I see that because James Joyner noted my post from this morning that Hugh Hewitt responds to me (after a fashion) in an update to his original post that I criticized below.
Wrote Hewitt:
UPDATE 2: OutsideTheBeltway notes that somebody named Steven Taylor is arguing that this post is the equivalent of arguing that Democrats are traitors. Such hyperbole –Don’t question my patriotism!”– reveals immediately that the writer does not understand the difference between incompetence/negligence and intentional harm. Trusting the national security to Democrats is like trusting a moving car to a four year old, or the management of a vast company to the junior high school business club. Neither the child nor the preteens want to wreck the car or ruin the corporation, but both results are near inevitable.
Of course, Hugh did not, it would appear, read my post, but plays mainly off of the title of James’ post. Indeed, his response in his update doesn’t really address what I was getting at.
And I’m sorry, but to say that voting for Democrats equals voting for defeat is pretty extreme, and (to my mind, at least) ultimately unproductive. Is he not saying that voting for Democrats will basically lead to death and destruction? That may not be calling them traitors, but it is pretty close.
Also, while I had no interest in Gore or Kerry being President, I can’t say that the Democratic Party writ large winning elections is the same thing as four year-olds driving. Such analogies simply demean millions of adults who don’t see the world exactly the way Hugh does (and democracy means having the right to think as one wishes).
As James noted on his post on this subject, I am a Republican voter. However, I don’t see the GOP as my tribe, nor do I see them as the salvation of the nation (last time I checked neither party fit that bill). I certainly do not see the need to unwaveringly support everything that this administration does. My guess is that Hewitt assumes that I am one of those Democrats who can’t be trusted with power–as such, I suppose he sees no need to directly engage my point of view. Of course, I have been rather unimpressed with his unwavering support for whatever this administration does (e.g., Harriet Miers).
Indeed, I find Hugh’s condescension to be telling–not just the”someone named Steven Taylor” bit (an odd way for someone who supposedly is the great expert on blogging to deal with another blogger), but also in his dismissive rebuttal–that I simply don’t “understand” the complexities of the situation.
But, of course, ultimately that was my point about his original post: that his mode of argumentation seems to be to simply be dismissive of his opponents.
(And I would note that I am not the only one who thought that Hugh’s comment was over the top).
Steven, I’m pretty sure you’ve been weblogging longer than Hugh. His lack of respect for you and your argument was as lame as his “we have to defend the GOP always” thinking.
Comment by Sean Hackbarth — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 7:57 pm
Sean,
Thanks for the kind word–I appreciate it.
(And I think you are right about the amount of time he and I have been blogging. Ah well).
S
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, August 19, 2024 @ 8:04 pm
I’m beginning to feel more and more like this type of anti-democratic demogoguery is a uniquely Republican characteristic. As a moderate who has supported many Republican candidates through the years, I’ve grown increasingly suspicious of what appears to be a systematic series of attacks on the democratic process by Republican Party and its representatives, whether its election fraud in Ohio, warrantless wiretaps, or the McCarthy-like words of people like Mr. Hewitt or Vice President Cheney equating opposition to the war with Treason. Is a vote for Republicans a vote against democracy?
Comment by Michael Joe — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 12:53 am
Hugh’d blogging and self-marketed expertise is more opportunistic than real and deep-rooted.
Amd calling people traitors, explicitly or implicitly, simply for disagreeing with the views you are trying to impose monolithically on “your side” is ultimately quite wrong, regardless of how entertaining such hyperbole may be at times. When you use such hyperbole and forget or don’t realize that’s what it is, well, “off the deep end” is a phrase that comes to mind.
Comment by Jay — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 3:05 am
That would be “Hugh’s” not “Hugh’d.” Doh.
Comment by Jay — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 3:06 am
Welcome to the big time!
Really, you’re just a nobody until you’ve been condescendingly misquoted by Hugh Hewitt.
Comment by Chip — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 9:28 am
Though being attacked by Michelle Malkin would be a good substitute, speaking of deep ends.
Comment by Jay — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 10:52 am
Chip/Jay:
:)
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 12:55 pm
Interesting.
Hewitt should have you on his radio show - that could be a fun exchange. He’s not horrible on radio (in fact, once you’ve heard him on radio, his blog seems less troublesome as well - at least that’s my experience).
However, I have to say I disagree with him on this one and side with you, Steven.
Comment by B. Minich — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 10:30 pm
Hugh is pretty good most of the time. But when he’s bad it’s embarassing.
Comment by Sean Hackbarth — Sunday, August 20, 2024 @ 10:54 pm
Steven:
There’s really no point in reading Hewitt; he’s one of those heavily stylized writers who aspires to be an opinion leader but never really says anything that interesting, even when he ventures beyond the talking points.
The “junior high school business club” is a particularly ill-chosen analogy, given Bush’s lackluster business performance before taking public office, but I suppose that’s old history by now.
Comment by Brett Marston (guestblogger) — Monday, August 21, 2024 @ 9:38 am