Readers’ comments on the Dreher-Auster debate

Instead of putting the comments into the specific entry that each comment is replying to, including the “vile sycophants” entry, my open letter to Mark Krikorian, and my replies to Rod Dreher, I’m posting all the comments in one entry. Also, I’ve posted several more comments today at the Dreher blog discussion.

James W. writes:

I have not seen a blog less inviting to the low art of sycophancy as View from the Right. Perhaps, it could be said, even to a fault.

mansizedtarget has fallen into the old habit of revealing his own character in portraying another’s.

LA to Paul K., who sent quotes of Chris Roach’s invective:

Did he say all those things about me at Dreher’s blog?

Paul K. replies:

He did indeed, more or less—I just gathered all the pejorative adjectives and listed them. What a talent for invective this fellow has! His scattershot approach quickly devolves to self-parody, though.

M. Mason writes:

So, not only does this character repeatedly disgorge his load of bile against you with personal attacks, but anyone else who posts at VFR gets splattered by him too, eh? Of course it wouldn’t have occurred to someone who wallows in that sort of tone-deaf, boorish ranting that many simply prefer the level of discourse here, even when they don’t necessarily agree with you on the specifics of every issue.

Lee R. from N. Carolina writes:

So, does this mean I will soon be able to purchase a coffee mug from CafePress with “Most Vile Sycophant” printed on it?

I discovered your blog during the recent Vlaams Belang uproar and I really like it. Happy New Year and best wishes.

Jeff in England writes:

The comments by that blogger were shockingly low and stupid and Dreher should have removed them or at the very least condemned them. In effect, those comments spoke for Dreher. That he didn’t remove them says a lot about Dreher. After reading them many Americans of all types would have been “thrown off” any sort of real dialogue that had been going on. They would have been focusing on this “nutcase” Larry Auster.

Diana West (have you read the book?) refers to this descent into the lower levels in various American walks of life (including the intellectual arena).

Terry Morris writes:

LOL. Look!, you’re just going to have to learn to “cooperate.”

If that weren’t so funny I think I’d be crying right now. In fact, I’m really on an emotional roller coaster at this very moment having read (and now in the process of contemplating the implications of) this statement. Mansizedtarget and Dreher are truly on the same page. They’re both de facto surrenderers.

LA replies:

Why do you say that he is acting the same as Dreher?

BTW, it was brought to my attention last night that mansizedtarget is blogger Chris Roach.

TM replies:

Because he says in one of his comments that you need to learn to cooperate. I think Dreher is saying basically the same thing—we’re just going to have to get used to this invasion and cooperate with it. To me this amounts to a surrender.

LA replies:

That’s an interesting observation. Mansizedtarget is saying I need to learn to cooperate with other people, that I should stop getting into arguments with my natural allies—people like, you know, Derbyshire (hah!).

Similarly, Dreher’s essay is saying we need to adjust to the illegal aliens. I don’t think many people would have made a connection between those two ideas. But you’re right, there is a connection. In both cases the idea is, don’t react, don’t make trouble, don’t resist, don’t call things as you see them … don’t exist.

TM replies:

Exactly. Don’t defend traditional conservatism; adjust thyself to the “new conservatism,” and cooperate (i.e. assist) in this transformation from one to the other.

If you cease to be a traditionalist, then what are you?

LA replies:

That’s very good.

E., a long-time VFR reader, writes from Florida:

I may well be narcissistic, but I’m not really a vile sycophant. I think our interactions are usually decent.

Jeff in England writes:

Dreher’s comments are farcical given that no one is talking about treating illegal immigrants hatefully or violently. His comments about himself not being the writer of the editorial are simply ridiculous. Some of his commenters’ comments are beyond the pale and are worthy of a lawsuit by you. Dreher should have said something about them but stayed silent instead.

Then to top it off, Dreher says that he agrees with you a lot of the time. I’d hate to see his writing when he doesn’t agree with you.

Jeff in England writes:

I am hoping that Dreher totally disassociates himself from and condemns this disgusting “commenter.” If he doesn’t then he deserves all he gets. He has obviously seen the comments by “mansizetarget” by now, as he replied to a couple of comments by others (I think), so how come he hasn’t said anything to you or to his readers?

This is a maniac at loose on the blogosphere and he should be excluded by all decent bloggers and e-mag editors.

That doesn’t mean Dreher shouldn’t be taken to task for his views (whatever they truly are). Dreher’s inference that you might be hypothetically prepared to abuse illegal immigrants (if I am misinterpreting his remarks, correct me) is vile. His inference that you are a racist (again correct me if I am misinterpreting what he said) is also way off the mark.

As for our guest commenter/blogger,he is a good example what I mean by “mud” (as is David Mills) and I think this time you’ll agree with me. As in FATAL ATTRACTION or was it PLAY MISTY FOR ME, each insane blogger admires you and seems fixated on you.

LA writes:

Dreher says:

“And MarkJaws, I don’t know how often I’m going to have to repeat it: I am an anti-immigration hardliner.”

This is Dreher’s claim for himself, but it gets harder and harder to believe in light of his comments implying that there is some terrible racism just itching to come out that Dreher must tamp down. That’s not the way an “anti-immigration hardliner” talks. That’s the way a immigration proponent talks

Mark P. writes:

I read the various responses about you on the mansizedtarget. I’m appalled. You have reasonable and legitimate arguments regarding Dreher, Derbyshire, Spencer and others. These comments are uncalled for.

Basically, the readers are still engaged in the delusion that conservatives and others are playing some Machiavellian “grand game” of out-maneuver-the-liberal. For example, they see Dreher’s presence on some big-city newspaper as something to be valued and preserved, as a way of penetrating the fortress. They can’t see that what is really happening is the compromising of conservative principles.

Dennis Mangan writes:

I have nothing of substance to add, but I completely agree with you. You’ve got a lot of courage to do what you do.

Terry Morris writes:

Mr. Krikorian writes:

“I like Larry and often find him insightful, but he doesn’t seem to appreciate that any social change needs people inside mainstream institutions trying to change their positions, as well as others on the outside taking an uncompromising stance; reflexively calling the insiders sellouts, or the outsiders cranks, doesn’t move the ball forward.”

The whole idea, according to Mr. Krikorian, is to “move the ball forward.” How, pray tell, is the ball to be moved forward when the referees are continually flagging the home team for running plays that are “unfair” to the opponents; for violations of the rules of the established liberal order? He does realize that liberalism is the dominant ideology and that liberals set the rules, doesn’t he?

Respectfully to Mr. Krikorian, he seems to want to have it both ways, and I think his analogy is a bit wanting. If we play the game by the established liberal rules of the game, our side might as well concede defeat now. This is what Mr. Krikorian is asking you to do in effect; play the game by the established liberal rules in order to move the ball forward for the purpose of outscoring your opponents. But what is victory worth when it simply advances the cause of liberalism; when it requires huge compromises resulting in net losses to traditionalism just to get in the endzone, or rather, just to get on the field? In this kind of a scenario the battle might be said to be won, but the larger war lost. How can a traditionalist make such compromises when he can foresee the end of these and further compromises he’ll eventually be required to make—the destruction of traditional conservatism as a viable political force; the establishment of the new conservatism, which is just a mild form of liberalism?

I submit that it is impossible for a genuine traditionalist to violate his principles this way. Therefore Mr. Krikorian is asking of you the impossible, and this is not reasonable.

Terry Morris writes:

Over twenty years ago I lived and worked in Texas for about a year. Does this make me a Texan? Though I do not know this to be the case, I highly doubt Dreher would apply his standard for illegal Mexican invaders to me and other Americans who once occupied space in the state of Texas. Additionally, I lived and worked in the state of Alaska from 1990 to 1992. Does this make me a de facto Alaskan? Of course not. Dreher’s attempt to defend his article doesn’t even make sense. He should just admit the fact that he is wrong and move on.

Ken Hechtman, writes from Canada:

I never thought I’d see the day I agreed with Mark Krikorian about anything, but he’s got it absolutely right about “insiders and outsiders.”

“… any social change needs people inside mainstream institutions trying to change their positions, as well as others on the outside taking an uncompromising stance; reflexively calling the insiders sellouts, or the outsiders cranks, doesn’t move the ball forward.”

I’m making the transition from outsider to insider myself. Four years ago, I was still throwing rocks and bottles at the police, now I’m getting paid to re-elect a sitting MP. So this is something I’ve had to think about a lot recently. Todd Gitlin has a whole chapter about it in “Letters to a Young Activist” that’s made it a bit clearer for me. I can send it to you if you’re interested, but he’s basically elaborating on Krikorian’s point. Insiders and outsiders need each other, though insiders are more likely to know why.

I’ve had it happen once that the national NDP changed course on an issue I care about for the sole reason that I was in the right room at the right time. It’s a good feeling. But I paid a price to be in the room. I gave up the freedom of action I had as an outsider. I had to suck it up all the times I didn’t get my way and that happened more often than not. If I’d stormed out on principle any of the first dozen times I’d wanted to, I wouldn’t have been there the one time they were ready to listen to me.

And if I worked in a capacity that involved talking to the public or the press, it would be worse. I’d have to represent positions I disagreed with as if they were my own.

Jeremy G. writes:

I read the Dallas Morning News Editorial. I fully agree with the Auster assessment of the article. This was largely a liberal piece with a few illegal immigration downsides gently tossed in. And this is a state that is far along in being reconquista’d.

Spencer Warren writes:

You are completely justified in your criticisms of Dreher, despite the abuse you receive. You are the only conservative website that holds to account the many liberal “conservatives” like Dreher, Lowry’s NRO, Goldberg, Brooks, Horowitz et al. who bear a lot of responsibility for the continuing left-wing advance that is destroying our civilization.

John D. writes:

Words have meaning. You realize this fact. Krikorian does not. Good reply.

LA replies:

EXACTLY. Words have meaning. What political actors say matters politically, regardless of what they may personally think is the meaning of what they are saying. If an editorialist says “Illegal aliens are Texans,” he has signed onto the surrender to the illegal alien invasion, even if he personally believes himself to be an anti-immigration hardliner,

A reader writes:

Mansizedtarget’s attacks on you are a kind of karmic comeuppance for your harsh criticisms of Rod Dreher. I am not equating the two things but there is a rough justice in it. I think that the DMN editorial was a muddle that wound up more on the side of the Latinization of our country than anywhere else, and the newspaper confused things by giving out Rod’s name as writer, but your attacks on him for these things were extreme. Rod has been fighting the good fight for conservative values and especially brings out ideas from the older form of conservatism—the importance of private virtue for the kind of country we are, the primacy of family and religion, the need for the refinement of the texture of everyday life, the sense of the particulars that make culture meaningful for its denizens—rather than what seems like the constant neoconservative invocation of universal values shared by all humanity as the sum total of life. On immigration he has been far better than many conservatives. You should have made your points in a more courteous and expansive fashion, recognizing that Rod has done good work and is on your side on many things, and couching your disagreement with him in a more moderate and gentlemanly tone.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 02, 2008 09:32 PM | Send