Federalist Paupers

Freidersdorf v. Riehl

Besides blogging for the Atlanic at ideas.theatlantic.com, Conor has been in protracted debate with Dan Riehl. Their conversation started with Conor’s criticism of Mark Levin’s bullying, but digressed from there. The League of Ordinary Gentlemen hosted a Skype debate between the two of them earlier this week.

I was unimpressed by the debate. The major fault line between Dan and Conor is not policy, values, or philosophy, but about the style and methods some Talk Radio Show hosts use, and whether these are beneficial to conservatism. Unfortunately, that debate didn’t happen until over an hour into it (and even then for only a few minutes). The two of them spent the most of their time arguing (unsuccessfully) about what conservatism means and then got into a debate about the Iraq War.

But the thing that most gets me about Dan is his constant misrepresentations of Conor and others. Here’s a prime example from this post-debate thread:

Riehl:

On Bush’s “empire building”, I pointed out the definition of “empire,” and Conor conceded Iraq wasn’t quite that. I also pointed out that, while far from perfect, democracy in Iraq has taken root and seems to be growing, so how is it he can insist such efforts can not work. At that point he started invoking Abu Ghraib.

Freidersdorf:

As anyone can verify if they listen to the audio of our conversation, I do say that America should not become an empire — but I ALSO make it clear that I do NOT think America is an empire right now. Rather, I think it is going to be a challenge in the future for America to walk the line between defending itself abroad and becoming an empire. I actually say this very directly in our conversation.

In fact, I think that anyone who listens to our conversation will find your post to be woefully inaccurate at best.

Riehl:

Please don’t misrepresent yourself here. I just checked the audio. Go to 29:30 right after you invoked “empire.” I asked you what countries we have invaded and “taken over” in the last 40 years. You said Iraq and Afghanistan. That implies empire building.

Well, here’s a transcript I’ve made of the relevant sections. Judge for yourselves:

UPDATE: Dan is now accusing Conor of not adequately transcribing Mark Levin’s radio show. This is just too rich.

(Begins at 29:21)

[On being asked what threats the country faces and responding to Dan’s earlier answer]

Freidersdorf: I would say that there are some other big problems that the country faces. One of them is sort of national security, and staying secure without becoming an either an empire by getting ourselves into so many foreign entanglements that we’re spending money all over the world or else becoming, uh –

Riehl: Why did you use the word “empire”? What do you mean “empire”? What foreign country have we invaded and taken over in the last 50 years, since World War –

Freidersdorf: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Riehl: No. That’s not empire; that’s military intervention. Empire, to me, suggests me you are growing. In other words, Iraq becomes a sister state or a shadow state of America. I don’t see that happening. I don’t see anyone advocating for empire.

Freidersdorf: Well, I agree that what we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an empire. I do think that there are–

Riehl: You said, or you implied it was, it was “we shouldn’t act [imperially."] That’s what you said, Conor. I’m not making it up.

Freidersdorf: Right. I said a challenge we’re going to face in coming years is staying secure without becoming an empire. I think that there are going to be failed states in the world — you know, Pakistan may be one of them, Iraq may continue to be one, Iran may become one — and we’re going to face a tough line between having to go in, and take out terror cells and terrorist training camps, and on the other hand not putting ourselves in a position where we have permanent military bases all over the world. And at the moment, we have permanent military bases in a lot of places. And while I think that most people in the United States don’t think that we should have permanent military bases in Iraq, if you read the Weekly Standard blog, you will see that there are definitely some very prominent conservatives who think that we should have permanent military bases in the countries that we’ve now invaded.

Riehl: I wouldn’t disagree on that, necessarily–

Freidersdorf: Alright. So…

Riehl: –particularly, I think that it’s a smart idea. I think — I’ll be honest with you — I think the Iraq invasion, or whatever you want to call it, was I think…in essence, what I think the underpinings of the Bush philosophy I think were relatively brilliant and exactly what we needed to do. I’m saying it was implemented correctly or that it cannot be misconstrued as something other than what it is. But to me, just so you understand my way of, where I’m coming from on that, is not to become an imperial power, but for instance, to establish a genuine, not a mock democracy, but a genuine democracy in the heart of the middle east and to have to have Iraqis control their own lives and begin to realize economic growth and social advancement and all the things that the West has enjoyed, I think that’s probably, in other words, seeding democracy in a cesspool part of the world is strategically very smart. We can disagree on that, but I wouldn’t characterize what Bush were trying to do was build empire. I think you could say he was trying to create empire in terms of capitalism, but you know, Saddam Hussein and Iraq (?)is a different issue. So I didn’t have a problem — I don’t have a problem with that concept in terms of the Middle East because we’ve been trying for 40 years to find others ways to do it and I think that having the Iraqi people who are genuinely free and steering their own destiny and able to act as a model of modernization or modernity is a wonderful thing. And we’re still on track for that, and I think that history may show that that was actually a wonderful thing. That doesn’t mean that I want to have an Air Force base in Kuwait for the next 2,000 years, but it might be a good thing for the next 50 years. You know, why we never pulled out of Germany and some of the other areas is better question to me. I’m sorry to let (?) carry some of the water in that. I’m sorry talking too much.

Payne: No, no, not at all. that’s why you’re here to do.

Freidersdorf: So, I guess — well, first, let me say I agree with you that George W. Bush was not trying to start an empire in Iraq and I — there’s, you know, some deabe as to whether he wante to start democracies in the Middle East. And I think he did. I take him at his word that he did.

Posted by Tom in Buffoon Watch, Conservatism

9 Comments »

This entry was posted on Friday, June 19th, 2009 at 9:43 am and is filed under Buffoon Watch, Conservatism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “Freidersdorf v. Riehl”

Geoffrey says:

Dan doesn’t “point out a definition of empire,” he says it “suggests you are growing.” And has some stuff about invading and taking over other countries.

This is a pet peeve of mine. You kind of see this all the time, where someone talks about American empire and someone else dismisses it because we don’t have an emperor or don’t go around annexing other countries.

You don’t have to be an empire to have an empire. And you don’t have to be constantly conquering and expanding, either. America’s arguably had an empire since the Spanish-American war. We’ve certainly had one for the past 60 years — look at a world map of US military bases.

And if you consider it your right to invade another country to install a friendly government — even if you’re justified, even if you’re installing a pro-human rights democracy — you’re acting imperially.

June 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am

biggles says:

Geoffrey – that is a somewhat fatuous argument. The presence of military bases = empire?
If that was the case then why does the US leave when asked – e.g. Philippines and recently one of the ex-Soviet states (one of the ’stans – Carjackastan or the like).
Most of those military bases are there by mutual consent – look at the ruckus in Korea when Clinton wanted to draw down the troops there.

And since you quote 60 years as your time line – what was arguably the luckiest nation in the aftermath of WWII? – surely Austria where the US occupied one half, forced the Soviets to relinquish their half and there are no troops there today (that I know of) perhaps with the exception of the Marine guards at the Embassy.

Try withdrawing the US forces from Japan and you would soon see how the Japanese feel about that.
Why did Singapore build a naval base specifically to accommodate and allow US Navy vessels (incl for carriers and subs – its quite a complex) free access if the US considered ‘imperial’?
And on and on.
I would suggest there is little empirical evidence to support your contention apart from the usual Chomsky-esque nonsense about big bad America

June 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am

Tom says:

Biggles,

I’d say that Geoff is quite right to say that we’re an empire (or, at least, acting imperially) and that you’re equally right to point out that it’s a rather soft empire.

Better to be the Koreans than, say, the Mytelines, though both are/were under the influence of an empire.

June 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am

Geoffrey says:

I would suggest there is little empirical evidence to support your contention apart from the usual Chomsky-esque nonsense about big bad America

I would suggest looking beyond your Chomsky strawman. Start by googling “Empire by Consent.” Maybe check out some of Niall Ferguson’s work. Empire is a descriptive word, not a pejorative, although the reality it describes is usually (but not always) unpleasant. An empire that is consented to and enjoyed by its members is still an empire.

June 19th, 2009 at 10:52 am

biggles says:

I believe I just did look beyond that – by giving you several examples.
America might be big – but not necessarily bad.
You yanks are such self flagellates.
And yes – I am familiar with Ferguson’s work. Likes the sound of his own voice is one of my reactions.

June 19th, 2009 at 10:58 am

Jamie says:

I’m still at loss to figure out when Empire became a pejorative. I think that Dan, Conor and Biggles play into the trap of accepting liberal premises about empire being bad, and thus are forced to defend something that really doesn’t need defending.

Is America an empire? Economically I’d say definitely – we can assert our economic will around the world almost with impunity (less so thanks to recent reckless spending, and the future looks even dimmer). Are we an military or political empire? This is less clear but I would say that we are a very soft empire as Tom also points out.

But all this is besides the point. SO WHAT! What matters is if what America brings to the world economically, politically and culturally is a net benefit. I would argue that this is so. Our military bases provide stability. Our culture gives people a taste of the freedoms we enjoy. And our economic might enriches the world.

The Pax Americana has been a good thing for the world. If this is the results of an American Empire then I say “Long live the empire!”

June 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am

It Has That Nixon/Kennedy Smell To It « Around The Sphere says:

[...] The League hosting a debate between Dan Riehl and Conor Friedersdorf, moderated by Scott H. Payne. A partial transcript is available at Federalist Paupers. [...]

June 19th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

VinceP1974 says:

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of “Empire”

Empire is when one State has de facto sovereignty over foreign/overseas nations / states/ countries / peoples and usually, is occupying them militarily

The US and its people have never sought to do so to another country/people outside the context of subduing a state under the control of war-making dictators.

To make Empire into a metaphor and then strip the metaphor of its metaphorness and elevate it to a real description is just plan wrong.

If we were an Empire, then why are nations allowed to negatively react to Congress’ “Buy America” mandate in the Impoverishiolus Bill?

If we are an Empire, then why must we beg Saudi Arabia to increase oil production when the cost gets high?

If we are an Empire then why is Tim Geithner making a fool of himself in China telling them lies about the Obama and Fed plan to destroy the Dollar?

If we’re an Empire why did Russia invade Georgia, North korea set off nuclear tests, Iran enrich Ur , Chavez seize US Company asssets.

What a strange and bizarre Empire this is. What is more strange is people so arrogant as to regard other people in other nations to be essentially enslaved by America and having no power of thier own .

June 20th, 2009 at 12:28 am

Geoff says:

VinceP1974 — If you go by the false dichotomy of “no empire” versus “enslaving the entire world,” then of course America has no empire. At that point, though, you’re really not saying anything.

June 20th, 2009 at 1:39 am

Blogroll

News

Only For Fun

Freidersdorf v. Riehl

9 Responses to “Freidersdorf v. Riehl”

Leave a Reply