Friday, November 07, 2003

Sock Taxonomy

So Johann Hari is a neocon apologist. Apparently these days according to liberals it only takes agreeing with Bush on one particular issue to be placed in this category. The Pope must therefore be a neocon apologist since he shares Bush's antipathy to abortion. And with similar reasoning anyone who agrees with writers appearing in Counterpunch must be an apologist for Stalinism. (maybe this method has some merit - Ed.)

Now the bloggoshere is a mischievous medium and Russell's comment need not be taken too seriously. But it strikes me that liberals have a sort of imbalance of skepticism. Anyone, even on the centre Left such as Hari, if they cross the Party Line will encounter a tremendous wave of liberal skepticism about their motives.

In comparison people like Robert Fisk get a free ride. Why don't liberals apply their political microscope to commentators such as him? Is there no one curious about the fact that he opposed military intervention against Milosevic and the Taliban? Is it not possible that he has a political agenda of his own?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home