Playing the Muslim Card: Two Hypocrites Named Glenn

Back when Glenn Reynolds understood his strength was running a linking machine, I enjoyed Instapundit. Unfortunately for us all, at some point in the past year or so he caught what in medical terms is now known as The Roger Simon Syndrome. That is, he started looking at his site traffic and decided the world couldn’t live without what he had to say on any and all given topics. And that, my friends, was when I started drifting away from Instapundit. Whatever gifts Glenn Reynolds possesses, a supple intellect and a lively style in matters political cannot be counted amongst them.

I can’t think of a single better illustration of his limitations that the following post from February 13:

SO I GET HOME AND FIND MY INBOX full of complaints from lefties that I've been "silent" about Ann Coulter's remarks on Friday. I guess they're scrollbar-challenged, as I did in fact note them and link to Sean Hackbarth's denunciation. I figured that readers would know my feelings about Coulter -- whose similar comments I was condemning back before Bill Quick named the blogosphere -- but on the other hand, I guess I shouldn't take stuff like that for granted. I got an email today from a reader who didn't know that my wife had had a heart attack, and I got an email last week from a reader who, despite my best efforts, had somehow missed the fact that I had a book coming out. You can't assume that everyone is keeping up with everything, and I tend mostly to ignore Coulter.

The lefties seem mostly upset about her use of the term "raghead," which is racist and offensive, but more or less akin to the term "cracker," which doesn't seem to bother a lot of lefties. So pardon me if I'm largely unmoved by their mock outrage on this account.

But there are more serious reasons to be unhappy with Coulter, reasons that, as so often happens, are actually obscured by the theatrics of angry lefties. And though I've been a bit distracted this weekend, and I don't generally like to give Coulter's attention-getting efforts more attention, it's probably worth mentioning them now.

I didn't attend the event (I didn't actually attend any events except the book stuff in the Exhibition hall; I was supposed to be on a panel about online media but had to cancel) but as I understand it, Coulter made the raghead remark, and then a Muslim attendee -- perhaps the guy from "Muslims For America" that Helen interviewed for our podcast -- got up to object to the "raghead" remark, and she put him down. And that's what's really bad. In fact, Ann Coulter is guilty of doing what Ann Althouse and Stephen Green note that the lefty bloggers tend to do: Someone stretched out a hand, and she spat on it. And her ongoing treatment of Muslims has followed this general pattern of fostering alienation. The result of this sort of behavior is aid and comfort to the enemy.

To win this war, we need to kill the people who want to kill us. But we need to win over the rest. The terrorists of Al Qaeda want to polarize things so that it appears to be a war of Christianity against Islam, of America and the West against all Arabs and Muslims. With remarks like those, she's helping their cause, not ours. Call it "objectively pro-terrorist."

The post goes on for quite a bit longer as Glenn descends into some serious “I’m getting nasty emails” whining via a series of updates. If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can go to Instapundit and treat yourself them. I’ve decided to be merciful and leave them out.

Let’s look at the last five sentences of the post:

To win this war, we need to kill the people who want to kill us. But we need to win over the rest. The terrorists of Al Qaeda want to polarize things so that it appears to be a war of Christianity against Islam, of America and the West against all Arabs and Muslims. With remarks like [the "raghead" remarks], she's helping their cause, not ours. Call it "objectively pro-terrorist."

I know a lot of my fellow members of the VRWC are pretty impressed with this denunciation of Ann Coulter, but I’d have been more impressed if it hadn’t been an afterthought. I’d have been more impressed if he hadn't spent the bulk of the post excusing himself and, by implication, excusing Conservatives and Republicans because Lefties and Democrats are the real problem.

I’m kinda picky that way.

There were exactly two avenues open to Glenn Reynolds to address this issue appropriately. The first was simply to say:

“Ann Coulter is a bigot and a crank. She’d peddle her bowel movements if she thought they’d sell. What do I care what she says?”

If you don’t care about Ann Coulter, you don’t care about her.

The second avenue available is simply to say something like this:

“President Bush has repeatedly stated that for us to win this war, we need to kill the people who want to kill us, and win over the rest. The terrorists of Al Qaeda want to polarize things so that it appears to be a war of Christianity against Islam, of America and the West against all Arabs and Muslims. With the "raghead" remarks, Ann Coulter is, via mindless bigotry, helping their cause, not ours. Call it "objectively pro-terrorist.

And why, given Ann Coulter’s long record of bigoted and inflammatory statements towards Muslims, and any other group she does not approve of, would CPAC feel it appropriate to have Ann Coulter in their midst in the first place? Why would CPAC give a forum to a D-list pseudo-intellectual whose views on the appropriate prosecution of the War on Terror and relations with the Islamic world are in direct opposition to the stated policies of the ‘conservative’ Republican President CPAC, in theory, supports? Isn’t it about time to fire someone at CPAC?"

Glenn’s hyperventilation is all in response to a post at Crooks and Liars by a guy named Glenn Greenwald. Not that Greenwald brought this all about out of the goodness of his heart. Like Reynolds, and Coulter for that matter, he’s a lawyer on a mission. (Yeah, I was surprised too.) To be honest, I’d never heard of him until yesterday, when someone linked my site in the comments section of his personal blog and I started getting traffic. That’s how I found both his and Reynolds’s posts in the first place.

Here’s what Greenwald wrote:

Congratulations to all C&L’ers who e-mailed the right-wing bloggers we named in this post, demanding to know why they were so conspicuously silent about Ann Coulter’s repugnant remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past week. Your e-mails forced Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Jean Lopez to end their silence and acknowledge that one of the most influential pro-Bush pundits spewed some truly deranged hate-mongering as part of her featured speech at the most significant conservative event of the year (other speakers including Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Ken Mehlman, George Allen and Newt Gingrich - the heart and soul of the Republican Party).

And credit where it’s due - while Goldberg’s condemnation was whiny, half-hearted and reluctant, and Lopez’s was non-existent (she asks why we don’t just ignore Coulter without realizing that Coulter was the featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative event of the year and is one of the country’s most prominent pro-Bush pundits with a huge GOP following), Malkin’s denunciation of Coulter and her remarks is fairly straightforward and clear (although Coulter's purpose is hardly "nothing more than (to) get a cheap laugh" - when she urged violence against "ragheads," she received a "boisterous ovation" from the crowd).

And, of course, the question remains: if Coulter's views are so repugnant and extreme, why does she continue to play such a prominent role in the "conservative" movement and have such a large GOP following?

Still silent, however, are the usually talkative and opinionated Instapundit, Powerline's John Hinderaker, and Hugh Hewitt. The silence is particularly inexcusable for Instapundit, not just because he was a featured speaker at the same Conference along with Coulter (although that is true), and not just because he loves to hold himself out as a responsible, mainstream Bush-lover who disassociates himself from the Right-wing fringe (although he does hold himself out as that). Instead, his silence is so deafening and inexcusable because he frequently and self-righteously demands that Democrats step up and condemn wholly irrelevant "fringe leftists," even when (as is not the case for Reynolds and Coulter here) the Democrats in questions have nothing to do with such figures and have no connection to them.

Here, for instance, is Reynolds sermonizing to Democrats on their obligation to condemn the obscure and inconsequential Ward Churchill:
It's just that the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots, while the Left has embraced them. . .

I keep hearing that there's a silent majority on the Left that doesn't agree with these things. I keep waiting for it to stop being silent.

So Glenn Reynolds appears at the same event as a woman who stands up and urges violence against "ragheads," terrorist attacks on Supreme Court Justices, and the assassination of a former President – and then he says nothing afterwards to denounce or condemn those comments. But Democrats who never met or even heard of Ward Churchill, never attended an event with him, never had anything to do with him – why, all of them have an obligation to stand up and denounce him. And unlike Ann Coulter, Ward Churchill isn’t being invited to the most important political events of the year, doesn't have a huge following (or a following at all) on the Left, and isn't selling hateful best-selling screeds.

Why is Professor Reynolds so silent about his co-speaker’s hateful and violence-advocating rants?

Why does Professor Reynolds sermonize to Democrats that they should "muzzle and marginalize their idiots" why he hides in the corner, afraid to condemn Ann Coulter’s remarks, even though she's one of the most influential pundits in his Party and received a boisterous ovation from his fellow "conservatives" when she urged violence against "ragheads"?

Why would Professor Reynolds participate in an event that sponsors a speech urging violence against Muslims and the domestic political opponents of Republicans?

You can ask him these questions and others here: Pundit@Instapundit.com.

I know a lot of the Lefty Legions must love that post, but it impresses me to about the same extent Glenn Reynolds’ did. That is, I’m not impressed all all. Why? Try this:

"Why would Professor Reynolds participate in an event that sponsors a speech urging violence against Muslims and the domestic political opponents of Republicans?"

Evidently violence against Muslims isn’t enough... Glenn wants Glenn to include “the domestic political opponents of Republicans” in his denunciation, too. Call me cynical, but I'd guess that’s because they are what really interests Glenn Greenwald. Muslims provide a pretext. But hey, I can understand where Greenwald is coming from: What good is having victims if you can’t be one, right?

The thrill of moral superiority combined with ecstasy of victimhood. It’s a nice touch, isn’t it?

Now given my own political bent, it probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise when I tell you that Crooks and Liars isn’t a site I frequent and that Glenn Greenwald isn’t someone I’d ever read. Based on the above, as well as a related post and his comments at his own site, though, I’d say his intellect is just about as supple as that of his nemesis. I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt it.

Or, to put it another way... It’s pretty clear they’re a pair of not-particularly-bright hypocrites. Here’s why:

Each is playing the Muslim card for fun and profit.

They’re turning people into abstractions to validate their own sense of moral and ethical superiority over each other.

They’re using living, breathing human beings as pawns in uninformed, unenlightened and thoroughly debased game of partisan politics.

And finally, they’re both hypocrites because they’re motivated by exactly the same impulses that motivates Ann Coulter: self aggrandizement, political dilettantism and personal gain.

Read Greenwald’s post above and the post and comments on his site and it is apparent that he doesn’t give a flying handshake about bigotry against Muslims. The issue is a tool... a lever to ratchet up the rhetorical and feel all good and victimized and superior. To him, Ann Coulter’s comments carry no interest outside of their usefulness in damning Conservatives and Republicans.

Read Reynolds’ post above and it is apparent he, too, can think of the issue in no terms other than partisan warfare:

“Muslims? What Muslims? We’re talkin’ about them slimy Democrats, fool. Oh, wait, you mean those Muslims...”

And I do so love Reynolds' lame attempt at moral equivalence carried on at a child’s level:

“They said names, too! They said 'cracker'.”

Like I said, two not-particularly-bright hypocrites.

In any event, it’s a perfect example of why the blogosphere, rather than becoming an Army of Davids marching for truth, justice and the American Way (or whatever), is for the most part nothing more than a large, self-glorifying circle jerk. This has become especially true amongst many of the high-traffic blogs and bloggers.

The issues don’t matter anymore. Everything is reduced to point scoring... Because point scoring gets links and traffic and book deals and interviews on talk shows. And lest anyone think I’m only talking about Reynolds here, think again; Greenwald is working towards the same end... he just lower on the food chain. The bottom line is they’re both on-the-make hustlers.

Overlooked by both, of course, is the real issue at hand, which is the naked and obvious bigotry towards over a billion human beings on the basis of religion, many of whom happen to be United State citizens, by a so-called Public Intellectual at an important political gathering. You’d never know that from reading either Glenn, though. All they can think about is the perfidy of each other and scoring points for (and with) their dimwitted legions of followers.

And this is what passes for “thought leading” amongst “tipping point” audiences?

Evidently.

Comments

[Scott Ferguson]

Wow.

At the risk of turning DTP into a Bizarro-world negative-LGF echo chamber, I'll just say:

Rock on, righteous dude!

[libby]

Don't make me sorry I just blogrolled you Dennis. It hardly seems a fair analogy to equate Greenwald with the self-important pundit, based on one post by Greenwald. You're right on with Reynolds whining about the world not being completely versed in the totality of his heh indeeds, but although I only started reading Greenwald recently, he's got a lot more depth than you're giving him credit for.

[DennisThePeasant]

Libby-

Thanks for the addition to your blogroll, and I do appreciate it, but let's be clear here... the abuse offered is bi-partisan. I have no intention of playing little political reindeer games... been there, done that and I'm over it.

Let's get on with the issues.

When I see some 'depth' out of Greenwald, I'll acknowledge it. Until then, what I've said stands.

[Cameron]

Mmm..you ARE in a bad mood today. Glad I'm not one of them cutting-edge thought-leader blogger guys....

[Green Zone Cafe]

Nice post, I didn't see the all the holes in Greenwald's post until you pointed them out.

Coulter is objectivly pro-terrorist and would peddle more than her bowel movements if it would get her attention, although what she has to sell resembles what the crack whores I see on the street back home have.

[Ethan]

I don't read Greenwald's C&L stuff, but I am plugged into his eponymous blog (well, the URL is anyway). I came away with the impression that he specifically was singling out Coulter for making unchecked extreme comments, a la Ward Churchill. Looks like the C&L stuff went further than that, but I half expect it as sites of that sort are much more about playing to the stands. His personal blog is much more level-headed, to me.

To echo Libby's comment somewhat, I have been enjoying your blog even though politically, we seem to have very little in common. It's not about the PJM bashing for me (although I loves me some good snark anytime), but instead seeing beyond the partisan stuff and finding common ground. I am looking forward to more Somali Muslim posts. Oh, and more snark. :-)

[John-Paul Pagano]

It's probably worth noting Johnson's pathetic run-around the latest Abu Ghraib abuse photos. If you think Reynolds's post is evasive, stupid and childish, feast on this.

[libby]

As I told my readers Dennis, I came here orginally for the PJM gossip but I stayed because you struck me as an independent voice. I blogrolled you on the basis of the Muslim posts. I found these be extraordinarily brave for someone in your position. But
I don't know how you're going to see any depth to Greenwald if you immediately aver you won't read his crap after only one post.
I'm just saying be careful before you fall into the same trap as the MSM of defining bi-partisan as equally bashing both sides on every issue. If every argument had equal weight then no one would ever win a point. I think it's more useful to define it as bashing whichever side deserves it at the moment, because they both do, but usually at different times.
Meanwhile, I don't often agree with your politics but I'm interested in your POV and I'll be back. I hope you'll give some of the people on my side of the fence the same courtesy. It seems to me that if blogs are ever going to lead to a positive change in our society, we're going to have to start at listening to each other with more respect and less derision on our points of difference.
Which is not to say we still shouldn't skewer pomposity and self-importance wherever we find it. And I'm with Ethan on this point. You give great snark.

[Guesst]

Reynolds: It's just that the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots

As part of the VRWC, comments like this make me wince. As much as we'd like our idiots to be marginalized, we are not lately doing a very good job of keeping them muzzled.

Coulter is one example. If she were a lefty, she'd be crucified. The only thing that saves her is she is a radical antiabortion advocate, so the extreme right unites behind her, and the punditocracy lowers its standards to suit her.

The same could be said about Limbaugh, Levin, Malkin, Hannity, and the like. In fact, please notice it is often these very people who are the quickest to defend and justify and excuse Coulter.

Yeah, we got 'em all muzzled, Glenn.

[Timothy]

I've shared your general distaste for the blogosphere point-scoring for awhile, it's gotten to the point where a few econ blogs, Reason's H&R, and you are the only things I read anymore. And PJM has become so boring that I keep forgetting to update the deathpool.

[red]

Couldn't agree with you more, Dennis. I stopped reading him a long time ago. He's a big YAWN.

[Left of Center]

I can appreciate your condemnation of Coulters remarks. I believe you represent most conservatives in your attitude. However, she remains a star of the right, and I can think of no conservative leader that wouldn't go out of their way for a photo op. As long as she remains a unopposed spokesmodel of the right, those of us on the left will have a hard time not categorizing the whole of you as wingnuts.

[Lou Minatti]

"As long as she remains a unopposed spokesmodel of the right, those of us on the left will have a hard time not categorizing the whole of you as wingnuts."

As long as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd roam the US Senate chambers, as long as Kos is considered a wise purveyor of political wisdom, as long Al Gore sucks up to terrorist sympathizers, the center and the right will have a hard time not categorizing all of the left as a group of hypocritical assholes.

[a fan]

Dennis,
I think when Greenwald said "domestic political opponents of Republicans" I don't think he was talking about himself. I'm pretty sure he meant the Supreme Court Justices Ann is always talking about wanting to poison.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're reading too much into Glenn's writing. I'm actually pretty sure Glenn in a conservative, in the real sense of conservativism. That's why his panties are in a bunch over the whole domestics spying thing.

[person of the left]

RE: Lou Minatti

I think people of the left feel fine being represented by Kennedy, Byrd, Kos, and Gore.

You might disagree with them on a public policy level, but I, personally, don't find them to be extreme (in the sense that they don't advocate shooting Supreme Court justices or killing all Christians, etc).

[DennisThePeasant]

LoC, LM and PofL-

Thanks for pinpointing the problem here. Notice that there is no issue involved... either philosophical or of practical policy. What we have are three people talking loudly to themselves about how awful the other is... in other words, talking about absolutely nothing of substance.

Am I correct?

If the someone Left wants to assume all Righties are wingnuts because of Ann Couler, or if Righties want to assume all Lefties are wingnuts because of KOS, that's fine. If you want to do it, that's fine, too. Just don't pretend you're the adults in the room, because that ain't thinking in any sort of meaningful way. That's circle-jerk stuff. And don't be shocked when someone like me looks you dead in the eye and tells you you're a fool.

Go back and look at some of my earlier stuff here and you'll see what I'm talking about. I was into that sort of shit just as much as anyone. That's not the point, though...

The point is that only thing that matters are THE ISSUES, all else is noise, smoke and mirrors.

[commie atheist]

I know a lot of the Lefty Legions must love that post, but it impresses me to about the same extent Glenn Reynolds’ did. That is, I’m not impressed all all. Why? Try this:

"Why would Professor Reynolds participate in an event that sponsors a speech urging violence against Muslims and the domestic political opponents of Republicans?"
Evidently violence against Muslims isn’t enough... Glenn wants Glenn to include “the domestic political opponents of Republicans” in his denunciation, too. Call me cynical, but I'd guess that’s because they are what really interests Glenn Greenwald. Muslims provide a pretext. But hey, I can understand where Greenwald is coming from: What good is having victims if you can’t be one, right?

So, in your view, advocating violence against "the domestic opponents of Republicans" is perfectly OK?

[DennisThePeasant]

CA-

Please don't test my patience by playing Fool.

It's pretty clear that I was noting that Mr. Greenwald couldn't stick to his original point, which was about Coulter's 'raghead' remarks. Within the context of his posts at C&L, his site and his comments at his site, that he decided he couldn't just leave it at Muslims simply reinforced the impression that Muslims weren't his primary concern in the first place.

If you think that's wrong, say so, say why and do it intelligently.

[wxjames]

The democrat convention will now come to order.
YEEEEEHHAAAAHHHH ! Wake up person on the left, the democrats are a fungus growing on your dogma. They stain your movement like a soiled blue dress, or a body in the river, or a suicide in the park, or a plane crash in the woods, or a gay in the top security post. They are as honest as Christmas in Cambodia or a last minute replacement candidate. Vote for corruption, vote for democrats. The joke's on you.

[DennisThePeasant]

wx-

Less caffiene.

[Alan]

The reason Coulter gets top billing at CPAC is because it's really just a NutPAC flea market. Most people there are peddling their own version of outrage for a piece of the pie. And as Guesst points out above, it's the radical pro-life agenda that ties most of them together. The problem you see with blogs are just a microcosm of the problem. Radio pundits like Vannity and Limbaugh are leading the way.

[Alan]

DtP, you may find this interesting.

[neil]

I liked the Greenwald post, but your post made me do some serious thinking. (See, Andrew Sullivan isn't the only one who gets his liberal readers to do some serious thinking!) The only thing I would say in its defense is that I didn't get the impression it was supposed to be about Muslims at all -- it was just riffing off Coulter's sound bite. But if you don't go in for all that you're-a-hypocrite-no-you're-a-hypocrite stuff, it's true that it's not too pretty.

[John Ferguson]

Mr. Peasant,

When I enrolled in Abilene Christian College in 1961, I was a smoke-breathing, fire-eating conservative, a right-wing Republican, and a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society. In 1964, I was president of the Young Republicans at ACC, and I proudly displayed a Goldwater for President sticker not on the bumper, but on the rear-end of my Volkswagen Beetle. In other words, I was something like you might have been forty years ago.

Then something started to happen. I began to notice that my right-wing conservative colleagues were outspoken segregationists and racists, claiming, for instance, that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a communist agitator. That troubled me, because I had always been taught by my mother not to discriminate against anyone because of his race or skin color. And then I discovered that what some of my ideological allies were whispering excitedly about as the "truth" was nothing more than plain-brown-wrapper, under-the-counter, old-and-moldy Nazi propaganda. Literally. This was scary stuff.

If you doubt what I'm telling you, I could tell you even more you can doubt: like the "cell" meetings I had with my JBS compatriots in Abilene, Texas; or like the National Indignation Convention held in Dallas in October 1961; or like my meeting with former FBI agent, Dan Smoot; or like my meeting with General Edwin A. Walker at his home on Turtle Creek (later shot up by Lee Harvey Oswald). I could go on, but I now know right-wing, Christian-fundamentalist, conservative-Republicans when I see them.

Maybe you're beginning to see them, too.

[Guesst]

Lou wrote: As long as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd roam the US Senate chambers, as long as Kos is considered a wise purveyor of political wisdom, as long Al Gore sucks up to terrorist sympathizers, the center and the right will have a hard time not categorizing all of the left as a group of hypocritical assholes.

The left is satisfied with such representation, and apparently does not mind being thought of (forever) as hypocritical arses who pay homage to old rich white guys.

Markos is pandering to a bunch of twenty-something illiterates who barely have jobs, so it is not that hard to be a purveyor of wisdom. People pay good money for it.