Jeff Jarvis, Victim

Oliver Willis and others have been tormenting poor little Jeff Jarvis for asserting that he was a liberal. In response, Jarvis got all huffy and said:

I ... get pissed when someone tries to say I'm not liberal. Go see my pissyfit at the pissant (oh, no, a label!) there.

He's reminding us he called anyone against the war in Iraq a member of the "Coalition of the Pissy." Next, he calls Oliver a nattering nabob of negativism. Just kidding. He really says:

Who the hell made you the holder of the definition of liberal? And how dare you put yourself above to decree who and who isn't liberal? That's really quite haughty. Very unliberal, I'd say.

Huh. Does this sound inauthentic to anyone else? I mean, aren't people constantly talking about what it means to be "left", "liberal", "conservative", etc.? Liberals, especially. So does the comment ring a little false? Yeah, me too. So, then he says:

Want to hear what I say about health insurance... abortion... gun control... welfare... and, most imoportantly, human rights (even the rights of Iraqis)?

Why don't we already know what Jarvis's views are on those topics? Perhaps because his posts have been a one-note song, and that note is always how stupid, mean and evil those liberals are. He's even got a post complaining that liberals are cheap because they bought the less expensive tickets to some event first.

Can't you just hear that coming out of some right-wingers' mouth? Criticising people for not spending enough money? It's like it never occurred to him that they might not have the money.

At this point, you would imagine, Jarvis would just put all this nonsense to rest by simply stating what makes him a liberal. Instead, he loses his mind completely:

[F]rankly, I don't need to tell them just as I don't need to bid for their approval. They make their judgment because I don't agree with them about the war and because I dare to criticize my fellow liberals when they deserve it and because I don't chant along with every bit of cant bashing Bush and his administration.

Um, no, Jarvis. We make our judgment because you have seized on a stupid idea - that Bush's national security policy is immune to criticism - and carried water for him so often that Bush should be paying you.

It gets worse:

But more important, that's essentially exclusionary. And I thought that liberalism wanted to be inclusionary. I would think that at a time when liberals are out of power, they would need to be inclusionary, they would want to sell the viewpoint, to draw people in, not kick them out.

Liberalism means having no standards ... for what it means to be a liberal? Again, does this sound like something an actual liberal would say? Anyway, the argument is incorrect. Liberals have a real shot at getting back into power because they are embracing being liberal again, because they want to kick the frauds out of the White House, and because they're sick of the accomodationists in the Democratic Party who have been playing patty-cake with Bush up until now. So, no, Jarvis, we don't need to accept someone as a liberal who says they will not hear a word of criticism of the conservative Bush on a specific issue.

Then things get really weird:

Third, when putting up signs with such labels, or trying to take down mine -- you're not liberal, you are right-wing -- it's a very short walk to Bigot Street: You're not black enough. You're too black. You're not Jewish enough. You're too Jewish. You're not gay enough. You're too gay. Pick your ethnic slap and slur. How far do you want to go, people? It's all on the same route on MapQuest.

I had to read that three times to make sure it said what I thought it said. Saying that someone who kisses Bush's and Cheney's asses is not a liberal is tantamount to ... racism and antisemitism???

Then, I got it. Jarvis is a liberal ... parody.

The statements that just don't ring true, the complete obeisance to Bush, the constant carping against anything liberal. It makes sense. He's a conservative pulling a huge prank on us all. Pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining. It's actually very funny, since so many people fell for it. Imagine how Jarvis must have been having laughing fits as people tried to grok the liberal who never, ever has anything good to say about liberals or liberalism.

It was a very good joke. Now it's over.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Update:

Ed Cone nails it:

Wow -- people are arguing over the right to call themselves "liberals." That's a good sign, I think, after years of running from the label. ...

Liberals should stand up and say what they believe in, instead of letting conservatives -- or self-appointed arbiters of liberal orthodoxy -- define their terms.

*applause* Over to you, Jarvis. Stand up and say what you believe in.

Comments

[Thurber Hamm]

Conservatives calling themselves "liberal" has become a veritable cottage industry. One only has to flip through the vaious so-called news channels to see the same circle of "Democrats" over and over again, not a single one of them able to say a kind word about their "fellow" Democrats (save for Zell Miller of course). I call them *Brucian* Democrats in honor of that spectacular example, Tammy Bruce. Nice to know that the networks are trying hard to get both sides of a story, eh?