Queer Theory
PostRight is a neat group blog, but this latest entry has me baffled. The basic thesis seems to be that Jamie Kirchick is obsessed with Israel because he criticized the creepy anti-war group ANSWER for participating in a gay pride parade. Or something. In fact, I’m not even sure what the author is criticizing, because over the course of the post he manages to agree that ANSWER is, in fact, a creepy anti-war group. He also manages to throw in some vaguely homophobic smears (Kirchick has his “. . . panties in a bunch”; Israel is apparently deeply sick for “. . . using the “gay” appeal to bolster its image abroad.” Why, one wonders?) while implying that Kirchick’s thoroughly well-researched piece on Ron Paul’s troubled history is a hit job. I mean, I think Kirchick’s views on foreign policy pretty are pretty batty, too. So perhaps we should stick to criticizing him on substantive grounds?
I guess I took for granted that the substantive grounds were a given. And I think it should be a given that Kirchick is obsessed with Israel period.Report
A+ thread title.Report
Just out of curiosity: could you take a crack at a “more substantive criticism” of the piece by Kirchik you link to? I couldn’t see anything I can imagine anyone would describe as “batty.” He’s just defending Joe Lieberman’s national security philosophy by placing it in the leftist internationalist tradition. I can imagine how someone might disagree with Kirchik’s analysis of Lieberman but I just can’t see how this is “batty” (outside reality). Kirchik isn’t the only one to have thought that the original liberal/leftist “interventionist” drive to overthrow the monarchies/dictatorships/tyrannies has been appropriated by the right.Report
Kirchick’s foreign policy views are, indeed, batty. However, the vitriol he often inspires apparently gives people carte blanche (or, perhaps more accurately, the perception of it) to let their inner homophobia percolate out.Report
So far, I’ve learned that Kirchick is, indeed, homosexual–and that homosexuals are, indeed, gay–but, even looking past the tortured syntax, indeed, I can’t find anything to call “batty”–especially in the piece cited by Will here. Indeed, there could have been a lot to disagree with back in 2007 (when the piece was written) but nothing I can see that’s “batty.” Indeed, most of it seems like just common sense to me.Report