Awhile back, I asked a very simple question.
Falguni Sheth had written a post attacking the Obama administration for its murderous campaign against Muslims. Her argument was remarkably similar to that of Conor Friedersdorf, when he said that he couldn't vote for Barack Obama, given Obama's habit of murdering Muslims. Erik Loomis had attempted to undermine the legitimacy of this argument without actually rebutting it, by claiming that only a white man could possible advance it. That's not my editorializing. That is the text of the post.
So I asked: would Erik Loomis accuse Falguni Sheth of being a privileged white man? He never responded. To respond would require him to admit that there are nonwhite people, and women, who disagree with him politically. And like a lot of white male liberals, Loomis's consideration of nonwhite people and women is restricted solely to his ability to use them as leverage for his political points. To many or most white liberals, nonwhite people have become a political prop, essentialized nonentities who are useful only insofar as their interests can be used to shut down debate, the way Loomis tried to do against Conor Friedersdorf. That this is ugly towards both his targets and the people he uses as instruments of argument should go without saying. At the very least, the notion that any particular argument could not possibly be voiced by women or people of color is the worst kind of condescending liberal essentialism that denies such people personal choice and agency.
Falguni Sheth had written a post attacking the Obama administration for its murderous campaign against Muslims. Her argument was remarkably similar to that of Conor Friedersdorf, when he said that he couldn't vote for Barack Obama, given Obama's habit of murdering Muslims. Erik Loomis had attempted to undermine the legitimacy of this argument without actually rebutting it, by claiming that only a white man could possible advance it. That's not my editorializing. That is the text of the post.
So I asked: would Erik Loomis accuse Falguni Sheth of being a privileged white man? He never responded. To respond would require him to admit that there are nonwhite people, and women, who disagree with him politically. And like a lot of white male liberals, Loomis's consideration of nonwhite people and women is restricted solely to his ability to use them as leverage for his political points. To many or most white liberals, nonwhite people have become a political prop, essentialized nonentities who are useful only insofar as their interests can be used to shut down debate, the way Loomis tried to do against Conor Friedersdorf. That this is ugly towards both his targets and the people he uses as instruments of argument should go without saying. At the very least, the notion that any particular argument could not possibly be voiced by women or people of color is the worst kind of condescending liberal essentialism that denies such people personal choice and agency.
Now, Glenn Greenwald is making a very basic point, one he and I and others have been making for a long time: Obama's drone campaign and its terrible cruelty are allowed to continue because of who its victims are. No one would ever countenance a drone campaign in Sweden or Canada or Australia. It would never happen. And it would never happen because we only permit that kind of aggression against certain kinds of people, most often Muslims, who have been subject to a brutal campaign of collective punishment since 9/11, and a whole host of aggressions and indignities for decades longer. Our country permits the murder of Muslims because our country refuses to treat Muslims as human. If Loomis or the rest of the gang at LGM want to dispute that, I suggest they look up the record of hate crimes against Muslims or those thought to be Muslims in this country since 9/11, or read a fucking newspaper.
More directly to the point against Loomis, many, many people who are not white males have condemned drones. Greenwald has, helpfully, provided a list of people who supported Rand Paul's filibuster (without supporting Paul). There are many others who have not supported Paul explicitly but have repeatedly and angrily condemned the drone program that LGM has worked so hard to protect from criticism. Loomis and the rest of his merry band of hippie-punchers at LGM refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Here's another go round from Loomis. Where are the people Greenwald has repeatedly mentioned in Loomis's post? Why that silence? Why doesn't he respond to Greenwald's point, which has been made directly and repeatedly? Is Van Jones a privilege white male? Is Zaid Jilani? Is Margaret Kimberly a "bro-gressive"?
More directly to the point against Loomis, many, many people who are not white males have condemned drones. Greenwald has, helpfully, provided a list of people who supported Rand Paul's filibuster (without supporting Paul). There are many others who have not supported Paul explicitly but have repeatedly and angrily condemned the drone program that LGM has worked so hard to protect from criticism. Loomis and the rest of his merry band of hippie-punchers at LGM refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Here's another go round from Loomis. Where are the people Greenwald has repeatedly mentioned in Loomis's post? Why that silence? Why doesn't he respond to Greenwald's point, which has been made directly and repeatedly? Is Van Jones a privilege white male? Is Zaid Jilani? Is Margaret Kimberly a "bro-gressive"?
Two things reveal themselves in Loomis's silence on people who aren't white males and don't agree with him. First, that he has no argument that is not a genetic fallacy, that he is literally incapable of expressing an argument on this subject that does not stem from his self-identified proximity to the needs and desires of women and people of color. And second, that to Erik Loomis, nonwhite people are useful political tools to be used as a cudgel against his political opponents, and to be ignored when their opinions are inconvenient for him.
Glenn locates racism in the refusal of many to take Muslim life as a non-negotiable priority the way they make, say, defense of Social Security a non-negotiable priority. He's right to do so. I have a more particular accusation. I would personally accuse Erik Loomis of racism of a less direct kind: by refusing to acknowledge the existence of nonwhite people who oppose the drone program, because of the political inexpediency of such acknowledgment, he is projecting a level of disrespect and contempt far worse than active insult or degradation. To refuse to acknowledge that someone exists is worse even than outward derision. And if you insist on using that frame, as pure a matter of white male privilege as I can imagine.
You'll note that I am willing to say that I believe that Erik Loomis is being bigoted in this behavior. I don't say that this is nearly bigotry, or like bigotry, or says things that only a white dude can say. I say that in his refusal to acknowledge the existence of women and nonwhite critics of Obama's assault on civil liberties and the Muslim world, and his complicity in the same, he's guilty of racism. Loomis, meanwhile, continues to work LGM's favorite trick. LGM's bloggers constantly chum the waters by tiptoeing up to the line of accusing people of racism or sexism or similar, as they did with Friedersdorf, and then letting their cowardly, anonymous commenters come out and say the really noxious stuff. It happens any and every time LGM bloggers attack leftists for insufficient fealty to Obama, and that happens often.
It happened, for example, to me, during the late stages of last year's election. When LGM ran a series of posts repeatedly attacking me because I refuse to be a good Democrat, the comments section was filled with repeated lies about me and about what I believe. There were dozens of them The employed professors behind LGM, safe in their employment and their tenure, were well aware it was happening. Unlike the LGM crew, I am but a poor graduate student, living a precarious existence. But I would sooner give it all up than engage in the pathetic farce of having anonymous commenters do my dirty work for me. So openly and aware of the consequences, I say that Loomis's continue refusal to acknowledge the existence of those critics of Obama is flatly racist.
In the post, Loomis makes that tendency of LGM as plain as it ever has been, by out-and-out quoting a commenter. The commenter, sadly, lies. "And yet Loomis does not dismiss these concerns, and does not 'mock and scorn those who work against them' – he shares the concerns; he only opposes the idea of sacrificing the lives, health, and well-being of millions of people for the sake of a completely futile, symbolic gesture." What can it possibly mean to "share concerns" when you have done nothing to address them? I said, before Election Day: the boys at LGM are setting themselves up for a lot of criticism of Obama in the new term. The way that they have constantly insisted that the time for criticism of Obama comes after the election certainly suggests that they will have a lot of criticisms to make. Have they made those criticisms? Judge for yourself. Look over their posts. See just how much attention they are devoting to the lives of men, women, and children who happen to be guilty of living in the wrong place and looking the wrong way.
Now I suppose Loomis will get all sore about this, and as is the fashion around there, he'll get his tenured buddies to jump in, and they'll work the commenters into a frenzy to get the really ugly stuff going. But if he would stop and actually think about all the checks he's cashed, all the times he's claimed not to care for Democrats or Obama or drones, he might think of a different course of action. He might actually criticize them, and make them the subject of his argument. Not express them as an aside; not mention his disagreement with them while forbidding other people from voicing their own; not writing a thousand words about how Glenn Greenwald is an asshole and a dozen about how oh yeah it would be cool if Obama would stop killing Muslims please; not engaging in yet another go round for Lawyers Guns and Concern Trolls, where they claim to support a particular position but dissemble, evade, equivocate, and complain. Just make the argument. If you really stand for what you stand for, if it really matters to you, just fucking stand up and speak out.
It's not about Glenn Greenwald, and it's not about me. It's about one of the most shameful campaigns of aggression in the history of a country that has had more than its fair share. If you are a person of conscience, then be counted against that campaign, or admit that you are part of the problem. But stop claiming virtues you don't have. Stop waving your hand in a direction you refuse to actually go. Stop making it about the personal failings of Glenn Greenwald instead of what you've failed to do. I can't fucking listen to it anymore.
You'll note that I am willing to say that I believe that Erik Loomis is being bigoted in this behavior. I don't say that this is nearly bigotry, or like bigotry, or says things that only a white dude can say. I say that in his refusal to acknowledge the existence of women and nonwhite critics of Obama's assault on civil liberties and the Muslim world, and his complicity in the same, he's guilty of racism. Loomis, meanwhile, continues to work LGM's favorite trick. LGM's bloggers constantly chum the waters by tiptoeing up to the line of accusing people of racism or sexism or similar, as they did with Friedersdorf, and then letting their cowardly, anonymous commenters come out and say the really noxious stuff. It happens any and every time LGM bloggers attack leftists for insufficient fealty to Obama, and that happens often.
It happened, for example, to me, during the late stages of last year's election. When LGM ran a series of posts repeatedly attacking me because I refuse to be a good Democrat, the comments section was filled with repeated lies about me and about what I believe. There were dozens of them The employed professors behind LGM, safe in their employment and their tenure, were well aware it was happening. Unlike the LGM crew, I am but a poor graduate student, living a precarious existence. But I would sooner give it all up than engage in the pathetic farce of having anonymous commenters do my dirty work for me. So openly and aware of the consequences, I say that Loomis's continue refusal to acknowledge the existence of those critics of Obama is flatly racist.
In the post, Loomis makes that tendency of LGM as plain as it ever has been, by out-and-out quoting a commenter. The commenter, sadly, lies. "And yet Loomis does not dismiss these concerns, and does not 'mock and scorn those who work against them' – he shares the concerns; he only opposes the idea of sacrificing the lives, health, and well-being of millions of people for the sake of a completely futile, symbolic gesture." What can it possibly mean to "share concerns" when you have done nothing to address them? I said, before Election Day: the boys at LGM are setting themselves up for a lot of criticism of Obama in the new term. The way that they have constantly insisted that the time for criticism of Obama comes after the election certainly suggests that they will have a lot of criticisms to make. Have they made those criticisms? Judge for yourself. Look over their posts. See just how much attention they are devoting to the lives of men, women, and children who happen to be guilty of living in the wrong place and looking the wrong way.
Now I suppose Loomis will get all sore about this, and as is the fashion around there, he'll get his tenured buddies to jump in, and they'll work the commenters into a frenzy to get the really ugly stuff going. But if he would stop and actually think about all the checks he's cashed, all the times he's claimed not to care for Democrats or Obama or drones, he might think of a different course of action. He might actually criticize them, and make them the subject of his argument. Not express them as an aside; not mention his disagreement with them while forbidding other people from voicing their own; not writing a thousand words about how Glenn Greenwald is an asshole and a dozen about how oh yeah it would be cool if Obama would stop killing Muslims please; not engaging in yet another go round for Lawyers Guns and Concern Trolls, where they claim to support a particular position but dissemble, evade, equivocate, and complain. Just make the argument. If you really stand for what you stand for, if it really matters to you, just fucking stand up and speak out.
It's not about Glenn Greenwald, and it's not about me. It's about one of the most shameful campaigns of aggression in the history of a country that has had more than its fair share. If you are a person of conscience, then be counted against that campaign, or admit that you are part of the problem. But stop claiming virtues you don't have. Stop waving your hand in a direction you refuse to actually go. Stop making it about the personal failings of Glenn Greenwald instead of what you've failed to do. I can't fucking listen to it anymore.
0 comments:
Post a Comment