Apologies and Reaffirmations

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Politics, , ,

My co-blogger Dr. Gibson alerted me to the rudeness of my tone regarding Dr. Delacroix in a previous post. Dr. Gibson rightly admonished me for three things:

  1. Using the term “Dr. J” instead of the formal Dr. Delacroix
  2. My insinuation that anybody who disagrees with my observations is insane or irrational
  3. My accusation of demagoguery on Dr. Delacroix’s part

I am guilty of all three of course. I referred to Dr. Delacroix as Dr. J because it is a self-administered nickname he gave himself on his other blog, Facts Matter (it’s on the right-hand side under “links”), and he has not objected to me using it before. I took Dr. Gibson’s critiques in stride and have made the corrections. I apologize again.

On point number two I shouldn’t have discounted the arguments in favor of imperialism or interventionism so brusquely. I again apologize and have altered the text accordingly.

On point number three, though, I feel like I hit the nail on the head. Check out the following three posts by Dr. Delacroix and tell me if I went too far by labeling his arguments demagogic:

In these three posts Dr. Delacroix insinuates that all who disagree with him are anti-Semitic (knowingly or otherwise), immoral, and cowardly. What do you guys think?

5 thoughts on “Apologies and Reaffirmations”

  1. Your use of the word, “demagoguery” also struck me. Not necessarily as offensive, just as curious. Demagoguery does not seem like something that a sincere person (even though I disagree with him, he seems sincere) can engage in, at least not too much. Surely you do not think that Delacroix was intentionally demagoguing. I wrote it off in my head because I assumed that you were using it to mean that he was repeating the demagogic arguments of others rather than formulating them to deceive or appeal to people.

    Reply

    • Yeah, I know it’s a serious charge, but hear me out! Two examples to support my argument that Dr. Delacroix demagogues on matters of foreign policy (there are many more) come from the links I posted in the above blog.

      From Libertarian Military Isolationism… comes this quote:

      The reason I am referring to why libertarians don’t enroll en masse into the Libertarian Party is the latter’s military isolationism. Although it may have different theoretical foundations, it’s hard to distinguish in practice the Libertarian Party’s military stance from naïve pacifism. It also resembles closely lack of patriotism although Libertarians will proclaim loudly that no one loves this country more than they and suggest that others love it from a perspective lacking true understanding.

      And from Ron Paul Won’t Get My Vote is a bit longer example:

      I think Ron Paul is both a racist and an anti-Semite but in a mild, passive way, if there is such a thing. […] I think his passive racism is rooted in indifference, in callousness only. When an ardent follower of his, an orthodox libertarian insists (on this blog) that one kind of African massacring hundreds of thousands of another kind of African with machetes and bricks is none of our business, he demonstrates precisely this kind of callousness […] Besides, we don’t know enough to hold off the machete or the brick. Besides we don’t even know who started it…

      Similarly, I suspect (“suspect,” I don’t know) that Ron Paul shares in the casual anti-Semitism of his Southern social class […] His anti-Semitism, if any, is of the passive kind. It will never lead him to favor the slaughter of Jews but it allows him to live comfortably with a hazy knowledge of the harder European brand of anti-Semitism and of its historical consequences. Plus, medicine is a field of endeavor where one might bump hard against common Jewish unscrupulous industriousness. (Not my formula; I cribbed it; how sad I am it’s not mine!) […]

      I have met this kind of shameless mendacity before. It’s common among leaders of virtuous small sects who have spent many years in the wilderness, addressing only small groups of the already converted, the elect, those who will never contradict. In the seventies, I knew members of tiny Trotskyst groups, splinters of splinter of splinters, the shavings of multiple ideological schisms. They would speak well, with winning logic, and demonstrate a thorough knowledge of history. And then, they would come up with a howler that reminded you instantly that schizophrenics too can sound intelligent. Not that I claim Ron Paul is insane. His mind is just way out on a limb and he does not care that it is, and he probably even enjoys it.

      Underlying the passive racism, the matter-of-fact anti-Semitism, and the indifference to fact lies a tremendous intellectual elitism that is fundamentally undemocratic. Ron Paul, like his fellow isolationists from the Left, does not really care what the great unwashed masses of voters know, understand or believe. He thinks they should vote for him because he is right on everything, or on everything that matters. If they don’t, too bad for them […]

      And, naturally, I have not dealt here again and explicitly with the fact that Ron Paul’s foreign policies views make him as dangerous as President Obama to the survival of this constitutional republic. Or, possibly, he is even more dangerous since Mr Obama finally revealed himself a secret admirer of covert military action against those who would destroy us.

      This is demagoguery at its finest.

    • Perhaps you are right. In any case I think it is a subtle combination of ignorance (and no, not everyone that disagrees with me is an ignoramus) and a need to goad his libertarian readers.

      First of all, what is the moral worth of “loving your country”? I am sure that there are limits even Dr. J would put on “patriotism”. There are times when I hate it. The people praising this country the loudest are usually the most cynical. Regardless of their party affiliation.

      And how Ron Paul can pal around with von Mises and Rothbard and be an anti-Semite eludes me. As does how he can urge toleration, restraint, and voluntary interaction and still somehow not care about “the masses” (who, and I am surprised Delacroix does not agree, are generally uninformed, usually by choice).

      Also, Delacroix’s characterization of the South (or a certain class in the South: politicians? doctors? libertarians? Texans?) as still somehow a hotspot of racism, however latent, however muted also shows ignorance. Not even the SPLC makes such blanket statements. I seem to remember a recent study showing that blacks…ah…er…people of African ancestry felt more at ease with southern whites than they did with northern whites. I know I heard or read it somewhere quite recently. I tried to google it so I could post my source, but keep coming up empty, so take it for what it’s worth.

    • Hank,

      Your generosity makes me want to pack up and move to Montana today.

      When accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, unpatriotic thinking, communist tendencies and subversion of the constitutional republic are brought up without any evidence I usually attribute such charges to demagoguery, especially when they come from an academic whose work suggests he knows better…

Please keep it civil