A story about Joe Klein that isn't really about Joe Klein

by Kagro X

Joe Klein's podcast interview by fellow Swampland blogger Ana Marie Cox has gotten a fair amount of attention today. But there's another part of that interview that wasn't addressed in these other pieces that interested me.

I want to respond to it not so much because it's Joe Klein who said it, but because I think it isolates something that's central to my own objections to modern political journalism, as well as political practice.

I transcribed the part I'm talking about. Here's Klein:

I think that ... the blogosphere is having a, you know, the left-wing blogosphere, elements of it, is having a bad effect, an oversimplifying effect on the Democratic Party. And let me lay this out very clearly. We have gotten six years of baloney and lies from the Bush administration. And extremism. It is a radical, right-wing radical administration.

My feeling is, and I think the feeling of a vast majority of Americans, is that the alternative to that isn't left-wing extremism and vilification, and all of this kind of, you know, nasty rhetoric that goes on. But it is comity, C-O-M-I-T-Y, which is what Barack Obama, which is his gamble in this election as well. That's what he's trying to sell. I think the alternative to extremism is moderation. I think that this country has never been governed well from the right or from the left, although it hasn't been governed from the left very often. It's only been governed well, the only way you can successfully pass legislation or prosecute a war is by governing from the center.

My objection is not to the first part of this quote. I mean, I do object to it, but not in a way that would require my saying anything more than, "Well, that's overbroad and dumb, but I suspect you knew that when you said it, and were just trying to facilitate discussion of your next point."

And it's that next point that I want to discuss. It's the definition of "moderation" Klein implies in this passage that I find disturbing and offensive, and just maybe, completely wrong.

Consider what the proper response really ought to be to an administration that gives you six years of baloney and lies. Not run of the mill baloney and lies, either, by the way. What does one do when the President of the United States lies the country into a disastrous war (and says we'll stay in it for 50 years)? When a president has his henchmen corner the incapacitated and sedated Attorney General in his hospital room in the hopes that he'll cover their asses and sign off on an obviously illegal program of warrantless domestic surveillance? When a president claims the inherent power to authorize torture? To nullify duly adopted and signed Acts of Congress unilaterally? To burn critical counter-proliferation assets for political revenge? To destroy the reputation of the United States Department of Justice, and gut both the Hatch Act and the Voting Rights Act as an electoral strategy?

What ought to be the "moderate" response to this?

In my opinion, treating it as though it were politics as usual, and that it can all be solved at the ballot box if we just bide our time and wait for the next opportunity to elect a "healer" is not moderate in the least.

No, faced with an "administration" that's this hostile to what used to be the common understanding of our constitutional system of government, I would say that aggressive action to repudiate these practices, purge their precedent, and preserve the Constitution against this systematic assault is actually what's demanded of a moderate. In fact, it might even be considered quite conservative.

Without turning this explicitly into a piece about impeachment, what this really does mean is that under the current circumstances, the use of that constitutional weapon isn't radical at all. Fighting to restore and preserve the system of governance that we've all been brought up to believe we live under is not extremism, it's the very opposite of it.

But like I said, this is not about impeachment per se. It's about rejecting the definition that says moderation is really solely about keeping the noise level down when you roll over for six years of baloney and lies.

I don't want to leave it at that, because one of Klein's main points in this interview (whether you choose to credit it or not) is that he hasn't been "rolling over" for what this administration has handed us. And that's true, even if none of us would look at his body of work and say, "Now there's a brave man."

But it seems to me that Klein, Broder and their ilk have confused "moderation" with "not making waves." Moderation has, apparently, come to mean things like glorifying Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon as a "healing" gesture for our country, even though it also meant Watergate ended without real justice -- and that future administrations would learn that a few well-timed utterances of "I don't recall" would do the trick. Moderation has come to mean that Republican recidivists like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, etc. are tolerated because we only have to suffer them in what appear to be small doses -- four years here, eight years there -- and after all, the president "deserves" his appointments.

So long as this is what passes for "moderation," the doctrine only facilitates the kind of baloney and lies Klein decries. To borrow from the example of Nixon -- and I do so because it's a clearer example thanks to historical perspective -- if the president is a crook, doing something about it is not extremism, nor should looking the other way rather than risk potentially frightening action be called "moderation" simply because it avoids risk.

Call this kind of "moderation" what it is: risk aversion. It's OK. It's a legitimate (if mostly useless) place from which to govern. But recognize that making risk aversion your guiding principle is only effective when -- in the often zero-sum game of politics -- the other players are playing by the same rules.

When they stop doing that, true "moderation" is about resetting the game and reestablishing the rules. It's not about civility for civility's sake. Nor is it about bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. True moderation demands -- and seeks as its goal -- that accounts be settled and justice be served. To the extent that that bodes ill for one party or another (or both), it is a measure of how far from moderation they have departed.

Risk aversion in the face of radicalism facilitates that radicalism, and can never defeat it.

Comments

[freepatriot]

hey, joe klein, I got your moderation hangin pal

actually, I'm a a pradoxical person

when I'm ranting and foaming at the mouth, you're relativly safe

if I get calm and collected, you got a problem ...

and I'm gettin pretty calm about what's going on in my government ...

[earlofhuntingdon]

C-O-M-I-T-Y? Has Mr. Klein become campaign manager for Holy Joe for Vice President? Or is he auditioning to replace the should-be-retiring Mr. Broder because Metro DC is just, well, so special?

In one breadth the purportedly progressive Mr. Klein speaks of six years of Repbulican lies, obfuscation, corruption, and extraordinarily and intentionally divisive politics. Next, he cries for compromise and working together.

Perhaps it's been so long since Mr. Klein has seen respect and appreciation between those holding opposing views that he no longer recognizes the real thing. But surely even he would recognize Joe Lieberman's gelded and prostrate limpness as submission, not half of a mutually good deal. Perhaps not.

Mr. Klein's spiel seems less an analysis of what a progressive majority should do to work constructively with the rump of a Republican Party, and more a display of dominance, like an elephant seal puffing its neck to keep intruders off his stretch of beach. His directions to the progressive blogosphere, often more articulate than he is (sometimes not) seem intended "to keep them in their place" rather than engage their energy and commitment. Mr. Klein should rethink his priorities; only that sort of Kennedy-esque engagement from the left will help restore a government, legal system and bureaucracy badly mauled by Mr. Bush.

[Markinsanfran]

Joke Line stopped learning new tricks in the early nineties. He is now officially a fossil of an earlier era, and needs to be buried by newer strata (us).

[dolphy]

You hit the nail on the head, Kagro X.

Thank you!

[Spirit]

That was a work of art.

[sojourner]

You have rather brilliantly stated something that has troubled me for a long while: Our society has an either/or mentality. Either you believe as I do, or you are a pile of sh*t. Either you accept all of the things that my program espouses, or go find...whatever. I have always regarded myself as a moderate. If a label is required, moderate Republican.

My next door neighbor has had little to say to me for two years because I dared to say something that questioned Bush's policies. My brother is a far-left radical, and he will not talk because he thinks I am so far to the right.

I am sure that it has gone on for a very long time, but I have to say that the far right element has done its level best to beat the moderates and lefties into submission. It is their way or the highway, which does little to further human discourse and problem solving.

I am also sure that the Republican Party has forced many candidates to toe the line if they want to have support in the next election. That is the only reason I can come up with for seemingly intelligent people following in lockstep as our nation goes over a cliff -- following Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

My point is that people have FORGOTTEN what 'moderate' means -- and if they even had a thought of moderation in anything, there is someone around the corner who is going to pound it out of them, or insult them, or threaten to jail them for being a terrorist.

I don't even know if I am on topic at this point, but that is my soapbox for the day...

Thanks for the post!

[pov]

"...hostile to what used to be the common understanding of our constitutional system of government"

Not to mention what used to be the common understanding of the separation of church and state, of the authority of scientific reason, of international diplomacy, etc. It's astounding that most of the pundits never see the pattern staring them in the face.

"if the president is a crook, doing something about it is not extremism"

Well said, Kagro X.

[hauksdottir]

A Comity of Errors? Shakespeare's sister might have fun casting that.

Or perhaps it is time for a limerick?

A topical typist named Joe Klein
Scribbled and scrived past his decline...
Defeated by snark
And stuck in the dark,
He only remains as a joke line!

Not only am I shameless, but I'll invest words as needed. Poetic license, and all that. ;)

[sojourner]

"Risk aversion in the face of radicalism facilitates that radicalism, and can never defeat it."

I have been reading a lot this evening, and finally came back to Kagro's post and re-read it a couple of times. Your closing statement above sums it all up quite nicely.

Our entire nation is averse to any type of risk. The greatest example that comes to mind are the members of our legislative branch. Our senators and representatives are duly elected with the idea that they WILL represent us. They are elected to take risks and speak their opinions in open debate. THEIR opinions -- not those of a party or a president or someone who threatens them.

Sadly, the instant that they are elected, they begin their next campaign. They begin a dance to show the electorate how effective they are, all while also dancing to protect themselves and maintain their offices. They have insulated themselves, though, through smoke and mirrors so that no one ever really knows what these people stand for.

It is all to avoid the risk of LOSING. The whole system is geared to protect those who are in power, and help them keep that power.

It is because of that hunger for power that we have a George Bush. He stepped in (with Karl Rove's help) and stirred the pot. He made himself into a bright shiny object who had all the answers -- and many in our political systems tied their dreams to his coattails in hopes of bettering themselves. Even as they may have discovered that they had bought a pig in a poke, it was safer to go along and get along. Which is where we are today.

The American Heritage dictionary defines a 'patriot' as "One who loves, supports, and defends one's country." There are no true patriots today. There are many who will tell you that they are, but it is based more on what they can get out of stating that.

We cannot put all the blame for where we are on George Bush (although he is the man to hate at the moment). Instead, each new generation becomes more risk averse, which is why people like Bush get into office. The patriots put them there. It is more about getting instead of giving. Maybe we can call that "radical patriotism."

Every one of us, as citizens, has to become a political activist if we are to ever overcome radical patriotism. That requires GIVING time and service and money and discussing issues and holding people accountable and getting out the vote. Too many people have stayed silent for too long...

Second soapbox offering of the day!

[itwasntme]

Maybe he meant comedy...

[oldtree]

it is the comment of a simple person trying to impress others by divination. all pundits work in this fashion. they are all telepsychic wanna be's. they would give a few years of their life or prison time to nail the big story. these are the same kind of people that become politicians. they choose the glamour over substance. it is all about their personal fame.
I am afraid that nothing over rides this burning desire for most of your on air personalities, it is their glory and there is nothing going to get in their way. a guesswork life with mental illness, and a voice in their ear for the continuity they lack.

[orionATL]

hauksdottir

i love the play on words

and the limerick too.

it's nice to have some leavening for this serious loaf.

seems like you can't ever breed (or immigrate) poetry out of an icelander.

[myxzptlk]

Well written, Kagro. I despise Klein for his opportunism and whining victimhood (how many times in the Cox interview did he refer to his "years in journalism" as justification for unquestioned authority?), but his call for comity (that's C-O-M-I-T-Y, by the way) left me gasping.

[Dismayed]

The US "hasn't been governed from the left very often?" What the fuck was that? Has he forgotten all those years of Democratic Congresses, all the progressive legislation that is really what made America great, uh du, civil right act, and that Republican elitist assholes hate.

This guy's a moron. So now we get to hear how not prosecuting these FUCKING CRIMINALS is not best for the country. I couldn't dissagree more. Rule of fucking law, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry for every Republican vote I ever cast. The shit never stops flowing.

[Dismayed]

I'm going to add one more thing, that is not a rant, but something I've been thinking about for a long time. Something I've been trying to put into words, and now that I have it, it seems so simple. You may be underwhelmed but here it is.

The Republican party is actually un-American. It's un-American because decisions are made at the top and enforced down through the ranks. This process of decision making is fundementally UN-AMERICAN. America is a democracy. Decisions are to be made by "we the people" communicated up through representation, then carried out throught the rule of law by the executive branch.

The democratic party is often criticised for a lack of unity, this is often true, and often works against party dominace, but comes from the fact that the Democratic Party is still functioning in and American fashion. We cogitate and debate and send up our wishes, and our representative try to represent. There is no supreme party leader telling our congressmen what to think or how to vote, or strong arming party discipline.

We leave that sort of behavior to Facist, and dictators, and communist, and today... to Republicans.

They take orders from the top. We send orders to the top. The Democratic party works in an American fashion. The Republican party works in a totalitarian fashion. It's plainly un-American.

So there's my deep thought for the day. Seems pretty obvious now that I've said it, but I think it's easy to lose that simple insight in the vastness of political debate. The Republican party of today is clearly, plainly, observably, and unarguably, functionally, un-American.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Klein's Fallacy: 'good' equals 'centrist' (equals 'Klein').

Like a pendulum, politics passes through the centre, but it doesn't stay there for long.

And when this kind of radicalism comes along -- I think Krugman was alone for a while among big-name commentators who called it by its true name -- then it needs to be purged from politics before a society can even hope of returning to moderation.

That's happened before, and it'll happen again: sometimes through normal politics, sometimes through revolution.

[sponson]

Kudos for nailing it with a great post. Klein is an irrelevant speck, but the pardon of Nixon is the perfect example to take here. No Nixon pardon and we would not be in the mess we're in today.

[floyd]

Risk Aversion: an advanced, euphamistic, synonym for Appeasement

[KLynn]

Great post.

Too bad politics in our coutry fails to be positive sum.

We would be in a different place in terms of our national security and preservation of the Constitution.

[knut wicksell]

Dismayed. I have to disagree with you on the modern Republican Party. It is deeply American. It represents the Corporate side of our culture. Most people (other than academics and independent professionals) work in environments where they are told what to do, under threat of dismissal should they fail to do so. This is how most people live, and with the decline of the union movement, most people seem to accept it, and retreat into their private lives for solace. Don't rock the boat. I think KagroX is right on. We are a people of risk-averters, entrepreneurial flair aside (and limited to the business sector). The Germans were also very risk-averse. But they had a reason: the Thirty Years War. I am having trouble understanding what it was that turned the American people into such a flock of sheep. But there it is. The Republican party is very American.

[John B.]

TV.
Advertisements.
The power of money.
Mediocity.
Middle class values.
Fear.

[William Ockham]

Kagro X,

This is excellent. I tend to think that the situation is even worse. Kleinism doesn't just facilitate Republican extremism, it is an essential element in their ability to game the system.

[emptypockets]

Kagro, I think you may have glossed over the logical problem central to the passage you cite.

Klein sets up modern politics as an emotional/ideological vs. rational divide, imo. He presents the Bush admin and the left blogs as being driven by passions over reason. Obviously, as you point out, that's too broad, and there are many exceptions, but at the broad scale frankly I think he's right.

But the logical problem comes in the next part, when he switches the meaning of "moderation" from "dispassionate reasoning" to "centrism." That's where things fall apart, because he's got no argument on behalf of centrism. He's incorrectly conflating moderate disposition of the style that Obama has -- thoughtful, considered, not driven by anger or ridicule or an obvious urge to dominate -- with centrist politics.

This mistake is interesting to see made so clearly, because it is part of the same "fair and balanced" mistake that underlies so much of what's been wrong with politics and political coverage in the last decade -- the idea that if you're somewhere in the middle politically, you must be reasonable; and that to be considered reasonable you need to be sort of mediocre, average, and dull.

[stagemom]

N-A-R-C-O-L-E-P-S-Y: isn't that what centrists really suffer from? i know i do, when i read jojo. when will all the clintonistas stfu?
obama is no centrist, he's just polite...

[Paul in LA]

" We have gotten six years of baloney and lies from the Bush administration."

'Baloney' is major Nuremberg-level warcrimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Constitution, and CONSPIRACY to defraud the United States.

It's crimes C-O-M-M-I-T-T-E-D that is the issue, Joe, not A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G, your specialty.

In the case of the angry left, thank you Joe for pointing out that Howard Dean was right: the coverups promote any radical idea or conspiracy theory, and that is just a second layer of damage that YOUR HELPING THEM COVER UP THEIR CRIMES has stuck us with, Joe Klein.

Klein, your complicity ain't. Like a Klein bottle, you have only one surface, along with a loop in the spout that recycles the bullshit back to the bottle. It's not just the angry left that doesn't want to take that ride.

[Kagro X]

Good point and good catch, emptypockets. We should ponder that further.