Archive for July 5th, 2006

LibAnon

LibAnon makes several good points on my saying liberals will switch to pro-missile defense for Israel:

NOT SPAM
I found the Stormfront version of your post, and you were a lot clearer there. I now see that I was right the first time. You’re saying that the American left will about-face on Star Wars because missile defense is now good for Israel.
Either way, I disagree with your analysis. You seem to think Left and Right are distinct movements. They are not. They are distinctions WITHIN movements. Every political movement — Zionism, liberalism, communism, even Nazism — has both left and right wings. When a movement achieves its objectives, one of those wings is purged. It never fails. That is how political movements work.
It is to the credit of idealists that they tend to misunderstand this, but even if they’re wrong for admirable reasons, they’re still wrong. Jews who remain on the Left today are good examples. They all grew up denouncing racism and fascism. So now that Israel has become the world capital of racism and fascism, they condemn Israel. This is very naive. The more worldly-wise among them, like David Horowitz, know that the difference between Left and Right is a matter of tactics, not principles. So like chameleons, they know how to change color when the environment changes. Idealists who cannot do this end up fighting for their enemies, and are finally thanked by being destroyed.

Comment by LibAnon

In the 1970s, relative to Communism, the left and right WERE different. Yet I published a book exactly thirty years ago denouncing both, please note the title:

A Plague on Both Your Houses

I complained there that conservatives will vote for ANY military expenditure. Liberals voted against all military expenditures that might hurt the USSR. This was so long ago that George Will made some sense then. He described the pro-Defense, Henry Jackson Democrats as “keeping American armed forces strong enough to defend Israel.” They are now neo-conservatives.

It would help a bit if you and Joe would note what I said, though I am the last to have a right to that complaint. I said the liberals like Kennedy would be reversing themselves when they go from decades of denouncing missile defense to supporting it now that Israel is threatened. Conservatives will not be reversing themselves because they have always voted for ANY military expenditures.

This is a small historical change I expect to see. I thought I would mention it. It is NOT a declaration that TODAY there is difference between left and right.

Conservative spoksesmen, especially at National Review, now unanimously agree that those who founded NR were WRONG. They agree that liberals were the only true faith until 1970. But obviously this represents a change of personnel.

In the 1960s, there were actually pro-segregation articles in NR, one by Ernst Van Den Haag of the New School for Social Research in New York (Yes, I knew him, too). Now the conservatives leave more slime on the floor when it comes to race than liberals do.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

10 Comments

Joe’s “Job Description”

Excellent assessment! Now you know what my job description is. Hey, it’s a job somebody’s got to do. In this case, it turns out to be me. I’m having a world of fun. I hope you are having the same quantity of fun.

Comment by joe rorke

MY REPLY:

It’s nice to see you say you’re enjoying yourself, and I know you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t feel your were getting were time’s worth.

Once again, your use of the term “job description” made me remember something that impressed me a long time ago. The man who took over Avis Rent-A-Car and made it such a success wrote a how-to book called “Up the Organization..” With the pun, he had a l0ok on his face on the cover. But the book wa actually a very short collectionof points about running an organization.

One of his points that really got to me was about “job description.” Remember that the the per capita income at that time was about a third what it is today — in dollars — and he said he could not believe that companies would write job descriptions in advertising to hire people at over over 50,000 a year. If someone is getting paid at that level, he said, hire them and they will find their job description or out they go.

Then it occurred to me that, inhte case of each executive who had been th the company for a few years, you might be able to describe generally what they did. That would be a job description, too. In my terms, hiring a high-level exec with a description of what he WILL do is a job PREscription. What I wrote for Joe was a job DEScription. I am not telling him what to do. I am describing what he does do.

So, Joe, you don’t have to worry about being fired. But if you get to be a smartass I might cut your salary.

I don’t want to correct the term job descritpion, just to make this point.

It’s sort of like the vague irritation I get from the word “aristorcracy.” The word means rule by the aristos, the best. I defy anyone to say that the groveling clowns with titles today are the best of anything. Or that that enslaved (which was the declared purpose of Versailles) silk-pants-wearing wimps of Versailles constituted the best of anything. Louis XIV built the place to keep those clowns under his thumb. But that is what people like Buckley think of when they say “aristocrat” today.

As in the case of job description and job prescription, I have my own word, which I do not try to force on anybody, for this distinction. The word aristocracy as used means rule by birth, not by talent or gifts and least of all of noblesse oblige. Nobody sells white Britain out like the Queen. So the actual meaning of the word is naciocracy.

See all the thinking Joe makes me do? I don’t think I’ll cut his salary THIS week.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment