homicide-erumpent
Notebook
December 9th, 2006 by Double Tap

Whenever something is going on that seems to draw a reaction, good or bad, from the conservative blogosphere, I like to peruse the liberal blogs and see what their take is on the same situation - and vice versa.

This morning, I was looking through a liberal blog called Firedoglake and saw a post about the passing of former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. While the conservative blogs are almost universally eulogizing her with words describing her greatness, Firedoglake had a decidedly more mixed reaction. It’s mostly a “sorry she’s died, but I never agreed with her anyway.” Here’s some of the reviews, starting with the original post from Pachacutec:

Today, the family of Jeane Kirkpatrick is feeling the loss of an extraordinarily accomplished woman, of incisive wit and remarkable influence. Our thoughts today go out to her family.

Whatever Jeane Kirkpatrick may have been like in private (and I have no reason to believe she was anything but wonderful), her public persona hewed to the rigorous conventions of What Is Allowed for Women in national leadership. I do not suggest she was merely acting or posturing, but she was right from central casting for her public role, and any deviation from it would have destroyed her career.

In archetypal, dramatic form, that’s the only way (so far) Americans can tolerate women in national leadership roles: unsexed, vexed by and opposed to feminists, upholding the masculine virtues of wreck, havoc and war, scornful of minorities, the poor and working people. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher fit the mold as well, and what’s more, all of this goes a long way toward explaining the choices of Hillary Clinton and the media coverage of Nancy Pelosi.

Ok, not tooo bad, but the opinions of the commenters to that post start veering decidely off the tracks. For example:

“Out damned spot. Out I say.” - ArthurKC

And this doozy from someone called Tanbark…

Holy s***t! What a whitewash! Not a WORD about Kirkpatrick’s unstinting support for any latin american rightwing dictatorship which would whore itself out to United Fruit, or any other giant U.S. corporation.

Jesus Christ, Pachacutec,couldn’t you have said, upfront, that she was on the wrong side of most of the humanitarian issues of the time she was in politics, but that she was an opinionated woman, and leave it at that?

The fact that you exalt her for being outspoken, to me, seems like a slap in the fact to women.

“It doesn’t matter HOW coldhearted and callous your worldview may be: if you’re a woman, and you shreik it, we’ll speak well of you when you’re gone…”

You can have her. I’ve got $20 bucks that says she’s having dinner in the Sans Souci franchise in hell, with her tablemate, Anastasio Somoza, with a seat reserved for Augusto Pinochet.

To be fair, not everyone agreed with Tanbark. From Fini FiniTOOBZ:

When the battles are done and a Warrior falls, even their opponents can be gracious and humane in their respect for the Warrior that we fought. It’s attitudes like yours that have poisoned political discourse, this no limits to the partisanship vibe is dishonorable. She was an Ambassador of the United States of America, and though you and I might not have liked how she conducted the peoples business, we owe her the respect that an office such as hers is due. Would you say the same about Madeleine Albright? Would you be pissed if a wingnut said the same things you said about her?

I was in Army ROTC when Kirkpatrick was U.N. Ambassador, and at the time, I thought she was terrific. At the formative time in my military career, I was facing the possibility of having to defend against a Soviet onslaught into Europe and the last thing I thought we needed was a U.N. Ambassador who was afraid to stand up to tyranny. She confronted despots and Communists and was part of that generation of great American Cold Warriors. The world is a better place for her having been who she was.