I was fascinated by this Dave Neiwert piece on how nasty conservatives are. On several levels. But mostly because I consider myself a liberal, but I am no longer a man of the Left. I have come to believe that most of the people we call "liberals" don't deserve to be called liberals, for I have concluded that most of them are closed-minded, mean-spirited, reactionary people who care little for facts, have very few ideas, and focus everything on winning arguments without seeking truth, and preventing progressive ideas (like school choice and Social Security choice) from coming to fruition.
As far as the war goes, I regularly despair of anyone on the Left giving thoughtful, reasoned arguments against the war in Iraq. I've seen it only a few times, a few places. That said, I also confess to having some fairly conservative attitudes: once the war's on, I do think it's time to stop carping and sniping, and time to get behind the effort to win as quickly and effectively as possible, because the debate over whether to proceed ended once Congress gave the President authority to act. And because most people, even angry bellowers like Howard Dean, acknowledge that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now.
I also keep waiting for thoughtful, decent people on the Left to repudiate the assertion that Bush "lied" about things that a reasonable person might conclude may simply have been wrong--and might turn out not be wrong after all. Calling someone a "liar" is like a nuclear weapon: once launched, it's hard to pull back. "Liar" doesn't mean wrong or misjudged or even inconsistent. It means a direct, willful, intentional, and (in this case) carefully planned and executed effort to deceive. Such a claim should never be made lightly, and every effort should be made to acknowledge that the accusation may be false.
I also find Neiwert's desire that conservatives "finally acknowledge that people's concerns about the legitimacy of the process by which Bush obtained office are not only well grounded but driven more by patriotic feeling than partisan rancor" fascinating, because I've always acknowledged that such concerns are legitimate. But every time I've tried to tell a lefty who claims Bush "stole" the election why I think the Bush victory was legitimate, and why I think that Gore's tactics in trying to take away that legitimate victory were execrable, they become furious with me.
So, will Neiwert acknowledge that many people's belief in the legitimacy of the process by which Bush obtained office, and the illegitimacy of the way Gore attempted to take it from him, is also grounded in patriotic feeling and not a partisan win-at-all-costs mentality?
You know, back in 2000 I wholeheartedly, enthusiastically supported Bush. It was the first time I had ever done so for any Republican Presidential candidate. I wrote regularly to a number of my friends to talk about the campaign and why I supported Bush. There was talk in the news, a few days before the election, of the possibility that Gore might win the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote. Even though I supported Bush (because I believed a handful of his issues were the most progressive and positive for the country's future), I wrote to tell everyone that if that happened, I would be the first to support Gore, because the electoral college was a legitimate way of electing Presidents.
I was stunned when it went the exact opposite way--and disappointed that none of my left-wing friends seemed willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the electoral college, or why there are many benefits to that system. A few, a very few, acknowledged that it was legitimate, but viewed it as a technicality at best, and only got angry when I tried to explain why I thought it was, and still is, the best way to elect Presidents. And when I tried countering their claims about "illegitimate" Bush tactics with equally questionable Gore tactics, and by pointing out that much of what both sides did was not as bad as some people made out, they again simply got mad and changed the subject. This still happens any time I try to discuss it.
But, having read reams of what the Left claims about the Bush "theft" of the election in 2000, I remain firmly convinced that Bush's victory was both legitimate and fair, even if there were troubling things about what happened that I hope are fixed in the future. I will be happy to discuss this with anyone who pledges not to descend to cheap shots and adolescent rhetoric.
By the way, would Neiwert be willing to repudiate those who lied about the so-called Republican "Riot" in that Florida courthouse, or who continue to spout cant about how Jeb Bush and the Florida Secretary of State conspired to destroy ballots and prevent legitimate voting?
Also, would he be willing to repudiate rhetoric which says that if I question a politician's priorities on national security, I'm questioning that politician's patriotism? Will he repudiate James Carville for claiming that Republicans are questioning Democrats' patriotism, when Republicans claim that what some Democrats want to do in the war on terror is dangerous to national security, and will effectively end the war on terrorism? Because I do believe that you can be a patriot who advocates things which will hurt national security: not because you want national security harmed, but because what you advocate is wrong.
I also have to ask: is it ever okay, under any circumstances, to question anyone's patriotism? I think lots of people are unpatriotic. I think the KKK and most white supremacists are unpatriotic. I think the Nation of Islam is unpatriotic. I think Ted Rall is unpatriotic. I think people who see America as a "bully nation" whose horrible behavior "provoked" the 9/11 attacks are being unpatriotic. I think people who bitch, whine, and moan about every setback in the war effort, who criticize everything the administration does at the drop of a hat without bothering to lay out a clear alternate agenda that they'd like to persue are guilty of acting unpatriotic, because they're doing nothing but demoralizing without offering alternatives.
Does that make me a fascist, or a Stalinist?
Every conservative I know has been called a fascist or a Nazi on more than one occasion. This has been going on for decades. Neiwert's doing this again, but seems to think that while it didn't used to be a fair thing to say, but now is. Based on what? Violent rhetoric from some conservative humorists, Ann Coulter, a conservative organization firing a dissenter?
But why doesn't Niewert mention Ann Coulter getting fired from National Review?
Neiwert also loses a bit of credit with me for referring to the conservative movement as "Stalinist" (and creeping toward fascism) because some dissident conservatives have been fired, but for failing to mention how often conservatives have been fired, denied tenured, bullied, and harassed on so many of America's campuses (and occasionally in its major news organizations). His failure to mention the likes of the Black Panthers, Ted Kaczyski, and the Earth Liberation Front, and the occasional riots by "anti-globalization" protestors is equally troubling, for every one of those is a good example of left-wing violence.
I will admit that he seems to have a point that right-of-center writers tend toward violent rhetoric more often, and use such rhetoric in their humor more often. Yet I wonder if this is anything new? Conservatives tend to be more willing to use the military, more in favor of things like capital punishment of criminals and corporal punishment of children. Has it not always been so? What's the evidence that just because they're more willing to joke about violence, to talk about it, that they're actually becoming more violent? (And if he can't provide it, can I beat him like a red-headed stepchild?)
That said, I've often seen conservative rhetoric that goes way over the top. I've also seen right-wing violence I deplore. I very much wish more conservatives would condemn harridans like Coulter. Not enough of them have. I for one find the woman utterly loathesome, and have for a long time.
Neiwert's piece makes a fascinating counterpoint to Orson Scott Card's On Lying. Notice how both men hit most of the same issues, and both come to the same exact conclusion: the other side cares little for facts, wants to win at any costs, and endlessly demonizes the other side.
It's funny. I am a liberal. But I'm more on Card's side than Neiwert's. I have seen so little that was anything but shrieking rage and half-coherent "Bush lied!" stuff out of the Left the last few years, I've been utterly appalled. My transition away from the Democratic Party began a bit over ten years ago (I'm 37 years old right now), but my alienation from my old party has only grown since the 2000 election and most especially since 9/11. All the reasons Neiwert gives for no longer supporting conservatives or Republicans under any circumstances are why I am perilously close to saying the same thing about Democrats--although I still maintain that I'll support what I consider to be a decent Democrat with the right ideas, it's harder and harder for me to say that every day.
What I can't figure out is if any of this says something profound about our politics today, or whether it's always been like this, and the internet is only making it more apparent.
(Thanks to John Constantine for pointing Neiwert's piece out to me. I'd send Neiwert a note, but he seems to have no public email address, and no trackbacks. Ah well. Perhaps someone who knows him will point this out to him. Or perhaps not.)
* Update * I'm stupid. The guy's email address is right on his front page. Well anyway, while mentioning this, I also fixed a few grammatical glitches and typos above. Shouldn't have changed the thrust of anything I said though.
Let us not forget, also, that Orson Scott Card was, up until very recently at least, a card-carrying Democrat.
That kind of gives his assertions a little more weight than Neiwert's.
Even more so when the Left accuses both you and Card as being conservatives or Right-Wingers, no?
“Does that make me a fascist, or a Stalinist?”
Samuel Johnson thought it only made you a scoundrel.
Concerning 2000 (since you brought it up), Gore lost because an unqualified poll worker – a Democrat – decided to play graphic designer and the Gore team was so busy worrying about Baker’s next move, they failed to sue to have the butterfly ballot thrown out. That resulted in thousands of votes being discarded because, in their understandable confusion, those lovely old Palm Beach Jews who tried to vote for Gore also voted for Pat Buchanen. Bush suing the Supreme Court to take the Presidency was certainly less “legitimate and fair” than Florida trying to be sure that will of Florida voters was counted. Florida and the nation voted for Gore, only a botched election and the Bush lawsuit kept them from having their votes count.
Further, I would have to argue that, like in many aspects, conservatives are taken to task for hyperbolic references to violence, whereas liberals are not, such as when the spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said, "Whoever is advising [the Democrats] on gun control should be shot."
Shep:
Votes get thrown out due to mistakes every year. The only reason we knew about these(Bush/Gore ones) were the closeness of the race.
Gore started the court battle trying to change the rules after the fact. The Florida Supreme court obliged Gore in changing the rules of the election. Bush going to SCOTUS was, at least, as fair as Gore's initial lawsuit.
Plenty of Liberal media recounts happened after the fact. Hell, even the NYTimes said Gore would have lost Florida.
Let us not forget the pre-poll closing call that Gore won Florida. That played a part as well.
Gore lost because an unqualified poll worker – a Democrat – decided to play graphic designer and the Gore team was so busy worrying about Baker’s next move, they failed to sue to have the butterfly ballot thrown out.
Whatever. That ballot was approved and you can't go changing rules because you don't like the results. Gore suing in the first place was WRONG.
Of all the stupid things the Gorons complained about in the wake of the 2000 election, the carping over butterfly ballots strikes me as the stupidest. My favorite part was listening to William Daley whine about how horrible it was for a Florida county to use ballots designed exactly like the ones used in his own home county.
Dean: I'm curious for you to outline exactly which of your specific political positions, either economic or social, could be considered "liberal." I hear you say variations of "I'm a liberal but I abhor them" many times on this site, and I'd love to hear the other side, for once. (And trashing Ann Coulter doesn't really cut it. That's shooting fish in a barrel.)
On one small tiny point, I have concluded for myself that the reason the "Bush lied" group harp constantly on the "illegitimacy" of the Electoral College is because of one of two things : 1) they are pathetically ignorant of the parliamentary procedures our Founding Fathers built into the system of government, being products of modern education, and stupendously uneducated in civics
and/or
2) they are willfully attempting to eradicate that knowledge and later that form of representative process. Teh Electoral College is a bit confusing to those who have not gained a solid ground in the Federalism that has created a bicameral system and inlaid a means of checks and balances.
In the fact that so many are so accustomed now to calling American government a 'democracy' when it is NOT, the unwashed AND the deliberate operatives of socialism (which is the illegitimate sister of a pure democracy) yammer for those things that their very own systems do not incorporate.
Removal of the electoral college will be the stone that starts the avalanche and sends American Federalism into the dusty corners of history. It will be a long long time after that before people are able to pull together something like American Federalism again.
Re Ann Coulter. Loathesome? Well, I might find her rhetoric distressing if she was doing anything other than paraphrasing the other side, only salting facts in for the missing leftist factoids. I guess it's all those years of being denounced as a fascist.
"Removal of the electoral college will be the stone that starts the avalanche and sends American Federalism into the dusty corners of history. It will be a long long time after that before people are able to pull together something like American Federalism again."
So is taking a state matter as described by the Constitution, the determing of electoral votes, to the Federal courts the first crowbar under that first stone?
shep, you ARE aware it was the Florida Chief Justice who sent the matter to the US Supreme Court for final decision, as he publicly stated his peers on the Florida court were manipulating the situation for partisan (Democrat) gain?
The Florida law stated a recount was allowed only in the event of a natural disaster. The Democrat-designed ballot hardly qualified. The attempt of a state court to partisanly affect the national election by changing the rules during and after that election is definitely in the purview of the US Supreme Court.
Not that this should be news to you, or the fact that, even if the recounts had been completed as requested, Bush would still have won.
Dean:
My public e-mail address is on the blog, along with my bio. It's dneiwert@hotmail.com.
"As far as the war goes, I regularly despair of anyone on the Left giving thoughtful, reasoned arguments against the war in Iraq. I've seen it only a few times, a few places. That said, I also confess to having some fairly conservative attitudes: once the war's on, I do think it's time to stop carping and sniping, and time to get behind the effort to win as quickly and effectively as possible, because the debate over whether to proceed ended once Congress gave the President authority to act. And because most people, even angry bellowers like Howard Dean, acknowledge that we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now."
Reality check, Dean.
1. Why should anyone against the war work to provide you with reasoned arguments to support their position, when you are such a staunch supporter of the war and when your support is really moot at this point, since you believe we should all lend our support toward a quick victory (whatever that entails), regardless of anyone's feelings before the bombs started dropping? Should we work really, really hard to come up with the best possible argument of all possible worlds, just so you can say, "Wow. That's a really thoughtful, non-partison, well-reasoned argument. I disagree."? I think perhaps that the reason you see anti-war arguments as irrational or poorly-reasoned is that YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM. The best-cooked choice tenderloin fillet will not entice a vegetarian.
2. Calls for an end to the "carping and sniping" are a pipe dream, as they have always been, as long as we are a free country. To argue that anti-war protest should stop at the beginning of hostilities can serve only one purpose: to reinforce the perception that people against the war are against our troops or against America. As someone who wants to support the troops by keeping them alive and ready for a *real* threat to America, I can only chuckle and rub my temples. Protest is what you get with a country like ours. Love it as I do, leave it as others have done, or learn to live with it. Whining about whining is unseemly at best.
3. I know, as many people who were against this war know, that to pull out of Iraq would not only be a cruel waste of American lives and resources, but would surely plunge millions of ordinary Iraqis -- who were, by the way, just trying to scratch out a living while their leaders and our leaders were making an utter catastrophe of their country -- into a nightmare of religious repression, violence and tyranny. The last thing I want is a complete and sudden pull-out by American forces. Transition to an international force? Sure. But an utter abandonment of the Iraqi people?
As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote, to tame something is to become responsible for it. We have attempted to tame Iraq, and so Iraq is now our responsibility, for better or for worse. In such a bloody marriage, premature divorce will only create more death and destruction.
Yet, am I angry with President Bush for marrying us to this country with the blood of our soldiers? You bet I am.
From Salam Pax's website:
"I was just stopped by an american check point .. they let me stand under the rain .. in the mud .. for more than 15 minutes .. a soldier pushed me in a very strong way that I nearly fell down, and the other was investigating me: Why do you have a camera in your car? haaa? !!!!!! What the hell !!! I mean !! duh ?? I have a camera? why not? then came the other americano with a smile asking me: do you film porn? and I heard that but I said: what sir? and he replied: PORN pee ooo are enn ,, ha ha ha .. (is that funny?) .. Soldiers stopping people in the EID (these are the Muslims' festival days) asking them whether they film porn and pushing them in mud .. I DON'T LIKE "THEM" .. Soldiers are not the best representatives of any culture .. "
Sure, we're giving Iraqi children toys and teaching them how to use swingsets. We're also doing this. Don't fool yourself into thinking Iraqis will remember us lovingly, if they continue to be the target for a vengeance they do not deserve. Some days I think our country has gone mad.
John, you are aware that Salam Pax was essentially an insider during the Ba'athist regime, so he's not likely to be too sympathetic or accurate in describing events in Iraq?Particularly since he's writing for the Guardian now. Lillek's slam of Pax for his daft letter to Bush was square on target.
I read his blog during the run-up to Operation: Iraqi Freedom, and was struck by how play-both-sides he was. Not much has changed since then.
am I angry with President Bush for marrying us to this country with the blood of our soldiers? You bet I am
Come on, I bet you were angry with President Bush long before we went into Iraq. I bet you cannot find one policy he supports, one major statement he has made that you like. I doubt the facts of the situation are what make you angry.
IMHO side-effects of the Civil War, the expansion of the Commerce clause into non-interstate-commerce and taking the election of our Senators away from the state legislature were all body blows to American Federalism.
Yours,
Wince
"Liberal" is a total misnomer since most in the US are anything but, the true liberals are the libertarians (as in classical liberals of the 19th century variety).
And when I tried countering their claims about "illegitimate" Bush tactics with equally questionable Gore tactics, and by pointing out that much of what both sides did was not as bad as some peole made out, they again simply got mad and changed the subject.
This still happens any time I try to discuss it.
So stop already!
Wince,
Ok, and I think your implication is that American Federalism survived those hits. I don't think it really addresses whether the system would survive future hits, though. (I think it would, but we might as well avoid them, if possible.)
Very simply, I could go all the way through Niewerts piece, replacing the word right witih left, Republican with Democrat, Coulter with Carville, O'Reilly with Begala, and so on and so on, and when I was done, it would make exactly as much sense, and bear exactly as much relation to reality, as it does now.
There are corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats, and when all is said and done, BOTH parties are in it for the power and the power alone. BOTH parties are totally careless of the needs of the little man except as that caring generates votes. BOTH parties will do anything at all to win.
The thing that really bothers me about this piece is the accusation that conservative pundits are sociopaths. If all of these people are displaying clinical signs of psychosis to Mr Niewert, perhaps he needs to seek professional help himself.
Reality check, John.
1. People against the war who want to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as knee-jerk anti-Americans owe it to themselves, if not to the country, to show the rest of us why they believe their views are the correct ones. If all you want to do is privately pat yourself on the back for being morally superior to everyone else, fine. But if you really think the country would be better off following your views, then it behooves you to demonstrate that. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason we disagree with your ideas is because they ARE irrational and poorly-reasoned, and not the other way around? While a well-cooked choice tenderloin fillet won't tempt a hard-core vegetarian, it may well entice those who haven't made up their mind whether to eat vegetables, meat, or both. On the flip side, you'll be surprised at how many "instant vegetarians" you can create by offering a horribly prepared, rotten fillet.
2. Calls for an end to the "carping and sniping" are indeed a pipe dream, because most people on your side of the issue are jerks who care more about their own egos than they do about the good of the country. There is a time and a place for everything; protesting a war while our troops are fighting is not one of them, and it doesn't become so simply because you offer lip service to the idea that you're not really opposing the troops, just "supporting" them in your own special way. And cut the crap about having the "freedom" to protest whenever you want. No one is questioning your God-given, First Amendment right to be a jerk. We're simply exercising our own First Amendment right to call a jerk a jerk. And if our side's "whining" about whining is unseemly, what does that say about your side whinining about whining about whining?
3. Unfortunately, not all on your side do understand that a quick pull out would be a stupid idea. I'm not sure you completely grasp the concept yourself; otherwise you would understand why it is inappropriate to protest after hostilities begin. It's all well and good to protest against a war before it begins, in hopes of preventing it from occurring in the first place. But what on earth do you hope to accomplish by protesting once things are underway?
I couldn't give a rat's ass about what that spoiled child Peace Peace thinks. And to anyone who thinks "our country has gone mad," well, you know what they say about people who think everyone in the world is crazy except them. Or at least, you should know.
John Irving: Wow, you can make things up about what I believe. Go you!
Xrlq: As Dean Esmay once said to me: Okee-dokee.
If you believe that there should be no anti-war protest during a war, then you and those who believe as you do should get the appropriate legal machinery in motion. Then you can live with the country you've created.
For someone who doesn't care what we think, you're sure loud about it.
"shep, you ARE aware it was the Florida Chief Justice who sent the matter to the US Supreme Court for final decision, as he publicly stated his peers on the Florida court were manipulating the situation for partisan (Democrat) gain?
The Florida law stated a recount was allowed only in the event of a natural disaster. The Democrat-designed ballot hardly qualified. The attempt of a state court to partisanly affect the national election by changing the rules during and after that election is definitely in the purview of the US Supreme Court.
Not that this should be news to you, or the fact that, even if the recounts had been completed as requested, Bush would still have won."
No, John. I'm sure that the suit was "Bush v. Gore" with no Republican Florida judge named as a party. And I find it informative that Bush partisans think the possible outcomes of various vote count methodologies (if they had been allowed to proceed) in a flawed election are more significant that the voters’ intent.
Gary, sociopath is a gross overstatement. The comprehensive review of the literature only shows a correlation between conservative (vs. liberal) viewpoints and “a sense of societal instability, fear of death, intolerance of ambiguity, need for closure, lower cognitive complexity and a sense of threat.” (Arie W. Kruglanski and John T. Jost).
Xrlq mentioned that the same punch card ballots used in Florida are also used in the home county of Gore's campaign manager. I have served as an election judge in that county; my wife did so for twenty years. So-called dimpled or pregnant chads would, by law, have been discarded as spoiled ballots, but we almost never saw any. The chads are trivially easy to punch out. I was mystified by how they had so many in Florida, and am thus favorably inclined toward the suggestion that some people were trying to punch thhru more than one ballot at a time.
As for all those "extra" votes for Buchanan, I would appreciate it if someone better at political research than myself confirm the report that the Reform Party candidate for Senator also got an unexpectedly high number of votes. If so, that particular portion of the whining goes out the window.
I really don't care about Florida. The real story is in Wisconsin, where a ranking member of the DNC was videotaped buying votes, and several serious allegations of vote fraud were made. The State Attorney General, now Governor thanks to campaign funding from the gambling bosses, refused to investigate. He also refused to investigate a documented case, suggestive of an ongoing pattern, of Democratic campaign workers filling out absentee ballots in a nursing home during a subsequent election. I didn't realise how valuable it would be, and threw it out, but in 1998 we actually received a "Thanks for Voting" card on behalf of a ghost voter at our address in Milwaukee.
shep, thank you for confirming my earlier hypothesis about you.
Think what you want, it's a free country. I'm just glad yours isn't the majority viewpoint.
Shep, if you're quoting that horrible "psychological" study, you're lost. Those professors were not doing research; they were assembling propaganda. Citing it doesn't do anything to support your case; if anything, it weakens it.
John: I have no idea what you mean by "appropriate legal machinery," but the issue is really quite simple. If you protested against the war before the war and got behind the troops once hostilities began, then you are an honorable citizen with whom I simply happen to disagree. If, on the other hand, you were among those self-absorbed jerks who continued protesting once the war was underway, then you are self-absorbed jerk, and ought to be ashamed of that. Failing that, I suppose it is up to the rest of us, as individuals, to shame *you.* I'm not sure what role you expect the law to play in this, however.
The founding fathers were a group of highly intelligent and philosophical men with, by today's standard, less than acceptable morals. They seem to be held in almost god-like status and their words literally dripping with divine and sacred nectar. Truth is, they were the LUCKIEST PUNKS IN MODERN HISTORY! They didn't have a clue as to what they were bringing about. In fact, it wasn't until Lincoln, or better yet, Teddy Roosevelt, that our nation starting forging the greatness that we have become today.
shep,
Pointing to that study says more about you than the study in its entirety says about conservatives. Try again.
Copperheads, venomous, but not fatal.
Dean,
You're obviously neither a Stalinist nor a fascist. You're a Trotskyite. Travel to Mexico City would be ill advised. :-)
I would like to address the notion that once a war starts, we must get behind it. As a generality, this is nonsense.
There are cases where this is a reasonable position. The current situation in Iraq is a good example because there are no alternative courses of action which are plausibly better.
However, let's say that we were waging a british colonial war to conquer a people, keep them in subjugation, and steal their natural resources. It would be perfectly reasonable to try to convince one's fellow citizens to declare a mistake a mistake, sue for peace, and leave. The notion that once we begin a villany we must see it through and commit every atrocity that it entails is simply not true.
The thing about this war is that you have to be stupid or on mind alterting drugs to think that it's a purely evil action. Moreover, this war is past the point where there is a way to stop. But during the war, if someone honestly beleives that removing Saddam Hussein was horribly immoral and an act consisting entirely of sin, he should try to convince the rest of us to stop while there is some evil as yet undone.
It is not people's duty to support their country in sinning; people are not slaves to their country.
On the other hand, people like John Kusch whose positions amount to it being imprudent should adjust their position once the die are cast because such actions do substantially change what is prudent and what is not. We've started, the only prudent thing to do at this point is finish. John himself acknowledges this, which is what makes it so strange that he talks with a tone that says that he hasn't.
“shep, thank you for confirming my earlier hypothesis about you.
Think what you want, it's a free country. I'm just glad yours isn't the majority viewpoint.”
“Shep, if you're quoting that horrible "psychological" study, you're lost. Those professors were not doing research; they were assembling propaganda. Citing it doesn't do anything to support your case; if anything, it weakens it.”
“shep, Pointing to that study says more about you than the study in its entirety says about conservatives. Try again.
Copperheads, venomous, but not fatal."
Woah! And I thought there was a healthy sense of irony around here. I could easily construct as meaningless and insulting lists of attributes (i.e., shuns conflict, undisciplined, like hippies, etc.) which would correlate with “liberal” viewpoints. But you can’t find any conservative intellectuals to do them. Gotcha again.
Conservatives generally don't spend much time on the obvious. Unless, of course, they're pointing it out to liberals. Even then, the game's not worth the candle. Teaching pigs to sing and all that.
"It is not people's duty to support their country in sinning; people are not slaves to their country."
Thanks, ctl. I was just going to say this (not about sin but about invasions). And as far as this particular invasion goes, well, it seems to me possible to believe simultaneously that (1) it wasn't necessary, (2) now that we're there, we need to follow through properly, and (3) we're not, in practice, following through properly. I'm not necessarily making that argument myself. Based on the memoirs and the few personal accounts I've heard of the MacArthur years, I can't get too worked up over someone's being shoved a little at a checkpoint.
XLRQ,
There is a time and a place for everything; protesting a war while our troops are fighting is not one of them...
That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard said in seriousness. Tell it to the Viet Nam protesters, will you? They WON their war. We lost in Viet Nam not because of anything the NVA did, but because of the protesters (and, I would submit, the liberal media, but that's another argument). Protest in time of war, or any other time, is what free speech is all about. Certainly these people are supporting the enemy, but out troops are fighting, among other reasons, so the protesters can continue to speak freely. (Let me play the Vietnam veteran card here, it was one of the things _I_ was fighting for, case closed.)
...not all on your side do understand that a quick pull out would be a stupid idea.
Which only makes them stupid, not disloyal.
Shep,
Gary, sociopath is a gross overstatement.
Nice display of ignorance there, Shep. I'm quoting Mr. Niewerts opinion of these people, not offering my own. Perhaps if you had read his piece before jumping in, you'd know what you were talking about.
Or perhaps not.
Robert,
...Those professors were not doing research; they were assembling propaganda. Citing it doesn't do anything to support your case...
He doesn't have a case to weaken.
CTL,
I would like to address the notion that once a war starts, we must get behind it. As a generality, this is nonsense.
A minor nit. Political resistance is not only allowed, it should be appreciated. But actual obstruction of the war effort is right out. Attempting to obstruct military movements, slow military supplies, damage or destroy military equipment is outright treason, and anyone caught at it should be tried and punished to the extent of the law "for the encouragement of the others". There were protesters who were doing this, and they should be in prison now, IMO.
shep,
But you can’t find any conservative intellectuals to do them.
You say that like it's a BAD thing. :)
Sean,
I can't get too worked up over someone's being shoved a little at a checkpoint.
Especially a whiny little snot like Salam Pax. If I had to spend ten minutes with that putz I would probably knock him on his ass. :)
"On the other hand, people like John Kusch whose positions amount to it being imprudent should adjust their position once the die are cast because such actions do substantially change what is prudent and what is not. We've started, the only prudent thing to do at this point is finish. John himself acknowledges this, which is what makes it so strange that he talks with a tone that says that he hasn't."
While I believe that we have a responsibility to finish our work in Iraq now that we are there, this is not "water under the bridge". The political and ideological mechanism that brought this war about is deeply troubling to me, and I and like-minded people continue to criticize those mechanisms, because once this war is over (to whatever end), we will expect the government to answer for what it did to bring us where we are.
Approval or disapproval are not such binary positions, as you seem to think. I know we have to stay, but I hate that we are there, and I disapprove of the government that brought us there.
I feel no shame for my position. I don't plan to. To attempt to "shame" people who believe as I do is both pedantic and useless.
Regarding Salam Pax (I happen to be responding to what Gary Utter wrote, but I'm not just thinking of him), I find the recent pile-on rather disturbing. Arthur Silber and a few others have taken exception at length, and I don't have much to add except that even--perhaps especially--insiders in regimes ruled by erratic megalomaniacs realize that their fortunes could change at any moment. If I'd grown up that way, European schooling or not, I don't know that I'd be all that well-adjusted mere months after the toppling of the relevant regime.
The whole linked piece was just a bit of projection - the author has hitched his star to people who demand to win in politics at any price and rather than admitting his error, he just projects their vileness on to the other side.
Sean,
If I'd grown up that way, European schooling or not, I don't know that I'd be all that well-adjusted mere months after the toppling of the relevant regime.
A point which should console him in later years when he looks back on the foolishness of his youth. However, he is what he is, no matter the reasons, and what he is RIGHT NOW is a snot nosed punk.
I was a snot nosed punk once, and I recognize the mindset. I grew up, hopefully he will too.
When, as a snot nosed punk, you do something exceptionally brazen and exceptionally stupid (as he did), you have no choice but to take the gaff.
He'll get over it, and hopefully he'll learn something in the process.
Yeah, trust me--I wasn't saying I like the guy. That smarmy tone is bad enough when it's coming from junior Vogue writers talking about the return of little white gloves; it's positively nerve-abrading applied to this context.
"John, you are aware that Salam Pax was essentially an insider during the Ba'athist regime, so he's not likely to be too sympathetic or accurate in describing events in Iraq?"
Prove it. Then *you* grow up under a brutal dictatorship and show us the strength and clarity of your convictions. Salam is *Western*-educated, anti-Saddam, and pro-democracy. Go ahead and malign the source. Go ahead and question the motives of someone who actually *lives* in the country we've bombed and invaded for over a decade.
This argument is a perfect encapsulation of why our troops should not be in Iraq a single day longer than they have to be. If John Irving is any indication, we simply do not understand this nation we're occupying, nor do we care to.
Hey, my boyfriend just had a fantastic idea: We're going to contact the World Wide Web Consortium and suggest that in the next iteration of xHTML they include a SMEAR tag!
"Most ignorance is willful." -- Bill Watterson
John, it's time for the "nose on your face" defense, now with actual food for thought. The charges against Pax have nothing to do with Iraq being bombed and the injustice of the invasion. We're talking about a child of privilege in Saddam Hussein's Iraq; whose first instincts when the Americans showed up was to complain about his losing access to a swimming club. How many people who were *not* Ba'athist tools and their pampered offspring are Western-educated?
No, it's not proven. But it's also, I hope you will agree, food for thought and not the rote smear that you seem to see it as.
John Kusch and Xrlq,
A minor nit. 'Calling for an end to the carping and sniping' is not a pipe dream. It an effective way for a freedom-loving individual to improve the quality of the debate. It cannot end the carping and sniping, but I believe it will reduce it, especially among the people who are worth discussing these matters with like I read here and on Winds of Change. Social pressure is a good thing. The government big stick is tyranny.
Yours,
Wince
Sam Barnes,
American Federalism is hooked up to an IV and is usually medicated into unconsciousness. The courts are becoming states rights aware, but they are not there yet.
Yours,
Wince
So, Mr. Kusch, what about Iraq do you think we don't understand? Is it your opinion that Iraqi's are inferior human beings? Superior ones? Klingons? I promise you they have more in common with American traits than, for instance, post World War II Japan.
As for Salam Pax's background, you seem pretty net-savvy, look the guy up. I'm sure the Guardian has a bio on him. I'm not making anything up about him, it's all out there.
As for your opinions, my statement was based on reading your statements over and over again. If you are misrepresenting yourself, so be it, but you have made your stances clear, right or wrong. I offered you an easy test to rebut my statement, but you didn't accept.
I know Salam personally. I've read every word he's written. The evidence you speak of is not there. If I thought for a moment that he was in any way sympathetic to Saddam's regime or a supporter of the Ba'ath party, I wouldn't defend him. How easy for us to tell Salam what he should or should not have done, having grown up in Iraq under a regime who could kill whomever they pleased whenever they pleased, when we have not. How easy for us to judge Salam for for not rising up against Saddam's government and being the freedom fighters we have never been called upon to become, when last time anyone did so, hoping for U.S. support, we abandoned them to be massacred.
Go pay epistemological Cat's Cradle with someone else. The convenience of your arguments makes me want to vomit.
"Gary, sociopath is a gross overstatement.
Nice display of ignorance there, Shep. I'm quoting Mr. Niewerts opinion of these people, not offering my own. Perhaps if you had read his piece before jumping in, you'd know what you were talking about.
Or perhaps not."
Um, nice diplay of self-importance there, Gary. If you didn't take yourself so seriously, you might see the joke.
This article was so awful I had to quit reading. His entire political evolution was caused by the combination of (a) recognizing some people are motivated by power (duh!), and (b) the Florida elections. What a load of crap.
John,
So is Salam grateful for not being in baathist hell? I've read little of what he's written, and certainly never met him.
I presume that things in Baghdad aren't great, they're an occupied country, and that's a terrible place to be.
But is he grateful that he's not still in the baathist hell where he could be tortured or killed at a whim? Is he glad that he now lives a life where he can be an author and be published in prominent newspapers and not be recklessly endangering his entire family?
In short, is he grateful that however bad things are now, they would have been far, far worse had the Americans not done what they did?
Oh, I know that you think that our president is evil and acted purely out of greed, hatred and hubris. I know that you think that our government works for Satan and just happened to screw up in being purely evil this time around since there were a few side benefits to someone. For all I know Salam also thinks that George Bush tried to tell the military to saturation nuclear bomb Iraq and through his stupidity miscommunicated the order as "do your best to minimize civilian casualties and set a new record for safety of civilians in a war".
I don't care if he's grateful to the Americans. But is he at least grateful to God for the change which we have wrought?
Disclaimer: in the above post, I was intentionally exaggerating John's position to show my difference of opinion. His own position is more nuanced and less extreme than I portrayed it. It's still wrong, but it's not stupid.
<joke>Actually, he's actually half wrong. Only the democrats work for Satan.</joke>
I think I'm getting through to him! ;)
You say "sociopath" like it's a bad thing. I tend to be intrigued by intellectual sociopaths..like James Carville and Rosemary Esmay. Those people are fucking crazy like a fox.
Sorry Dean, you're not a sociopath, but there's always hope.
Oh Sharon, can you refer to the founding fathers' and the original intent of the constitution a little more frequently in your posts. I think you've dropped to 85%. I don't think everyone truly appreciates your religious devotion to the document.
And starring as Charlie Brown's teacher - Xrlg. Psst, I think your keyboard is possessed, it keeps typing the stupidest drivel in the group. You might want to get that checked.
Rosemary, can you use the word "fuck" MORE before tomorrow. I can't really get in the thanksgiving festive mood until I've read the word "fuck" in more political posts.
Wince,
"IMHO side-effects of the Civil War, the expansion of the Commerce clause into non-interstate-commerce and taking the election of our Senators away from the state legislature were all body blows to American Federalism."
No one even know what the hell that means? You've been educated beyond your intelligence. I hope you're not a teacher or a corrections officer.
Message to all libertarians: IT"S NOT GONNA HAPPEN!! Luckily the cops probably aren't going to find your secret stash. Be careful anyway, however, the pissed-off at the government death to regulation look is SOOOOOOO out this winter. May want to try something that makes you look more intelligent...like a straight jacket with a ball-gag chaser. Just a thought.
Notice to librarians: YOU"RE NOT GETTING LAID TONIGHT!
Tim,
Sorry my post was so brief it was meaningless to you. When I post in less haste my explanations are better. I am mainly self-taught, and I am neither teacher nor corrections officer.
Since I am in haste again, perhaps I can elaborate better later, or maybe on my own site.
Yours,
Wince
Wince, (no, I'm not referring to you. I justed "winced" at the thought of reading an elaboration on a topic that would put me straigt tZZZZZ ZZZZZZ.) Note to self: stop nodding off while posting on Dean's World - especially when I'm driving...the school bus. Seriously, I'm just kidding Wince and Nod. Well, what are you waiting for?! I said, wince and nod dammit, and I mean it.
Nice job, Dim. Every time I think you've made the stupidest, most juvenile post possible, you turn around and outdo yourself once again. Now go back to cleaning the toilets so that the real soldiers will have somewhere to shit.
Xlrg,
I sympathize with your computer problem. It's probably spread to the rest of your computer. That last post confirmed my worst fears...your modem has genital warts.
Ode To Tim the Soldier
Fuck this and fuck that.
Fuck, fuck, fuck!!!!!
Fuck, fuck, fuck!!!!!
Fuck, fuck, fuck!!!!!
In closing,
FUCK!
Rosemary,
Aren't those the lyrics to Air Supply's last single? I could be wrong but thanks all the same.
I don't know Tim - I hate that fucking group!
Hey, what's up with that socio-path bit? Was that a compliment? You are such a flatterer....
Winner of the most intelligent and relevant post in the thread: Gary Utter (applause)
Hey Gary, stay with the current dosage. I think it's working.
Rosemary, I would be SERIOUSLY worried if you DIDN'T hate Air Supply. That group single-handedly almost turned an entire generation of American men into pussies. Thankfully we were saved by Van Halen.
Seriously, I hope we all see the catch-22 in this thread.
"For all I know Salam also thinks that George Bush tried to tell the military to saturation nuclear bomb Iraq and through his stupidity miscommunicated the order as "do your best to minimize civilian casualties and set a new record for safety of civilians in a war".
I don't care if he's grateful to the Americans. But is he at least grateful to God for the change which we have wrought?"
* * *
The Bush administration and our military do not track the number of civilian casualties -- just so you know.
I think Salam is as happy as just about all Iraqis are that Saddam was gone. He was a monster. Everyone hated him and feared him -- some served him out of fear, some opposed him out of fear, but fear was ubiquitous. As to his gratitude to the Americans: I think he *wants* to be grateful, but it's difficult given the circumstances. I myself want to be happier about Iraq, but I can't be, given the circumstances. I think Salam, like most Iraqis, are watching closely with a jaundiced eye: their history doesn't say much for the power of foreign governments to free them. Just because we Americans know how wonderful we are doesn't mean they'll just take it on faith. I don't think it's fair, necessarily, that we have to work so hard to prove our good intentions; but in the long run, a high bar will benefit everyone.
Shep,
Um, nice diplay of self-importance there, Gary. If you didn't take yourself so seriously, you might see the joke.
I stick with what I'm good at. You should find out what YOU are good at and try to improve it.
(Hint, humor ain't it.)
Tim,
"IMHO side-effects of the Civil War, the expansion of the Commerce clause into non-interstate-commerce and taking the election of our Senators away from the state legislature were all body blows to American Federalism."
No one even know what the hell that means?
I know what it means, pity you have no idea.
You've been educated beyond your intelligence.
Apparently he's been educated beyond YOUR intelligence, which, come to think of it, doesn't really surprise me.
May want to try something that makes you look more intelligent...like a straight jacket with a ball-gag chaser.
I begin to understand your preoccupation with corrections officers.
Notice to librarians: YOU"RE NOT GETTING LAID TONIGHT!
Dude, just because you can't find a librarian retarded enough to fuck YOU doesn't mean they aren't getting laid.
John,
"The Bush administration and our military do not track the number of civilian casualties -- just so you know."
I doubt that there is even a good way to. However, given that we just did a very hostile takeover of a well armed country quite far away from us and it wasn't an absolute bloodbath is itself a record. The fact that our soldiers often didn't return fire unless they could be sure who they were targeting, that our bombing runs were carefully planned not only for time of day to hit, but also direction to come from to minimize civilian casualties, and that we used things like precision-guided concrete (since it will cause minimal damage to everything but the target, and can't leave an unexploded bomb lying around) speaks volumes about our intentions. The fact that no one serious claims massive civilian casualties speaks volumes about our achievement of our intentions.
Be that as it may, I don't expect the Iraqis to trust us without reservations. We're occupying their country. The idea of one country occupying another and just planning to benefit it without intending to exploit it for all it's worth is absurd, given the history of the world. I don't expect the Iraqis to trust that we're going to do it until we've proven that we already have. We're Americans, not deities. It would be stupid of them to trust us implicitly at this stage. I do expect them to cooperate in rebuilding their country; regardless of our intentions that's in their best interest to do, and I think it reasonable to expect people to act in their own best interest. And the Iraqi people are, in the main, cooperating with us in rebuilding their country. Hundreds of thousands of patriotic Iraqis are volunteering for the Iraqi police force and the new Iraqi military. They are trying to capture criminals and stop the terrorists and baathists from killing innocent Iraqis. What I think it is reasonable to expect of them, they are doing. Things are as they should be.
In time they will know that we actually meant them well. There's time enough for that. I would expect them to be grateful once we've actually significantly made their lives better in a stable way. When our presence has diminished significantly, when they have a fully elected government that's gone through at least one or two election cycles with power being peacefully handed over, and once the effect of freedom has stimulated their economy and they are prosperous, then I would expect them to be grateful to us. Until then, we can leave worrying about gratitude off until we've finished. While even being rid of Saddam is something significant to be thankful for, if it only lasts a few months, it's not a big deal. We can worry about whether the Iraqis are grateful to us after it's clear that their newfound freedom is really theirs.
In the words of JFK, "So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof." We are making a very audacious claim about our intentions in Iraq, I find it only reasonable that the Iraqis want substantial proof.
John Irving:
"I promise you they have more in common with American traits than, for instance, post World War II Japan."
Eh?
I am totally Independent and not enthused either for Bush or against him. I support the Supreme Court decision recognizing him as President of the United States. I also support the Electoral College, which constitutes yet one more limit upon majority rule. As you probably know by now, I also passionately support the Supreme Court decision, Lawrence vs. Texas, June 26. 2003, recognizing my right to privacy in my own home. James Madison and the other Framers of our Constitution set up our government, and our form of government, for the express purpose of protecting our inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore to provide as many checks upon the tyranny of the majority as possible. If that decision had gone the other way, it would have been a disaster and I would have been outraged, but I still would not have used that as a pretext to attack and try to undermine and subvert the authority of the Supreme Court, as so many are doing now.