A Slow Descent Into HuffingKosLand
Glenn Greenwald is a blogger on the move…he’s become a hero on the left (justifiably) because of his work on the NSA eavesdropping story, particularly for his groundbreaking work on the Dewine legislation that would have modified FISA. He’s posting in very heady territory this days, with a spot at the Huffington Post, and big promotion from Kos, and that means big traffic and a guaranteed audience.
Kudos, then, for all of the above, and rest assured this is not a personal attack – but Glenn, hanging out in the asylum too long has got you thinking like the lunatics. The quality of Mr. Greenwald’s work is in a free-fall, and I can only assume the pressure of performing for these monkeys has gotten to him. His latest is a remarkably one-sided explanation of the ‘Cult of Bush’ that would have you think that conservatives have sold our souls to the devilish president, never mind Harriet Miers or the Gang of 14 or the recent statements of Bill Frist, George Allen, Arlen Specter, and other Republicans who have been quite openly critical of the Administration lately.
Then there are the blogs such as this one, the other members of the Coalition of the Chillin’, the RINOs, etc., etc. It’s the worst kind of broad brush tarring, devoid of nuance, and not only unfair, but almost completely inaccurate. It’ll play well with the Huff’n'Puffers, Glenn, and the Kos Kidz are no doubt erecting statues in your honor already…but you’re smarter than this, and you know it. Step back, and regain your sanity and your soul, before it’s too late…
Rick Moran has more, as does Alexandra von Maltzan, and they’re less kind than I…
UPDATE 2/13/06 7:01 a.m.: Greenwald responds to the responses here…say what you will about Glenn, he at least engages in dialogue, and that’s the reason I’m disappointed about the broad brush tactics…
UPDATE 2/13/06 2:58 p.m.: Mission accomplished, Glenn; Kos nods sagely and notes how the wingnutosphere has ‘erupted’ because the truth is painful…oh, yeah, Markos, we’re just dying over here to make you guys like us…
This is insane and has much more to do with their own pathology than about actual conservatives. I don’t think we need to apologize or assert examples when we have been critical of Bush (I don’t have many of those anyhow)–what this is about is their own frustration that they are repeatedly bested by someone they consider an idiot. So what does the idiot have besides mind control (over others who are by implication idiots, too)? Couldn’t be a broader vision or compelling leadership style that leaves them in the dust, now, could it?
If it weren’t so pathetic it would be funny.
Not to paint myself as too far off the reservation (ha!), I have to admit there are plenty of legitimate criticisms in Greenwald’s post. I’m not sure I would go as far as he does or even make this a story about George Bush (and I’m not even sure his various criticisms can be combined into a coherent whole), but there is no doubt in my mind that the current state of conservative-dom does involve some kind of slavish devotion to some kind of weird purity. That a significant portion of the conservative elite views John McCain and Andrew Sullivan as traitors to the cause is undeniable, and that it’s absolute lunacy is just as undeniable. There is something in the conservative movement that smells particularly bad and just because it isn’t George Bush doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
But Ryan, there are ideologues, and there are mainstream Republicans, and there are religious conservatives, and moderates, and…I could go on and on…if anything, the charges Greenwald lays out apply more to the liberals (though I don’t want to paint with the same broad brush) – no matter what you think about how conservatives treat John McCain, it pales next to how progressives treat Joe Lieberman…
Really? Did Joe sire an illegitimate black baby, too?
I think Jacques hits the heart of it, though I agree with you also, Mark. There are certainly variances within the conservative movement (that you and I and all of the other commenters you get here can converse semi-civilly is testament to that!), but I think the far right behaves in much the same manner as the far left toward its own.
And there is precious little disassociation on either side. That is, while we criticize the moderate elements of the left for not disowning their loudmouths, we do precious little disowning on our side either. We can talk about Pat Robertson, but he’s more like Ward Churchill and no one listens anyway. Until we divest from our own Michael Moores (Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin come immediately to mind) and Daily Kos (RedState), we have precious little room for pretending that we aren’t just as monolithic and idiotic as we’d like to think they are.
Greenwald’s complaints apply most dramatically to the Ann Coulters, Michelle Malkins, and RedStaters among us, but that’s exactly the point: when we paint the DailyKos as the voice of the left, we’re only asking to have those people painted as the voice of the right. And why should we demand moderation and sense from the left (by supporting Joe Lieberman, for instance) without demanding it from our own side (by supporting John McCain or Olympia Snowe)?
The only real difference I can see here is that the policy positions of the far right have not pervaded political discourse as deeply as those of the far left. I have some theories about this – including that it’s hard to get your ideas on the map when your ideas demand that we tear up the map – but whatever the reason, it certainly does make the far right appear much less dangerous than the far left to those of us (meaning me and anyone else who wants to ride the bus) in the squishy middle, which probably prompts our willingness to forgive the far right its excesses. But that Greenwald won’t doesn’t make him less sensible.
“no matter what you think about how conservatives treat John McCain, it pales next to how progressives treat Joe Lieberman…”
Aside from the fact this point isn’t true, it also discounts the fact that Joe attacks democrats far more often than he attacks republicans. The same simply cannot be said of McCain. So even if the left were harder on Joe it would be because he deserved it.
The best example of this, that I can think of off the top of my head, is how Joe acted during the 2004 election. Joe went out of his way to let everybody know that the biggest issue of our lifetimes is the war on terrorism, to conflate the war in iraq with the war on terrorism, and let everybody know that the Republicans are doing a really bang up job in Iraq (which as you’ll recall is the war on terrorism and the most important issue we’ll ever face.)
If you can find a time where McCain endorsed the Dems on what he felt is the most important issue he’ll ever face I’ll take your point more seriously.
As for Glenn’s post, he’s correct across the board. Today in America the word conservative has come to mean “agreeing with Bush” and the only exception to this rule that I can think of is Harriet Miers. I remember coming to this conclusion during the 2004 elections. What really drove the point home was reading the studies on media bias done around the election. Anytime somebody said anything that contradicted, in anyway, something the president said that statement was listed as media liberal bias. If the President said the sun was the moon and George Stephanopoulos happened to correct him then that proved the media was biased toward Kerry.
The notion that pro-Bush is the same thing as being conservative have become an unstated law throughout the entire media.
Also, one last thing. The comparison between Moore and Coultur is absurd on so many levels it’s hard to cover them all so I’ll only hit one. Today Moore is poison and almost nobody will touch him. I’m a conservative democrat and I’m regularly scolded by my conservative democrat and republican friends because I won’t burn Moore in effigy everytime it’s demanded of me. His sin? He made a slightly crazy (but still entertaining) movie attacking Bush. Was it crazy? Sure! Was it crazier than the accusations made daily against The Klinton during his presidency? No way, absurd to suggest other wise.
So Moore is scum for doing to Bush what was a daily event during The Clinton’s presidency. Coultur, on the other hand, is one of the primary spokespeople for the republican party and conservatives in general.
On the left the loonies are chased out of the party and on the right they run the show. If you’re a reasonable, traditional, conservative then you have no real voice in the republican party. This administration proves that.
I disagree about Lieberman–he has a strongly liberal voting record on everything save national defense. He is much more liberal than, say, Lincoln Chafee is conservative, and yet now, when he’s mentioned on Kos it’s with an “ugh” or some such epithet.
I quite frankly don’t think Greenwald is worth justifying–I’ve read his pieces on this and while he insists there’s “substance” to his screed, it seems to me to boil down to this issue of a cult with Bush as Jim Jones and the rest of us drinking the kool aid. How do you have a dialogue with someone who thinks that more than half the country are mindless sheep? Greenwald is not describing the conservative movement as it actually is, he projecting his vision of it as it fits into his universe and in the end, I think his analysis tells us much more about Glenn Greenwald than it does about the modern conservative movement or about George Bush, for that matter.
Mark, Greenwald’s post clearly was directed at those who subscribe blindly to Bush’s policies and decisions no matter what. Was it painting with a wide brush? Maybe, if you were specifically looking to get some on you so that you could be upset about it.
I think the terms liberal and conservative have lost whatever meaning they may once have had.
Conservatives used to stand for “getting the government off our backs.” This would imply allowing gays to marry, women to have abortions, or people with terminal illness to practice euthanasia. However, these are now considered liberal issues. Traditional conservatism would have allowed Terri Schiavo to die in peace.
Conservatives used to stand for fiscal responsibility, yet the largest increases in the federal deficit have come from Reagan and Bush II, while Clinton produced the first surplus in decades. Liberals used to be blamed for tax-and-spend, but conservatives can now be blamed for borrow-and-spend.
Conservatives used to stand for disengagement from foreign affairs and eschew nation-building. They used to stand for free trade and Deomcrats for managed trade, although it was the Clinton administration which delivered the largest free trade agreementss (although the Bush administration’s policies here are mixed, having pushed free trade in some areas and yielded to domestic pressure in others).
I think that the terms liberal and conservative have become so distorted that the more relevant axis is libertarian-big government.
eric, you can count the number of times Ann Coulter is referred to on even the most conservative blogs in anything but insulting terms on one hand…she’s a mildly entertaining cartoon, and 99% of Republicans know it and openly say it…she’s not a leader of anything but her own fan club…
Jacques, your comparison is unfair…that ridiculous attack on McCain doesn’t outweigh the fact that he is considered one of the top two or three front-runners for the Republican nomination…yet most Republicans support Bush, and are self-described conservatives.
Messy? Sure…proof that Bush has ‘blind’ followers in a proportion out of the ordinary compared to any leader? Hardly…
Mark,
I was responding to
McCain and Lieberman both ran for their Party’s respective nominations in 2000. I would maintain that Lieberman was treated better then, and he continues to be treated better now.
To say that McCain is villified in many “conservative” circles is hardly a stretch. One need only pick a random commenter from your own blog
(You’re not responsible for your commenters, but let’s be honest: sentiment among them runs heavily anti-McCain. The above was the first I found, but it’s not atypical. On other right-wing blogs, the attitude towards McCain is even less charitable. The far-Left’s treatment of Lieberman is positively respectful, by comparison.)
That said, I think the campaign among some progressives to to mount a Primary challenge to Lieberman is the drop-dead stupidest thing I’ve seen in a long time.
Fair enough…on a somewhat related topic, it will certainly be interesting, won’t it, to see how McCain is treated by the hardcore base as 2008 gets closer…I suspect it will be one of the 3 or 4 top storylines of the campaign…will the conservatives and McCain continue to make nice, or will the old wounds reopen?…Where’s John McKay, I feel a human interest story coming on…
Fargus, from Greenwald’s piece:
Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.
If that’s not painting with a broad brush, I don’t know what is…and it shows a bit of a pathological obsession with George W. Bush, in my view…in other words, the doctor is describing his own symptoms to the patient…
It’s not just an obsession, it’s become an outright font for all sorts of wild conspiracy theorists who are empowered to explain away every political defeat with mantras such as Rove as evil mastermind of the universe.
As the GOP well knows (aka the Vince Foster conspiracy stories), when you empower your opponents with the kind of control that they could only dream about, you end up infantilizing your own efforts, and thus are doomed to further electoral defeat – rather than try to assess why you’ve failed in the real world, and how you can improve in the future.
Hi Peter,
”I think the terms liberal and conservative have lost whatever meaning they may once have had.”
Both terms probably never had any real meaning. You are right though, both terms are meaningless today.
”Conservatives used to stand for “getting the government off our backs.” This would imply allowing gays to marry, women to have abortions, or people with terminal illness to practice euthanasia. However, these are now considered liberal issues. Traditional conservatism would have allowed Terri Schiavo to die in peace.”
You are describing Libertarians, not those labeled as conservative. There are many voters who believe it is the responsibility of government to protect the innocent. Unborn babies and those who have lost cognitive ability are susceptible to abuse. Sadly, it happens every day. Decent people still want government involved in protecting the innocent.
”Conservatives used to stand for fiscal responsibility, yet the largest increases in the federal deficit have come from Reagan and Bush II, while Clinton produced the first surplus in decades. Liberals used to be blamed for tax-and-spend, but conservatives can now be blamed for borrow-and-spend.”
Contrary to mythology, there is very little practical difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. The size of government has never gotten smaller regardless of the party in power. It’s more a matter of spending priorities.
”Conservatives used to stand for disengagement from foreign affairs and eschew nation-building. They used to stand for free trade and Deomcrats for managed trade, although it was the Clinton administration which delivered the largest free trade agreementss (although the Bush administration’s policies here are mixed, having pushed free trade in some areas and yielded to domestic pressure in others).”
Can’t say I know of anyone regardless of label who thought WWII was a bad idea, so I’m not sure where you got this characterization. People in power don’t want free anything regardless of party affiliation.
”I think that the terms liberal and conservative have become so distorted that the more relevant axis is libertarian-big government.”
The 3% of the Libertarians only need to convince the 97% of the rest of the country and we might see a change. I’m not holding my breath.
Point 1: agreed
Point 2: Well, Ronald Reagan became President on the platform of reducing the size and power of government, and his followers from Grover Norquist to George Bush have repeated this mantra. As for abortion: it depends on whether you view it from the perspective of the woman or the fetus.
Point 3: There is a big difference between tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend: the latter requires selling billions of dollars of treasury bonds, mostly to foreign central banks, which will ultimately have to be repaid. It also raises the cost of capital, as private industry has to compete with the government in the credit markets.
Point 4: True, nobody opposed WWII – but there is a difference between absolute isolationism and disengagement. The contrast between those who favor engagement and those who don’t is seen in “discretionary” wars (e.g., Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, etc.)
Point 5: I’m not a libertarian – and I agree that you are more likely to see me on Sunday at the Masters Tournament than you are to see a Libertarian President – but I think that if you are looking for a useful criterion to evaluate politicians and their ideologies, you could do worse than use libertarian/big government as your yardstick.
Agree completely with the above points regarding the GOP’s prior interests in shrinking government – it’s clear that Bush has abandoned this principle in full, regardless of whether we add in the unexpected monies allocated for the WOT.
I fear the future President may be hamstrung by the financial profligacy of this administration and congress, with little room to maneuver in case the economy goes south again (and of course, at one point it will).
”Point 3: There is a big difference between tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend: the latter requires selling billions of dollars of treasury bonds, mostly to foreign central banks, which will ultimately have to be repaid. It also raises the cost of capital, as private industry has to compete with the government in the credit markets.”
Hi Again Peter, and dmac,
There is very little difference between tax and spend and borrow and spend. Taxing and spending reduces the amount of capital in the private sector which lowers capital investments and lowers tax revenue. Borrowing and spending increases the cost of borrowing for the private sector and creates a future obligation for the government, but it also allows more capital to remain in the private sector, creating more tax revenue.
Borrowing and spending increases the money supply, which could have an inflationary affect if there was not proper Monetary policy to go along with it. The increased money supply helps the private sector. Don’t be fooled, the net effect for both the government and the private sector is about the same regardless of whether a tax and spend or a borrow and spend policy is used.
The problem is how government is able to use taxes, borrowing, spending, and legislation, to limit the freedoms of the average American. I agree that a Libertarian/Big Government distinction would be helpful, but I don’t know if this designation would resolve anything. Most Republicans and most Democrats have things they want the government to do and things they do not want the government to do. I am definitely a libertarian with the exception of …
”Agree completely with the above points regarding the GOP’s prior interests in shrinking government – it’s clear that Bush has abandoned this principle in full, regardless of whether we add in the unexpected monies allocated for the WOT. “
Hi dmac,
I don’t think it is clear that this was ever an important principle of President Bush. However, it clear to me that President Bush does not have the votes in congress to reduce the size of government even if he wanted to shrink the size of government. Republicans may control both houses, but small government Republicans are in the minority of their own party. President Bush probably deserves a little blame, but certainly not all.
“you can count the number of times Ann Coulter is referred to on even the most conservative blogs in anything but insulting terms on one hand”
I disagree. The people at Powerline appear to love her. Instapundit claims to ignore her but then goes along tossing out links to her as if she were a serious person. The guy who runs LGF is a deaf mute obviously because he doesn’t say much but the people leaving comments seem to like her. I found a post on Rightwingnuthouse comparing her favorably to Thomas Paine.
And do I even need to mention Powerline? Googling “Ann Coulter site:powerlineblog.com” is like watching an Internet Explorer orgasm. Hindrocket and Big Trunk would rip off their own legs and beat themselves silly at Ann’s command. Come on…you know that.
“she’s a mildly entertaining cartoon, and 99% of Republicans know it and openly say it…she’s not a leader of anything but her own fan club…”
She’s a midly entertaining cartoon that also spoke at CPAC, was on the cover of Time, is read by thousands of people every day, is often on Fox News, and commands thousands of dollars per speaking engagement. The fact that you don’t think she’s a force in the conservative movement might explain why you have such a problem with Glenn’s post.
You’re thinking of Conservatives of 20 years ago and Glenn’s talking about “conservatives” today. They’re simply not the same thing.
“I disagree about Lieberman…when he’s mentioned on Kos it’s with an “ugh” or some such epithet.”
That’s not completely true. Atrios and KOS have both pointed out that Joe has a solid voting record. They take issue with him on a few big ticket issues, however, (cloture on the Bankruptcy bill for example) but mostly they take issue with his public statements.
Joe writes opinion pieces attacking Dems. Joe goes on TV and provides cover for the administration. Joe made it clear the republicans were the best party for the most important issue of our lifetime in 2004. McCain doesn’t do any of that.
And McCain is still treated worse than Joe (even though Joe deserves it more)
eric, I’ll meet you halfway – if I minimized Coulter’s influence, you surely overestimate it…I really don’t think she’s regarded as anything more than the rightwing equivalent to Michael Moore, even though you don’t like the comparison. Coulter shoots from the hip because it’s controversial, and controversy gets her name in the press, and sells more books.
The Lieberman thing – give me a break. Kos and Atrios, and most of their brethren, are even as we speak attempting to mount a challenge against Lieberman in the primaries – can you name any Republicans attempting the same for McCain?…
That would be hard, given that he’s not up for reelection in 2006.
He did have a Republican Primary challenger in 2004, if I recall correctly. But, given that he was tirelessly stumping for Bush that year, that challenge didn’t get much national support.
Mark, maybe Greenwald paints with an over-broad brush, but he is largely correct. It is not possible to criticize George Bush too strongly — in any area that is dangerous to him like the NSA warrantless surveillance issue, or which would imply a belief that he is on the whole a bad president — without being dismissed as a “liberal,” and that is never meant as a compliment. I know this from extensive personal experience.
Over at QandO I’ve been supporting the boys there, especially Jon Henke, and they and I have been accused of being “Kos without obscenity,” all because we are deeply critical of Bush’s warrantless NSA program as well as wrt some info Jon found relating to who is actually in Gitmo. One commenter advised me that I love Cindy Sheehan!! (I have no idea where that came from, I never mentioned or alluded to her, and in fact think she is deranged, albeit from grief.)
Oh sure, one can disagree about court appointments, and the Schiavo mania — and merely be dissed as a RINO. But go anywhere near Bush on national security issues in a seriously critical way and — presto! — you are a moonbat Kossack.
Really, go take a look at the QandO fellows having to post angry defenses of themselves as some of their Bush-supporting regulars turn on them, all because they are posting about what they argue is Bush malfeasance and Bush lies. You can’t make such arguments, and still be in the “conservative” fold.
If Greenwald is over-stating his case, it ain’t by much. And if he is postng at HoffPo, well, where else is he going to get a platform that large? Certainly not at NRO or RedState.
OH, and please, please observe this! Alexandra von Maltzan’s dissing of Greenwald for criticizing Bush and forging alliances with left-of-center blogs where such criticism is allowed to flourish, opens with a huge freakin’ picture titled The Betrayal of Christ!
What could better demonstrate Greenwald’s thesis?!
Eric:
I’m not sure how deficit spending “allows more capital to remain in the private sector, creating more tax revenue,” if, as you agree, it crowds out private borrowing. Also, if this is true, there is nothing to stop corporations from investing the money overseas instead of here.
Also, the Fed controls the money supply, and its expansion is not always a good thing (as in Weimer Germany).
Jacques, true, I didn’t take into account that McCain is not running in ‘06…but still….
Mona, I don’t begrudge Glenn posting at Huff’n'Puff at all – hey, he’s turning into a star of the left, and I grant him that…I just hate to see him turn into yet another Bush-slamming leftie who is totally predictable – haven’t we got 87 of those already at Huff’n'Puff?….
Mark, I read through Glenn’s archives, from day one of his posts. Since the NSA issue exploded on the scene he has pretty much focused on that or related issues of terrorism and national security.
But prior to all that, you could definitely see well-argued posts that could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered left-wing. In one of his comments somewhere he said that the libertarian label probably comes closest to fitting him.
Well, that is certainly how I identify politically, and the NSA matter has my ‘tarian hackles all raised. And the fact is, there just are not that many right-of-center sites that will be terribly interested in promoting strong critiques of Bush on that issue.
I’m reminded of how I was horrified by the GOP response to Schiavo, and for the duration of that debacle had to avoid many of my favorite pro-Bush sites, because I’d just end up in flame wars (and opted for that a few times). For good or ill, except for John Cole at Balloon Juice, the voices of strongly articulated sanity on that issue were largely found at left-of-center blogs (and at Reason), and so for a time I read those more than I did right sites.
It can be hard to be neither progressive left nor populist right, in a sharply dichotomized political world in which the only two real parties make those the de facto only choices.
Hi Again Peter,
”Eric:”
David
”I’m not sure how deficit spending “allows more capital to remain in the private sector, creating more tax revenue,” if, as you agree, it crowds out private borrowing. Also, if this is true, there is nothing to stop corporations from investing the money overseas instead of here.”
Deficit spending doesn’t crowd out private borrowing, but it does make private borrowing slightly more expensive. Many investment opportunities make financial sense almost regardless of the interest rate charged to borrow capital. However, as interest rates increase, marginal opportunities will no longer be viable. Government borrowing definitely has an effect on private investment, but so does taxing. The long term effect on the economy is about the same.
Deficit spending allows more capital to remain in the private sector two different ways. First, the money is not removed from the private sector through the paying of taxes, and second, the money that is borrowed by the government is spent by the government and becomes part of the money supply that is traded in the private sector.
Corporations can and should invest their capital wherever the likelihood of a return on investment is possible and wherever the greatest return on investment is most likely. The taxing policy of foreign government will also dictate part of the investment decision. The money supply of the American dollar is international in scope. There are negative aspects to this and positive aspects, but the aspects of foreign investment are irrelevant to whether or not it is better to tax and spend or borrow and spend. I haven’t given this a whole lot of thought, so I could be convinced otherwise if you know of any reasons.
”Also, the Fed controls the money supply, and its expansion is not always a good thing (as in Weimer Germany). “
The Fed controls monetary policy and the government controls fiscal policy. The money supply is controlled by both. Rapid expansion of the money supply is never a good for an economy. Most economists believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve to help keep inflation under control, but that some inflation is better than any deflation. I like it when prices come down, but I understand the fear of a recession.
What we need is to stop the “with us or against us” party lines. I just want Representatives that will vote from their heart, gut and for what thier voters want. If they feel something is wrong, then don’t vote for it. Whether it is a Republican Bill or a Democratic one should not matter. The Good of the Country should be the issue not what color your state is or who your friends are. I may want something that will only happen in my little dream world, but that’s what I thought these people were supposed to do.
I am a Republican. I do not like Bush, however the Democrats haven’t exactly “Wow’d” me either. Until we all join together and stand up to our Representatives it’s going to be business as usual.
The division that is going on in this Country is bull and it’s taking our attention away from the real problems that need to be discussed. Enough is Enough!
[...] It, in this case, is yet another in a series of enthusiastically received broadsides against a convenient scapegoat of the right (you remember the ‘Cult of Bush’, don’t you?). This time, he takes on the Instapundit (Glenn makes a good target because he is so visible, but let me tell you, from my limited contact with him, he’s a helluva nice guy and a real boon to small bloggers everywhere) for not taking out airtime during the primetime Olympics coverage to denounce Ann Coulter (you can read Glenn’s response here). [...]
Glenn Greenwald is my hero. His post is intelligent. He’s not dissing true conservatives. He’s making a point about mindless bushbots who are in no way conservative. Think about it. Or is thinking out of your league?
Ohhh, good one…thanks for the substantive addition to the conversation; truly a tour-de-force of compelling logic and expert analysis…