From James Taranto, WSJ Opinion Journal:
[…] The idea that “politics ends at the water’s edge”—that whatever political differences exist between Americans, it is important for the nation to present its enemies and allies with a united front—largely prevailed in both parties from 1941 until 1968, when it was shattered by intraparty Democratic dissent over Vietnam. Today every prospective Democratic presidential candidate except Hillary Clinton is going out of his way to pander to the Daily Kos crowd—a group that views anti-American crackpot Cindy Sheehan as a heroine, and patriotic fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman as a traitor.
Howard Dean’s collapse in 2004 showed that the countercultural left is a small minority even within the Democratic Party. But it is a minority that has an outsized influence in pulling the party to the left on foreign policy. This is what the party has to contend with if it hopes to persuade Americans that it has the common good at heart.
Taranto makes an important point, one that I have tried to articulate repeatedly myself, namely, that if the current GWOT is anything at all like Vietnam, it is only so in the sense that it has galvanized a similar form of anti-war “protester”—one who has eschewed the idea that the appearance of national unity is an important component in winning a war once troops are in harm’s way, replacing that one-time national imperative for a brand of feel-good “dissent” that thinks itself justified to use any and all measures necessary in order to disrupt and discredit any policy it does not support politically.
This “ends-justifies-the-means” politics—something I’ve previously called tinpot Machiavellianism—is certainly not the attitude of all those who oppose the war; after all, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the war in Iraq that grow out of particular foreign policy philosophies or personal moralities. But that doesn’t mean that all dissent is necessarily patriotic, either, and the assertion that anything goes if it helps to defeat the evil within (in this case, George Bush and his merry band of blood-drenched would-be imperialists) is a notion that has been burnished and romanticized in order that it can be justified. That this is true is evident to anywone who have been paying close attention to the rhetoric of the last few years, an ethos that has witnessed the improbable promotion of such Orwellian concepts as “fake but accurate,” or, as some have noted with candor and (in many cases) earnestness, that the job of the press is not simply to report “facts,” but rather to shape a “story” so that readers will draw the “correct lesson” from the facts—a dangerous position given the overwhelming ideological tilt of the storytellers.
As I’ve written here before:
Historian and historiographic theorist Hayden White writes, “there is an inexpungeable relativity in every representation of historical phenomena. The relativity of the representation is a function of the language used to describe and thereby constitute past events as possible objects of explanation and understanding.” To “constitute past events as possible objects of explanation and understanding” is to capture these past events in narrative representations of those events; thus, what we both capture and study are not the events themselves, but the subjective linguistic refigurations of those events which we allow to stand in for the events themselves.
And it seems to me that it is this lesson—a descriptive linguistic one—that lies at the heart of the new normal for the protest set.
Which is to say, in the absense of some provable metaphysical Truth, many in the media or on the anti-war left (and right) have come to believe that there is a relativity to truth that justifies the use of rhetoric and persuasion in any way necessary to reach the desired end of convincing the public of the rectitude of their particular narrative.
This is, in short, the will to power, manifest in an idea of competing narratives—which is the result of a misunderstanding of what the linguistic turn actually posits.
In terms of patriotism, once again we are confronted with the idea of intent: those who purposely and cynically take advantage of this will to power and form narratives they know to be false under the pretense of serving the greater good, are in fact acting in a way that is entirely illiberal and anti-democratic. Because what they are doing is attempting to “shape” voters into the “correct kind of voter”—rather than relying upon the autonomy of an informed voter to side with them based on factual ideological agreement. Or to put it another way, there is a difference between persuasion and indoctrination that those who take this route to power hope to elide.
As Taranto notes, this collection of ideologues are relatively few in number, but they nevertheless have a disproportionate influence on the foreign policy pronouncements of those in the Democratic (and Libertarian) Party(ies) who wish to win their support—some of whom, sad to say, aren’t mere panders, but actually believe they are justified in promoting debunked memes if, in the end, it serves the greater good.
And such arrogance—the idea that the “greater good” is theirs to define, and that they are justified in a certain rhetorical latitude in order to guide the masses toward their conclusions—borne of elitism and the assumption that their feelings on matters of national importance are so correct that they must be instituted, is at the root of highly-charged partisan division in this country.
Dissent is perfectly acceptable and is to be encouraged; but dissent that relies on the purposeful spread of disinformation in the service of a larger cause is to be condemned.
For politics to stop at the water’s edge—particularly in a time of war—we must, as a culture, regain the sense of national unity that comes from a trust in our representative democracy. But we cannot do so if certain groups continue to fear the will of the electorate, and so feel that entitled to do whatever is necessary to bend the electorate to their own will.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
Thank you Jeff for expressing, so eloquently, why I distrust most politicians and the ideological zealots they depend on.
I was born in 1960.
I became aware during Vietnam.
I remember what a bunch of loons we had running the streets 1968-75.
I remember how TV wound up glorifying the freaks.
I remember the nuns in my grade school teaching us to pray for the end of the war. Not victory, not for the lives of the troops. Just the “end”.
I remember the hypocrisy of the democratic party, which culminated in the election of Carter, the worst president of the century.
I think of this as the madness of the ‘60s.
I can see it happening again, unless the adults get a grip. People of good conscience simply must become engaged in this fight for the future, and republican politicians had better get their heads screwed on straight. I’m talking to you, Sens. Graham, McCain, Lott, Specter. You leave a vaccuum, somebody will fill it. And that somebody is going to be someone like Dean, Clinton, or Kennedy.
I don’t want my country’s fate in hands like that.
Gets you to “thinking”…
Oh, come on.
Next you’l be telling me that “the ends justifies the means” persuasion is the driving factor of Kieth Oblerman, not his ESPN created journalistic integrity.
You mean it’s not!!!
I agree but I would add that their strategy includes other totalitarian tactics beyond indoctrination through the promotion of false narrative. They also police the media in order to discredit any information that counters their narrative. I’ve seen it on this site and others many times. As soon as a new piece of information is released the hordes descend upon to tell us we are “bedwetters†afraid of a phony threat. They attack the messenger (regardless of who it is) as a liar or hack, or they attempt to derail the issue at hand in order to bring the discussion back into the context of their narrative. On the surface they appear to be suffering from an amazing lack of curiosity bolstered by a fanatic certainty in their “truth.†These tactics don’t work in the short-term and they retreat, only to return later claiming that the event actually resulted in yet more evidence that supports one of their “known truths.â€Â
There is no reasoning with these folks because they aren’t interesting in reason. I saw this with the Badnarik followers (yes, that’s the right term) during the last election cycle, but it has been a constant force in the Democrat Party since 2000. The only way I would even think about voting Democrat in the future is if they purged these groups.
Jeff, there is nothing left to say except thank you for saying what had to be said.
Ode to The Left
I’ll hide behind wealth
I revile you for earning
I’ll “Support the Troopsâ€Â
I’d rather be spurning
I’ll hide behind this flag
I’d rather be burning
I’ll do most anything
To keep the revolution churning
When I asked my son, who turned down a full ride to the University of Florida to join the Marine Corps, why he made such a choice, he said, “Dad, I don’t think anyone else should have to fight for my freedom.” As a retired naval officer I couldn’t have been more proud. It also brought to mind my reasons for finding the new Left so contemptible – they expect everyone else to fight for their freedom. I pray to God that the likes of Dean, et al never assume power while my son’s future is in their hands, for I fear they will squander his life in deference to political and PC carping the way so many were squandered in Vietnam.
Rickinstl – well stated!
This is all good and well put.
But there’s a flaw in it, I thinkâ€â€in this:
I don’t like the ends/means distinction (though “tinpot Machiavellianism” is cute and apposite). There’s no stasis waiting out there to be reached. Means never end. “Progress” never stops whining. So its means are its ends.
Choose a caseâ€â€the Democrats’ antiwar posturing is a good one (the libertarians’ less so, except insofar as they mindlessly ape the Democrats’ (hello, Reason))â€â€and try to trace the stated “ends” back to the real-world “means.” You either can’t get here from there, or you find the “ends” a contradictory mess of unthought-through conventional-wisdom fashion-poses that defy any but psycho-reductive explanation (which is fun but useless).
This seeming contradiction disappears if the “disproportionate influence” itself is recognized as the goal, regardless of the ever-shifting, incoherent content of that influence.
It’s will to power. Rare is the priest so devout that he wants the messiah to (re)arrive and put him out of a job. All the “feeling of power increasing” (what Nietzsche was actually talking about) comes in the getting thereâ€â€and (therefore) there’s no there. Eschatology can’t survive an eschaton.
Thankfully, in the U.S., we have governmental structures that mitigate against dangers of rabid, dishonest factions and tyranny of the majority. They’ve been so successful in protecting us (and by extension, the rest of the Western world) from tyranny, that the West has developed a complete lack of perspective on what actual tyranny looks like. This, despite 9/11, which should have been expected to wake people up to the fact that we do not live in a safe, post-history world in which liberty is a given and where we can afford to disagree spitefully for the sake of spiteful disagreement. It’s hard to account for why those on the left either don’t take Islamicists seriously, or don’t care if the Islamicists win–yet continue to care vociferously (oh how they care) that Republicans not win.
I’ve generally argued against a multiparty system and defended the current two-party system. But now, in these free, affluent, and historically significant times, it seems that the non-constitutional two party system has yielded two competing factions accusing the party in power of being a “tyrannical” majority. This distorted perception of being subject to the tyranny of the other (simply because they are not getting their way) has led the party out of power to question the structures that protect us from tyranny.
As much as I hate Clinton, on reflection, I think the impeachment proceedings were quite petty. Yes they were about perjury not sex, but the REAL issue was collecting a scalp to hang in the nihilistic halls of Republican vs. Democrat American post-history. The Dems want badly to retaliate in a similar petty way, and are trying to conveniently ignore the fact that 9/11 and the Islamicist threat has returned the planet to politics of significance. The danger in these times of complacency is “us vs. them” partisan competitiveness. It’s quite literally tearing this country apart. The only thing I can see to change this, other than Iran’s nuclear annihilation of Paris and America’s entire east coast, is ground-up reformation of American political parties. Sensible but gullible party loyalists need the opportunity to choose sides afresh, free of the historical baggage of Dems vs. Repubs.
Blow ‘em up. Start over. Better the parties than the whole country.
runninrebel:
Just look at the “Saddam’s Bomb” thread. Even discussing the information is verboten.
ss:
A large part of it is their parternalistic racism. “Little brown people”—their phrase—can’t possible be a danger, but the white man across the street can be. I think the “daddy complex” plays into it, too, and you can’t leave out the left’s ingrained hatred of Western civilization.
Thats very wrong. I think the crowd should be loudly saying what they really think about Saddam actually having tested nuclear weapons. The truth shall set you free.
Its amazing when talking to non-intellectual folk how shallow their beliefs really are (and I include myself). It maybe a defect of the human mind…do intellectuals have too much time on their minds?
Me, I just belief in the Constitution and the golden rule for interpersonal relations. I wish more of my fellow citizens did as well.
But keep up the good work Jeff.
Nnivea, the disgusting thing is that these same vile creatures sneer at such unabashed respect and love for America. That’s a real man of a son you’ve got there. Thank you for raising him that way.
I’ve thought this since Bush’s first inauguration. Remember the lowlifes throwing shit at the cars in the parade? It didn’t just start with Iraq; it’s all about THEM. 9/11 was just a speedbump to them, and then a new weapon to (cynically, falsely) use against their ideological opponents (including Lieberman). I haven’t a sliver of doubt that if we never went into Iraq, they’d be screaming just as loudly about the “little brown people” in Afghanistan, anyway. Maybe not in the opening months of the war there, but it wouldn’t take long. The seeds were there already (i.e. Ward Churchill, etc.).
They ARE just like the professional losers of the Vietnam era, and in many cases are the same people. It’s all about THEM being able to say “we ended the war!” just like they gloated after we left Nam. “Progressive,” my ASS.
Can you imagine the jubilation if we were to pull out of Iraq now? It wouldn’t be about the troops coming out of harm’s way, or about less spending on war, or any of that. It would be about them saying “We won” and “Bush lost.” They don’t give a rat’s ass about any of the troops–just look at how much they care about the son of their Fuhr…er, Fearless Leader, Cindy Sheehan (who is a filthy liar, herself). Sure, there are exceptions, but they sure don’t have a voice like the hateful useful idiots do.
One more thing:
I’m tired of this dumbass idea that “dissent is patriotic.” It’s not patriotic or unpatriotic; it simply signifies that one is FREE. American. If they were patriotic, they’d appreciate that much, but their dissent is almost always coming from the position that America is evil, oppressive, fascist, imperialist, whatever. We’re the American Taliban, you know. The only “patriotism” and love for America they have is the America that exists in their utopian dreams. It will *never* be enough for these emotionally stunted, adult adolescents. To actually try to effect change within “the Establishment” (gagging at the meme) is “selling out” and not idealistic enough for them. And besides, they know their ideas won’t fly with most “American Talibanis,” so they perform the pathetic role of the screaming infant. They don’t dissent because they’re patriotic, they dissent because they CAN.
Reduced,
I agree that at some level there are no “ends†for “progressives†(I hesitate to say a philosophical level because I am not inclined to think modern “progressivism†is a philosophy nor is it progressive. I tend to think it is more of a base political attitude that desires power for power’s sake.) And if they were to get power, they would attempt to maintain it by using the same means.
So, in a way, the means are the ends. But I don’t think the ‘disproportionate influence’ is the end. The ends that Jeff speaks of are more practical: primarily, removing RETHUGLICANS!!!! from office and, secondly, replacing them with “progressives.â€Â
The mistake, I guess, is taking their stated “ends†as a manifestation of political philosophy when in reality they are simply rhetorical constructions that they think will give them an avenue to gain power.
But now that I think about it there isn’t much difference in what we are saying.
Their dissent: The last refuge of the scoundrel.
Not scoundrels, actus. Anti-American shitheels. “Dissent” isn’t even the right word for it–in their case, it’s childish tantrums.
Just like patriotic cheese: scoundrelish.
Patriotic condiment: picklerelish
Perhaps remind them that we are given many responsibilities before we even get a single right… and that those rights must be used to fulfill those responsibilities, first?
Unfortunately many of those detractors want no responsibilities at all… and that is the path to losing all of one’s rights.
A textbook-worthy example of sophistry! Keep up the good work.
AJacksonian, now you can’t go asking children to have responsibilities! They’re not mature enough to handle them!
Rob G – My thanks! As I thought more on the document I realized the critical piece of it was *not* in the body but the Preamble. I was probably told that way back when, but it took a few decades for me to finally understand *why* it is important…
Beth – Exactly! And as they want none, so shall they be seen as having none. Without that their voice carries nothing, means nothing and is nothing to me. Little do they know how petty they are.
And if that is not meant for me, the article itself is wonderful.
Thank you, Mr. Goldstein!
A few months ago, Jeff, I finished reading the memoirs of James Longstreet “From Manassas to Appomattox.†He was involved in most of the major battles of the Civil War. I was struck by a phrase that he used more than once about his corps going into battle which was “going to work.†God, what Men those men were. Today, we have bystanders in the wars of civilization, pissing in the flower beds as real men fight and die – going to work – and these pissants pretend that they matter.
Money,
I went 270 days without a day off. I got an AK stuck in my chest by a nervous Afghna militia soldier who was one twitch away from blowing me to pieces. I got stuck on a cliff-side full of mines. I had an AK round come through the ceiling one door down from me. I had a village full of angry Afghans threaten to kill me (and everyone with me). We had 48, 107 mm rockets shot into my base…and I am in awe of the people I suported. “Going to work” indeed was their motto – in fact, if not in exact wording. Helping tough as hell 19, 20, 21 and 22 year olds go out and do things I shiver at thinking about has sure made me realize what MEN they were (and are).
I remember being in line at the Naval Exchange at the New Orleans NAS during Katrina relief. Two young Marines were in line ahead of me – they couldn’t tell my rank and were shooting the sh&t with each other, when one casually told the other that “I didn’t say anything about that one, ‘cause they would have given me a Purple Heart and sent me home.” He only had a couple of weeks left before his Battalion was leaving…he told the other Marine that the “next one” was close enough that he got to stay with the unit, so he told the doc about it.
Jesus wept, is that humbling or what?
Reality check:
Those who think the Iraq invasion was a good idea are a MINORITY.
It’s utterly stupid to call for national unity to support something that most Americans flat out view as a mistake, led by a leader whose performance they disapprove of and whose judgment they don’t trust.
Don’t blame the libruls and the eeeeevilll MSM because your boy Bush created a gigantic mess in Iraq.
Strawman argument filled with convenient shibboleths and snark, Geek.
You well know that support for the Iraq war was once very high; it is only after 3 years of relentlessly negative coverage and the repetitiion of a number of lies and half-truths that support has waned.
To suggest that the media has played no part in this is silly—and using “libruls” and “eeeeeevillll” to show that you think this is all part of some paranoid right wing conspiracy doesn’t fool (nor impress) us one bit.
The call for national unity was implicit the moment troops went into Iraq. At least, it should have been. It is utterly disingenuous to note that now that national unity has been divide—in many cases intentionally—calls for national security are “stupid.”
Citing the effectiveness of a propaganda campaign aimed at destroying unity as proof that unity is something stupid to strive for is, well… let’s be nice and go with backwards.
And of course, stupid.
To give him his due, Mark Warner hasn’t done much pandering either.
Which is his plan, I guess – to be Not-Hillary On The Right.
You’re anti-American if you oppose this unending war/occupation in Iraq?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Since when is disagreement about foreign policy, even during wartime anti-American?
Since when, I’d like to know?
If opposing Mr Bush’s neo-imperialist adventure in Iraq is anti-American, at least 60 percent of all Americans are, somehow or another, “anti-American,” at least according to that fool Taranto.
The way Taranto looks at it, you’re anti-American if you disagree with Mr Bush’s version of why exactly we are in Iraq.
In any event, that attitude on the part of nut-case conservatives is nothing new.
Conservatives go around acting as if they have a lock on patrotism. Endless flag-waving and the like.
Well, I got news for them: they don’t have a lock on anything. They can’t even face reality. They can’t face the reality of the ongoing lack of support for Mr Bush’s policies, so they put up the straw persons of Ms Sheehan and that old standby, Michael Moore.
Nothing’s new, I heard the same sort of crap Taranto puts out during the Vietnam war.
That little business cost 57,000 American lives before the North Vietnamese ended it.
I wonder how many lives will be lost trying to realize the pipe-dreams of Mr Taranto and his fellow partisans?
I am seriously beginning to doubt your ability to read, Carl.
As for your righteous outrage? Try toning it down a little. People here have read your other comments. It’s a no sale, I’m afraid.
Major John, I salute you.
For the rest, they can fuck off.
We don’t need them, we don’t want them, and I am VERY glad that they are not on my side.
The Achoress speaks of the difference between being betrayal and mendacity.
“It also brought to mind my reasons for finding the new Left so contemptible – they expect everyone else to fight for their freedom.”
Last night a girl asked me what I was planning to do after Graduate school. I said the military, because I felt like I owed the country for its treatment of my family. She responded, “Oh…I’m a liberal.”
Seperated the wheat from the chaff real good.
This thread reeks of denial. You dismiss out of hand the possibility that intelligent, serious, responsible people could consider this administration incompetent, mendacious and corrupt.
Mr. Goldstein, you accuse liberals of constructing straw men, but in your admittedly well-constructed diatribe, and in the comments of those who agree with you, I do not recognize any liberal that I have ever known, including myself. Of course there are extremists, and your camp includes many such.
Moneyrunner; sadly, mendacity and malevolence are characteristics that both sides in this polarized world all too readily ascribe to each other. For what it’s worth, I’m not glad that you aren’t on my side.
No, we dismiss the possibility that these are intelligent, serious, responsible people.
Imma go back to the pron in prison thread, these fuckers are to crazy even for me.
Dr. Zaius  Not at all. You have to convince me that the Democrats as they are organized and led today are serious and responsible people. Name them and give examples.
To date, I have seen nothing out of my party that would convince me that they are not, in James Lileks’ words, people “more convinced in winning back their committee chairmanships than winning the war.”
Any X-File etc.;
Your English ain’t so good mate. You say “no”, then agree.
Do any of Mr. Goldstein’s friends have a coherent response?
“You have to convince me that the Democrats as they are organized and led today are serious and responsible people”
Ye Gods, man (or woman)! Please, seriously, give me one concrete reason to think that anyone in the Bush administration is either serious or responsible. This is not rhetoric, it is an honest question.
Um, “Doctor,†I can offer you a couple of reasons why nobody here is addressing your concerns. The first is that you sound like a batshit lunatic, regardless of your perspective. People tend to veer away from folks like this because there is little hope of having a reasoned discussion. The second is that, like many batshit lunatics, you are very fond of “buzzwords.†These are words and terms (“fascism†“Trotskyite†“Zionist apologist†“Police State†“Strauss!!!!â€Â) that when tossed around like waitresses at a Kennedy BBQ, act as a warning sign of more serious problems. People who pop these words like valium tend to forgo serious discussion and let the baggage they carry speak for them. Third, you seem to spend most of your time putting together strained constructions (your fearless, half-wit, semi-moron, faux Christian, faux ‘Republican’ fearless ‘leader.’) that don’t really exude, let us say, dispassionate curiosity or intellectual discipline. Lastly, you come off as an obnoxious prick, and let’s face it; nobody likes to talk to an obnoxious prick.
Rob G,
How’s about you take a lesson from the good “Doctor†and make your case in a well reasoned, linear argument? But please, look through the past threads first for specific issues. We don’t like to cover the same old shit with every “progressive†that walks through the door.
. . . and really, it’s Saturday, and most of the people who comment on this site like to have a little fun on the weekends, if you know what I mean. I, for my part, am trying to finish some work so I can drop a little Super K, head down to the strip to buy myself a cheep slushy drink at the MGM, and wrangle me some tourist babes on loan from the Midwest.
So all I’m sayin’ is that people might just not give a shit right now. MmKay?
Runninrebel,
I would respond with a well-reasoned, linear argument if I were presented with one, but no such beast is apparent anywhere in this thread, from your side.
Apparently, the only sort of response that would satisfy you would be an explanation of why us liberals are stupid, treacherous, evil, or all three.
I do think that I have asked a few very simple, answerable questions that don’t cover “the same shit”. Feel free to answer.
Or not….enjoy.
Rob, I confess, I don’t know what the fuck you are trying to say.
Little help?
well, don’t get all pissy.
Doctor, see me at 8:37pm
Yeah, boy, you showed there that I was waaaaay off.
Kristol-Meth!!! Get it?!
Dr. Z, have you read many threads on this site? Please go back through the archives, if not. We regualrs weary of rehashing the same stuff, over and over again. Come back with something new, please. In the name of God, something new.
HINT: Look down on page at counter – 4.32 million hits. Do you honestly think you are the FIRST to present your..uh, arguments here?
Regulars here won’t engage someone who bursts in thinking they are the freshest thing on the block, when they are really …. um, not quite that. I am trying to be polite here, really. We crave original and well laid out argument. Instead we get sloganeering and “actus”. Lay it out logically and linearly, and you’d be surprised at the quality of debate you will see here. I keep begging for such.
Major John,
Was that meant for Greg G? Dr. Z seems to be a different bird–well, a fucking crazy bird.
I mean Rob G.
Are you saying we do like to go over the same shit with every “progressive” that walks through the door?
Is there a search function anywhere on this rat ship carrying plague ?
Uh, yeah, it’s by the button that reads “search.”
I’m actually a little interested in this topic. We normally get crazy Koskids in here, but you seem to be a crazy Buchananite. However, I’m not going to discuss it with you because it is more fun to watch you seeth.
You forgot delusional.
“Dr Zaius,” who was posting under 3-4 different emails, is gone.
I can do without the anti-Zionist, anti-“neocon,” conspiracy-mongering ad hominems.
Apologies to those of you who were enjoying talking to this asshole.
awww, come on, man!!
Come on, what? I don’t like people who come in here and start accusing me of being a Zionist puppet and Bush apologist without knowing a thing about me.
Invite him/her offline to talk, if you’d like. Email me, and I’ll give you all three of the email addresses s/he has used here.
Well, I thought, whatever it was, was accusing me of being those things. Besides, I am positive I was this close to making its head pop (with my mind). And I think that would have been a new blog-first.
Oh, well. I guess I’ll just go down to the strip.
Given that Goldstein and his commenters have agreed that there is some conceptual space for an honest opponent of our current policy in Iraq who is not thereby an America-hating maniac, I would be interested to hear the name of a single person who they feel qualifies in this regard. (Note: prominent democrats who agree in every particular with current policy are disqualified for obvious reasons, as they do not meet the specs. No Lieberman, Klein or Miller.) This person must be a political opponent of Bush and our current policy who is not regarded as a presumptive traitor who is [per the Anchoress] worse than Judas Iscariot. Anyone? I am genuinely curious on this point.
Runninrebel, why’d you think I was being pissy?
Anyway, I think Belle made my point much better than I could – from the Taranto excerpt onwards, it has been assumed that there really is no legitimate dissent regarding the policies of this administration. I am not prepared to engage in an argument which proceeds from the axiom that I am stupid, evil, treacherous (or delusional).
I would ask Jeff this – theoretically, just how awfully wrong would a decision to go to war have to be, before you would countenance open dissent? Do you subscribe to “my country, right or wrong”?
Personally, I would say all my friends who disagree and discuss the anti-war position rationally and civilly with me when we get together would fit in this category, because none of them show their asses weekly for the media providing deadly ammunition for the enemies propaganda machine. That is the real point here: the terrorists cannot beat us by force, they know this, their only tactic is to TERRORIZE the enemy into losing the will to fight, propaganda is their only real weapon.
Well then realize and admit you are making campaign commercials for the Islamofacists everytime you march for the media.
My friend, you have just put your finger on the reason that there is almost no discussion between your side and mine. You see, anyone who has, as part of his argument that “Bush lied,†automatically qualifies that person as unreasonable.
Your belief that this administration is “incompetent, mendacious and corrupt†disqualifies you as a reasonable person.
You see when I go to the Left’s sites, the assumptions are made that your beliefs are true and the only need is for even greater vials of vitriol to be poured on my side.
You come here and make no arguments, simply statements of belief, and then expect us to work from a defensive crouch? Are you insane?
I, frankly, have better things to do than respond to anyone who begins his discussion with me by spouting an updated version of “have you stopped beating your wife.â€Â
If you want validation join the Kos kids. Trolling here isn’t the answer.
B Moe and Moneyrunner, apparently I must agree with your assumptions about me before we discuss anything.
“You come here and make no arguments, simply statements of belief, and then expect us to work from a defensive crouch? Are you insane?”
Psychiatrist, consider thyself. The other side of this thread has been nothing but statements of belief about your opponents. Like Belle, I am intensely curious about the source of your “reality”, which bears little resemblance to mine. No doubt this is because I am delusional.
Yeah, this is pointless, but you do get a much better class of troll here than those I see on liberal sites. Cheers.
No, Rob. You are asking—as is belle, above –that we agree with your assertion that the war is a disaster.
We have repeatedly rejected that, citing military history, the reports of soldiers in the field, etc. We have rejected the sensationalism of the media here that has focused on casualties, terrorist pyrotechnics, and assertions of intentional prevarication by the Bushies to take us to war for …. well, the motive to do so not as part of a larger strategy for fighting the war on terror has never been made clear to me.
So how about clearing that up?
As to war critics who have behaved the way I think they should, recently you have some CONSERVATIVE critics who have voiced their dissent in a way I find entirely reasonable (and I have posted replies as to why I believe them to be wrong: Buckley, Will, Fukuyama come immediately to mind).
I would also say that any Democrat who has not argued that Bush intentionally lied to take us to war, and who acknowledges that consensus intel along with the violation of UN resolutions and a 1998 Clinton-era “regime change” legislation for Iraq, played into Bush’s decision—even if they don’t agree with the decision, or think we should have sent more troops, etc.,—is offering honest dissent. As the media (and the DNC) tends not to report on national Democrats who believe Bush acted in good faith, I can’t give you a name of the top of my head. But I’m sure there must be millions of them out there. So it is a condition that is applicable, and it is a condition that is open to all dissenters from any political party.
And that has been my position all along: good faith dissent is fine. Use the search button and read the posts “On Patriotism,” where I debate this issues at length with Glenn Greenwald.
I haven’t said I don’t countenance open dissent. There is a kind of dissent I don’t think we should countenance, and I’ve explained what it is and why in the post. But the troops, judging by re-enlistment, evidently don’t believe that the kind of ends-justify-the-means “open dissent” many on the anti-war side are offering is helping matters.
So to answer your theoretical, I would say that if the cause was were wrong (say, expansionism) and the soldiers fighting the war didn’t believe in it—perhaps the time to agitate for its end is at hand.
But here, we have set two countries on the path toward representative democracy in a region where totalitarianism and/or theocracy are the norm. The Iraqis support the democratic efforts overwhelmingly (in direct inverse, according to a recent poll, than that of Americans—further proof that our media has distorted the situation, confusing war and the horrors that go with it for failure); I don’t think it is too much to ask Americans—even those who disagree with the war—to support their troops and temper their remarks so that they are not repackaged and repeated back at us by UBL.
”…Democrats who believe Bush acted in good faith…”
(Joe Lieberman)
This is the nub. Did Bush act in good faith regarding Iraq? I think that in this at least, there is a possibility that the answer is “yes”. But most of your arguments are predicated on the assumption that he did. It is a given. Why are you so doubt-free on this? What in the man’s history convinces you of his good intentions? The kindest possible reading of his life story does not speak well for his character, or his abilities.
There are certainly many liberals who automatically assume the worst about anything these guys do. I frankly don’t see the difference between you.
Why are you dodging the question, Rob?
I asked YOU: what motive did Bush have that suggest to you he WASN’T acting in good faith?
On my side, we have the fact that 911 called for a new approach to national security against the terrorist threat, the international consensus that he had WMD, his financing of terrorists and terrorism, his refusal to give unfettered access to inspectors (and his concommitant failure to account for his WMD that Clinton was certain he had stockpiled), his failure to comply with UN resolutions, and his failure to meet the terms of the original Gulf War ceasefire.
This, and we gave him an out by going through the UN.
Now it’s your turn: what makes you think Bush didn’t act with in good faith? What were his motivations?
I find it laughable, frankly, that you are reaching for a “reading of his life story” that you feel doesn’t “speak well for his character, or his abilities.”
I’d ask that when you give your answer, you resist this kind of ridiculously subjective biographical reasoning.
How on Earth would I know what Bush’s motives were? I don’t read minds. Maybe he just wanted to kick some ass to show he could. YOU miss the point. Trust is something that has to be earned, and I’m asking a fairly simple question. Why do you trust Bush? Your answer seems to be “911 changed everything”. Huh?
For a complete answer to my low trust-level, we would have to go back to 1999 when I was Bush-neutral, and work forwards.
At the very least, the urgency to link Saddam to 911 so soon after, is suspicious.
How is it laughable, or “reaching” to consider a person’s history as at least a partial guide to their character? We do it all the time. Of course you would ask me to “resist this kind of ridiculously subjective biographical reasoning”. Then you don’t have to answer it.
Hey, maybe Kerry should have used that line with the Swift Boaters (and, no, I’m not assuming you were pro-Swift Boat).
Rob, I’ll go Jeff one better. I don’t really care why you “believe” that Bush did not act in good faith. I want proof that he did not.
I want a “little blue dress” Rob. Not accusations, not conjecture, not “we didn’t find WMDs so he must have been lying.” Not “1999 changed my opinion of his character.”
Your side is slinging around some very serious accusations and all you have going for you is amateur psychoanalysis? Here’s my psychoanalytic advice for Rob G.: try to figure out where this irrational streak in your nature comes from and why you want to flash it in front of bystanders.
Wow. So all you have to offer is “I just don’t trust the guy”?
I’ll just leave that juxtaposed with the reasons for going to war with Iraq laid out in my previous comment and let readers decide which argument better tack with Occam’s Razor.
Jeff, your short response is better than my longer one, but there is one last issue that really sticks in my craw. The Left seems to believe that if they repeat a lie often enough, enough people will finally believe it. Of course that is the M.O. of propagandists for as far back as lies were invented. So, here goes:
Rob, the administration never made a direct link between Saddam and 911. That is one of the lies that the Left has repeated until even you seem to believe it. In fact, the administration has stated – openly – that there is no evidence that Saddam was involved in either planning or executing 911.
The link between the threat of Islamic terrorism, Saddam and several other Middle East countries is clear, however. After 911, the administration decided that it would be foolish to wait for Saddam et. al. to provide safe haven and possible WMDs to terrorist organizations while denying their involvement.
Even leaving the humanitarian issues of Saddam’s mistreatment of Iraqis aside; leaving the festering sore which is the Middle East alone would, in my opinion, be the worst course to have followed after 911 showed us just how virulent the hatred of the Islamofacists is.
Rob, forget the pissy thing. Misunderstanding, I’m sure.
Anyway, it shouldn’t be very hard for you to give evidence that the president is dishonest. I don’t see why you have to rely on your feelings or vague assertions like “[a]t the very least, the urgency to link Saddam to 911 so soon after, is suspicious.â€Â
I thought you wanted a deep discussion. Jeff gave you several lines worth of reasons to think Bush acted in good faith and you boil them down to “[y]our answer seems to be ‘911 changed everything’� I can offer many more but if you aren’t going to read them or accept them as honest then you may just have some trust issues, and I can’t help you with that.
No, I have much more to offer than “I just don’t trust the guy”. But even that is much more than I hear from you about why you DO trust him. You really don’t have an answer, do you? Moneyrunner, do you always trust people until there’s a blue dress? This may come as news to you, but for good or ill, trust is not a legal issue. I don’t care whether you trust Bush, I want proof that he did act in good faith. Also, please cut out the “my side” crap. I’m not here to answer for anyone other than myself.
It is interesting that you misrepresent even a very short comment. I did not write “1999 changed my opinion of his character”. It was the 6 long years following 1999. What did I write about psychoanalysis? I was talking about how we develop or lose trust. This ain’t Freud or Jung.
Jeff, what do the reasons you gave have to do with your trust of Bush? Does it suffice for you that there were plausible reasons? That’s rather sad, given that anyone can give plausible reasons for the most shoddy enterprise. By the way, leave poor Ockham out of this – he’s probably spinning in his grave at your usage.
Well, we have made progress. It has been established that we must support the government until we have ironclad evidence of gross misbehaviour. Mere circumstantial evidence does not suffice to even question motives.
Runninrebel, no it’s not hard to present evidence that Bush has been dishonest. There was his continued misrepresentation of his own proposed budget in the 2000 campaign. There is his continued misrepresentation of himself as pro-environment, pro-education. That goes alongside his condemnation of global warming as “bad science”. Granted, that may be stupidity rather than dishonesty, but Jesus, what are advisors for?
There was the continued implication of Saddam-911 links, or was that the liberal MSM making it up? Anyway, someone convinced the majority of Americans that there was a link. Etc, etc. You know, no-one started out distrusting Bush. IMHO, I think the press has been very kind to him.
Rob—
I laid out the reasons for war. And I would have supported Gore or Clinton or Kerry under similar circumstances.
You have said you are not a mind reader; neither am I. So I can’t offer “proof” that Bush acted in good faith other than the fact that a bi-partisan congressional resolution voted overwhelmingly to support the use of force, that the conditions following 911 called for extra precautions, and that the move is part of a larger strategy to change the region.
I’m done playing semantic games with you. You have nothing to offer. You are not interested in debate. You are interested in suggesting that the inability to show what is inside Bush’s heart makes any argument relative and equally valid. That’s horseshit.
You can argue with yourself from here on out. Adults have better things to do.
Jeff, it’s not semantic games. You won’t address what I wrote. So be it.
Thanks for being such a gracious host.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe he really does consider himself those things, because he’s using different metrics than you?
Your reasoning sounds more like, “He won’t admit he’s evil, so he must be lying!”
Jeff, I think we have an interesting case study here. My support for the war has nothing to do with the President, and, as you indicated, neither did yours. If Bush were to call a retreat, I would oppose him because I believe the war is important; in fact it may be the battle for civilization.
Rob G.s arguments about Bush’s “heart†and proof of good faith means that he is actually not thinking about the issues independently. He is seeking authority figures; people he can rely on to do his thinking for him. To set his agenda. He does not support or oppose the war on its merits, but on whom he believes he can “trust.â€Â
When did we cultivate such a nation of sheep seeking a shepherd?
Good night.
Geeez.
Rob, if you decide to come back you’re going to have to accept our answers to your questions. If the question was “do you think Bush acted in good faith on the GWOT,” which I think it was, then you have to acknowledge our reasons and debate them. It isn’t interesting to watch you ignore them and continue to tell us we haven’t convinced you.
It’s not like these reasons are hidden either. Maybe start with a more specific topic. But simply telling us that you don’t trust him then listing a series of assertions (“[1]There was his continued misrepresentation of his own proposed budget in the 2000 campaign. [2]There is his continued misrepresentation of himself as pro-environment, pro-education. [3] That goes alongside his condemnation of global warming as “bad scienceâ€Â.”)as evidence isn’t going to work.
These are either vague (1), simplistic false-dichotomies (2), or plain misconceptions of fact (3)–I say this because the science behind global warming itself is very incomplete and uncertain, and the certainty that it is caused by Co2 is ‘bad science’.
K?
The Left’s arguments against the war would be amusing (at best) if soldier’s lives weren’t at stake. I can fully understand that some would find the whole mess distasteful and want it to go away. Unfortunately, our troops are there now and the continual carping serves to energize an enemy whose sole means to victory is to allow us to crumble from our own desperate need to remain free of conflict. Dissent is certainly protected free speech, but, please spare me the crock that it shows patriotism. It doesn’t – any more than constantly bringing up your spouse’s faults shows repsect or love.