19 ms·

> Tellingly, in the midst of the Tea Party rebellion a decade ago, Newt Gingrich quoted The Plague while on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conferenc

> Tellingly, in the midst of the Tea Party rebellion a decade ago, Newt Gingrich quoted The Plague while on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The former speaker of the House tried to co-opt Camus into his denunciation of “Obamacare” as the mark of a tyrannical, secular, leftist government. Camus was, in fact, a European social democrat who backed universal health care and was deeply skeptical of organized religion. Such disinformation—a prelude to the rise of Trumpism—was precisely among the pitfalls of ideologies that revolted Camus. I've seen this kind of thinking before, with Orwell, and I don't understand it. The quotes and ideas of these people are not some kind of intellectual property that the left collectively inherited and that the right isn't allowed to use. EDIT: Quoting people is about giving them credit, and pointing your readers and listeners to further material, not about implying that they would have agreed with you.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
The left majority supports the 1st amendment as long as the speech agrees with their views. Otherwise the speaker is considered wrong and it gets into cancel culture territory. The left majority also thinks the 2nd amendment applies only to guns in existence when the Constitution was created.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Since no one else has said it, I will: * There is no real political "left" in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered rather milquetoast social democrats by European standards, according to their stated positions. * Regardless of the previous point, there is no real Democrat majority in the US. (I'm assuming by "left" you actually meant "Democrat.") * You vastly mischaracterize most Democrats' views on both free speech and gun control. This is all I'm going to say, because political debate does not work well on HN.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    In your opinion, what would the pseudo left need to do in order to become the real left?
    - toiletfuneral 6y ago
      damn thats easy - to start they need to ditch identity politics and insurance industry money for an actual materialist analysis & labor first policy
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Get serious about green and sustainable policies, get American workers some actual workers' rights, stop imperialist incursions in other countries (i.e. stop bombing brown people), completely reform Social Security so that people can actually retire on it alone and not have to use 401k's or IRAs, general anti-capitalism, etc.
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    Mostly agree, but it's not like everything is shifted left in Europe. Europe has a very wide range of the political spectrum from the far right (Viktor Orbán in Hungary, for example) to the far left (active Communist parties). But yes, agreed, the US more on the right side of the political spectrum as compared to most of Europe.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    And the US must be defined by European standards? Your post is downvoted because it comes across as gatekeeping. Yes, there are liberals in the US.
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    > Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered rather milquetoast social democrats by European standards, according to their stated positions. Then there's no real political "right" either, since neither party has significantly limited immigration (if you ignore rhetoric and look at immigration statistics). On that axis, Europe is far more right-wing - it doesn't even have any sanctuary cities. On the other hand, Bernie and AOC's open borders stance would be considered extreme in Europe.
Der_Einzige 6y ago
Camus spent some time withing the hard left (including being part of a communist party for some time), and was friends with other hard leftist philosophy authors (sartre being the classic example). The socdem point is far later in his life, and the authors should include his earlier political life in this analysis... Camus is without a doubt a part of the leftist cannon. Just read "The rebel" if you don't believe that Camus has anarchist sensibilities. Orwell literally joined a red brigade in the spanish civil war and killed fascists for left-wing political reasons. He's also a leftist, even if he ended up disillusioned with the soviet form of it by the end...
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  You're talking past me. I'm not denying that these people are leftists, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with quoting a leftist in a rightist argument (or vice versa).
  - nefitty 6y ago
    This situation reminds me more of like when Bruce Springsteen objected to Trump using the song Born in the USA. Springsteen is alive to object. Camus isn’t alive to object, but looking at his past thinking, it’s not far fetched to presume that he would object to use of his art and writing to reinforce the arguments of political figures with opposing viewpoints.
  - fjdjsmsm 6y ago
    Except it isn’t about quoting. Many on the right claim that Orwell, Camus, etc were in-fact right wing and hated the left because they disagreed with extremist Stalinists and such. It is much like religious people claiming Einstein was religious. It seems to be a common tactic to rebrand people as believing in the opposite of what they did.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      It is very much about quoting. Gingrich did not say that Camus was right wing. Nor have I ever heard that claim.
NickM 6y ago
I think people just find it disingenuous to re-purpose a famous quote so that it means something other than what the original author intended. To reuse your example: does the idea of an authoritarian figure quoting 1984 not seem shady and manipulative to you? Clearly the ideas contained in the original work were very anti-authoritarian, regardless of whether Orwell's words can be twisted or taken out of context to imply something else.
- DenisM 6y ago
  > the ideas contained in the original work were very anti-authoritarian, regardless of whether Orwell's words can be twisted The left and the right disagree on who is authoritarian here, and who then inherits the privilege of using Orwell to lambast the other side for it.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    That's because both left and right are corralled by professional Democrats and Republicans, who's primary job is to keep their constituents believing that all the tyranny is being caused by the other team. Ergo, they both claim ownership over anti-authoritarian quotes. (2020 nuance: although one of these parties at least didn't balk at the pandemic)
    - javajosh 6y ago
      Not sure why the downvote! Yeah, I've noticed whole gobs of important subjects effectively ignored by politicians. There are really big issues around data rights and privacy that get no focus. The thing that gets me is that this is deeply connected to our nations cyberwarfighting capability, including our ability to control our stuff. If your whole society is riddled through with ignorance, delusional thinking, lazy consumerism, and privacy holes, eventually an adversary will put together enough information to blackmail someone powerful into putting their finger on the scale, just a little bit. The more this happens, the more corrupt the system becomes, and the more cynical the population. The adversary has won. No, we need defense-in-depth, and for that we need citizens willing to learn more about computers in general. Now would be a great time to start a National Guard but for cyberwarfare, and open to anyone with a browser.
misja111 6y ago
I think it will clear up this discussion if everybody knows how exactly Newt Gingrich was quoting Camus. This is what he said: > So as the Polish people were struggling with the Soviet empire, they came up with a slogan: "Two plus two equals four." They printed it up. They put it on signs. They put it in the front door. And the Soviets knew it was somehow treasonous, but they couldn't -- how do you walk in a store and say, "You can't have 'Two plus two equals four' in the window"? It came from two places. One was Camus' novel, "The Plague," in which Camus says there are times when a man can be killed for saying two plus two equals four, because the authorities can't stand the truth. I think you'll find more than enough occasion in Washington, in Sacramento, in Albany, in city hall, in county commissions, that they can't stand the truth. (source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?292185-11/newt-gingrich-remarks-conservative-political-action-conference https://www.c-span.org/video/?292185-11/newt-gingrich-remark...)
- albertop 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. This is very different and not quite fitting imaginary narrative of the parent’s post.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    I am for one shocked that is the case.
DaedPsyker 6y ago
It is an attempt to 'win' an argument by association of popular figure or as a gotcha. People get upset because said popular figures did not endorse those beliefs others are trying to cast. Even right now I've seen on reddit r/Republicans, George Orwell quoted to describe democrat policies that would have been moderate or even right wing to Orwell. Ive seen it more with Americans and I think part has been the lack of comparable strife in US. Here in Europe we had the devastion of ww2 and the soviet Union on our doorstep. My own homeland was in effective civil war up till the 90s and still suffers from its lingering effect. To us, Orwell isnt describing a universal health care which he supported. They are in response to the literal death squads that would kill at random. US simply doesn't understand actual tyranny. Moderation looks like extremism when you have such a narrow field of view of politics.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

The left majority supports the 1st amendment as long as the speech agrees with their views. Otherwise the speaker is considered wrong and it gets into cancel culture territory. The left majority also thinks the 2nd amendment applies only to guns in existence when the Constitution was created.

pmiller2 6y ago
Since no one else has said it, I will: * There is no real political "left" in the US. Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered rather milquetoast social democrats by European standards, according to their stated positions. * Regardless of the previous point, there is no real Democrat majority in the US. (I'm assuming by "left" you actually meant "Democrat.") * You vastly mischaracterize most Democrats' views on both free speech and gun control. This is all I'm going to say, because political debate does not work well on HN.
- chroem- 6y ago
  In your opinion, what would the pseudo left need to do in order to become the real left?
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    damn thats easy - to start they need to ditch identity politics and insurance industry money for an actual materialist analysis & labor first policy
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Get serious about green and sustainable policies, get American workers some actual workers' rights, stop imperialist incursions in other countries (i.e. stop bombing brown people), completely reform Social Security so that people can actually retire on it alone and not have to use 401k's or IRAs, general anti-capitalism, etc.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Mostly agree, but it's not like everything is shifted left in Europe. Europe has a very wide range of the political spectrum from the far right (Viktor Orbán in Hungary, for example) to the far left (active Communist parties). But yes, agreed, the US more on the right side of the political spectrum as compared to most of Europe.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  And the US must be defined by European standards? Your post is downvoted because it comes across as gatekeeping. Yes, there are liberals in the US.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered rather milquetoast social democrats by European standards, according to their stated positions. Then there's no real political "right" either, since neither party has significantly limited immigration (if you ignore rhetoric and look at immigration statistics). On that axis, Europe is far more right-wing - it doesn't even have any sanctuary cities. On the other hand, Bernie and AOC's open borders stance would be considered extreme in Europe.

Der_Einzige 6y ago

Camus spent some time withing the hard left (including being part of a communist party for some time), and was friends with other hard leftist philosophy authors (sartre being the classic example). The socdem point is far later in his life, and the authors should include his earlier political life in this analysis... Camus is without a doubt a part of the leftist cannon. Just read "The rebel" if you don't believe that Camus has anarchist sensibilities. Orwell literally joined a red brigade in the spanish civil war and killed fascists for left-wing political reasons. He's also a leftist, even if he ended up disillusioned with the soviet form of it by the end...

amadeuspagel 6y ago
You're talking past me. I'm not denying that these people are leftists, I'm saying that it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with quoting a leftist in a rightist argument (or vice versa).
- nefitty 6y ago
  This situation reminds me more of like when Bruce Springsteen objected to Trump using the song Born in the USA. Springsteen is alive to object. Camus isn’t alive to object, but looking at his past thinking, it’s not far fetched to presume that he would object to use of his art and writing to reinforce the arguments of political figures with opposing viewpoints.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  Except it isn’t about quoting. Many on the right claim that Orwell, Camus, etc were in-fact right wing and hated the left because they disagreed with extremist Stalinists and such. It is much like religious people claiming Einstein was religious. It seems to be a common tactic to rebrand people as believing in the opposite of what they did.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    It is very much about quoting. Gingrich did not say that Camus was right wing. Nor have I ever heard that claim.

NickM 6y ago

I think people just find it disingenuous to re-purpose a famous quote so that it means something other than what the original author intended. To reuse your example: does the idea of an authoritarian figure quoting 1984 not seem shady and manipulative to you? Clearly the ideas contained in the original work were very anti-authoritarian, regardless of whether Orwell's words can be twisted or taken out of context to imply something else.

DenisM 6y ago
> the ideas contained in the original work were very anti-authoritarian, regardless of whether Orwell's words can be twisted The left and the right disagree on who is authoritarian here, and who then inherits the privilege of using Orwell to lambast the other side for it.
- mindslight 6y ago
  That's because both left and right are corralled by professional Democrats and Republicans, who's primary job is to keep their constituents believing that all the tyranny is being caused by the other team. Ergo, they both claim ownership over anti-authoritarian quotes. (2020 nuance: although one of these parties at least didn't balk at the pandemic)
  - javajosh 6y ago
    Not sure why the downvote! Yeah, I've noticed whole gobs of important subjects effectively ignored by politicians. There are really big issues around data rights and privacy that get no focus. The thing that gets me is that this is deeply connected to our nations cyberwarfighting capability, including our ability to control our stuff. If your whole society is riddled through with ignorance, delusional thinking, lazy consumerism, and privacy holes, eventually an adversary will put together enough information to blackmail someone powerful into putting their finger on the scale, just a little bit. The more this happens, the more corrupt the system becomes, and the more cynical the population. The adversary has won. No, we need defense-in-depth, and for that we need citizens willing to learn more about computers in general. Now would be a great time to start a National Guard but for cyberwarfare, and open to anyone with a browser.

misja111 6y ago

I think it will clear up this discussion if everybody knows how exactly Newt Gingrich was quoting Camus. This is what he said: > So as the Polish people were struggling with the Soviet empire, they came up with a slogan: "Two plus two equals four." They printed it up. They put it on signs. They put it in the front door. And the Soviets knew it was somehow treasonous, but they couldn't -- how do you walk in a store and say, "You can't have 'Two plus two equals four' in the window"? It came from two places. One was Camus' novel, "The Plague," in which Camus says there are times when a man can be killed for saying two plus two equals four, because the authorities can't stand the truth. I think you'll find more than enough occasion in Washington, in Sacramento, in Albany, in city hall, in county commissions, that they can't stand the truth. (source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?292185-11/newt-gingrich-remarks-conservative-political-action-conference https://www.c-span.org/video/?292185-11/newt-gingrich-remark...)

albertop 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying. This is very different and not quite fitting imaginary narrative of the parent’s post.
- cambalache 6y ago
  I am for one shocked that is the case.

DaedPsyker 6y ago

It is an attempt to 'win' an argument by association of popular figure or as a gotcha. People get upset because said popular figures did not endorse those beliefs others are trying to cast. Even right now I've seen on reddit r/Republicans, George Orwell quoted to describe democrat policies that would have been moderate or even right wing to Orwell. Ive seen it more with Americans and I think part has been the lack of comparable strife in US. Here in Europe we had the devastion of ww2 and the soviet Union on our doorstep. My own homeland was in effective civil war up till the 90s and still suffers from its lingering effect. To us, Orwell isnt describing a universal health care which he supported. They are in response to the literal death squads that would kill at random. US simply doesn't understand actual tyranny. Moderation looks like extremism when you have such a narrow field of view of politics.