On the importance of thrown shoes

I've spent far more time this weekend considering the import of a brief comment by Rick Perlstein than I ever have in the past, or ever want to again.  If you haven't already seen what I'm talking about and are feeling masochistic, you can take a look here.  I warn you, though, it could be painful.

You may be astonished or even horrified to hear that what I wrote there only scratches the surface of what I was thinking about this issue, which I feel is actually worth some serious thought.  If my fragile psyche recovers, I may write it up at greater length here (and possibly cross-post it at ATR to give people there a chance to gnaw on me some more).

Comments

[SteveB]

Have some pure comedy gold, my holiday gift to you:

Here's what's missing from the grouch and brainstorm so rife among the dyspeptic tide of liberal resentment: a coherent thought. Obama is precisely who we wanted. He's going to deliver the promised change, and we just can't see it. And that's how it should be, folks, because if we could see what Obama sees, we wouldn't need a transformative leader. Remember, we elected him because he had the vision thing.

...

Rick Warren was the perfect choice. Obama is not throwing the LGBT community under Rosa Parks's bus. He's doing what Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong advocated in their book Crashing the Gate. He's saying to the lefty throng: I'll take care of your needs later. Right now, let's get everyone on the same page. The page we want everyone on right now is the one that says the president-elect can do no wrong. Once we're there, he can be an incredible ally to the LGBT community and realize the many promises he made during the election cycle.

At first, I thought it was a parody, but now I think the guy's really serious. Three phrases I expect to hear more often in the future:

1) if we could see what Obama sees, we wouldn't need a transformative leader.

2) I'll take care of your needs later

and:

3) The page we want everyone on right now is the one that says the president-elect can do no wrong.

[Donald Johnson]

Self-inflicted pain, John. Remember this comment-

"Instead, most everyone was enthusiastically endorsing the original posting's characterization of Perlstein as a power-infatuated liberal with a daddy complex, exhibiting his spectacular ignorance of history with his visceral, gut reaction against the effrontery of someone would dare to profane the majesty and splendor of his god-king president. In my opinion that's not only arrogant and condescending, but it completely misses his point. It's the kind of pseudo-psychological ad hominem I'm used to seeing on Free Republic—not here."

Recall that we're blasting Perlstein's humble opinion that the Iraqi journalist should be jailed for a long time--he could have made a more complex argument that you think he's trying to make, about the rights and wrongs of (moderately) violent protest and come down against it, saying that we shouldn't glorify it and while I would still have strongly disagreed, I wouldn't have found the remark disgusting. But no, he called for the man to be jailed for a very long time. That sounds a bit more like a freeper to me. Condescension is the kindest reaction it deserves.

Perlstein, I find from googling, has said nice things about Nader . I've liked him in the past and liked "Nixonland" and will still read him, but I'm wondering if the attention and respectability he's getting now may be having a bad effect. I would love it if he just apologizes for his remark--the reports that al Zaid may have been tortured surely ought to make him feel deeply ashamed of his "law and order" attitude. But I'm not going to give him credit for making a thoughtful remark or even having any thought behind his remark when he says something cruel and stupid and thoughtless.

[Donald Johnson]

"while I would still have strongly disagreed"

That is, I would have disagreed that this particular example of shoe-tossing by an Iraqi man at the person responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths was totally out of bounds and not something we should laugh about. I'm mostly in favor of non-violent protest, but in this case I'd cut the guy a lot of slack, given the situation. Also, he's probably broken through the media barrier to understanding how much the Iraqis hate Bush more effectively than 1000 blog posts or FAIR press releases or Nader speeches.

[Donald Johnson]

Though all that said, I'm really curious to see what you have to say on the issues, (and will try to ignore any credit you may give Perlstein for raising them).

[John Caruso]

SteveB: Aw, thanks! I didn't know Joe Hope had gotten himself a column. And I didn't get anything for you....

Donald: Remember this comment:

Yeah, that was a good one. It's a very straightforward (nearly word-for-word) description of the original posting. And that was the target—not your comments or anyone else's. Believe it or not, I was pulling my punches when I wrote it (out of consideration for my guest status there).

My mention of Free Republic apparently irked you, but go there and read nearly any thread attacking some liberal's statement and you'll see them enjoy yet another round of dime-store psychologizing about the poor deluded liberal in question rather than addressing any of the actual points. Like I said: pseudo-psychological ad hominem. That's exactly what I saw in the original posting, and the lack of even the slightest opposition to it in the comments surprised and disappointed me, which is what prompted me to throw myself under the tires.

[Donald Johnson]

I'll let it drop after this last comment, but again, Perlstein's remark earned him every derogatory remark Bernard made. Are they all accurate and fair about Perlstein's total output? No, probably not, but that was a pretty slimy thing he said and it's cause for suspicion about whether he's taking the unsavory path towards mainstream respectability. It's happened before--I was shocked several years ago when I started seeing Walter Russell Mead appearing on TV, saying things that seemed totally out of character with the guy who wrote "Mortal Splendor", a fairly left-leaning book of his that he wrote back in the late 80's. That version of Mead would not have been on the Lehrer Newshour during the Bush era. I just saw Mead referred to somewhere as a barometer of conventional wisdom. That's what he is now, but it wasn't always so.

[John Caruso]

Ok, let's say someone claimed that Rick Perlstein obviously made these remarks because he likes raping cats. Would you enthusiastically endorse that? No? Well, that's an exact analog to what commenters at ATR were doing in this case: signing off on an entire set of ad hominem attacks just because they agreed with the overall purpose of those attacks. I don't even like it when people take that approach with George Bush, much less a human being like Perlstein.

They were also signing off on the concept that all "kings and presidents" not only deserve to be the target of thrown shoes (and guillotine blades?), but that any such actions must be met by no sanction at all, and anyone who disagrees with those assertions must be a power-worshiping fool guilty of "spectacular ignorance" of the lessons of history. So watch out, Evo Morales, Michelle Bachelet, Nelson Mandela, et al.

Given how vociferously people argued that there wasn't any general point being made there at all, either by Perlstein or Chazelle, I think they may have misunderstood the entire exchange and only seen what they wanted to see: Rick Perlstein getting the public paddling he so richly deserves. So I think they may not have recognized all of what they were endorsing. Overall, this experience has been a real (re-)education for me in the power of filters, and the extent to which the nature of the message affects people's ability to hear it.

[John Caruso]

By the way, Duncan, in response to this comment of yours at ATR:

John C, I'm basically with those who are disgusted by Perlstein's advocacy of a long prison sentence for Al-Zaidi.

I'm basically with them too (though clearly that didn't come across, no matter how many times I said it). But my disagreement doesn't mean I'm willing to belittle "poor Perlstein" for having a "Big Daddy complex" rather than addressing his actual argument, which I believe is consistent and defensible even if I (strongly) disagree with applying it in this case.

And I'm running out of steam, but about your Chomsky points: the "proof by intimidation" I'm talking about is the way he treats such caveats as absurdities, when they're actually the first and most obvious counter to left-wing justifications for civil disobedience. And about "straw men", I meant his use of the most repugnant actions by right-wingers instead of ones that might be defensible (to choose a modern example: the blocking of abortion clinics). Basically, though there's much that's universally considered "right" there are always going to be judgments on which people can reasonably differ—and therein lies the difficulty, and the crux of the argument that I feel he handled far too dismissively.

[Donald Johnson]

I think, John, you were reading into people's statements all sorts of detailed opinions that weren't there (and yes, I can imagine that this is the part you'll quote back at me)--you make allowances for hyperbole if it sounds like we're all saying that everyone from Nader to Mandela to Morales should be subjected to the same level of contempt that Bush deserves. And when you replied to me in the other thread you seemed to be filtering out my points in strange ways too, so maybe that filter theory of yours has wider applicability than you realize. But yeah, open expressions of contempt (not life-threatening assassination attempts, but people chucking eggs or shoes or mud, etc...) are a healthy expression of anger when we're talking about a man who is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Now if Mandela or Morales were guilty of such things, then yes, people should start hoarding rotten foods and smelly footwear.

I'll remind you again--we're talking about an Iraqi who threw a shoe at a monster, Perlstein says he should go to prison for a long time, we call Perlstein an asshole, and then you come in and start worrying that we're standing next to people who would toss shoes at Nader or throw guillotine blades at Morales (which would be hard to do) and then you claim Bernard's royalism theory is as silly as accusing Perlstein of a desire to rape cats. Well, no, it's not. Bernard's theory, in fact, sounds to me like the kind of thinking I see in liberals who fetishize the Presidency (I mentioned the TV show "West Wing" as an example) and hate Bush because he's sullied the office, as though the office hasn't been sullied over and over again. Whether Perlstein in particular is guilty of this I don't know, but it's an entirely reasonable explanation for his stupid remark. I gave another one early in the thread, which you , ah, filtered out--that Perlstein is extending the argument he made in "Nixonland" to a ridiculous extreme. He is worried that lefties will scare away Middle America by sympathizing too much with the shoe-tosser, so to show that he's one of the serious responsible crowd he advocates a long prison term and wants the rest of us to think so too. I think that's a far more likely explanation than anything you've put forward. It's also contemptible.

There is no benevolent explanation for what Perlstein wrote and that's what's been so irritating about your stance. For about the tenth time, the most charitable thing one can say is that he wasn't thinking at all, and something ugly bubbled up from his subconscious. We've all got ugly things in our subconscious, or anyway I know I do and suspect it of others.

Anyway, maybe you should wipe Perlstein and the ATR thread completely out of your memory, and just write up whatever you think about civil disobedience, violent and nonviolent protest, or whatever it is you're thinking about.

[John Caruso]

Donald, I'm glad you posted again, because I wanted to apologize for irking you (as I clearly have). That was never my intent, and I want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you and your views.

Unfortunately—for whatever reason—I haven't been able to get my meaning across, to you or in general. I mentioned filters as part of that, and while it's true that we all have them, in this particular discussion I'm in a privileged position because 1) I'm the one whose views people kept mischaracterizing and 2) I'm the only one who knows what I actually meant (though I certainly didn't try to keep it a secret). Whatever the cause, at this point there are so many misunderstandings flying around that I don't see how I can possibly get through them—not in this medium and not with things so polarized.

I'll say again that I consider Perlstein's position to be both 1) wrong and 2) reasonable (and in fact much more easily defensible than yours and mine). People keep saying I'm making his argument more complex than it is (one of those myriad misunderstandings, based on confusing my mention of an issue with me attributing it to him), but I'm actually the only one who's been taking him at face value rather than trying to divine his psychological motivations.

So I genuinely appreciate your suggestion that I should wipe this out of my memory and write the posting I'd originally planned to write, but it needed clear air and a receptive audience and at this point there'd be neither. As much as it bugs me to be misunderstood, though, I also realize that this isn't even a water molecule in the ocean (much less a drop). And hey, I'm sure we'll all find ourselves agreeing on other things before too long.

[cemmcs]

Sometimes one reads something which triggers a thought and one wants to share that thought, so one writes a comment which doesn't actually address the original post. It's just something tangential. Others follow suit and the madness ensues.

Of course, I was in no way to blame.

[John Caruso]

By the way, Donald, regarding this: Also, he's probably broken through the media barrier to understanding how much the Iraqis hate Bush more effectively than 1000 blog posts or FAIR press releases or Nader speeches.

Totally agreed. I think that's one of the best things about what he did.

Oh, and cemmcs, since you're reading here: I now think there's no question that he planned the action. Why? Because it took him only a split second to get the second shoe, but his shoes were tight-fitting with laces—so there's no way he could have removed it so quickly otherwise. He had both shoes ready to go. And if you check the transcript, he waited until the exact end of Bush's prepared remarks to throw them—it didn't happen at any particularly offensive phrase.

So I don't see how this could have been anything but a planned action (as his co-workers and others have said). Which is important, to me; the fact that he was willing to risk a prison sentence (and, as it turns out, far worse) to do what he felt was right only increases my admiration for him.

Also, those were big hard-soled shoes, so they could have done serious damage if they'd found their target. So it seems pretty clear that this was criminal assault (or would be under U.S. law, anyway).

[cemmcs]

John Caruso

I see from the picture the shoes have laces but so do my shoes which I wear like loafers. I take them off and put them on without lacing and unlacing them.

According to this people are always removing their shoes in Muslim Culture:

Shoes are removed before entering the area dedicated to prayer. Avoid stepping on the prayer rug with your shoes.

Some Muslims pray at home and take their shoes off when entering the house to keep the carpet clean.

I think this guy slips his shoes on and off all the time without unlacing them. It's as natural to him as breathing. If he gets the urge to throw stuff at Bush, shoes are the obvious choice. Now, if he threw tomatoes, then it would clearly have been premeditated. Why would he have tomatoes at a press conference especially since they are almost impossible to obtain in Iraq?

Besides, if he decided to throw both shoes before he threw the first one, that does not mean it was premeditated. It just shows that he wasn't planning on walking home.

As far as waiting 'til the speech was over, maybe he thought there was a chance Bush was going to apologize to the people of Iraq which would obviate the need to throw away a perfectly good pair of shoes.

Also, those were big hard-soled shoes, so they could have done serious damage if they'd found their target.

Bullshit! This was not a serious act of violence. It may be assault under US law but it is not a serious act of violence.

[John Caruso]

...people are always removing their shoes in Muslim Culture:

Absolutely, but not in the middle of a press conference—if it's done, it happens when you enter a room or house (I'm speaking from experience here). And the shoes are left there, so if they'd had to remove their shoes he wouldn't have had them with him.

Bullshit!

C'mon, keep it civil.

This was not a serious act of violence. It may be assault under US law but it is not a serious act of violence.

See, I never said "serious act of violence." I said it could have (in fact, I'd say would have) done serious damage had the shoes hit their target. If you really do disagree with that after having seen the shoes (again, imagine them hitting you in the face from 10-15 feet away), we're in the realm of irreconcilable differences on this.

Anyway, I'll drop it now; I just thought it'd be worth sharing, since I hadn't seen the actual shoes until now and the type and size made a big difference in my understanding of the event.

[cemmcs]

Absolutely, but not in the middle of a press conference

They do when they are going to throw them. I wasn't suggesting that his shoes just happened to be off. He removed them to throw them. How's he going to throw them if they are still on his feet? If you don't remove the shoes first, they're not goin' anywhere.

C'mon, keep it civil

It's possible you are taking this shoe throwing thing somewhat more seriously than I am. Let me rephrase that -- I beg to differ.

See, I never said "serious act of violence."

I said that. I never said you said that. I said the shoes were not thrown that hard (in my other comments) and the guy called out something about dogs or kisses which I take to be The Middle Eastern equivalent of saying "Hey, Bush, think fast". C'mon, Bush, was in a fraternity. Those guys are always snapping each other with towels, throwing shoes, etc...

imagine them hitting you in the face from 10-15 feet away

I imagine I would have just ducked or caught them and thrown them back at the guy or, as a nod to local culture, I would intercepted them with my head since soccer is a popular sport in Iraq.

I hadn't seen the actual shoes until now and the type and size made a big difference in my understanding of the event.

What did you think they were? Something out of "I Dream of Jeannie"? Thoses Arabian slippers that curl up at the toes?

We're just not on the same page here. I'm sorry.

[John Caruso]

cemmcs: I expect people to disagree here on many things, but I also expect them to do it respectfully.

Merry Christmas.

[cemmcs]

John Caruso

Alas, I fear this may be the smoking shoe. The guy's toast.

He said he did not believe his brother planned to throw the shoe, but it might have occurred to him when he was asked to cover the news conference, because his brother changed from foreign-made shoes into Iraqi-made ones beforehand.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well.

cemmcs

[cemmcs]

Just to clarify. The comment from the brother does suggest that the guy went to the press conference with the thought in mind that he was going to throw the shoe which is relevent a to the question of premeditation.

I have not altered my opinion that his action, the throwing of the shoe was more an expression of contempt than an act of violence. I still don't think Bush was in any real danger of being pysically injured.

Okay, gotta go. Merry Christmas again.

[Gnome Chomsky]

Gotta agree with what Donald's saying - Perlstein is displaying a pathological fear of anything intemperate or emotional here, probably so as not to frighten away the mythical denizens of Middle America (I haven't read his book, but I'll take Donald's word for it here).

And I agree that the whole issue of civil disobedience is actually another whole issue and not even really germane to this particular discussion. Recall that this isn't even about al-Zaidi per se; for Perlstein, he's just an afterthought, obviously guilty, so lock him up already. What's so laughably ridiculous, and what makes me have no real respect for his thinking, is that Perlstein is saying that we, as American liberals/leftists, are not even allowed to laugh at this sort of thing. It's the idea that Americans might send old shoes to Bush's library as a sign of contempt or disrespect that has his undies in a wad. That's what he thinks will grease the skids towards anarcho-fascism, not whether a foreigner in their own country assaults the President. We're all supposed to join him in calling for stiff punishment for al-Zaidi so that some Midwestern blue dog Democrat doesn't decide to vote Republican next time out of disgust for our lawless ways. So as far as he's concerned, you, John, have already done your part to turn us into the Fourth Reich by celebrating this in a blog post. Sieg heil, buddy!

[John Caruso]

Gnome: Perlstein is displaying a pathological fear of anything intemperate or emotional here...

I think he's displaying a foolish consistency, myself.

Since I don't know if you followed the original ATR thread, this is all I'm saying: that we should take Perlstein at his word and oppose or attack him for what he actually said rather than spinning a speculative psychological theory about it. I think he meant just what he wrote: that attacks on national leaders (no matter how deservedly hated) can't be allowed, because if we allow that kind of behavior we're in danger of descending into anarchy (namely, a state in which anyone can take it upon themselves to attack any national leader for whatever reason they feel is sufficient). And the reason for advising other liberals not to send shoes is that that would be an endorsement of that principle—and clearly, if he feels this kind of action shouldn't be allowed he'd also feel it shouldn't be endorsed.

It's certainly possible that my straightforward reading is incorrect, and he really is acting under either the mildly disingenuous psychological mechanism that Donald and you describe or the deep daddy-god-president-worship complex from the original ATR posting. But I don't see any evidence of that from what he actually wrote, and since I see a simpler and more reasonable interpretation of what he wrote I think that's likely the correct one.

You're right that he'd be unhappy with my support for al-Zaidi's action, by the way, which is fine; I've said all along that I disagree with him. And that's where civil disobedience comes into it: my disagreement with him in this case (as opposed to my conditional agreement with him in the general case) stems from the fact that I recognize al-Zaidi's action as a natural, just, and justified response by one of Bush's victims, whereas he's applying a blanket appeal to law and order as though the circumstances don't matter.

[Donald Johnson]

John--I was out of town for a few days. Anyway, no need to apologize--it'd be odd if I didn't get irritated at something you've said once in a while, since I get irritated at everyone at one point or another.

I disagree with your reading of RP--as I said, my reading seems to fit in very well with what he says in the comment and with a major theme of "Nixonland". But we've beaten this to death.

BTW, I was a little uneasy with Perlstein's attitude in his NYT Sunday Magazine article on Philip Agee--no time to link and no time to say why. But I think maybe there is yet another hint of a desire for mainstream respectability, though I'll also give him credit for saying that the US was supporting fascism.

[Gnome Chomsky]

I think he meant just what he wrote: that attacks on national leaders (no matter how deservedly hated) can't be allowed, because if we allow that kind of behavior we're in danger of descending into anarchy

Ah, but he didn't actually say that in so may words (although it's obviously implied and a logical deduction in any event). He says:

Liberals should not make light of or license the physical assault on the leader of a sovereign state, no matter how much he's deservedly hated. This is not how we do politics, unless we're in favor something tending toward anarchy, or fascism.

He's not specifically saying it "shouldn't be allowed", he's assuming it might happen and saying that we shouldn't react favorably to it in any way if it does happen. Again, I think it's implied that there should be some sort of punishment, just like there would be in any ordinary assault (though I would argue that it shouldn't be any more than the time served or minor fine he would get if he threw a shoe at his brother in a heated argument; just because it's a head of state doesn't mean the crime suddenly becomes infinitely more serious). But it seems clear to me that he's much more concerned with our reaction to an event like this. We (American liberals) didn't "allow" it or "license" it, because obviously we have no control over what al-Zaidi did of his own volition. We didn't urge him to do it, and I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that anybody should just be able to assault any leader, anytime, for any reason (I haven't seen it, at any rate). He just wants to make sure nobody "makes light" of it, and the only reason I can come up with for such a strange stance is what we've already said: he's desperate to keep liberalism from being tainted with dirty hippy rebelliousness. (I would also argue that back in the good old days when we actually had a left wing here, presidents and even corporate CEOs got shot by anarchists like Csolgosz and Berkman, and the country survived and moved along, so I think Perlstein is being a wee bit hysterical in his fear of a slippery slope to Nuremburg rallies because we snicker at Bush getting a loafer in his chops.)

The problem is that while, obviously, general rules and ideals are fine, you can't turn them into a Procrustean bed where you find yourself in absurd positions, as in this case, like arguing for draconian punishments for minor offenses. You have to allow for individual mitigating circumstances, something that most people would consider common sense. The fact that Perlstein has somehow misplaced that common sense here is bizarre, and it's impossible not to be tempted by speculation as to why that is.

[John Caruso]

Gnome: ...he's assuming it might happen and saying that we shouldn't react favorably to it in any way if it does happen.

Right, and I assume that's for the reason I suggested: because he thinks assault on a national leader is always a serious thing, and therefore doesn't think it should ever be treated lightly.

...just because it's a head of state doesn't mean the crime suddenly becomes infinitely more serious...

Ah, yes. We never got to this, but I'd guess that one unspoken basis of Perlstein's argument is that assault on a head of state should be treated as though it's more serious (thus the suggestion for draconian punishment for a relatively minor offense). And I can see convincing arguments for that view; I won't go into the details, but as an example, assault on a bus driver in San Francisco is met with harsher penalties than assault on a passenger, because a bus driver is in a public position that makes them the focus of anger and a very likely target of violence.

Again, it's an arguable point—but what's key in terms of my response to the original ATR posting is that one can believe assaults on national leaders should be met with harsher punishment than assaults on the rest of us without considering leaders to be sacred father-figures whose very turds smell like fragrant roses, etc, etc.

...general rules and ideals are fine, you can't turn them into a Procrustean bed where you find yourself in absurd positions...

Yeah, definitely agreed. Thus my reference to Emerson's hobgoblin of little minds.

Donald: ...a desire for mainstream respectability...

I think it's even simpler: Perlstein is fairly mainstream (though with progressive leanings), so he's largely bound by mainstream liberal thought. So I don't see it as an excessive desire for mainstream respectability so much as a distressing lack of radicalism.

Glad to hear we're still buddies.

Oh, and I totally agree.

[John Caruso]

Oh, by the way, Gnome: ...I think Perlstein is being a wee bit hysterical in his fear of a slippery slope to Nuremburg rallies because we snicker at Bush getting a loafer in his chops.

Yeah, I'd agree the slippery slope ain't quite that slippery (and the bit about fascism is still perplexing to me). Also, I highly approve of the phrase "loafer in his chops."