may more effectively and openly vent their hatreds. Money quote:

"Yet another flag of the real thing is selective representation. In the European media as well as on the public stage, prizes and publicity go overwhelmingly to Americans who serve as witnesses against their own government and nation. The author Gore Vidal and the linguist Noam Chomsky have been lead players in this role; more recently the filmmaker Michael Moore and the literary critic Susan Sontag have stepped forward (Sontag received the prestigious Peace Prize of the German Publishers' Association in 2003, and died in December 2004). Their critique may range from the moderate to the malicious, but their main function is to render legitimate what the audience (rightly) fears is not, given the taboo encasing all forms of explicit anti-ism. The defense mechanism is simple enough: "After all, they are saying this, too, so how can we be accused of anti-Americanism?" A similar phenomenon attaches itself to Israel, where "post-" or anti-Zionist spokesmen are given top billing in the European media."

How this relates to German media: A fundamental problem in European media - as Baker and Joffe both indicate - is the disproportionately high levels of attention, coverage, interview time and credibility granted to American anti-Americans and representatives of the American Left as opposed to Americans representing other viewpoints whether moderate, libertarian, conservative, etc. The result is a skewed understanding of what the United States really is.

Here is another important point: Observers of the current state of affairs who happen to lean left politically - including fellow bloggers and commenters on this site - are certainly less likely to see a problem with the (unfair) advantage they hold and the blatant bias that often serves to support their worldview. (But how would they react if the opposite were true?)

Comments

[Tropby]

1) Once again claims of Anti-Americanism are based on an alleged over-representation of left-wing US media. This myth of the evil liberal media reminds me of the humbug about evil jews dominating the media. But in reality, international media conglomerates like Murdoch and Springer are anything but liberal, even the Moonies own US media.

Liberals seem to create superior products (Jesus Camp won awards). Nobody abroad wants to listen to Ann Coulter or see propaganda a la FOX ... the free market has spoken.

2) The rule of law, respect for international law, human rights, zero tolerance for torture etc. are not inherently leftist values. Just ask any Paleo-Con. Ask this humble poster.

The problem are Neo-Cons displaying their Trotzkist roots by their disdain for said values. They have failed in any endeavor but in their attempts to isolate the US and to smear real conservatives.

Being against THEM is not Anti-American (about 72 % of US citizens are, if one trusts statistics) but a sign of human decency, common sense and a firm moral compass.

[GringoTex]

@=Tropby
“This myth of the evil liberal media reminds me of the humbug about evil jews dominating the media ….The problem are Neo-Cons displaying their Trotzkist roots”…

Yet many of those who talk about Marxist/Trotskyist Neo-Cons also label the Neo-Cons as a Jewish conspiracy.
“President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and "go-for boy" of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews.…..It's a dangerous and fearful thing to go up against the awesome power of the influential—and vicious—Jewish neocon substructure that secretly rules America……Marxist, Trotskyites, and other Jewish Neocons…..”

[WhatDoIKnow]

Only hard-core leftist ideologues still deny the over-representation of left-wing ideas in the (US) media. Tropby seems to be one of them; any discussion is pointless as long as well-known facts are denied or minimized.

[GringoTex]

Liberals seem to create superior products (Jesus Camp won awards).

You are quite correct . Liberals created such superior products featuring lying and fabrication as Jayson Blair produced at the New York Times, Stephen Glass and Scott Beauchamp produced at the New Republic, and Dan Rather and Mary Mapes
produced for 60 minutes.

Is it an accident that there are more liberal journalists than conservative journalists that end up on such lists of shame? This would have to do with either integrity of liberal versus conservative journalists or about the predominance of liberal journalists. Take your pick.

Nobody abroad wants to listen to Ann Coulter or see propaganda a la FOX ... the free market (abroad) has spoken.

Precisely. They don’t want to listen because it doesn’t fit in with their preconceived notions. Why should they read Ann Coulter, and have to ponder a viewpoint they don’t agree with, when they could read Marcus Guenther misrepresenting and lying about the United States? This is what they want to hear. Europeans want to hear about the Evil United States.Schadenfreude and all that. The free market has spoken

[LC Mamapajamas]

Tropby, re: "Once again claims of Anti-Americanism are based on an alleged over-representation of left-wing US media."

Even the US media itself admits that they are overwhelmingly liberal AND Democrat.

There is a very simple reason for this: The journalism colleges tend to attract people who want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. They do not want to "report", they want to uncover scandals and get their Pulitzer Prizes. And this is an overwhelmingly liberal mindset to start with.

Conservatives tend to value straightforward facts.

Everyone in the media spins... from the choices of stories to cover to how they are covered. It is the stories that go UNcovered in the MSM that the blogosphere and talk radio report to fill the void.

And if the MSM were NOT leaving a massive majority of pro-conservative news uncovered, then talk radio would not be the hottest media in the US.

Talk radio is balance. The blogosphere is a huge new force to help.

[Carl Spackler]

Leftist like T love their patterns. A major one is victimization. In his case it is the spellbinding Neo-Con filthy money grubbing hook nosed Jews…. Oh, sorry,…. he didn’t say that. Neo-Cons. Anyways. So, all those Americans are victims. The Generals with the Ph.Ds , victims. The mid level officers with the Masters Degrees, victims. The Bachelor degreed senior NCO’s on their third or forth conflict, victims. The masses of young enlisted men, that in the combat arms come from (get this) higher income, college educated families and are usually doing one tour as a life experience, victims too. The same poor cannon fodder that the more they are in Iraq, the more closer they are to the Iraqi people, the higher the re-enlistment. Victims also.

Of course the mechanism of how a small cabal of short, swarthy, skull cap wearing filthy…oh, wait a minute…um Neo-Cons have some how built up a military for decades, then motivated the entire corps to education in excess of the general population, and then tricked them to maintaining ever stronger moral and esprit de corps, remains unanswered. Maybe deep wood temple ceremonies.

What is going on is that just as leftist do not like the idea of the masses voting, and that mass institutions could not be authentic and self motivation with out the guiding hand of leftist. Since leftist are leaders, and no leftist are leading the military, they must of be usurped by some other agency. In this case, greasy, shekel laden, pork eating, whoremonger of….Oh, wait..um….the Neo –Cons.

Some things never change

[Tropby]

Cute. The Carl Rove school of debating (Kindergarten level): Smear anybody who disagrees as a Leftist and anti-Semite. You forgot to label me as gay, another "insult" liked by Your ilk.

You are doing a disservice to real conservatives who retain human decency and basic debating skill. It grieves me to see this decline of American conservatism. But I still hope for a resurgence of the Paleo-Cons.

It becomes more and more obvious that all this is not about some alleged German anti-Americanism, but about the failure of Your political ideas to take root in Europe (except in Poland, of course).

-----------------------------------------

P.S.: The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying it "strongly condemns Ann Coulter for her anti-Semitic comment".

[WhatDoIKnow]

tropby: "claims of Anti-Americanism", "alleged German anti-Americanism", "myth of the evil liberal media".

How can anyone even imply that tropby is not a level-headed, impartial observer? This alleged German anti-Americanism y'all talk about is just a product of your neo-con distorted fantasy, it's not real. You get it?!
All the incidents that DMK presented on this site over the last four years are nothing but isolated incidents, each and every one of them. Only an overheated neo-con mind can infer from them even one ounce of anti-Americanism in Germany. Sheesh, you people, get a grip, life's waiting for you outside your neo-con universe.

/end

[GringoTex]

Cute. The Carl Rove school of debating (Kindergarten level): Smear anybody who disagrees as a Leftist and anti-Semite.

Since you state that Liberals have a superior product, and condemn Neo-Cons, it would appear that you have self-identified with the left. Are you smearing yourself?

It appears that I need to spell things out for you. What I am saying is that logically speaking, you are chasing your own tail.

Tropby’s Statement: “This myth of the evil liberal media reminds me of the humbug about evil jews dominating the media.

Tropby’s General Conclusion: Those who talk of Jewish domination/conspiracy are talking humbug.
Tropby’s Specific Conclusion: Those who talk of Jewish domination of the media are talking humbug.

Conspiracy World Statement: “President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and "go-for boy" of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews.…..It's a dangerous and fearful thing to go up against the awesome power of the influential—and vicious—Jewish neocon substructure that secretly rules America……Marxist, Trotskyites, and other Jewish Neocons…..”

Tropby’s Specific Conclusion: Those who talk of a conspiracy/domination of Jewish, Marxist Trotskyite, Neo-Cons are talking humbug.

Tropby’s Statement: The problem are Neo-Cons displaying their Trotzkist roots”…
Humbug.

Do you see the problem?
What is the opinion of other readers? Any philosophy majors out there?

[Helian]

@GringoTex

"The problem are Neo-Cons displaying their Trotzkist roots”…"

I wish I could help you out, Gringo, but Tropby dropped me by the wayside with this one. Who knew that the Neo-Cons had Trotzkyist roots!? Having read some of Stalin's works, I knew that Trotzky was a sly one, but this is really over the top. So, let me get this straight. Trotzky won the Russian Civil War, but all the time he was a traitor to world Bolshevism, because his theory of permanent revolution was a leftist deviation, but, all the time, he was really promoting the agenda of the US Neo-Cons?

[Tropby]

@ GringoTex:

"Since you state that Liberals have a superior product, and condemn Neo-Cons, it would appear that you have self-identified with the left."

1) A fact is a fact, whether one likes it or not. Admitting e.g. that it rains does not mean that I like to get wet, but allows me to use an umbrella. Refusing to accept reality (e.g. no contingency plans in Iraq) is typical NeoCon-thinking.

2) Disliking NeoCons and torture is not inherently leftist. Human rights and the rule of law are not inherently leftist. NeoCons are not really conservative.

"Conspiracy World Statement:"

You, not I, keep quoting some dubious site which seems to have an anti-Semitic slant. Straw Man arguments with added smear tactics, Rove 101.

Trying to stop any criticism of NeoCons because some of them are Jews shows a disrespect for real anti-Semitism that is shocking and may be even anti-Semitic in itself.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Tropby,

re: 1) ... Refusing to accept reality (e.g. no contingency plans in Iraq) is typical NeoCon-thinking.

And you know there were "no contingency plans in Iraq" because... why? You were in on the planning meetings in the Pentagon? How did you come by this exalted status?

2) Disliking NeoCons and torture is not inherently leftist. Human rights and the rule of law are not inherently leftist. NeoCons are not really conservative.

Explain the definition of "torture". And whose "human rights" are you talking about... terrorists, who have granted no human rights to their own people, never mind their enemies? The illegal combatants in Guantanamo? ALL of those whose arrest was questionable have been repatriated. Maybe next time we should just follow the Geneva Convention and shoot them when we catch them on the battlefield.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Deconstructing tropby's aberrations is really not fair, since his constructs are rotten to begin with, but hell, why not, why not feed a troll once in a while on a beautiful, warm So. Cali Friday evening...

Tropby equivalates neo-cons with lack of human decency, common sense and a firm moral compass. He is very clear in what he thinks of them, and his thoughts aren't noble. His opinions about the character of people he disagrees with are crystal clear, as shown in the quote above.

However, should a neo-con, or someone else, respond using a similar language, tropby sensibilities are suddenly gravely hurt: Cute. The Carl Rove school of debating (Kindergarten level): Smear anybody who disagrees as a Leftist and anti-Semite.

Uhhh, how was that "smear" thing again? Who smeared who? Was the lack of decency remark a smear or was it just...an impartial observation? It sure looks like another case of the by now famous liberal disease called "can dish it out but can't take it".

As a good left wing ideologue tropby is qualified, no, required by his higher moral compass to point out the lack of human decency in neo-cons. Should the generic aforementioned neo-con retort to similar language in characterizing tropby, is that another evidence of the neo-con's lack of human decency.

Isn't it wonderful to live on the left side of the Universe, aka troll Paradise? You win every argument, simply by the grace of your existence.

P.S. In all fairness I must remind everyone that it is tropby we're talking about here after all, so every indecent neo-con should cut him some slack. OK, a lot of slack.

[Mir]

>> Nobody abroad wants to listen to Ann Coulter or see propaganda a la FOX.

You are wrong (but you are certainly used to that by now). I for one very much enjoy listening to American talk radio. A great contrast to our one-sided MSM. Also, I think it's a shame that FOX isn't as widely available as CNN.

[GringoTex]

Tropby: Two questions. 1) Which of the two following statements do you agree with? (statements from previous postings).
2) Do you consider the Conspiracy World Statement to be anti-Semitic?
Please confine your reply to only the previous two questions.

Conspiracy World Statement: “President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and 'go-for boy' of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews.…..It's a dangerous and fearful thing to go up against the awesome power of the influential—and vicious—Jewish neocon substructure that secretly rules America……Marxist, Trotskyites, and other Jewish Neocons…..”

Tropby’s Specific Conclusion: Those who talk of a conspiracy/domination of Jewish, Marxist Trotskyite, Neo-Cons are talking humbug.

[Helian]

Remember all the hand wringing and ostentatious striking of virtuous poses by the professional protectors of public morality at the start of the Iraq War over the issue of unilateral military action? Of course, meanwhile they've also worked themselves into a fine lather over the possibility that the US might attack Iran. Why, one might ask, are these same vindicators of international justice so remarkably and palpably indifferent to Turkey's preparations launch a unilateral attack into Iraq? Has the UN released a pronunciamento approving such naked aggression, and I just haven't heard of it?

But wait! Suddenly at least one brave soul has noticed that, after all, universal principles of justice should not only apply to the US. If you guessed that this one little voice in Germany emanated from those same vindicators of international morality on the left who have shed so many crocodile tears and shouted so many anathemas at that dastardly aggressor nation, the evil US, over similar transgressions in the past, you would be sadly mistaken. Surprise! The lone voice is CDU politician Eckart von Klaeden. Apparently no one has informed Mr. von Klaeden that the "universal principles" of the America haters apply only to the United States.

[Consul-At-Arms]

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-gerard-baker-us-is-great-place-to-be.html

[Werner Patels]

Sorry for going off-topic, but may I suggest you also start a secondary blog monitoring the rampant anti-Americanism in the Canadian media (as well as the liberal establishment of Toronto)? Just a thought ....

[Doug]

@Tropby -

1) Once again claims of Anti-Americanism are based on an alleged over-representation of left-wing US media. This myth of the evil liberal media reminds me of the humbug about evil jews dominating the media. But in reality, international media conglomerates like Murdoch and Springer are anything but liberal, even the Moonies own US media.

Ah, forlorn wailing about the right-leaning media. Kinda puts me in mind of this.

As for Murdoch, conservatism isn't exactly what he does. He finds whatever's unrepresented in a given market, and then takes that segment. In the US, that was certainly conservatism, but c'mon - we're talking about the guy who gave the world the "page 3 girl" (or page 1 in Bild-Zeitung). He's not exactly Pat Buchanan. And I haven't the foggiest idea how conservative the Moonies may be (Where do they stand on free markets? State's rights? Gun rights? Ownership? Wealth redistribution?), but the last time I checked the Washington Times they were collecting the ad revenue, not writing the op-eds.

In actual fact, the US media largely identifies itself as left-leaning, as do both the conservative Media Research Center, and the liberal Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Incidentally, until the last couple of years, they both identified Fox News as being right-of-center, but more centrist than any other cable or network news.

Liberals seem to create superior products (Jesus Camp won awards).

And exactly who bestows these awards? Wait, I remember. So liberals' products are superior because liberals say so. Well then, that's all settled.

2) The rule of law, respect for international law, human rights, zero tolerance for torture etc. are not inherently leftist values.

Clearly. If they were, there would have been no worldwide protests against the Iraq war. In fact, it would have been demanded years ago.

@Werner -

Sorry for going off-topic, but may I suggest you also start a secondary blog monitoring the rampant anti-Americanism in the Canadian media (as well as the liberal establishment of Toronto)? Just a thought ....

I wonder if there would be any intellectual property issues with using an image of Carolyn Parrish in the masthead. Her attacks of Tourette Syndrome have certainly earned her a place somewhere.

There used to be a site called CBC Watch documenting the overwhelmingly leftward bias of the CBC, but I just checked them for the first time in a long time, and their domain is redirected to a page that informs the visitor that the hosting account has been suspended. Hopefully this is recent and temporary, they did good work. Otherwise, there is a vibrant blog community in the Great White North that does a fine job as well, though not particularly focused on media of course. I haven't made regular rounds on the Canadian blogs for the last couple years, but if you'd like a few I'll try to remember a handful of my favorites.

[Tropby]

@ GringoTex:

About Your Conspiracy World:

It is clearly anti-Semitic (powerful, behind-the-scenes, dual loyalist Jews etc.) and obviously wrong.

About Your Straw Man specific conclusion:

- You are linking an ethnic/religious group with a political movement. A standard ploy of anti-Semites, but in itself not enough to call You a racist ... I however certainly disagree with such a linkage.

- There is nothing secret about NeoCon politics, sorry no conspiracy. This may disappoint You as a fan of Conspiracy World.

- Marxist<>Trotzkyist

Talking about a conspiracy of Jewish Marxist Trotskyist NeoCons is humbug. But the only one who does are You in Your slightly racist Straw Man.

[LC Mamapajamas]

Tropby, I see yet one more grievance to the "but we're just quoting the US media" angle...

There's the "kid brother" reaction.

You can call your kid brother a scum-sucking @*&$! if you want to.

However, if someone outside the family calls your precious, darling baby brother a scum-sucking @*&$!, you drag that sucker behind the schoolhouse and teach him a lesson or two.

It's a perfectly natural reaction, and the European media should learn about it.

They are NOT "winning friends and influencing people" in the US public with their repetition of US media reports. They're proving to us that they're incapable of finding an original story angle.

[soipeutgy]

This debate is priceless. Tropby makes some sound and reasonable observations, and is attacked by a pack of right-wing fisks rolling in their own ad hominem bile.

"However, if someone outside the family calls your precious, darling baby brother a scum-sucking @*&$!, you drag that sucker behind the schoolhouse and teach him a lesson or two."

Ok...So it is a grave offence for anybody outside the U.S. to report anything about the U.S. that anybody in the U.S. might like? Is this a threat? I don't understand. Also, why go out of your way and look for something in a different country that you disagree with and then whine about it.

"Only hard-core leftist ideologues still deny the over-representation of left-wing ideas in the (US) media."

Hm. So you are saying that because you happen to belong to a minority of people with strong opinions, and that same group is in support of controversial policies of the current U.S. government, all media should devote equal coverage to your views? All media should be "Fair and balanced", how dare they otherwise?

"Leftist like T love their patterns. A major one is victimization"

Who was whining about something that the news media thousands of miles away reported about his country? Who exactly is playing victim here?

"Anti-americanism", right. Try to be a bully or a victim. Both doesn't cut it.

[LC Mamapajamas]

soipeutgy, re: "Ok...So it is a grave offence for anybody outside the U.S. to report anything about the U.S. that anybody in the U.S. might like? Is this a threat? I don't understand. Also, why go out of your way and look for something in a different country that you disagree with and then whine about it. "

No, the basic truth is what I told you it is. When there is a criticism from within the family, it is regarded differently than a criticism coming from outside the family. That is a fact of human nature, and no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

And NOTHING changes the fact that quoting US news media proves that the European media can't find a better angle.

[soipeutgy]

"And NOTHING changes the fact that quoting US news media proves that the European media can't find a better angle."

Thanks for reminding me that it wasn't even European origin. So: European media reporting on the U.S. is "anti-American". U.S. media content reported in Europe is "anti-American". U.S. media reporting on the U.S. in the U.S. is "anti-American", which was the subject of the original article.

Am i being "sophistic" or are you trying to fight windmills?

[Doug]

right-wing fisks

lol, I have to admit that I love this term

So you are saying that because you happen to belong to a minority of people with strong opinions, and that same group is in support of controversial policies of the current U.S. government, all media should devote equal coverage to your views? All media should be "Fair and balanced", how dare they otherwise?

Because those views aren't a minority. They represent roughly half of the country, and if in fact they were fairly represented I'm confident they'd represent more. However, when a person is told over and over for decades that something is true without any real examination of its veracity, they have a tendency to believe that it is in fact true - and this is what a predominantly leftist media has created. Lots of people who believe that conclusions are facts without really being exposed to any analysis that would lead to such a conclusion.

When media presents just one side or opinion, without giving credence to anything credible and contrary, it does a disservice to its audience.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Hm. So you are saying that because you happen to belong to a minority of people with strong opinions, and that same group is in support of controversial policies of the current U.S. government, all media should devote equal coverage to your views?

I can only repeat myself: "Only hard-core leftist ideologues still deny the over-representation of left-wing ideas in the (US) media".

One only has to look at the percentage of journalists who identify themselves openly, in polls, with left of center positions, to figure out which way the news are slanted.

But probably soipeutgy claims that even though the vast majority of journalists are leftists, they still manage to do their job impartially. Right... And I believe that a certain gentleman with a long white beard will visit me on December 25 and fulfill all my wishes.

No respectable left of center political junkie denies the media's sympathy for left wing positions. The only remaining ones who are adamant about the media's impartiality are the leftist ideologues.

[LC Mamapajamas]

soipeutgy, re: "So: European media reporting on the U.S. is "anti-American". U.S. media content reported in Europe is "anti-American"."

Yes. By George, I think he's got it! :)

[Ymarsakar]

The problem are Neo-Cons displaying their Trotzkist roots by their disdain for said values.

The Communists continue to attempt to hound anything related to Trotsky, ever since their vater, Stalin, ordered Trotsky killed. What will they do once they run out of things to relate to Jews and Trotsky?

Probably make them up as they go along.

Smear anybody who disagrees as a Leftist and anti-Semite.

Does that mean you are pro-Trotsky? And how would a Marxist such as yourself be anti-Marxist when you are simply carrying out Stalin's mandates?

You are doing a disservice to real conservatives who retain human decency and basic debating skill.

As if you were either conservative or could recognize human decency.

Talking about a conspiracy of Jewish Marxist Trotskyist NeoCons is humbug

Obviously when you say that Neo-Cons have roots in Trotskyism, you must be speaking the unvarnished truth rather than espousing a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, you simply contradicted yourself, much as the Left is a living contradiction.

[GringoTex]

@ Tropby
Talking about a conspiracy of Jewish Marxist Trotskyist NeoCons is humbug.
Good to hear.

But the only one who does are You in Your slightly racist Straw Man.

To talk of a “conspiracy of Jewish Marxist Trotskyist NeoCons” is SLIGHTLY racist? From my point of view: big-time, not slightly at all.

Straw Man?

Actually, it is not difficult at all to find evidence of those who believe in the “Neocon conspiracy”, such the Paleocon Patrick Buchanan and the Texas liberal author Michael Lind. I quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education from May 2003: The Neoconservative-Conspiracy Theory: Pure Myth.

Michael Lind's language is more overtly conspiratorial. In an essay appearing in London's New Statesman and in Salon, after dismissing the columnist Robert Kagan as a "neoconservative propagandist," Lind confides the "alarming" truth that "the foreign policy of the world's only global power is being made by a small clique." They are "neoconservative defense intellectuals," among whom he cites Wolfowitz; Feith; Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton at the State Department; and Elliott Abrams on the National Security Council.

Most of these, we are told, have their roots on the left and are "products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and '40s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism" and now "into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history." Lind complains that in their "odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for 'democracy,'" they "call their revolutionary ideology 'Wilsonianism,' ... but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism." Along with the Kristol-led Weekly Standard and allies such as Vice President Cheney, "these neo-cons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience."

Lind's speculation that the president may not even be aware of what this cabal has foisted upon him embodies the hallmarks of conspiratorial reasoning. In his words, "It is not clear that George W. fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves."

Those themes are echoed at the opposite end of the political spectrum, in The American Conservative, where the embattled remnants of an old isolationist and reactionary conservatism can be found. Buchanan, the magazine's editor, targets the neoconservatives, alleging that they have hijacked the conservative movement and that they seek "to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel."

Even in its less fevered forms, the neocon-conspiracy theory does not provide a coherent analysis of American foreign policy. More to the point, especially among the more extreme versions, there are conspicuous manifestations of classic anti-Semitism: claims that a small, all-powerful but little-known group or "cabal" of Jewish masterminds is secretly manipulating policy; that they have dual loyalty to a foreign power; that this cabal combines ideological opposites (right-wingers with a Trotskyist legacy, echoing classic anti-Semitic tropes linking Jews to both international capitalism and international communism) ; that our official leaders are too ignorant, weak, or naive to grasp what is happening; that the foreign policy upon which our country is now embarked runs counter to, or is even subversive of, American national interest; and that if readers only paid close attention to what the author is saying, they would share the same sense of alarm.

Interesting that you have praised the Paleocons, or at least damned them less than Neocons. Patrick Buchanan states that Neocons want "to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel."

Is there an anti-Semitic tinge to some who criticize the Neo-Cons? Undoubtedly. Read the above. Are all those who criticize the Neo-Cons anti-Semitic? Not at all, but use of the “trotskyist” buzzword does raise some concern. Perhaps you just added it on without considering any possible consequences.

[Mir]

>> So you are saying that because you happen to belong to a minority of people with strong opinions, and that same group is in support of controversial policies of the current U.S. government, all media should devote equal coverage to your views? All media should be "Fair and balanced", how dare they otherwise?

Definitely not. Remember the "fairness doctrine" in the US? It was left-wingers who once again brought that up. And they did so because they wanted to silence or at least disturb alternative media like talk radio, because there voices can be heard which don't comply with their mainstream worldview.

We on the other actually believe in true freedom of the press and the free market. What we want most from the MSM is honesty: Admit their bias and stop calling opinions "facts" and "news". Only from state-sponsored media like ZDF do we have to demand true efforts to stay neutral (or at least the right to not pay their fees).