Back Towards The Locus

Nick Cohen’s latest CiF article is titled ‘Why Bush Has Been A Liberal’s Best Friend’. I can’t help but think that this headline is the work of a sub, as Cohen does not appear to be suicidal. He is, however, increasingly unstable.

I don’t want to concentrate on the content of the article, however, but the style. For Cohen utilises a number of curious ad hominem techniques in vilifying the ideas of his rhetorical opponents.

“Even those in the European elites who do not buy the full ‘America has it coming’ package believe that Bush is a cowboy who doesn’t understand that the postmodern way to end conflict is to compromise rather than fight.”

While satire is used to ridicule an argument by exposing it’s irrationality, Cohen merely deploys the appeal to ridicule fallacy. In this case, he suggests that a) ‘Cowboy Bush’ views are held by elites and b) ‘Cowboy Bush’ views are part of the perceived ‘postmodern way’.

a) Cohen has consistently suggested that the views he abhors are expounded by ‘elites’. The members of these ‘elites’ also constitute the ‘liberal intelligentsia’, and regularly attend ‘Islington dinner parties’. This bourgeoisification of rhetorical opponents is common among advocates of the ‘decent left’ – stretching back to Aaronovitch’s bruschetta orthodoxies – as it imbues them, in contrast, with an inherent radicalism. Not for them the confines of complacent prejudice and apathetic non-action.

b) The ‘decent left’ has a spin on ‘postmodernism’ that I, for one, was hooked, linked and sinkered into. In presenting various strains of thought as a homogenous mass of obscurity – with a handy term to apply to it – one can denounce it without the need to do anything so convenient as to engage with it.

The admittedly amusing Sokal Hoax gave Francis Wheen (in How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered The World) and Richard Dawkins (in The Devil’s Chaplain) all the ammunition that they could need, while Johann Hari and Nick Cohen climbed aboard. The borrowing and misquotation that ensued should be ample evidence that, through all the criticisms, there was scare critical analysis.

In this context, Cohen uses the supposed ‘postmodernism’ of his rhetorical opponents to imply that their views are obscure, speculative, and utterly removed from the harsh realities of the world.

His depiction of the ‘postmodern’ argument is also curious. He suggests that ‘compromise’ – in this case, not invading totalitarian states – is weak, and represents a failure to confront what he sees as ‘fascism’. Once he has achieved this, his rhetorical opponents, it is implied, are ‘objectively’ maintaining tyrannical regimes.

But, of course, one must use this ‘compromise’, as the negative results of invasion – killing, displacing etc. – usually outweights the positive results – possible removal of tyrants. Even supporters of the Iraq invasion would surely not contend that there should be immediate invasions of Saudi Arabia, Syria and North Korea.

Unless, of course, Nick truly believes that the USA, the UK and the rallied forces of Bernard Kouchner should rampage across the globe, spreading democracy wherever their bombs may land. Actually, he might.

Update: One of the many absurd parts of Cohen’s article was this sentence:

“German has the useful word Tantenverführer: “a young man of excessively good manners you suspect of devious motives (literally, an aunt seducer).””

Via the comments at Aaronovitch Watch, I see that he’d used exactly the same sentence in a previous article for Pyjamas Media. Still, Tantenverfuhrer is a common enough made-up word, so it’s probably just a coincidence.

It isn’t a German word, though.

Update 2: Or maybe he just stole it from this Times article:

“This time we have the German word Tantenverführer (literally aunt-seducer) to describe a young man whose excessively good intentions suggest suspicious motives.”