Naomi Wolf Apologists Still Lack Facts

by Karoli on November 27, 2011 · 18 comments

Since I wrote my original post on her ridiculous conclusion that the government is waging civil war on us and then another over on Crooks and Liars, the world has evidently gone mad. Take a look at the comments on Joshua Holland’s Alternet post debunking Naomi Wolf’s hackery for evidence of that.

Look, folks. Feeling like something must be true is not the same as truth. Feeling like DHS must be orchestrating a nationwide crackdown is not the same as DHS orchestrating a nationwide crackdown. Feeling is what Fox News relies on to disseminate disinformation and create a fantasy-based electorate.

Here’s what has come to light since I wrote the original post:

  • Mr. Ellis has responded to my Crooks and Liars post by essentially confirming that the “grand conspiracy” he alluded to in his first post does not exist at this time, or at least, he cannot confirm it. The only confirmation he could get was that the DHS was present in Portland. This should not come as a surprise, given that the OccupyPortland group was adjacent to federal property.
  • Milt Shook has an excellent post taking Ellis to task for hack rumor “journalism”. Ellis has responded to him in an update to his post responding to me, basically bickering over Ellis’ prior employment details rather than the facts Wolf claimed she gleaned from his story.
  • In fact, Mr. Ellis debunked his own conspiracy theory nine days before Naomi Wolf published her screed on The Guardian.
  • The DOJ has an open, active ongoing investigation of police brutality. There is no reason to expect the police actions at UC Davis and other protests would be excluded from that, but we still hear about how the administration is turning a blind eye to the brutality. As if brutality didn’t exist before the Occupy movement or something. Yeah, well. We know better.
  • Finally, Ms. Wolf has not deigned to justify or otherwise defend her indefensible piece. Her silence speaks as powerful a message as her nonsense writing.

Yet. There are arguments all over the Internet being posed in comments. Arguments that consultation with PERF is somehow evidence of a larger conspiracy even though PERF exists to minimize friction between police and citizens. Arguments that it just feels believable.

Progressives, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that government is capable of good when it fits your agenda and assume without evidence that government is doing bad things. Every time you go down this rabbit hole you affirm the tenets of the right wing. Every single time. Strict civil libertarians will argue all day long that civil liberties are being breached and perhaps they are. But that does not mean the ones breaching are at the top of the federal government, no matter how good it might feel to think so.

Naomi Wolf tried to do grave harm to the Occupy movement, and yet they defend her! How did she do harm? Here’s how. When she spewed out her unsupported and unsubstantiated theory that the federal government with full blessing of the President and Congress is waging a bloody civil war on its citizens, she alienated ordinary people, because it doesn’t pass the smell test for those people. People who get their Social Security checks every month and find that their Medicare cards still work at the doctor and who receive unemployment checks and food stamps are not necessarily inclined to believe the issuers of those benefits have declared war on them.

Naomi Wolf did harm to the progressive movement with that screed, because she aligned with the extreme right wing in the name of the Occupy movement. It isn’t the first time she pretends to be progressive while echoing right wing tropes. She called the President Hitler’s equal.She demanded rape victims expose their identities in order to level an accusation of rape, all for the sake of defending Julian Assange. This, from a woman who has the gall and temerity to call herself a feminist.

Both of those ideas are enormously popular on the right. Move far enough left, and I suppose that’s where you land. But in the process, she and others who insist on this kind of rhetoric alienate people who are not extreme ideologues on either side and do harm to the movements they claim to support.

AngryBlackLady has rounded up all of the pieces to this story and put them in once place, while tying a great big red ribbon around it called “truthless”. I highly recommend you read it in its entirety, but I will quote her here because she sums up the insanity of this whole episode well:

This is what Fox News does. This is what the right-wing does. This is not what liberals are supposed to do. We live in a reality-based world. In a world where Hawaii is a state, Africa is a continent, President Obama is not a secret Muslim, and anchor babies aren’t real.

We don’t live in a Teabilly Fox-infected world that thrives on fear of the unknown boogeyman hiding in the closet. We don’t live in a world where “journalists” spew bullshit designed to manipulate and play upon the fears of their readers. We don’t live in a world where “Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if Naomi Wolf’s made-up claims are true” constitutes critical thinking.

And if I’m wrong — if we do live in a world fraught with feverished paranoia? If this is what progressivism and liberalism has become, then we’re fucked. If we cannot rely on progressive and liberal journalists and bloggers to tell the truth and do their jobs, then we’re no better than the wingnuts. Should we take credible sources and concerns about potential federal involvement and investigate them? Absolutely. Should we draw conclusions from unsourced claims and tout them as The Truth. Absolutely not.

We can’t call out Fox News for this kind of crap while engaging in it ourselves.

This is just not who we are.

Finally, I’m going to address the accusation that because I support President Obama, I can’t possibly be right about Wolf. This is some of the weirdest logic leaping I’ve ever seen. Again, I reiterate. Facts are facts. When you write a piece alleging an undeclared civil war by the President and Congress with no truth or facts under it, I have the right to call bullshit. Whether I support the President or not has nothing to do with it. Lies are lies; hysteria is hysteria; paranoia is paranoia, and it’s absurd to suggest that they should go unchallenged because I support the President. If there were a shred of truth to Wolf’s assertions, that would be the argument to make. Trying to marginalize mine because of who I support politically is nothing more than an effort to spin away the truth of this matter: Wolf has invented a civil war that isn’t there.

For those who insist on making this a partisan issue despite the fact that it’s really a truth issue, consider this: Who benefits from paranoia and hysterical factless accusations? I assure you it is not progressives. Or liberals. Think on that before feeling like they must be right.

Bonus link: PoliticusUSA

  • Anonymous

    Slow clap as I rise to my feet.

  • Karen Bice

    FWIW, for anyone, especially women, to take Naomi Wolf seriously just because she proclaims herself a feminist and sees herself as a victims’ advocate, is questionable at best. She shoots from the hip without facts and with emotion, whatever suits her cause or whomever her target is at the moment. This is an ongoing MO with her. Her goal is attention, nothing else.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    As I keep saying, Judith Miller had more and better sources for her aluminum tubes fairy tale.

  • http://twitter.com/weywerdSun George Bartsch

    Journalists who wish to remain credible must never substitute plausibility for facts. Readers must learn to suspend judgment in the absence of facts, regardless of plausibility.  Otherwise, we descend into a mirror image of the altered reality inhabited by Fox News and is viewers.

  • Anonymous

    Brava!

  • Anonymous

    Whoa, whoa, whoa.
    As a conservative, I take mass offense to you blaming Naomi Wolf on us.
    Yes, she’s a crank.
    But she’s not the first, or only, crank on the left.

  • http://borasky-research.net/about-data-journalism-developer-studio-pricing-survey/ M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

    “When she spewed out her unsupported and unsubstantiated theory that the federal government with full blessing of the President and Congress is waging a bloody civil war on its citizens, she alienated ordinary people, because it doesn’t pass the smell test for those people. People who get their Social Security checks every month and find that their Medicare cards still work at the doctor and who receive unemployment checks and food stamps are not necessarily inclined to believe the issuers of those benefits have declared war on them.”

    Those of us who are in that class of “ordinary people” *and* who remember the dark days between the assassination of JFK and the resignation of Nixon are even *less* inclined to believe that the “Occupy Movement” has anything to offer them than they are to believe that the DHS, Congress or the President  is “the enemy”. “Occupy Wall Street” is an anarchist social media campaign of vague threats, punctuated by the distributed denial of service attacks of Anonymous. *They* alienated me *long* before Naomi Wolf, Michael Moore or Matt Taibibi jumped into the fray.

    Naomi Wolf isn’t doing grave harm to Occupy Wall Street. She is doing grave harm to “truth, justice and the American Way”, and journalism, of course, but that’s not what Occupy Wall Street is about. It is about pushing the system, disruption, and civil disobedience. It is about crafting a message and acquiring followers. It’s about accumulation crowds, some of who are willing to take pepper spray for “the cause”, and some of who bring children to confrontations with riot police. It is solely about the means at this point, and the ends don’t really matter.

    I don’t want to turn this into “What did you do in the war, daddy?” – lets just say the Nixon years may have been the most creative of my life, but ultimately I think they were wasted. I passed up opportunities to grow, and instead spent six years of my life surviving. Eventually you get tired of marching, seeing your “heroes” go to prison or get beat up, wishing for political changes that aren’t going to happen, and just general negativity. Eventually you find a way you can build and contribute and get paid for it, and you do that. That’s how it worked out for me, anyhow, and that’s how I hope it works out for my friends in the movement.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    I wholeheartedly disagree. Without those people out in the public square, we would still be talking about these ridiculous austerity measures at a time where people are suffering badly. They force us, as a society, to pay attention to what is really affecting people in this country. 

    Listen. You have an asshat businessman out there saying he won’t hire anyone until Obama is out of office. Not just saying so, but advertising it. ADVERTISING IT on every damned truck he’s got. Do you suppose anyone gives a damn about students bending under the weight of usury student loans, outrageous school fees for universities that used to be publicly funded in California, or middle-aged people like me who are discriminated against on a daily basis because we either lack the proper college pedigree or are just too old for their liking? No. And those people point it out.

    Are there anarchists and Paulites and LaRouchies out there in the public square? Yes. But they do not represent the overall people out there. Are there infiltrators out to discredit the movement? You betcha. But 99.99% of those people are decent, middle class, angry people.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Agreed.

  • @jdvanlaningham

    We have yet to discuss WHY so many on the left are so easily seduced by such a nonsensical construction. The answer is cognitive information processing. Many of us perceived DHS to be a threat during the Cheney years. Once something is defined as ‘enemy’, a number of predictable assumptions are made about that enemy. 1 We assume a monolithic decision maker. 2 We assume extreme rationality by that decisional locus, capable of the most elaborate conspiracies. 3 We assume the enemy’s motivation is our complete destruction or utter subjugation. 4 We assume that the enemy can only be defeated by unyielding will and determination on our own part, but that confronted with such determination, the highly rational enemy will back off. 5 We assume that anyone who disagrees with our assessment of the enemy is either a hapless dupe of the enemy, or an active member of the enemy’s conspiracy.

    All of these elements can be seen in both Wolf’s goofy assertions, and in the reactions of those who find her credible. And unfortunately, such schema act as information filters. Evidence supporting the stereotype is incorporated into it, contrary information is disregarded or altered so as to make it conform to the stereotype.

  • Pingback: Osborne Ink » Morning Awful: Naomi Cries Wolf

  • http://twitter.com/Emilia1956 Emilia1956

    Wolf, Moore and their ilk only prove that, should we believe them, we are all Rush Limbaughs now, in wanting the President to fail.

  • http://twitter.com/kerryreid Kerry Reid

    More excellent work, Karoli. I’m trying to spread this where I can. As a journalist, a progressive, and a feminist, I am appalled by Wolf’s unbridled and reckless (or should that be “feckless?”) demagoguery, and your point about leftists helping spread the right wing’s “government BAD!” narrative take deeper root is vitally important.

    And reading the comments that run along the lines of “Well, it COULD be true that DHS is involved It sounds plausible! Has anyone proved it ISN’T happening?” is pretty much a replay of the arguments I had with those who were convinced Saddam Hussein had WMDs. I mean, it stood to reason! We knew he was a bad actor in the region! And besides, nobody had managed to prove he DIDN’T have those weapons!

    Critical thinking skills are in alarmingly short supply across the spectrum. I’m glad that there are places like this where they are still prized and utilized.

  • Pingback: The Problem With Wolf’s Anti-Federal Fetish : Lawyers, Guns & Money

  • Ben Hosen

    Thank you, Karoli: I could not have said it better myself, and there is not much more to say. Evry damn word.

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    What an Amazing Coincidence

    With no coordination whatsoever, Los Angeles police raid encampment outside City Hall at almost exactly the same moment as Philadelphia police do the same thing there

    http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/11/live-blog-occupy-la-eviction-coverage

  • http://twitter.com/Sparky4Peace Candace McFarland

    Must be a coincidence, huh?  My husband worked at TACOM and they were developing a new HUMVEEs for urban usage.  At the time we had just invaded Iraq.  When he asked what they were for considering the area we were invading, he was told they were for domestic usage.  Not good.

  • R. Stephen Gracey

    And I think that it’s important to look beyond what the people say, specifically, to what they’re “about.” I’ve been seeing articles in the media for decades about the growing gap between the “haves” and “have-nots,” whether that’s income, living standard, health care, or education, whether domestic or international. It’s hard to say what you’re fighting for or against when faced with such a socioeconomic, systemic pattern.

    So I’m completely sympathetic to the Occupiers. They know something needs to change, but they can’t say just what. But I expect that the French poor in the 18th century probably couldn’t articulate the economic situation they were angry about: They just knew that they didn’t have anything to eat.

    I’m no anarchist: I believe that the community has rights, equal to the rights of the individual, and that
    government is how the community exercises its rights. But I do believe
    that capitalism is far from the lovely, perfect system that we laud it
    to be. I think that our “free market” economy ensures that a few will be rich and most will be
    poor, and I think that the inequality–like imbalance in any living system–is bad for the whole. I would love for someone to prove or disprove that idea with data, not beginning with the statement, “Let’s assume a perfect market…”

    If I were smarter, I’d found a new field called “justice economics,” which would study whether our current systems create catch-pools of wealth, tying them up in treasure hordes, essentially removing them from the economy. Because the wealth can’t circulate back into the mainstream, it benefits only the owners, while the rest have to work harder to generate more value, which gets caught in the pools, etc. That puts a strain on the whole system, so that effectively, the wealthy sap more and more value and benefit from the poor.

    Stephen

Previous post:

Next post: