Alex Knapp, who blogs for Outside The Beltway, is a self confessed Iraq war supporter, but of course, it’s not his fault. He was misled, tricked and fooled:
At the time, I did support the Iraq invasion, which in hindsight was stupid.
Knapp also doesn’t support Obama’s “stimulus” plan, except when he does:
I am also skeptical about the stimulus package as passed. But I wasn’t opposed to a stimulus package per se.
Yet Knapp is sure of something. He hates the Tea Parties:
I’ve been following the growing “Tea Party” and “Going Galt” movements with no small amount of amusement, in part because there is really just too much sweet, delicious irony surrounding both of these groups of people
The “people” supporting the Tea Parties and “Going Galt” are, well, so unhip that they supported the Iraq war. Ooopsie Knapp supported the war, hence, Knapp’s mea culpa quoted above, to distinguish his mere support of the war from those who really supported the war:
The folks in the blogosphere largely cheerleading the Tea Parties are the same folks in the blogosphere who cheerleaded the war in Iraq.
Actually, the difference between those who were “cheerleaders” for the war versus those who merely “supported” the war is the difference between people who have the courage to stand behind their convictions, and those who go with the political flow without conviction.
But Knapp does not stop there. He attacks the Tea Party participants as acting contrary to their own economic self-interest (under the false premise that Obama really will deliver “tax cuts” to 95% of Americans):
The “Tea Parties”, of course, started springing up in response to Obama’s stimulus package, a package whose largest fiscal component is a tax cut that will largely benefit the people in the income brackets who make up the Tea Party movement. That I find funny.
What I find funny is that someone who decries economic greed finds funny that people would do something that isn’t greedy. Yet Knapp saves his best (or worst, depending on your perspective) for attacking the “Going Galt” movement (which I refer to as the Revolt of the Kulaks):
Some of the biggest proponents of the “Going Galt” bandwagon in the blogosphere and at Pajamas Media are Glenn Reynolds and his wife, both of whom have jobs (Professor of Law at a public university; forensic psychiatrist) that are dependent on public, taxpayer-funded institutions.
Having a job is bad, having a job at a state university is worse, and the “worst person in the world” is a forensic psychiatrist because a forensic psychiatrist can diagnose Sitemeter Envy from a mile away. And the attack on Reynolds smacks not only of Sitemeter Envy, but also of a cheap Rule 4 “make some enemies” ploy to generate traffic (which may actually work).
Whatever it is, Knapp’s attack on people who are taking a stand is not principled. When the movement grows, when the folly of Obamanomics is further revealed, when a year from now everyone is saying I told you so, where will Knapp be? Here’s my prediction of Knapp’s next mea culpa:
(Disclaimer: I was against the Tea Parties and Going Galt, but that was stupid. I didn’t actually support the stimulus plan, but was against it kind of, but not really, you see, I’m confused. I just wanted to be popular. And Professor Reynolds, please send me an Instalanche, because no one is listening to me anymore.)
———————————————–
UPDATE: Talk about funny. Knapp’s blog parents love Glenn Reynolds and credit him with helping them get noticed. They sing an ode to Reynold’s help in the “about” section of the website:
Early notice by ScrappleFace’s Scott Ott of and VodkaPundit’s Stephen Green led to OTB’s first InstaLanche on March 13, 2003.
In honor of this irony, I am officially changing the title of this post to “Instalanche Loving Blog Hates Instapundit.”
———————————————–
UPDATE No. 2: Bush derangement syndrome meets the confused Tea-Party-Hating Instapundit-loving-hating blog post. Citing Knapp, Andrew (“Palin Baby Hoax“) Sullivan writes:
My sense is that it is a delayed reaction in some ways to Bush, and his betrayal of conservatism. For all sorts of reasons, most of the current tea-partiers backed the GOP under Bush and Cheney, although some, to be fair, did complain about some of it. The pent-up frustrations behind conservatism’s collapse under Republicans were trumped, however, by the fruits of power, partisan hatred of “the left”, defensiveness over the Iraq war and torture, and, above all religious devotion to the Leader. Now that Bush has been removed, the massive damage done, and a pragmatic liberal is trying to sort out the mess in a sane, orderly fashion, they’ve gone nuts.
But at least Sullivan does link to this great example of a Cheerleader.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt_YcQlYxyY]
——————————————————
UPDATE No. 3: More on this at American Power Blog: Cases in False Equivalence: Tea Parties and Iraq
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It is interesting that just a few short years ago liberals were telling us how moral they were because they did not vote for their perceived economic interest. That was just five years ago, funny how things change.
“Actually, the difference between those who were “cheerleaders” for the war versus those who merely “supported” the war is the difference between people who have the courage to stand behind their convictions, and those who go with the political flow without conviction.”
Actually, the point was to highlight the irony of spending billions of dollars on infrastructure in Iraq while simultaneously opposing the same here…
Also re: changing my mind, when I discover that the facts are not what I thought they were, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
“Having a job is bad, having a job at a state university is worse, and the “worst person in the world” is a forensic psychiatrist because a forensic psychiatrist can diagnose Sitemeter Envy from a mile away. And the attack on Reynolds smacks not only of Sitemeter Envy, but also of a cheap Rule 4 “make some enemies” ploy to generate traffic (which may actually work).”
No, the point is to point out that it’s ironic that people who advocate “going Galt” make thier money off the public sector. I don’t particularly have “hate” or “envy.” I don’t even know what my web traffic stats are–James takes care of that end. I just post.
“(Disclaimer: I was against the Tea Parties and Going Galt, but that was stupid. I didn’t actually support the stimulus plan, but was against it kind of, but not really, you see, I’m confused. I just wanted to be popular. And Professor Reynolds, please send me an Instalanche, because no one is listening to me anymore.)”
I don’t support the stimulus plan now, which is something you’d known had you bothered to read my post.
“In honor of this irony, I am officially changing the title of this post to “Instalanche Loving Blog Hates Instapundit.””
Once again, I don’t hate Instapundit. And the author in 2003 was James Joyner flying solo, so I don’t see why you need to bring him into this if your problem is with me.
You set out to mock people, and now you take offense to someone pointing out the hypocrisy of your post. Your support for the war was not “stupid” even if now you would have made a different decision based on what you now know. By saying your support was stupid, you are failing to acknowledge that there were good faith mistakes made, including by numerous leading lights in the Democratic party who had access to the classified intelligence. Wrong does not mean stupid, and it certainly doesn’t mean that people lied, which is the standard attack on George Bush.
As to whether you “hate” Instapundit, you took a cheap shot at Glenn Reynolds and his wife. Just admit it.
More important, you are setting up the same straw man argument that Obama uses; people who are against selling trillions of dollars of debt to the Chinese to finance Obama’s stimulus plans are not against all government spending. Your argument is similar to Obama’s argument that opponents of his plan say government “has no role” in helping the economy. So being a law professor at a state university does not mean one cannot express an opinion against absurd levels of government debt.
And what was the justification for your attack on Reynolds’ wife. Do you have evidence that she is dependent on government-funded institutions? Your post was vague on that, stating only that forensic psychiatrists as a group are so dependent. And if she did do work that involved people in government institutions that again would not deprive her of the right to object to trillions of dollars in additional government debt.
Your post was meant to belittle people who have legitimate differences of opinion with you, but who are no more hypocritical than you are.
You may not care about your web traffic, but I think it says a lot that the people who run your website do care enought to have thanked Professor Reynolds in the past. I guess no good deed goes unpunished in the blogosphere.
“You set out to mock people, and now you take offense to someone pointing out the hypocrisy of your post.”
It’s not hypocrisy to CHANGE ONE’S MIND. Hypocrisy is preaching one thing when you have no intention of following that thing.
“Your support for the war was not “stupid” even if now you would have made a different decision based on what you now know. By saying your support was stupid, you are failing to acknowledge that there were good faith mistakes made, including by numerous leading lights in the Democratic party who had access to the classified intelligence. Wrong does not mean stupid, and it certainly doesn’t mean that people lied, which is the standard attack on George Bush.”
Hm. Fair enough to an extent. I still fault myself for not realizing the war would be a mistake in advance. The “stupid” was directed at myself.
“As to whether you “hate” Instapundit, you took a cheap shot at Glenn Reynolds and his wife. Just admit it.”
How is it cheap? They both have the qualifications to work in the private sector but they work for the public sector instead. That’s kind of the antithesis of Going Galt. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged several times. Ayn Rand is one of my favorite authors. Trust me, Ayn Rand would have given it to them harder than I did.
“And what was the justification for your attack on Reynolds’ wife. Do you have evidence that she is dependent on government-funded institutions?”
According to her public bio information, she consults with law enforcement and the court system. No justice system, no money for Dr. Smith.
It should be said that I don’t really have a problem with people working for the public sector. I don’t have a problem with pro-capitalists working the public sector. I DO have a problem with people who accept taxpayer money in salary and turn around against the idea of paying taxes and supporting government.
“Your post was meant to belittle people who have legitimate differences of opinion with you, but who are no more hypocritical than you are.”
It’s not hypocrisy to CHANGE ONE’S MIND.
Who is advocating getting rid of the justice system, accept maybe anarchists who generally occupy the far left of the political spectrum? Even the most ardent libertarians believe that providing a justice system is one of the few traditional roles for government. Your argument is still a straw man argument Mr. Knapp.
If your logic is followed to its conclusion, no intellectually honest conservative could participate in the legal profession, or government at all. Perhaps George Bush’s real failing as a conservative was that he didn’t resign as soon as he was elected? After all, isn’t it inherently hypocritical to lead something you want to see minimized? (Correct answer: no, success is not defined through growth or liberalization, as Mr. Limbaugh pointed out by saying he hoped the President fails in implementing his liberal agenda.)
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is nothing hypocritical about interacting with the legitimate functions of government. It is much less hypocritical for a conservative to “consult with law enforcement and the court system” than for a liberal to be Commander-in-Chief and undermine the the military (or be Senate Majority Leader and do so either).
I’ll tell you what, us conservatives will abandon the public sector completely, when liberals kindly remove themselves from the military, law enforcement, and the private sector. (But keep in mind I make no promises about a coup d’État, and I don’t think legions of pacifist, incompetent liberal bureaucrats would be of much help in stopping it.)
This blog is really written by a law professor at Cornell?
Can you name someone who has “gone Galt”?
Shorter Prof. Jacobson: How dare you besmirch the good name of Glenn and Helen Reynolds with widely available and highly relevant facts? Have you no shame?
> Trust me, Ayn Rand would have given it to them harder than I did.
I believe you are incorrect about that. Ayn Rand was quite benevolent, especially given the widespread caricature of her as a green-faced witch.
"… a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers."
For the full context, see the third entry at
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
Regarding your Twitter updates in your sidebar: I think it would be easier to just keep typing, “I have no life. I have no life. I have no life.”
When you’re stooping to the Althouse level of trying to keep a blogofight alive, you really need to get one.