Sunday, January 04, 2009

Liberal Burblings....

Every now and again I find that I just have to pop over to Liberal Conspiracy to see what they're saying. It's a bit like my instinctive purchasing of the Independent. I do it for two reasons, first for the possibility to make myself a little angry at the general self-righteousness, but more so second, to have a good laugh at silly generalisations.

Today's brilliant example comes from Sunny Hundal, who, whilst being a good writer sometimes, just has a tendency to throw in rather stupid remarks. In a post he has done titled "White-washing George Bush’s legacy" which is largely an attack on Tim Montgomerie's decision to write a post listing what he think Bush did right rather than what he did wrong. Sunny says,
It’s an old tradition on the right to try and paint glowing legacies for political leaders who have been abject failures (think Ronald Reagan) so they can look back and reminisce about the entirely made-up good old days.
Correction Sunny. It is an old tradition of party political hacks on either side to try and paint glowing legacies for political leaders who have been abject failures. It's not something that is exclusive to the Right, and suggesting it is makes you look exactly like one of those partisan idiots you often complain about on the Right.

The fact is is that every democratic political leader, historically speaking, will have done somethings right, and somethings wrong. A leader that has managed to win a second General Election can probably be said to have definitely done something right in their first term.

Tony Blair did somethings right, and somethings wrong. Likewise, when Brown is gone there will be those who will write about what he did right as well. Of course, the judgment of what is right and what is wrong, will vary based on the subjective bias of the person assessing the period.

However, the idea that one leader or the other is an abject failure from start to finish, that is to say everything they touch went wrong, is frankly bollocks. What is even more bollocks is the idea that writing positively about a leader when most writing is negative is something only the Right do - one assumes that the apologists on the Left for, amongst others, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein passed you by?

11 comments:

kinglear said...

I agree with you about the Independant. Insufferably self-righteous

James Higham said...

All leaders are going to do at least some things right.

Sunny said...

apologists on the Left for, amongst others, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein passed you by?

That's the far left Dizzy, not the mainstream left who do that. Whereas here, its the mainstream right who are doing it. You've got Melanie Phillips writing for the Spectator - a woman who peddled the most hilariously crazy conspiracy theories about Obama during the election. And she writes for the biggest right-wing paper in the country.

Doesn't that make you feel even a bit embarrassed?

Frankly, I don't spend much time reading the Morning Star. Never have.

The Huntsman said...

"Tony Blair did some things right,....."

I can think of only one such, which was to proffer his resignation to Her Majesty in 2007. Otherwise he was a train wreck from the moment he emerged lying through his back teeth from his mother's womb.

Old Codger said...

What has Brown done right?

Rossa said...

Bit like the Google ad on Iain Dales site for Right Wing Extremists, that has been placed by the Met Police on Right Wing websites/pages. If you click on the ad it takes you to a page about the Terrorism Act and what behaviour is "against" the law so that you can report it. As Iain asks, have they also placed this ad on left Wing sites etc. Not a bloody chance. So only Right Wing (conservative)people can be terrorists....seems I've been upgraded from criminal to public enemy No1. Next step, the Gulag?

labrat said...

abject faliures like Ronald Reagan?

Jebus, If Reagan was a faliure - economic boom, winning the peace of the cold war, etc. Then I don't know what it takes to be a success! (perhaps their definition of success includes specific crieria like nationalisation of the banks and rail network, the abolition of boom and bust, record tractor production etc.)

Michael Heaver said...

Anyone who describes Ronald Reagan as an abject failure really is not worth listening to.

Thatsnews said...

However, the idea that one leader or the other is an abject failure from start to finish, that is to say everything they touch went wrong, is frankly bollocks

Oh, I don't know Dizzy. everything they touch went wrong... Must come pretty close to describing Gordon Brown's leadership.

dizzy said...

That's the far left Dizzy, not the mainstream left who do that.

Actually Sunny, it was the mainstream Left many years ago which is the point.

Whereas here, its the mainstream right who are doing it. You've got Melanie Phillips writing for the Spectator - a woman who peddled the most hilariously crazy conspiracy theories about Obama during the election. And she writes for the biggest right-wing paper in the country.

Love the generalisation, one example, and then its all of the "mainstream Right". Come off it.

Doesn't that make you feel even a bit embarrassed?

I doubt Johann Hari makes you feel embarassed and he is just as crap from the other sie of the fence. Why should I feel embarassed.

Frankly, I don't spend much time reading the Morning Star. Never have.

Frankly, I didn't say that you did but nice try and building up an argument that wasn;t made in order to destroy it and look smart.

How about you deal with the actual point being made. That being that "white-washing" or trying to write positively about a political leader that may or may not have made mistakes is not something exclusive to one side of the political spectrum. Stopping being such a dick.

dizzy said...

Incidnetally, dismissing a commentators argument out of hand because they have written utter bullshit in the past is a tad anti-intellectual and just a teeny bit fallacious.

Melanie Phillips/Johann Hari types may very well write crap some of the time but it does not follow that they write crap all of the time and there arguments are therefore wrong by default. One should engage with their arguments and refute them, rather than dismissing them instantly or, as in your case in response to me, arguing against what you want others to think I said about you.