Over at DailyKos, the Deux Magots of Donkle self-amplification, something called Hesiod, who I do believe I've seen slinking around the comments chez Henley, quotes America's Most Hysterical Homosexual™ before doing the usual Donkle disdainery over the appearance of some additional anti-Occupation sentiment at an "anti-War" rally.
As usual, "Free Mumia" serves as a neat synechdoche for leftie perfidy, when all the pwoggies really wanted was for some nice, middle-class, reg-uh-lurr Americans already in the opinion-poll majority to show up and pose for the cameras while listening to stump speeches by Democratic politicos. As usual, there is an unconcealed animosity for those who understand that the America-funded Israeli occupation regime and the American occupation in Iraq are predicated on the same cultural assumptions and military policies. They aren't just incidentally or regionally related.
The weird-looking lefties who always ruin the Donkle's pleasant afternoon on the National Mall, for their many immaturities and manifold faults in the field of PR, at least possess a sufficiently sophiticated understanding of the history of their nation to understand the Iraq war as an extension and realization of many decades of American policy toward the rest of the world. At very least, they know that the narrative renders the Iraq war as a deeply regrettable aberation in a century of generally positive American international involvement is simplistic, stupid, and desperately, childishly naïve. The war in Iraq is not discrete, but your basic Donkle is too dumb and blinkered to realize this, and sees it only as momentarily choppy waters impeding the glorious forward moment of the Good Ship Take Back America.
Lesson: neither elected Dems nor the nabobs of Netrootsia have any interest in actually confronting the American imperium head-on. It hurts their little noggins. They love them some manly military men like Fightin' Jim Webb. They love his "greatest nation in the country" remix. They share his affection for Andrew Jackson, who "relocated" 40,000 Indians. JFK was good, the Great Society was great, Vietnam was a "mistake," Nixon was bad, Carter, eh, Reagan terrifies them even now, George père has acquired a new veneer of respectability for "not going to Baghdad," the height of foreign policy perspicacity, Bill Clinton was a saint of a man ruined by vendetta, and Gee Dub disappoints them by directing the restrictive powers of the Eternal Maternal State at those things they approve rather than the opposite. Their normative historical mode is mythological. Their habitual rhetorical position is self-righteous. Their only outward expression of moral sense is disdain. Their only interest is to acquire status in the status quo.
Monday, January 29, 2007
"Why's that nigger talkin' 'bout Vietnam?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
George père has acquired a new veneer of respectability for "not going to Baghdad,"
Do you see any parallels between les Georges pere et fils and the conversation between Livia and Claudius in I Claudius? When Livia reveals that Tiberius will choose Caligula as his successor - to ensure that history remembers him fondly?
Good catch. I was just watching some I, Claudius the other day. Then again, how do you explain the father's effusive tears?
I still think there is something to be said for practical compromises. If discussing Israel-Palestine at an anti-Iraq war rally undermines your immediate tactical objective, ending the ongoing U.S. invasion, then I think it is probably the correct thing to do.
Then again, I don't think you are disputing this. You are just frowning upon the mythical narrative favored by the Donkey-accolytes.
I can't resolve something though. A lot of people seem to think that Americans are against this war primarily because the costs are too high. The imperial right to invade and subjugate remains unquestioned for many.
That is what you are obviously getting at, and I have said and thought the same thing. The DKOS crowd is certainly right in line with that analysis with all their cheerleading for pro-imperial democrats and military commanders. I do wonder if that is what is going on though. I mean, the war isn't that costly in terms of military casualties. Is it because of the financial costs? As high as it is, we haven't fully felt the effects of that. Is it simply widespread discontent with the perception of American impotence in being unable to subjugate a bunch of Muslim "ragheads"?
I think those are probably reasons, but I do wonder if the DKOS crowd and others are not very representative of the population. These guys are, after all, self selected into a Democratic party booster group. The polling data I have seen has to do with support or non-support and doesnt get into rationale.
Is the high tide of dissent for this war the result of people calming down after 9/11, seeing the President's lies for what they are and rejecting American empire? I recall that a majority of Americans considered Vietnam a moral crime after it was all said and done, while in elite circles it is universally considered a strategic blunder. Thoughts?
I'm actually in the process of developing a theory of exactly what's going on with the Dems. (And might blog on it if I can get off my lazy ass.) As you know, I've always felt that your take on the situation, while containing a large element of the truth, is not entirely accurate and over simplifies a complex situation.
Unfortunately, the reality as I see it in some ways leaves even less room for hope. While the Dems lack the messianic insanity of the Reps, there is IMO an incredibly unhealthy dynamic operating here. You see, Dems would rather fight political battles on domestic ground. All else being equal, for political reasons if for no other, they'd rather the United States be relatively at peace. But a combination of ignorance regarding International and military Affairs (born in part of lack of interest), combined with more than a dash of the reflexive support of American exceptionalism and taking for granted American power, and finally fear of being labled as (perish the thought) isolationist, leads to some very bad results. And might well lead us into a war with Iran.
Of the people who really have power in American politics, the clearest thinkers right now are actually certain hawks who (1) know enough about military and diplomatic affairs to be horrified at where we are headed, and (2) are secure enough in their hawkish beliefs to not worry about looking "weak." See, e.g., Hagel, Scowcroft, or, in the blogoshere, Greg D or Pat Lang.
Hence my sometimes almost pining for the sane evil people (not that Greg or Lang are evil, but you know what I mean). Of the people who actually have some political power in our nation, those are the guys who just maybe might save us.
And, yes, the last couple of weeks have somewhat soured me on the Dems, though on the one hand I haven't given up all hope of some spine from them on Iran, and on the other hand I wasn't exactly defending them unreservadly even then.
And your uncompromising libertarian-ism has advanced the cause of world peace exactly how?
Oh gracious, a pwogwessive!
I am not certain that uncompromising libertarianism has ever advanced the cause of world peace, such as it is, but then again, uncompromising libertarianism has never stood with the proud majority in authorizing a Bush to wage a war of unprovoked aggression against a recalcitrant former client state of the American empire. Democrats, meanwhile, have given us in a few meager decades the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Mogadishu, and Iraq. To their credit, they are exquisitely talented at exquisite regret.
Justin,
I think there are several things going on here. To start with, the DKos crowd (1) is, as you suggest, not entirely representative, and, perhaps more importantly (2) is a more diverse community than the stereotype, featuring somewhat divergent viewpoints on certain topics. You can find plenty of people on Kos who are horrified about the war on moral grounds.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'd actually say MOST of the Kos community thinks that Iraq was an immoral war. Why, then, the types of beliefs and comments that our host highlights? I'd suggest several things, some more admirable than others:
(1) A genuine inability to see the larger dynamic. That is, a basic belief that America should be powerful, but should use it's power only for "good." WE know that it doesn't usually work that way, but sadly an understanding of the dynamic involved eludes most people.
(2) A belief, shared to some extent by myself, that on the war the Dems are the lesser of two evils.
(3)Sadly, the community tends sometimes to elevate their domestic policy preferences over their international policy preferences, or at least to weigh each equally, whereas in the current atmosphere domestic priorities should take a back seat.
Finally, also keep in mind that the DKos community, while sometimes coming to the defense of the Dem hawks, tends on balance to favor the less hawkish candidates. One reason Clinton is disliked in said community is her relative hawkishness.
IOZ,
Again, I hope to expand these developing thoughts to a larger essay, but one thing that I think you miss is that teh Dem part of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam is not the Dem party of Mogadishu, and Iraq (also, not to quibble, but Moadishu really was more the responsibility of Bush I, though insert Kosovo instead and the point is the same). As I suggested in my earlier post, I'm inclined to see the current dynamic as very bad as well, but in a different way. More on this hopefully at a later date.
"Dem part" should read "Dem party", of course, and teh is a typo, not an attempt to appear hip.
I need to edit myself better.
Also IOZ, in fairness to Anonymous, some of your fellow libertarians HAVE indeed "stood with the proud majority in authorizing a Bush to wage a war of unprovoked aggression." Though I suppose that you would say that those libertarians are of the compromising variety.
I would say that those libertarians are not of the libertarian variety. I understand that the word is something of a term of art, but just as I feel safe and accurate in saying that no matter what he calls himself, a man arguing for nationalizing major industries is not a libertarian, I feel safe and accurate in saying that no matter what he calls himself, no man advocating aggressive war is a libertarian. The old "Glenn Reynolds is a libertarian and he loves the war like he loves nanobots and Star Trek and seven-breasted alien chicks" does not, in other words, hold water for me.
There are people who are happy to self-identify as libertarians as long as that doesn't mean actually being a libertarian. You get the same thing in the den of the Donkle, where generic welfare state authoritarians get to call themselves left wingers, when it suits their purposes, and also get to repudiate every left wing tenet when that works for them.
A lot of people seem to think that Americans are against this war primarily because the costs are too high.
This is fine way to view war. The costs of war will always be too high. If everyone had to pay for their own mistakes instead of shunting it off to others, we'd all quickly become much more moral in all aspects of life. This is the exact problem with government. Responsibility/cost and reward is shuffled away from the places it belongs.
I've always felt that your take on the situation, while containing a large element of the truth, is not entirely accurate and over simplifies a complex situation.
I have no doubt you already know but I'll say it out loud anyway, it's Occam's razor. The simplest explanation/model is most likely to be the correct one. Needlessly compounding the explanations doesn't help anyone. It just contributes to feeling justified for inaction, confusion, and powerlessness.
However, needlessly compounding the explanations does help the compounder natter on for paragraph after mind-numbing paragraph as s/he waffles endlessly, spewing caveats like a demented water sprinkler until at last s/he makes good their escape in a smell fog of rationalizations.
It's SOP for pundit-wannabes.
This, of course, is the coup de grace. It should have silenced your opponents in this thread, so either they didn't notice it, or they never read all your Slate posts on American exceptionalism and therefore don't understand how in your Weltanschauung, "American exceptionalism" is like the old NY hamburger "Prexy" (the "hamburger with a college education") - i.e. it's just the fancy word for yer good old "Manifest Destiny."
The reason why your opponents still won't want to go there is that they may have to start thinking about why there was actually a debate at our original Constitutional Convention as to whether the official language of the US should be Hebrew.
Put that little nugget along with your Jackson cameo, and the beaches of Malibu and Miami seem awfully close to the beaches of Eilat and Haifa.
Regards
anomie-nous
Sorry! - what I meant by "this" in the first line of the above post is your (IOZ's) sentence about AJ:
"They share his affection for Andrew Jackson, who "relocated" 40,000 Indians"
If you can edit the above post to make this clear, and delete this one, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Ashley,
Occam favored the simplist explanation which fits all of the facts. The problem with our host's analysis, and yours, and other like minded people, is that, as helpful as it is in many ways, it fails to account for many observable facts. But, as I said, more on that later. I would simply note that some anti-war folks sometimes seem to suffer from the same cartoonish way of looking at the world as do many people in the war parties. Admittedly a cartoon closer to reality and less harmful.
As for the rest of your post, I'll simply note that the simple view ascribed to on this blog doesn't seem to lead to much action. As much as I respect our host, his position sometimes seems to amount to saying "it's hopeless and there isn't fuck all we can do." Believing that both parties are 100% irredeemibly corrupt on the issue is a guarenteed recipe for inaction. Oh, yeah, a third party. Good luck with that. It sure as hell isn't going to come in time to avert the coming armegeddon.
My approach at least leads to an attempt to find allies in the real world, as opposed to the powerless corners of antiwar bloggers. It may ultimately be futile, but I'll take probably futile but possibly helpful gestures over despair any day.
Yeah. Be thankful you live in a nation where you can choose the manner of your own execution.
Progressives, it seems, would've told Solzhenitsyn that all that spilled ink was just a recipe for innaction. "Believing that The Party is 100% irredeemibly corrupt on the issue is a guarenteed recipe for inaction!" Da, comrade!
I like to think that by healfheartedly facilitating a war I'm actually ameliorating its effects. Think of how much worse it could be without my sensible and sober assistance! No doubt some smarty pants will say collusion is collusion, but they don't know about all the allies my magical program will bring.
Rail,
Haha. Straw man. Please try that with someone who, by their words or actions really has even "halfheartedly" facilitated the war.
IOZ,
Solzhenitsyn? Hmm, as I said, I have a lot of respect for you, but isn't that a bit grandiose?
More to the point, we do live in a democracy, of a sort; Solzhenitsyn, not so much.
Even more to the point, and once again, whatever credit you want to give to Solzhenitsyn, it didn't happen overnight. I'm afraid we don't have enough time to allow your admittedly fine rhetoric to have its way with the American public.
Why aren't Reynolds and others who maintain they are pro-War and Libertarian worthy of the label? Isn't what's happening in Iraq what you Libertarians are all about? No regulation of business, no income redistribution, no government interference in your right to bear arms or other less salient rights? The Mod-Cons started the occupation with a program of complete free market capitalism. There was supposed to be a complete privatization of Iraqi government agencies from power and water to the reason d'etre: oil.
After all, don't we have to get everything settled down in Baghdad so that the Iraqi government can begin the business of getting out of the way of (oil) business. Isn't that what the whole counter-insurgency is all about? You know free-market privateering and making sure the damn dirty Iranians keep their hands off our laissez faire paradise.
If I say I agree with your overarching philosophy of isolationism, does that mean that I can then -- at least temporarily -- choose to back the side that puts out the small fire that is our illegal/immoral presence in Iraq first? Can I acknowledge that I'd like to see us withdraw our bases from all foreign countries, but first we should get out of Iraq?
I understand what it means when politicos say "Protect our National Interest." It means we have to have bases in foreign countries so that those foreign countries know that not giving the US exceptional access to resources or markets has real world (F-16) consequences. I think it's absurd.
If I agree to all that, American intervention is bad, can I give my temporary allegiance to the party that seems most determined to extricate the US from its current predicament.
IOZ,
Oh, a couple more things. Let me be clear: I understand that you do honestly believe that there is no difference between the parties on the war, and, given that, you are doing what you can. My point wasn't so much to criticize you, but more to defend myself from Ashely's IMO unfair charge that my analysis leads to inaction.
Secondly, re Angry's post, and the whole libertarian issue. I don't agree with parts of his post, and, really, with Reynolds in particular you are obviously right - I don't care what he calls himself, he's no libertarian - but there were, in fact, numerous "real" libertarians who supported the war. Now I understand your argument - if they supported the war they aren't real libertarians, QED, hence my scare quotes - but there is something a little too tautological about that argument for my tastes. Which is to say that angry, while even more naive than I about the contemporary Democratic, party does have a point.
Larry, you say
You see, Dems would rather fight political battles on domestic ground. All else being equal, for political reasons if for no other, they'd rather the United States be relatively at peace.
"Relatively". Cute! That's nothing more than lesser evilism. If you've voted for Democrats, you've supported the "relative" peace they offer.
The core value of libertarians is the non-aggression principle, which means:
No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.
If you violate that, you no longer have any claim to being a libertarian. There are, to be sure, plenty of people who affect libertarianism, just as there are plenty who are plenty who affect concern over the futile efforts of people who oppose mass idiocy.
Brother,
Hmm. Let's see, Clinton administration vs. Bush administration. Number of dead people as a result of war making, Bush administration at least two orders of magnitude worse.
See any difference here? No? But oh, yeah, gotta keep those hands clean.
You're as bad as the lefties who voted for Nader.
Brother Rail,
Lots of libertarians would disagree with you about who was doing the initiating. Now, I happen to agree with you on that point, and think that people who think otherwise are being pretty dishonest with themselves, or dishonest period, and certainly agree that libertarians can only support the war and remain libertarians by going through some pretty invloved logical contortions, but then inconsistency has been a characteristic of most political movements at most times in history.
The Clinton administration laid much of the groundwork for the current Bush administration, and Clinton likewise drew from what came before. The militarization of America continued apace under Clinton, as did our belligerent foreign policy. Arguing over the "orders of magnitude"--a term whose specific meaning you're ignoring, larry--is rather specious. The bombing campaign in Kosovo displaced hundreds of thousands, and it served as a model for the initial Russian campaign against Chechnya. You could pick up this month's London Review of Books for a nice reminiscence of Bill Clinton jetting off to congratulate the Russians on "the Liberation of Grozny." Then, of course, there are our many sanctions regimes around the world, whose toll has never and will never be fully counted.
This persistence in viewing the policies of each American government, particularly as the short political pendulum ticks this way or that, as entirely discrete entities unmoored from any history and any precedent is stupidity and moral blindness of the most gratuitous sort. There has been a continuous, bipartisan foreign policy of aggression and domination for at least sixty years, and it traces its roots to Wilson and even earlier to Jackson. Those of you who say "we pick the side more likely to extricate us from our current predicament" misunderstand at its most fundamental level what the current predicament really is.
As an addendum: In keeping with the free speech policies of the commonwealth of Who Is IOZ, there are no bannings or deletions of comments. But my patience and toleration for plagiarized Eric Alterman in the form of "thanks for Bush, Nader," is very, very limited. Not because it's cheap, but because it's so ever-loving bland.
Larry, you just stepped in it with both flat, flapping feet. According to the liberal dolchstosslegende, I'm "objectively pro-Bush". I did vote for Nader! And I am a lefty! I'll stand with the libertarians any time, too, on matters of the national security state.
Brother rail,
Step in it? On the contrary, I think it just proves my point.
And I, too, will happily stand with the liberatarians on this issue - but only to a point. The point where standing with them becomes an excuse for not addressing the looming crisis, or abdicating the responsibity for at least TRYING to do something constructive, given the objective reality that we have to work with.
IOZ,
Too much to deal with in the context of a blog post; obviously you know from my prior posts that we don't exactly agree on all of the objective facts.
But on the more limited point of Nader, I call a foul. Context, my friend, context. Nader brought up out of the blue is indeed hoary and old. But it's fair response to a criticism of me for voting Dem, and a claim that by doing so I necessarily support their war policies.
What point would that be? I'm familiar with the liberal dolschstosslegende, but it hardly constitutes a point. It's every bit as shameful as Instapundit's "objectively pro-Saddam" argument, using as it does the same irrational construction. The looming crisis argument is similarly shameful. Before there was an invasion of Iraq, there were the lies about disarmament, used to justify the sanctions. What little there was to the Democrats' opposition to Bush was largely over timing and management. Both Clinton and Gore were in favor of "regime change". Gore was in favor of violent force. Kerry himself justified his vote for the war as being in our national interest.
Before there was a Patriot Act there was the "Effective Death Penalty Act". The Patriot Act consists of the orts and leavings considered unpalatable at the time.
As IOZ has explicated so patiently, there is a ruling consensus. Differences of opinion about how to pursue that do exist between the two parties, but the overarching goals are the same.
This conversation is dull and getting duller.
Proposition: the U.S. of A. began as a settler colonial state designed mostly to suck up English manufactures; perpetuated itself as an export-oriented plantation economy based on slave labor; and has served for the last century as the world's corporatist sperm bank. From that perspective, not much is to be hoped for from its foreign policy, a sorry-ass record in which all mainstream institutions have been equally complicit.
HOWEVER. It has also, at times, around the edges, supported some of the more innovative experiments in political thought and social experimentation. This may be in large part because of circumstantial pehnomena like it was kind of out of the loop geographically and so much cash was rolling in, rather than any innate cultural characterology (ha!). It also had a more amorphous ethnic nationalism, despite the heterosexual waspiness of its self-image. But nevertheless. Innovation has indeed been possible, and there are non-trivial ideals that have been nurtured and defended here. The fact that they have't successfully stood up to power is sad but not surprising.
Anyhoo, your argument is a philosophical spat masquerading as a strategic one--and a completely stale philosophical spat, at that. Either you work within the system (what used to be called liberalism) or you work outside the system (what used to be called radicalism). If the former, you have to be able to defend the incremental benefits of your chosen pwogwessive allies (good luck!). If the latter, you have to have kind of a program. (Dude!)
A radical without a program and a liberal without a defense are both pretty much equally quiescent, so far as I can tell. And that's all I got to say.
If there's two buses going to Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy, but one passes through Get The Fuck Out Of Iraq (D-Line) can't I ride the D-Line bus until Get The Fuck Out of Iraq?
In other words, can't I just keep aligning with the Dems 'til I need glasses?
BTW, Iraq is only the #3 hot issue on the Libertarian Party website behind (#1) reducing taxes is the answer to high oil prices (I know, I know you guys aren't all about doing away with taxes) and (#2) end corruption in Washington (at least until we become a viable party and can partake in that there earmarking). The Libertarian party's issue with Iraq is not putting an end to it as part of stopping US global dominance. It's that the job is done. The US has 'liberated' the Iraqis(liberated with extreme prejudice) set up a government and should now get out.
Brother Rail,
Your last post (well, all of your posts) are an exercise in arguing againt what you imagine my position to be, as opposed to arguing against what it in fact is. Is the fault mine for lack of clarity or yours for lack of comprehension? I'll let the other readers decide. But to put it simply, I am not by any means a die hard defender of the Democratic party as currently constituted.
And for the record, yup, there's a lot of things that the Dems have supported or done in recent memory that I'm far from okay with. But, without getting into boring and tedious counterfactuals, I am reasonably confident that, had Al Gore been elected president, (1) there wouldn't be somewhere between 100,000 and 500,000 dead Iraqis, and (2) we wouldn't be standing on the brink of armeggedon with Iran, and, perhaps, the rest of the Muslim world. I'd take that.
IOZ,
Oh, one other, earlier point. I do believe that I was using the term orders of magnitude in a precisely mathematically correct way. But then I admit that I don't have the figures from the Clinton adminstration to back it up.
angry dude,
Not to jump on the only person here who seems to be somewhat on the same page as I am, but really why all the focus on Iraq dude? Stay, go, it's really not the key issue. What's most important right now is avoiding war with Iran, which could easily evolve into the civilizational war that so many of the monsters on the hard right are so anxious to have. And part of the reason why I'm not nearly as fervent a supporter of the Dems as you are is that I suspect that, as to Iran, our host may be all too right about the Dem position. I can certainly visualize Ms. Clinton, for example, letting those bombs fly.
Bother Rail,
Oh, and I can't help respond to this: "What little there was to the Democrats' opposition to Bush was largely over timing and management."
(1) More than half of D's voting no is not "little." Obviously I would have liked the numbers to have been even better, but really those numbers demonstrate to me at least a pretty stark difference between the parties.
(2) Even accepting arguendo your assertion that most of the no votes were "largely over timing and management" (an assertion that I disagree with), in the real world "no" means "no", whether ther motives are pure or not.
Which is to say I'll take a politician who opposes a war because he thinks it will damage the cause of US power, over a politician who favors a war, in the absence of a candidate who opposes a war for the "right" reasons.
That's an amazingly long excuse for voting the Other War Party. But I love the vintage pissing and moaning about Ralph Nader. That kind of koolaid-guzzling faux-liberal pwoggie-bloggie do-nothing spineless gormless pissant lackwitted robodem EricAltermanish rationalization never really goes out of fashion.
I am reasonably confident that, had Al Gore been elected president, (1) there wouldn't be somewhere between 100,000 and 500,000 dead Iraqis, and (2) we wouldn't be standing on the brink of armeggedon with Iran, and, perhaps, the rest of the Muslim world.
I agree with you, Larry, that there are slight differences between the two war parties that translate into enormous differences in action. I get the impression that others here do too. The thing that is so offensive (to me at least) is the glossy shine that many - not you - put on their favored war party, which is what I took Ioz's original point to be.
Having said that, let's look at your two propositions. The second one, maybe. I don't know how to predict what a Gore reaction to 9/11 would have been. Maybe he would have been 'smarter' about it and worked even harder to strengthen the hands of the regional autocrats we were allied with instead of trying to overthrow the ones we were not. Would that have made the West's relationship with Muslims any less contentious? Maybe, I don't know. Too many moving parts to predict IMO. Much of the anger is rooted in the U.S.'s support for those autocrats.
As for Iraq, are you sure that several hundred thousand Iraqis wouldn't be dead under Gore? Or would they be much less visible? Recall the estimated effects of sanctions under Clinton. Would Gore have ended those sanctions after 9/11, heightened them, modified them, or remained the same? Remember that the U.S.'s policy with respect to sanctions was to continue them indefinately to create civil unrest until Saddam was gone, whatever the facts.
And I am a lefty that supported Nader's 2000 run, btw. You know why? Because I live in Georgia and recognized that it was going 60-40 for Bush so I wanted to throw some support for an alternative way. If this were a borderline state I would have gone with Gore. I have never seen that sanctimonious asshole Alterman ever do or cite any rigorous analysis of the effects Nader had on the election besides adding all the Nader votes to the Gore or Kerry tally and declaring that the margin of victory.
IOZ, thanks for the reference to LRB, I went and read the article on Russia and Putin.
Such cute little Tsars they are, Clinton, Blair and Putin.
____________
And I see the endless Nader hoo hoo, boo hoo is in its writhing glory. I don't even much care for Nader but goodness. Gore did not win TN did he? Nor Arkansas, iirc.
Nor did he fight for the vote. the ONLY chance to oppose Bush was before he was a seated president. After all the R were ready to go, all set tho they did expect the reverse, they expected THEY would win the popular vote and the Dems would take the EV. But they had Bush v Gore in the can ready to roll out.
Further they were planning, if need be, to fight down thru each elector.
When Boies got to FL, he found Larry Tribe ALONE working in a hotel room, surrounded by masses of paper. No Democratic elves it seems to wage war for a presidency.
(all of the above from Danner, Renata Adler, Hertzberg, and others)
They fucking don't want it. They make it clear every day. I think they are utterly flummoxed they have both houses. And scared shitless how to look busy, say the right stuff, slam the Left, contain what little Waxman/others might try to do... and somehow hold power but do little.
Other than wash the feet of the Republicans.
So tired of the KosWhackian/Democratic Club bullshit.
No no. You see, Larry's point is that we shouldn't vote for candidates who represent us. We're supposed to vote for who we think will win. Heck, in Larry's prefect pwoggie world there would be just two candidates on the ballot. So much easier to choose, nu?
Of course, Larry's party has been trying to limit ballot access for a couple decades. And that's just fine with the democrat android "netroots." You'll hear them scream: "IT'S A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!" Playing the politics of fear as they shred ballot access laws.
Thus all the rock-solid certitude that Beltway Al would never never ever have invaded Iraq and that candy and cookies would have rained down from the sky and the Lions and Bears and Colts and Vikings would lay down together and form book discussion salons if only Al Gore had been elected.
Yes, Larry knows all-to-well that we'd all have been driving electric cars that get 30,000 miles per 9 vote battery by now if only Al were president. We'd all have koolaid to drink and homemade apple pie and strawberry yogurt and fruit snacks to eat and no one would have ever gone hungry in a Gore administration.
There would be no humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Israelis and Palistinians would join together and rename Jerusalem "Funkytown" by popular acclaim. TV programmers would bring back those really cool shows like "Manimal" and "Hello, Larry!" and "The Flash" that got canceled. The souls of the dead would rise up and replenish the ozone layer...
Oh, wait, that's "Angels in America." Not Larry's America. Sorry 'bout that Tony...
Anyway, Al Gore would never have signed CAFTA into law or anything like that. They would have been jobs for everyone and he'd have instituted the 4-day work week by presidential decree. Sure he would have! Proove he wouldn't have!
And then, then Al Gore would have established a base on the moon! Yeah, and launched manned Mars expeditions! He'd have made contact with friendly aliens and they'd give us their advanced technology and then we'd have been admitted to the Galactic Federation if Al Gore were president.
But noooo! Thanks Ralph! It's all your fault that Al Gore wasn't elected president! It's all your fault that we invaded Iraq! It's all your fault that we're not all captains of our very own Federation space cruisers! Thanks Ralph! Thanks a lot!
Justin,
You said:
"I agree with you, Larry, that there are slight differences between the two war parties that translate into enormous differences in action. I get the impression that others here do to. The thing that is so offensive (to me at least) is the glossy shine that many - not you - put on their favored war party, which is what I took Ioz's original point to be."
Yes, yes, exactly. And, as much as I like this site, one of the things that frustrates me about it is this disconnect - the people here are indeed smart enough to realize the truth of what you just said (though getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth), and really do care about this stuff, but aren't willing to accept what seems to me to be the obvious conclusion flowing from this - criticize the Dems all you want, riducle them, etc, but accept the fact that, for now, they are the best we have to work with. AND WORK TO MAKE THEM BETTER.
As for your second point, about that "glossy shine", I have no problem with IOZ's take on that. It is a bit depressing that people (not you) seem to unfairly want to lump me with that gang.
As for Gore, ultimately who knows. As I said, prolonged counterfactuals can be pretty tedious. Pretty clearly you agree that he at least would have been somewhat less bad. That's something. Okay, I'll bite on one point. The Lancet study, if I understand the methodology, calculated escess deaths from all causes. Since the baseline, pre-war deaths included deaths from sanctions, avoiding the war would have saved, net, the deaths calculated in the Lancet study.
Alan,
Does it make you feel any better to ascribe positions to me that, not only I haven't expressed, but have explicitly disavowed? Does it really advance the debate any?
Oh, I get it, one time you dropped athis comment against a REAL unconditional defender of the Dems, and you liked it so much, now you just cut and paste it in random threads, whether it makes sense or not.
whores.
If the Dems truly gave a damn about winning elections, they'd support the positions the majority of their faithful base have in common with the Green/Left/Whatever dissents do. How many Kerry supporters at Demcon '04 wanted out of Iraq? Upwards of 70%? How many want no bullshit single-payer health care? The Dems could make Nader/whoever non-issues, and have a good, strong coalition of moderates/liberals/lefts/Greens—it'd be a piece of cake compared to the coalition building the Rethugs had to do after Goldwater's defeat.
But are they doing this? Fuck no—seven years after Gore had the election stolen from him by the brothers Bush, and the Dems are still frothing at the mouth about Nader. When they won't take that first simple easy step to win and get what people want, I can only conclude that the Dems don't want to win and they're actively opposed to the desiderata of the actual and potential supporters. They represent a particular minority of insider interests, and that's it. I'm certain current Dem leadership considers the control of both the House and Senate as a problem—consider James Carville's looney comments on how he could have done a better job than Howard Dean—and are thanking their lucky stars they don't have a 2/3s majority in the Senate. They certainly won't take the Presidency in '08 and will lose either one or both houses of Congress that year.
Otto,
It would be shocking if either war party actually started representing the people it purported to represent. It would be mildly surprising if the Other War Party built winning coalitions.
But the first purpose of the two war parties is *not* to win elections. Their first purpose is to remain in power within the party. Fer instance: It doesn't matter on whit to Rahm Emanuel that his disasterous "Fighting Dems" lost the party seats. What *does* matter to Rahm is that his position within the party elite remains secure.
Winning elections is a distant second to maintaining and increasing party influence. And representation? That's somewhere down around "clean the rain gutters" on the party To-Do list.
Larry,
ThanksRalph!
Mr. Smithee: no disagreement with you, and I think our points dovetail. Just trying to debunk the Kosniki notion that if we just had a Dem majority, we could finally enact (fill in the blank), gosh darn it! It's probably an exercise in futility on my part, but there it is.
I think the irrational hatred of Nader is something these people will pass on to their children, and then their children will pass it along to their, et cetera, on to the end of time, or at least the United States as we know it. Nothing unifies the morally bankrupt like hating a blameless bystander—or in this case, someone trying to do something right.
"Something called Hesiod" is a piece of shit scumbag who responded to a comment I put up at American Street about two years ago taunting him for shutting down his blog on Election Night '04 like a coward rather than face the music the next day by immediately posting my whois information.
Not only that, he's in competition with Steve Gilliard for being the most painful idiot to read thanks to the endless typos. Motherfucker must have fingers like sausages to keep hitting so many wrong keys.
Post a Comment