But Where Will the Neocons Get Their Torture Porn?

They’ll have to go back to watching their Abu Ghraib tapes because the new season of “24” has been postponed indefinitely — another salutary effect of the Hollywood writers’ strike.  Make it permanent, guys!

Explore posts in the same categories: media, non-culture, Pop culture

7 Comments on “But Where Will the Neocons Get Their Torture Porn?”

  1. John Payne Says:

    No! Damn it, I’m addicted to the Daily Show and, to a lesser extent, the Colbert Report. And if this thing goes on long enough to block another season of It’s Always in Philadelpia riots may need to happen.


  2. It’s painful now, but another upshot of the strike is that the lack of original programming, especially of popular shows like the Colbert Report, will accelerate the transition of entertainment from television to the web. Maybe the Onion will pick up the slack by improving its ONN offerings.

  3. John Payne Says:

    Completely unrelated, but just thought you’d be interested to know that according to the Blog Readability Test, your blog’s reading level is genius, for whatever that’s worth. Check it out for yourself here: http://www.criticsrant.com/bb/reading_level.aspx

  4. Tim Says:

    Also completely unrelated. Sort of.

    See this recent article in Dissent Magazine called Who Named the Neocons? by Benjamin Ross.

    See link here.

    It’s interesting to note that Ross refers to Irving Kristol claiming his faction to be ‘the true heirs of the New Deal’. Something Ross disputes.

    My guess is that Kristol would have the stronger claim, especially when you take care to look at the whole New Deal, including the second New Deal and the Dr.Win-the-war phases too. The more radical, or apparently radical, first phase may be closer to the hearts of modern liberal leftists.

    General De Gaulle in his memoirs gives an indication that he would vote in favour of Irving Kristol’s claim.

    General de Gaulle wrote:

    “President Roosevelt’s conceptions appeared to me grandiose, as disquieting for Europe as for France. It was true that the isolationism of the United States was, according to the President, a great error now ended. But passing from one extreme to another, it was a permanent system of intervention which he intended to institute by international law. In his mind, a four-power directory – America, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, and China – would rule upon the problems of the universe. A parliament of the United Nations would give a democratic appearance to the power of the ‘Big Four.’ But, unless they delivered to the discretion of three of them the quasi-totality of the earth, such an organization, according to him, would have to involve the installation of American forces on bases in all the regions of the world, of which certain ones would be chosen on French territory.”

    “Finally Roosevelt counted on luring Stalin, into an ensemble which could contain his ambitions and where America will be able to muster good will. Among the ‘Four’, he knew that the China of Chiang Kai-shek needed his agreement, and that the British, sure to lose their Dominions, must bend themselves to his policy. As for the throng of medium-sized and small states, he would be in a position to act on them through foreign aid. Finally, the right of peoples to decide for themselves, the support offered by Washington, the existence of American bases were going to give birth in Africa, Asia and Australia to new sovereignties which would increase the number of states under obligation to the United States. In a similar perspective, questions proper to Europe, notably the fate of Germany, the destiny of the countries along the Vistula, Danube, the Balkans, the future of Italy seemed to him merely subordinate. In order to find a happy solution for them, he would assuredly not sacrifice the monumental conceptions of his dreams.”

    “I listened to Roosevelt describe his projects to me. How human it was for the desires of power to clothe themselves in idealism.”


  5. [...] I the only right-of-center type who isn’t wild about the Hollywood writers’ strike? I don’t even watch much television –three, [...]


  6. Really makes you think, doesn’t it?

  7. Ben Ross Says:

    Tim –

    Thanks for the mention! But new deal liberalism is not the same thing as the Roosevelt presidency. The program of New Deal liberalism was union organizing, Social Security, public housing for the middle-income as well as the poor, national health insurance, etc. Some of it passed under Roosevelt, some didn’t. Even if one thinks that neocons continue the New Dealers’ foreign policy, which I don’t, supporting Reagan meant an abandonment of New Deal liberalism.

    As for foreign policy – the Cold War foreign policy of New Deal liberalism (I’m here excluding the Henry Wallace strand of the New Deal, which we can all agree neocons didn’t continue) was George Kennan’s containment. The neocons hark back to the “rollback” doctrine promulgated by the critics of Roosevelt’s and Truman’s foreign policy. It’s important for historical understanding to realize how much isolationism and cold-war adventurism were intertwined in the fifties. The Republican alternative to the Roosevelt-Truman policy of alliances that DeGaulle criticized was not disengagement but unilateralism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: