Obama: too young at heart
It’s no accident that Obama does well with young voters. There’s something about his rhetoric that especially appeals to the idealism of youth. As Betsy Newmark points out, the young are often “too ignorant of history to realize that change just doesn’t happen no matter how attractive the politician arguing for change seems to be.”
Obama is certainly an attractive politician. But there’s nothing about him that indicates an ability to do what he says he will do. That isn’t meant as a slap at Obama in particular; no one could, even if elected President. It’s a promise that cannot be kept, and those who are older and more experienced ought to know that.
Candidates always promise more than they can deliver. But the promises usually involve a mixture of specific policy proposals and a sort of vague uplifting hopefulness. It’s unusual to find a candidate who builds virtually his entire campaign on the latter.
But that candidate is Obama. It’s a message that appeals mightily to youth, who don’t really know any better because of their lack of experience of the world. But Obama, although on the young side for a Presidential candidate, is certainly old enough to know better.
Instead, as Leon Wieseltier observes in TNR, we get the following troubling pronouncement from Obama, “False hopes? There is no such thing.”
Optimism can be very helpful, as Norman Vincent Peale observed long ago (it certainly made a tiny bundle for him). Therapists are aware of this, as well; it’s often their goal to counter the automatic kneejerk negativity of a person mired in depression, and to activate a more hopeful attitude towards the world. Both negativity and optimism can become self-fulfilling prophecies, especially in personal life.
But the world of power struggles among nations, and even the world of Congressional battles over legislation, is one in which naivete can be fatal (sometimes literally so, in the case of the former—ask Neville Chamberlain). As Wieseltier puts it, in response to Obama’s “no false hopes” statement:
How dare he? There is almost no more commonplace trait of human existence…than false hopes.”
Wieseltier is no Bush fan. He goes on to say:
After Bush, who is not for a fresh start? But there is something unfresh about Obama’s movement for freshness. We have been this young before.
Yes indeed, we have. And some of us are still waiting for the dawning of the Age of Aquarius—or Godot; take your pick.
Boomer Wieseltier is feeling rather old (or perhaps one might call it “wise”) himself:
…can we agree on a ground between cynicism and myth? Or must we have Camelot once more? After all, being young again is also a way of living in the past….I understand that no one, except perhaps Lincoln, ever ran for the presidency on a tragic sense of life; but if it is possible to be too old in spirit, it is possible also to be too young.
In a time less conflicted and dangerous, faced with a world less threatening and complex (was there ever such a time?), an Obama Presidency wouldn’t be quite so risky a proposition. But it is exactly in such times as ours that the appeal of a simplistic and idealistic solution like Obama’s can have its greatest power. Wisdom involves knowing that it’s a harsh world out there.
Wieseltier again:
What is the role of a conciliator in an unconciliating world? You might think that in such conditions he is even more of an historical necessity-but why would you think that all that stands between the world and peace is one man? George W. Bush was not single-handedly responsible for getting us into our strategic mess and Barack Obama will not be single-handedly responsible for getting us out of it. There are autonomous countries and cultures out there. The turbulence that I have described is not caused by misunderstandings. It is caused by the interests of powers and the beliefs of peoples.
It would seem self-evident, but it’s not. The desire to have the world be a better place by being better people ourselves (kinder, gentler) is an old one. But it’s the stuff of religion and personal growth, not world affairs. Just try it when negotiating with other nations in the real world and you will be eaten alive—or at least laughed at and taken advantage of.
Yes, there is such a thing as false hope, and it can be as dangerous as a cancer patient’s refusal to undergo a difficult chemotherapy that offers decent odds of survival in favor of a course of laetrile that offers nothing but empty promises. And yet, hope springs eternal—false and otherwise.
“It will be different this time,” is a statement which cannot, ever, be refuted, except by the results, and by then, it’s too late. Since the perps will find somebody or something else to blame, there won’t even be a lesson learned.
As Jonah Goldberg remarked, more or less, liberals think they can have the old circus parade without the horse manure. Conservatives know there will always be horse manure.
When Obama first came on the scene, I was impressed with him. However, as time passes he is beginning to give me the creeps. This whole messiah thing is bizarre.
Policy wise, he is the typical Senate liberal. In face, according to the National Journal he was the most liberal Senator in 2007.
But his followers are beginning to remind me of cultists rather than political supporters.
The other night he said he would transform the world. And my first was: Maybe the world does not want to be transformed.
I hate to admit this because I can not imagine voting for Hillary Clinton, but I am almost rooting for her.
There is just something wrong about Obama.
I look at Obama uneasily as he gets closer toward the nomination. Just look at all the crying women at his rallies, the uplifted faces, the zeal rolling across everyone there… this doesn’t look like political rally. It looks like a rock concert or an hysterical religious moment.
I don’t understand it. It just seems insane to me.
Obama is the President most likely to be tested by our enemies out the gate. Both McCain and Hillary would be somewhat known quantities (Bush III and Clinton II respectively) while Obama is a blank slate.
AQ may do a last gasp “Tet offensive” in Iraq and Afghanistan; North Korea may decide to launch another missile; Iran may try to capture soldiers or provoke an attack in the Strait of Hormuz. China may get frisky toward Taiwan.
If these tests occur, Obama’s responses will set the tone for the balance of his Presidency, for better or worse.
To a “progressive” or a modern “liberal”, it’s all about emotion, because they are incapable of rational thought.
Here’s a great essay by Evan Sayet:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/hl1020.cfm
Tried to quote a portion of the essay that demonstrates what he’s talking about…
Thomas:
I know just what you mean. I am waiting for someone to throw her panties at him. Or something equally bizarre. Weeping, hand wringing, giggling, screaming, ranting, chanting…very weird. Hopefully it will pass. The sooner the better.
One of the things as a conservative that I have always felt uncomfortable about was the nagging feeling that we’re a bunch of retrograde fuddy-duddies while “liberals” (too bad that term has been co-opted) have this aura of being young and hip, even when many in their ranks are decidedly older.
It’s times like these when a Democratic candidate like Obama comes to the fore that I feel this especially. What does he have besides youth and charisma? Reagan was fairly old when he took the oath but he was a radical president relatively speaking and had a lot of fresh ideas. Obama seems to espouse the same old same old. Are we really going to elect this guy because he makes everyone feel good? Are we really that naive as a country? Even JFK was more qualified.
Although I’m only 32, it takes me back to the good old days at UNC Chapel Hill when everyone was in the Pit demonstrating for their cause, etc etc. A 21 year old I met the other day gushed to me about Marx, and I thought to myself, will we always be doomed to repeat history?
I just finished reading Liberal Fascism, and a LOT of what Obama says and does sounds like he’s read LF, too.
Not so he could avoid the pitfalls of the past, but to see how the big guys before him managed to get a really crazy wave of popularity going.
Based on cries for Change, Action, and Unity, which is what the other fascists before him touted. This quasi-religious fervor that he’s generating is exactly what Mussolini and Hitler were aiming for and largely accomplished, including the swooning women.
No, I don’t associate Obama with the Holocaust. I do think, however, that he very much intends to increase the role of government in our daily lives: the more micromanagement the better. The Mother State will take care of your every need. Don’t worry!
Which is the fascist goal, after all, not genocide.
The more I listen to Obama, the less I like him. One of the Powerline guys said:
The more I watch him, the more I suspect he knows he is spouting bs. Obama is Elmer Gantry.
Except, EXCEPT: Elmer Gantry had street smarts. When it comes to foreign policy, economics, Constitutional principles, Obama is dangerously naive. He’s a babe in the woods.
Last year at the G8 meeting in Germany, one of the German protesters said he wanted to be there because it would be just like Woodstock. It seems that lots of today’s young are trying to relive the glory days of their grandparents or their professors.
“Are we really going to elect this guy because he makes everyone feel good? Are we really that naive as a country?”
Well, yes….., and “Elmer Gantry” is an apt association, it’s no coincidence that the enemy endorse him above the others; By endosing Odinga in Kenya, he is giving tacit approval to the establishment of sharia in Kenya; Obama’s church in Chicago isn’t the church of MLK, it’s the American version of Odinga’s “church” in Kenya, and who has stated something like Islam is the “one true religion”, no surprise that Obama’s “pastor” and “church” awarded L Farakhan a major award for 2007; And promising to capitulate, essentially surrender the achievements of our military and the hope of a modern Iraq to the brutal takeover of an Iranian surrogate, similar to Carter’s catastrophic decisions in Iran. I’m sixty now, in the sixties and seventies I eventually fell for it too, rationalizing that a state of “perpetual war” (as Paul now describes it) was something you could simply walk away from, and that the cessation of immediate violence was preferable and morally superior. But except to the very shallow, there is a huge difference idealogically and religiously between that adversary and the current one. Enough said about youthful idealism and naivete, from me. If there was ever an authentic Manchurian Candidate and cult being bred in our culture, it’s now, with the smug and smiling Barry….
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
From Ronald Reagan’s address to the 1984 Republican Convention:
The President. Is there any doubt that they will raise our taxes?
Audience. No!
The President. That they will send inflation into orbit again?
Audience. No!
The President. That they will make government bigger then ever?
Audience. No!
The President. And deficits even worse?
Audience. No!
The President. Raise unemployment?
Audience. No!
The President. Cut back our defense preparedness?
Audience. No!
The President. Raise interest rates?
Audience. No!
The President. Make unilateral and unwise concessions to the Soviet Union?
Audience. No!
The President. And they’ll do all that in the name of compassion.
Audience. Boo-o-o!
The President. It’s what they’ve done to America in the past. But if we do our job right, they won’t be able to do it again.
Audience. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!
The President. It’s getting late.
Audience. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!
While Hillary is running as Sanat Claus, Obama is running as Jesus.
“Based on cries for Change, Action, and Unity, which is what the other fascists before him touted.”
Really? This is your test for fascism? You have set a low bar indeed. I hear that some fascists also ate bread; since you have likely also eaten bread at least once in life…
…J’accuse!
“…J’accuse!”
Well put “some guy”….. but of course it’s all much deeper than that, unless you’re a believer:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
‘To a “progressive” or a modern “liberal”, it’s all about emotion, because they are incapable of rational thought.’
This is a fascinating, though incredibly disturbing, look into the mind of someone who apparently seems to think that people who disagree with him (her?) politically are subhuman. “Incapable of rational thought.” Rational thought is, perhaps, one of the most important, defining characteristics of “human being,” no?
Maybe we liberals are, instead, vermin? I believe the term in German is Ungeziefer. Perhaps you prefer the Kinyarwandan inyenzi, or “cockroaches”?
‘Well put “some guy”….. but of course it’s all much deeper than that, unless you’re a believer:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/‘
Well, I suppose if you’re relying on the blog of a woman who keeps company with the like of Vlaams Block, then you’re world view is going to be a little skewed.
Last year at the G8 meeting in Germany, one of the German protesters said he wanted to be there because it would be just like Woodstock. It seems that lots of today’s young are trying to relive the glory days of their grandparents or their professors.
Hey, I was born in 1968 and all I have heard for 40 F’in Years is how Woodstock was the zenith of modern culture and how my generation will never live up to whatever the boomers did; or are currently doing.
Some Guy: Notice how the Reagan audience was cheering actual political policies instead of just hopeful platitudes of changiness?
I love the fact that the democrap primaries have pitted Obama al Hussein’s weird old white ladies, hippie wannabes, and blacks against the traditional democrap constituencies of hispanics, ne’erdowells, white union workers and political grifters.
This has been fun to watch–and when they go to a brokered convention, I cannot wait to see the cries of Racism! Disenfranchisement! and law suits.
I hate the dirty, dirty leftists, but this has brought a smile to my face….
‘Notice how the Reagan audience was cheering actual political policies instead of just hopeful platitudes of changiness?’
Has no Republican ever cheered a platitude?
Also, if you’ve only ever heard platitudes from Obama, I’m guessing you haven’t been listening very hard.
“I hate the dirty, dirty leftists…”
Because nothing could be more American than hating people who disagree with you politically!
Because nothing could be more American than hating people who disagree with you politically!
It has nothing to do with politics:
They aren’t bad people because they are dirty leftists, they are dirty leftists ‘cuz they are bad people.
I haven’t met a Bush-hater who didn’t have 1 or more of 3 problems:
o a problem with their daddy
o a problem with Jesus
and the outlier:
o a problem with Jews.
As for you, I’m sorry about your daddy problems, but it’s not Bush’s fault.
But I digress:
Are their more weird old white women, hippie wannabes and angry blacks than there are angry hispanics, union workers and political grifters?
This is great!
There’s nothing like watching a dead-end movement collapse.
Thanks for letting me in on the show! Keep up the good work! I look forward to learning just how many more of you hate liberals, think they’re subhuman, etc etc etc, in November!
Speaking of policy, Obama voted today to go back the 90’s via intelligence gathering. Needless to say he wants to protect the civil rights of any and all terrorists whose phone calls might be routed through the United States.
You see, Obama is not about going forward, he is all about going back.
BTW, his fellow Democrats gave Bush the victory on that. When push came to shove they caved.
and some guy, don’t get cocky, nothing lasts forever in politics. Just ask the Clintons.
And Bullseye!
Thank you…. Thank you…. I know…. Really, it’s a gift….
“As for you, I’m sorry about your daddy problems, but it’s not Bush’s fault.”
“Are their more weird old white women, hippie wannabes and angry blacks than there are angry hispanics, union workers and political grifters?”
Is there really any adult way of responding to dreck like this? Daddy jokes and “angry blacks and angry hispanics”? I couldn’t really think of any other than pointing out that, as the Republican Party implodes, the histrionics on a site like this increase in direct proportion to the Democratic primary turnout.
“and some guy, don’t get cocky, nothing lasts forever in politics. Just ask the Clintons.”
Of course not – I have no illusions that the Democratic presidential victory in November (in some states, as many as nine times as many Democrats as Republicans are primary voters) or the likely accompanying Congressional victories (how many Congressional Republicans are retiring rather than face the mess they’ve created?) represent some sort of Permanent Democratic Majority (is that how Karl Rove phrased the reverse?).
That doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy it while it lasts.
Is there really any adult way of responding to dreck like this? Daddy jokes and “angry blacks and angry hispanics”?
Stop cherry-picking my comments and start answering them: It’s not the Republican party thats imploding–McCain has it locked up after not much of a primary fight and we’ll all vote for him in the General.
The problem is that each of the democrap extremist candidates alienates at least half of the dem constituency at any one time.
What will you say when there is a brokered convention? Rasism! or Disenfranchisement! ?
Wait ’til the party machine delivers Hillary as your candidate against the tide of hope’n’change. They’re gonna come unglued!
“Speaking of policy, Obama voted today to go back the 90’s via intelligence gathering.”
Oh no! Obama has voted to uphold the law! OH NOOOOOOES!!!11!
But seriously folks, if you believe that current laws on intelligence gathering in the US are outdated (and they are), then there’s a bad way of dealing with them and a good way. The bad way is what your team did: ignore them. ERR! Sorry, you don’t get to ignore laws you don’t like. Even the president! We fought a Revolution to get rid of sovereigns with extra-legal power.
I’ll let you in on a secret: the good way involves a whole process of changing laws you don’t like, the legislative process. It’s such a great process that it has an entire branch of government devoted to it, one of only three, so you know it’s gotta be important!
So, voting to end the President’s ad hoc, extra-legal attempts to ignore the law doesn’t mean you’re pro-90s, it means you’re pro-law.
‘The problem is that each of the democrap extremist candidates alienates at least half of the dem constituency at any one time.’
Har! That’s funny. Did you guys see how he replaced “Democrat” with “democrap”? Gold!
“Wait ’til the party machine delivers Hillary as your candidate against the tide of hope’n’change. They’re gonna come unglued!”
I’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the candidate. She’s a centrist technocrat, and I don’t think she’d be a bad president. I just like Obama better. I think that where Clinton tends to take the “safe” way out – tinkering around the edges of bad Bush policies – Obama pursues politically risky but better policies. Take, for example, their respective stances on Cuba policy.
“What will you say when there is a brokered convention?”
I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, the rules are the rules and everyone agreed to them from the beginning.
“It’s not the Republican party thats imploding”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
“The problem is that each of the democrap [sic] extremist [sic] candidates alienates at least half of the dem constituency at any one time.[sic]”
There’s simply no part of this sentence that’s true in any way. If it makes you feel better to believe the pleasing fantasy that half of Democrats will be alienated by their candidate and won’t vote for him or her, then please, continue believing this fantasy. I suppose getting high off bullshit like this is cheaper than weed!
So, voting to end the President’s ad hoc, extra-legal attempts to ignore the law doesn’t mean you’re pro-90s, it means you’re pro-law.
Pro-terrorist.
The FISA court ruled that it is illegal to listen in on US phone numbers discovered in Al Qaida hideouts in Afghanistan because all we had was a phone number, not a named individual we could obtain a warrant against.
It was further illegal to listen in on those US phone numbers found in Afghanistan to determine who was using them to plan attacks in the US ‘cuz the individual on the phone ‘could be a US citizen’.
It was nonsense and designed by the dirty leftists to cripple US Intell gathering.
Imagine that: not allowed to listen in on numbers found in Al Qaeda hideouts ‘cuz those are US numbers!
Those are exactly the numbers you gotta listen in on!
The FISA court ruled that it is illegal to listen in on US phone numbers discovered in Al Qaida hideouts in Afghanistan because all we had was a phone number, not a named individual we could obtain a warrant against.
It was further illegal to listen in on those US phone numbers found in Afghanistan to determine who was using them to plan attacks in the US ‘cuz the individual on the phone ‘could be a US citizen’.
If this were true, that would be bad. Know what happens when you have a bad law? You change it through the legislative process. You don’t just ignore it.
“It was nonsense and designed by the dirty leftists to cripple US Intell gathering.”
Or it could just be that the law, written in the 70s, is outdated and needed to be changed through the legislative process.
Or do you propose that the president be granted the emergency power to ignore whatever laws he wants? What do you call a country in which the executive faces no legal constraints on its behavior? Come on, I know you know this…
I’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the candidate. She’s a centrist technocrat, and I don’t think she’d be a bad president.
She’s hard left, though truly, not quite as far left as Obama al Hussein.
I don’t think she even knows how to use a computer.
She was a bad First Lady, a lousy senator and a crappy primary candidate. How could she not be a bad president?!
I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, the rules are the rules and everyone agreed to them from the beginning.
Yep, just like Florida 2000!
Or do you propose that the president be granted the emergency power to ignore whatever laws he wants? What do you call a country in which the executive faces no legal constraints on its behavior? Come on, I know you know this…
Strawman much?
There is a difference between a president giving direction to the military and Intell agencies as Commander in Chief in a time of war and “facing no legal constraints on his behavior”.
The president does retain some power in that capacity to direct our efforts and forces.
As I’m sure daddy told you many times: Grow up!
PS – Democratic turnout in Iowa was more than twice Republican turnout. In Nevada, three times as many Democrats turned out as Republicans. These are early states – before McCain became front runner. After he became front runner, you find states like Maine – where nine times as many Democrats as Republicans turned out. Democrats: excited about their candidates. Republicans: not so much. Have fun in November!
I’ve felt for sometime that Obama, if elected, may well turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, but a much more charismatic one. And frankly, it is the charisma that worries me. I can imagine how conservatives will be demonized as undermining unity and for daring to criticize either his speeches filled with platitudes or for actually finding fault with the specifics of his policy prescriptions (whatever those turn out to be). Hillary can try to demonize conservatives all she wants, but everyone already knows the kinds of games that she and Bill play, and so it’s not likely to be as effective. Hillary’s rhetoric might be more of the extreme left, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems that she wouldn’t be able to govern there.
“She’s hard left, though truly, not quite as far left as Obama al Hussein.”
Ah, nothing like ethnic (or religious? do you bother to distinguish?) slurs to really elevate the discourse. Ooga booga, his name sounds like he’s a Jew Muslim! Oh noes!
But seriously, hard left?
How is a politician who voted for the Iraq War, who supported the surge, who voted to ban flag burning, who wants abortion to be safe, legal, but rare – this is your hard left? Who’s your centrist, Martin Borman?
Anyway, I’ll point you to this:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/placing_the_candidates.php
“Yep, just like Florida 2000!”
If I recall, Bush filed the first lawsuit to stop the legally-required recount. But that’s a wholly different story.
Oops… just noticed a typo! My last sentence should read: “Hillary’s rhetoric [during the campaign] might be more of the extreme left, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems that she would be able to govern there.”
“I can imagine how conservatives will be demonized as undermining unity and for daring to criticize either his speeches filled with platitudes or for actually finding fault with the specifics of his policy prescriptions”
Oh noes! After years of accusing half of America of treason for criticizing policies, it might be your turn! Oh noes!
That should have read “Ooga booga, his name sounds like he’s a
JewMuslim! Oh noes!”The point still stands.
I’m a progressive liberal and, I suppose, as a liberal, a big part of me thinks of Obama as the President I badly want – charismatic, principled and decent, serious, post-Baby Boom, multiethnic and multicultural, cosmpolitian, idealistic and progressive in the Kennedy sense. Also, he’s a fellow Columbia grad. Remove the Long War from the equation, and he’d have my full support. However, the fact remains that the issue mattering the most to me is winning the peace in the Long War. Obama’s pandering to the anti-war Left deeply disturbs me.
The various anti-war factions, from the incredibly harmful right-wing realist camp to the isolationists to the leftists, are illiberal. The War on Terror is being prosecuted in liberal fashion with liberal goals, definitively so in Iraq. In that context, Barack Obama presents himself as a Wilsonian progressive liberal, which would seem to be a good with an American mission in Iraq that is a Wilsonian progressive liberal mission. However, the anti-war factions provide some the strongest support for Obama, and his own rhetoric is mixed, both promising to unite the nation against the enemy, while also promising to “end the war”. The part of me that wants to support Obama is trying to convince me that once Obama deliberates upon his own principles as a serious – liberal – leader, he could not – in good conscience – abandon the peace-building mission in Iraq and our global liberal leadership there for the sake of appeasing his illiberal anti-war supporters.
^ Yikes, spelling and grammar mistakes galore. Sorry about that.
some guy:
Rational thought is, perhaps, one of the most important, defining characteristics of “human being,” no?
Yes – so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?
“Yes – so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?”
Que?
Ah, nothing like ethnic (or religious? do you bother to distinguish?) slurs to really elevate the discourse.
Wait. How is using his name: “Obama al Hussein Barack” a slur?
His name is a slur?
It doesn’t just ‘sound’ muslim. It ismuslim.
His dad was a muslim. His mom was a hippie chick who liked some strange. His stepdad was an Indonesian muslim and he was raised in an Indonesian school that was ‘all faiths’, but mostly muslim.
He now belongs to a black African Nationalist church which is cozy with the Nation of Islam.
He is the most liberal senator on record.
He’s the photo-negative Ron Paul.
Que
You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?
Bend Over, Here It Comes:
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
May God help us.
the good way involves a whole process of changing laws you don’t like, the legislative process.
Gee, maybe that’s why the Senate voted to continue and expand what’s already being done intelligence-gathering-wise…
Damn that democratic process!
Yo, “guy”– was there anything in my comment that characterized “progressives” or “modern liberals” as “subhuman” or “inhuman”? Maybe if you’d taken the time to, you know, read the essay I cited, you’d have a clue as to what I was talking about…but it’s so easy to toss out the ad hominem, isn’t it?
Eric Chen:
“The various anti-war factions, from the incredibly harmful right-wing realist camp to the isolationists to the leftists, are illiberal. “
Thats interesting. Which faction are the “harmful right-wing realist camp”? Are you talking about those conservatives too anti-McCain to either vote for him or vote against him? Im not sure what you meant there. Other than that, the only truly anti-war Republican Im aware of is Ron Paul camp, and he strikes me more libertarian than right wing.
Obama appears to have become intoxicated by his own vague rhetoric. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say he has become intoxicated by his followers, who have become intoxicated by his vague rhetoric. A contact high, if you will. It’s cult-like, and frankly frightening to think he has a real chance at being our next President.
I think it’s interesting, Neo, that you come to Mr. Obama with such a singularly thin perspective. To suggest that he offers only hope does not mix with my impressions hearing him take apart single issues with intelligence, perseption, and a spirit of control.
I think, finally, that people are just glad to find a man who is obviously brave, intelligent, and authentic, not your standard pol. Yes, he has a magnetic power, but the miracle is there’s something there.
And I hate to hear you dumping so vigorously on the idea of “hope.” My God, this is where real change always gets birthed. After so many years and so many disappointments in the political system, especially with a country in a recession and at war, the American people want something to turn it around.
You may not agree with him, but he is a figure to be reckonded with. Hell, why not give hope a chance.
Oh, And good guy, be patient with these hordes of Neos. All the more easy to enjoy their influential demise.
Jimmy,
Your second post suggests you’re movtivated more by hate than hope.
Is it just me, or does the taunting of “some guy” et al have an edge of desperation to it? Taking refuge in spite and vindictiveness because he knows, deep down, that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for America and the world?
Ssshhhh! Your intruding on Jimmy during his wide eyed euphoric state.
Two thoughts about McCain’s candidacy.
1. If he goes to the right to try to capture the “conservative” (translate “religious”) right wing, he will lose the middle, and thus the election.
2. If he maintains his maverick ( translate “moderate”) posture, then every “conservative” who stays home protesting McCain will be handing the election to Obama, the most liberal senator in Washington. That would include freedom of choice, weak national defense, more taxes, more government.
Do you think they will stay home faced with this choice?
Uh, I dunno Some Guy. It’s pretty hard for us that have put up with the language of MoveOn.org, DailyKos and Huffington Post about GW, conservatives, Christians, Jews and Republicans to take seriously any Liberal/Lefty who gets his/her knickers in a twist because their candidates get tagged with terms like “dirty leftist”. Cry me a river!
“Wait. How is using his name: “Obama al Hussein Barack” a slur?”
Because his name is not “Obama al Hussein Barack.” His full name is “Barack Hussein Obama.” That name, his actual name, is a Kenyan name, not a Muslim name (since his father was a brown foreigner, I realize you have trouble with the nuances), but that’s really beside the point – from the “Obama went to school at a Madrassa!!!” to “Obama is a stealth Muslims!!!!” to “Obama sounds like Osama!!!” people like you have been doing their best to smear Obama as the worst possible thing one can be to you folks: a
JewMuslim.It’s the lowest kind of fear mongering.
“the most liberal senator”
OMG HE’S LIKE TOTALLY THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR EVAR!!!!1!
Of course politicians, around election years when they plan on running for a big office like, I dunno, the presidency, tend to vote in such a way that they can be listed as the most liberal or conservative to appeal to their base. Try looking at his or Clinton’s records in other years; they’re pretty run-of-the-mill.
“It’s cult-like, and frankly frightening”
Considering George Bush issued loyalty oaths at some of his rallies, I suppose Obama only has the best from whom to learn.
‘Yo, “guy”– was there anything in my comment that characterized “progressives” or “modern liberals” as “subhuman” or “inhuman”?’
‘To a “progressive” or a modern “liberal”, it’s all about emotion, because they are incapable of rational thought.’
Isn’t rational thought one of those defining requirements of membership in the human club?
“Uh, I dunno Some Guy. It’s pretty hard for us that have put up with the language of MoveOn.org, DailyKos and Huffington Post about GW, conservatives, Christians, Jews and Republicans to take seriously any Liberal/Lefty who gets his/her knickers in a twist because their candidates get tagged with terms like “dirty leftist”. Cry me a river!”
Considering that major figures on the right have, variously, called for Democrats, liberals, and critics of the president to be imprisoned or murdered for their political beliefs (ie, “treason”), again, I repeat: I don’t feel particularly bad for those of you who will now have to suffer through years of being called bad names for what you believe.
“Your second post suggests you’re movtivated more by hate than hope.”
“I hate the dirty, dirty leftists…”
Hey! Maybe our two sides have more in common with each other than we thought!
Could it be that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political orientation, have far more in common with one another than any of them do with the political fringe of each side? Could it be that my life is not really all that different from yours – that my political beliefs do not make me alien from you?
some guy,
You still here? I would have thought by now you’d have realized you were talking to yourself. Oh well, turn out the lights and lock up when you’re done.
Jim Petersen:
“1. If he goes to the right to try to capture the “conservative” (translate “religious”) right wing….”
Since when did I become religious?
harry McHitlerburtonstein the Extremist:
President Bush, 2004: “Some who call themselves “realists” question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”
Google ‘realist Iraq’ are a similar variation, and you will find many articles by the top proponents of realism explaining their opposition to our Iraq mission. They have been prolific in their opposition of the mission since the first day the Bush admin made it a prospect. Indeed, it would almost seem that the vindication of their fundamental beliefs as relevant in the 21st century, ie, after the Cold War in which they made their mark, relies upon a defining failure of liberalism in Iraq. It’s been a symbiotic relationship between right-wing realists and radical anti-war protestors. You find few realists stridently protesting the Long War with guerilla theatrics, but their opposition has provided much of the substantive material and legitimacy for the anti-war movement, which has in turn, has obliged the realists by applying theory to practical use. Why? Due to their Cold War legacy, realists are highly respected and entrenched authorities in the academic, military, and political (foreign policy) establishments. For their part, the anti-war movement is highly adaptable, because while most of it is ostensibly leftist, it is able to freely adopt and sample the right-wing realist opposition to the Iraq mission. Doing so is not a contradiction for them. The “anti-” of the anti-war movement means their standard of judgement is less about upholding an affirmative belief than whether something can be practically used to attack our nation’s strategy or more specifically target the Republican party or this Bush administration. As such, the realists have been eminently useful in fueling the anti-war movement.
In sum, the realists oppose the Iraq mission because it has been shaped as a Wilsonian progressive liberal mission. Much of the prevailing anti-war argument against the Iraq mission as a (liberal) “fool’s errand’ is realist-based. However, Barack Obama presents himself as an enthusiastic, even aggressive, Wilsonian progressive liberal who wants the US to be a proactive, leading liberal change-agent in the world. So, how can Obama’s classically liberal principles square with his professed allegiance to the illiberal anti-war movement? Well, the hope – my hope – is that those principles cause him to be the enthusiastically liberal CinC upholding the Iraq mission that we’ve needed all along. Or, he could be
anti-war. Much like John Kerry in 2004, Obama holds forth both promises.
BTW, I had close access to realist thinking as a recent Poli Sci/IR grad from Columbia University, where the realist school is dominant. As a campus activist, I also had close observations of the anti-war movement.
^ Yikes, more spelling errors. Oh well.
FYI, the link to the 2004 Bush speech that I quoted from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html
Thats a great response on that subject. Thanks.
I think the “realist” conservatives have a secret desire of wanting to be accepted by the ultra-left with out seemingly having to compromise their values. I think I know one or two around these parts. Their candidate of choice: John McCain.
Im with you that I feel advancing democracy is a traditional Wilsonian idea also now considered neoconservative.
You might be right that once in Obama might grow into the realization that it is in the best interests of Iraq, the US as well as the world that seeing our mission in Iraq is in everyones best interests, I just dont think that it will considering all he has said about the subject of Iraq.
The guy is just far to left for me to consider, but what you’ve said was an interesting take.
“Isn’t rational thought one of those defining requirements of membership in the human club?”
Well, if so, then you’re not in it…
“Well, if so, then you’re not in it…”
Precisely – this is why I asked whether the preference was for the German Ungeziefer, for vermin, or the Kinyarwandan inyenzi, or cockroaches, to describe the people you’d like to see dehumanized?
I mean, again, what could be more American than trying to deny the humanity of people who disagree with you politically?
Is this really what the American right is coming to?
some guy:Rational thought is, perhaps, one of the most important, defining characteristics of “human being,” no?
Yes – so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?
some guy:Que?
You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?
“Yes – so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?”
Why do you insist on being an ass?
“You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?”
Yes, I do – for purely pragmatic reasons.
some guy:
Again, if you were actually rational, you claim, you’d understand that what I said was the result of reading Evan Sayet’s essay at the url I posted way back when. In that essay, Mr. Sayet lays out his rationale for saying that “progressives” are not capable of rational thought; not that they’re bad people, evil, stupid, subhuman or vermin, but that due to indoctrination by our failed and leftist education systems, they are not capable of approaching discussions with a rational viewpoint. They are, in fact, not capable of reasoning, because they lack the capacity to discriminate between competing ideas and values, because they have been told that discrimination is “wrong.”
If you’d read the essay, you’d understand. But then again, you apparently are incapable of rational thought. Not vermin, not subhuman, not evil, not stupid–just unreasoning. It’s actually sad, because apparently, you can’t help it.
“They are, in fact, not capable of reasoning.”
This would seem to be a pretty clear denial of their humanity.
“It’s actually sad, because apparently, you can’t help it.”
Now, it’s perfectly clear that we disagree about a lot of things, but I don’t deny that you have reasoned yourself to your positions, as wrong as they are. Reason is not the key to the right answer, and you are not the sole owner of reason. One can reason one’s way into the wrong answer just as easily into the right, and maybe a perfectly logical, internally consistent argument for or against any position.
So, try this on: how about, instead of denying the humanity of people who disagree with you, try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.
“try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.”
Absolutely true. But since you refuse to be reasonable and actually debate the essay I’ve based my reasoning on, I conclude that you’re an idiot and not worth further effort.
Again, I don’t think you’re not part of the human race, I’m not “denying your humanity”, I’m just saying that you don’t think very well, if at all. Not the same thing.
“I’m just saying that you don’t think very well, if at all.”
Because I won’t read an essay that argues that I am incapable of rational thought, written by a partisan hack from the hackiest of all partisan think tanks?
You have set a high bar for eulogos.
The Short Bus will be arriving to pick you up very soon.
“The Short Bus will be arriving to pick you up very soon.”
Har har. Stumbley, would you like to read an essay that argues that you are an idiot, that you’ve been brainwashed, that everything you believe is either wrong or a lie, that you lack a fundamental characteristic of being human, because of your political beliefs?
No? Really? You don’t care to be told that you’re an idiot, brainwashed, wrong, and subhuman? No? You don’t want to spend your time reading such an essay?
Hm. Go figure!
Reason and logic aren’t the same thing. While logic has formal and informal rules that it abides by, reason is more of a matter of personal choice and wisdom added ontop of thought and logic.
What follows logically is not necessarily what is real or what would be wise or what would be reasonable. Based upon the logic premises of the Hitler party, it was logical for them to try to exterminate the Jews, if what they said about the Jews were really true. But logic is not about determining truth, it is about perfecting the way you arrive at a conclusion so that it is systemetic and scientific.
Reason is more valuable, because rationality prevents two things that logic cannot prevent. Emotionalism, which is making decisions and choices based upon feeling. The feeling that Obama gives hope and progress. The feeling of righteousness, rather than the actuality of it. The second thing reason prevents is insanity. Which is related to emotionalism except what you make your choices on does not exist in this world. Emotion exists in this world, we know that people feel things, even if we believe they are the wrong things to feel at the wrong time. Joy at kicking out Marines from Berkley is the wrong thing to feel, but we recognize that it exists, in one form or another. Insanity, however, is making choices and actions based upon what does not exist, literally. There is not even a possibility that you could make it exist in your lifetime.
When people call you irrational, that’s another form of saying you are insane. Not just that you are illogical or that your logical axioms are wrong, but that you literally are not making your thoughts, your thoughts even, on this reality. When people call you irrational, they also mean that you are emotional. Which ones they choose to mean really depends upon what their intent and thoughts about your thinking are.
instead of denying the humanity of people who disagree with you, try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.
The logic that you are human, thus you are reasonable or are likely to be reasonable, is false and incorrect logic.
The idea that just because you are irrational, emotional, unreasonable, or insane makes you all of a sudden “inhuman” is also demonstrably wrong and incorrect. Human beings are human beings because of the tendency to become embroiled in emotion, con games, insanity, and what not.
To say that you are insane and unable to think, that you have shackled your free will to the will of your masters in the Democrat party, is the same as an accusation of being human as saying “two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue”.
“Human beings are human beings because of the tendency to become embroiled in emotion, con games, insanity, and what not.”
Really? You really believe that these are the defining characteristics of being human?
Perhaps there’s less common ground for a discussion than I thought!
“To say that you are insane and unable to think, that you have shackled your free will to the will of your masters in the Democrat party.”
Must…Obey….Masters…
Man, this place is like flypaper for snarky leftist trolls….
Snark never fed a hungry child. Snark never gave anyone hope.
Obama is a good example of the human need for leaders and folks that tell others “what to do”.
As seen with Iraq, when you tell people that their life is in their hands… what do they do? Unless they know what to do with their life, they go decadent, violent, criminal, or any other kind of dysfunctional activity.
America sees that as well, just not as immediately obvious as Iraq in 2003-5.
People need leaders, people need hierarchies. They need folks to tell them what to do, because people really don’t want to make choices for themselves. Making choices is hard. It means taking responsibility for the bad and good consequences. People like taking credit for victories, but they don’t really like taking the blame for failures. In life, you can’t have one without the other, so many many people choose to not have either one at all.
That fear, that uncertainty, that is what leads people to put their beliefs, their hopes, their bodies, and their wills on the shoulders of their self-appointed leaders.
This is a feature of the human condition. You can neither deny it nor can you get rid of it. It just is. Lightning strikes:it just is. Is it good? Maybe. Can it be bad too? Probably.
In the end, the obvious lesson we can bring out from this is that just because you refuse to manipulate, motivate, and guide a populace, does not mean that they are suddenly “free” and capable of making their own choices about their own lives.
Propaganda and psychological operations are necessary for the health of any civilization. And if you won’t do it for the good of yourself, your family, and your neighbors, then your enemies will be very happy to do it for you. This applies to both Republicans vs Democrats, Southern Democrat KKK lynchers vs Northern Radical Republican abolitionists, as well Al Qaeda vs the United States Marine Corps.
People are there to be motivated, they are there to be lead. Lead them. Tell them what to do. Make them do what they need to do, if they give excuses and complain. Otherwise, we might as well go back to fighting barbarians out on the Russian and Asian steppes.
Perhaps there’s less common ground for a discussion than I thought!
Did you just figure that out? Does an accusation of insanity against you, not already suggest to you that ther is less common ground for discussion?
Snark never fed a hungry child. Snark never gave anyone hope.
It did snap someone upside the head though, which I suppose is all the violence allowed to the Left. Emotional violence is focused on because all the human aggression has been redirected from physical aggression via war and competition.
If I recall, Bush filed the first lawsuit to stop the legally-required recount. But that’s a wholly different story.
I can’t let that pass. Historical revision is the left’s specialty:
Algore filed the first lawsuit alledging the voters were too dumb to vote:
“One day after Election Tuesday, the first lawsuit (Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canv. Bd. (PBCCB) ), is filed in Florida by Palm Beach County voters who, alleging voter confusion over the county’s butterfly ballot, are seeking to set aside all presidential votes in the county and order a new county-wide election. Defendants include the PBCCB, Bush, Cheney, Gore, and Lieberman. ”
http://usatoday.findlaw.com/election/election2000timeline.html
“You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?”
some guy: Yes, I do – for purely pragmatic reasons.
What are they?
How would it be “pragmatic” to enact a risk against the possibility that the perfect record regarding no further 9/11-type attacks upon the U.S. has something to do with our current involvement in Iraq?
Iow, to withdraw as per Obama is going to involve a bet against a policy’s perfect record.
You know, guy, if someone asked me to read an essay, I would. If I found that the reasoning was sound, even if counter to my beliefs, I would figure it might be time to reconsider my beliefs, that perhaps “everything I believed” might have, indeed, been wrong. Imagine the feelings of the learned men of Copernicus’ day, who were certain the Earth was the center of the universe, who, when confronted with the facts either had to change their beliefs or degenerate into silly arguments like yours.
Your attitude is part and parcel of everything that’s espoused in the essay, and absolutely proves its truth.
instead of denying the humanity of people who disagree with you, try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.
Ah, the good old a priori sub-rational arguments by Pronouncement and Begging The Question all wrapped up into one.
If I found that the reasoning was sound, even if counter to my beliefs, I would figure it might be time to reconsider my beliefs, that perhaps “everything I believed” might have, indeed, been wrong.
That wouldn’t happen just because somebody read an article. What would happen is that when you read articles you disagree with, you can then put your brain to working out the weaknesses of the article and then belittle it here.
Oh, I don’t know, Y, I have changed my thinking on a number of subjects, based on articles or books I’ve read, where an idea has been couched in logic and good sense. I’ve changed my mind on gun control, for instance, from pro- to being a gun owner myself, based on things that John Lott and others have written.
I was much more “liberal” in my youth, but like others who comment on this blog, my mind was changed by reality and basically paying attention to what’s going on in the world.
People need leaders, people need hierarchies. They need folks to tell them what to do, because people really don’t want to make choices for themselves.
Rather, it’s just a matter of specialization. We don’t all grow our own food or build our own cars. In the same way, we don’t make our own laws or decide to fight our own wars. Instead we hire representatives to do this for us. We choose them from a set of candidates by observing what they say and how they act.
I would figure it might be time to reconsider my beliefs, that perhaps “everything I believed” might have, indeed, been wrong.
I don’t disagree that you can change some of your views or your views on a group of subjects with a second look. I’m saying that nobody will believe that everything they have believed is wrong just because they read one or two articles. For that kind of change, you need a Neo Neocon moment, a psychological shock to the hind and frontal lobes.
Recently I and my wife were watching TV show of Obama’s speech. She can’t understand spoken English at all, and I hardly was able to understand half of it, so it was like a ballet for us. But body language, emotion, and all such things were impressive. And what she told me: He is an actor, a fairly good one. And plays to public. But what he plays? Only himself, and enjoys this. And what is his message? Oh, what a wonderfull person I am! And nothing else. And everything is fake: 40 years old, but moves and speaks like teenager. As if I watch one of these theatrical plays for children, where adult actors play schoolboys.
I know my wife as a very shrewd woman, and always accept her insights about people.
“I can’t let that pass. Historical revision is the left’s specialty.”
Sorry, I misspoke. I should have written that “George Bush filed a lawsuit before Al Gore,” not that “George Bush filed the first lawsuit, period”. The point still stands: contrary to your implication that Florida was the fault of Democrats seeking to overturn an election, it was actually the Republican Party that moved first (after the voters themselves) to squelch a legally-mandated recount.
“Your attitude is part and parcel of everything that’s espoused in the essay, and absolutely proves its truth.”
You’ve caught me in something of a paradox! If I am to read the essay, I am to learn (as you have told me) that I am incapable of rational thought. But, being incapable of rational thought, how am I to understand the essay’s argument or conclusion? But if I can’t understand the essay’s argument, I will never be convinced that I am incapable of rational thought. Which means that I will in fact read the essay and learn that I am incapable of rational thought!
“What are they?”
Oh, that’s long and I don’t know if you really want me to get into it. Do you?
Really, a better example would be difficult to find. Thanks.
“Did you just figure that out? Does an accusation of insanity against you, not already suggest to you that ther is less common ground for discussion?”
Have you actually ever met a real, live Democrat? Something tells me you spend a lot of time indoors.
I’m not really sure how to respond to this. So, I guess I won’t.
Stumbley, oh stumbley…I’m really at a loss with you. You’re not asking me to take on an argument that might challenge deeply-held beliefs of mine; you’re asking me to take seriously an argument that I am incapable of having real beliefs, as I lack the capacity for rational thought. I understand that you have incredibly little respect for people who disagree with you, but have the barest amount, and don’t expect them (as I wouldn’t expect you) to take seriously the argument that believe what they believe because they are mentally deficient.
If you can’t do that – if your baseline is “you’re a coward because you don’t DARE stand up to the challenge of being told that you are incapable of rational thought,” – then there’s really no point in talking, is there?
Stumbley, how about this: I think that you believe everything you believe because you are very, very stupid. This is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. You’re so stupid that you’re incapable of rational thought. Why, I suspect you’re incapable of any thought at all! So very, very stupid, stumbley. How do you remember to continue breathing when your brain has such severely limited capacity? I suspect that stumbley is not, in fact, a self-aware individual, but perhaps some sort of automaton that has been programmed to respond mechanically (and not very well!) to comments in this thread.
If I were to tell you that I had an essay making such an argument, stumbley, would you care to take the time to read it, or have I already told you enough about it for you to make a judgment on its worth?
“Ah, the good old a priori sub-rational arguments by Pronouncement and Begging The Question all wrapped up into one.”
Are you sure you know what all of that means? I’m not so sure you do.
Begging the question? Argument by pronouncement? Have you been following the conversation? Two people here have made the arguments that people who disagree with them politically, by virtue of that disagreement and that disagreement alone, are either incapable of rational thought or are insane. They have made the claims, and I’ve challenged them for their ridiculousness.
“What are they?”
some guy sub-rationally answers: Oh, that’s long and I don’t know if you really want me to get into it. Do you?
Since I asked you, why would it be me who doesn’t want you to give the answer.
Have you actually ever met a real, live Democrat?
Yeah. Some wierd old lady yelled at me about Iraq in LAX ‘cuz I was wearing a US Army pullover shirt.
I also met VN Vets Against the War flake who got thrown out of the bar for threatening the president.
I get up to Santa Fe once in a while and see all the weird old women with beef-jerky skin in Subarus with ‘Obama’ and ‘Hillary’ stickers.
So yeah, I do meet the occasional democrat and it’s cemented my dislike of them.
I don’t really meet many ‘cuz I have a wife and kids, I’m in the National Guard and my hobby is competitive shooting….
Touched a nerve, there, did I?
Some guy, the essence of the argument is not that you’re incapable of rational thought because you are deficient in some way, or less than human, it’s because your education, your beliefs, your worldview has made you incapable of seeing the merit of alternative arguments or, to use Mr. Sayet’s phraseology, you have been made indiscriminate by virtue of postmodernism and multiculturalism, that holds that all beliefs are equallyl valid, which of course, really renders all beliefs invalid, therefore, anything is “right” that “feels right” and anything is “wrong” that “feels wrong”.
Again, it’s not that you’re stupid–I’ve never said as much (okay the “short bus” wasn’t kind)–but really, every argument you’ve made is an indication of the essay’s thesis, and just makes me more convinced that it’s right. Because you see, you keep on thinking that I’ve called you stupid, instead of just misguided or misinformed. Maybe “willfully ignorant” is a better phrase.
Well, J. Peden, since you asked so very politely:
I think we should withdraw from Iraq because our presence is, by and large, not really helping the situation.
When he announced The Surge, Bush laid out fairly explicit goals: by sending extra troops, security would be improved – security that would create a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government (dominated by SIIC, née the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and al-Da’wa – two Shi’a religious/political parties/former insurgent groups that spent the Saddam years in Iran) to compromise with Sunni political parties, bring them into the government, and reduce popular support for Sunni insurgents. All of this was to happen within a timeframe as defined by the President himself.
Only this didn’t happen. SIIR and al-Da’wa have little incentive to compromise – share power – so long as their dominance is ensured by the continuing US military presence. No US presence, and suddenly, they have a serious reason to compromise, bring Sunnis into the political process in a meaningful way, and give Sunnis a stake in a national government – rather than a stake in the insurgency.
Let’s back up: at the most basic level, a state is an organization with a monopoly over the use of force in a given area. Our policies are not creating this condition; if anything, they’re working against it. When The Surge failed to generate political compromise, Bush – suffering from the enormous political pressure at home for demonstrable results that any president would face – seized upon the
Concerned Local CitizensSons of Iraq movement as proof of success. Sunni militias, facing a choice between fight a (temporarily) stronger US military or receiving money and weapons from the US military, wisely chose to receive money and weapons from the US military and stop fighting.So, the good news was: Bush had something to show for The Surge – a decrease in violence. Sunni militias turned on AQI, something that most people who know anything about Iraqi politics expected to happen sooner or later – the Sunni militias had little tolerance for a predominantly foreign force telling them what to do, kept them around when it was expedient, and turned on them when it was expedient. So, decrease in violence. Success, right? But this success comes at a tremendous cost: this decrease has been a temporary boon, but is in the long term a huge problem.
Why? Because, rather than incorporating those insurgents into the Iraqi armed forces and police (the Iraqi government has resisted because SIIR and al-Da’wa, again, don’t want to share power with Sunnis or former Ba’athists), US policy has been to set them up as alternatives to the Iraqi state. The SoI have refused to serve under the new flag, they are constantly engaged in fighting with Iraqi government forces (and the militias that SIIR and al-Da’wa have maintained), they report that their biggest enemy is not AQI or the US, but rather the “Persians” – the Iraqis who spent the last few decades in Tehran – and so forth. The Iraqi government announced it was hiring about 12,000 SoI into the army, but that leaves about 60,000 to 70,000 armed men who a) do not recognize the authority of the Iraqi government, b) have declared the Iraqi government to be their enemy, c) fly a different flag than that of the national government, and d) are already engaged in open conflict with Iraqi government forces.
What we have not done is: create a unified Iraqi state. What we have done is: seize upon a temporary victory that has serious long term consequences. We’re not creating one, single Iraqi state; we’re creating two (or more) Iraqi states that will, whether we’re there or not, fight each other to see who gets what from the corpse that was Iraq.
It’s a shitty situation, and there really is no good solution. Staying there not only doesn’t accomplish anything, but actually makes the situation worse – we’re polarizing Iraq into two “communities” that didn’t really exist before our arrival. Just as Americans can be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and still be America, Iraqis can be Sunni, Shi’a, Christian, and still be Iraqis. But our policies have sought short-term gains in exchange for a long-term divide – though most Iraqis would prefer an undivided Iraq, they now must often choose between joining a sectarian militia for “protection” or being killed by the other side’s sectarian militia (or the national forces, which aren’t really much more than a glorified sectarian militia in most cases).
If you’re interested in this and don’t read Arabic, a good place to start is http://abuaardvark.com. That’s the blog of a professor at George Washington University who reads the Arabic press and reports on a lot of stuff that tends to get ignored by English-language press (like the SoI refusal to fly the same flag as national forces). It’s an awful situation and I wish I could imagine a better solution, but there simply is no good solution, and not very many bad solutions worth considering. Ideally, the US would at the least threaten withdrawal – threaten the survival of the Iraqi national government – to light a fire under their asses to actually give up a little power and incorporate the Sunni mini-state in the making into the national structure. Hiring those guys into the army and police, reworking the constitution so it doesn’t privilege sectarian communities in a way that was alien to Iraq before Bremmer wrote those sections in, that’s what it will take to stop the civil war there. I don’t know what other leverage the US has over al-Maliki and his team.
some guy: Have you been following the conversation?
Well I did quote exactly what you said, then commented exactly upon it.
So how is your above question not sub-rational?
“I don’t really meet many ‘cuz I have a wife and kids, I’m in the National Guard and my hobby is competitive shooting….”
So, no Democrats have wives and kids (too busy getting gay married), are not in the National Guard (too busy hating America!) and do not shoot (um…to busy…getting high? I don’t know, what’s the stereotype here?).
I’m an east coast, atheist, latte-drinking Democrat. I’m getting married (a heterosexual marriage!), I plan on having kids, I love to shoot, my parents have never been divorced and – get this – I eat lunch every day with a sabbath-observing Jew who votes Democrat and an evangelical Christian who votes Republican. Somehow we all manage to get along! Actually knowing people is infinitely superior to making broad, grossly wrong generalizations about people.
I’m sorry an old lady yelled at you. I find that both a) incredibly rude (I’m a stickler for old-fashioned politeness) and that b) old people tend to yell a lot. They can’t help it! Old people are ornery. Please don’t let one old yelling person dictate your beliefs about the other ~100 million people who lean liberal in this country.
you have been made indiscriminate by virtue of postmodernism and multiculturalism, that holds that all beliefs are equallyl valid, which of course, really renders all beliefs invalid, therefore, anything is “right” that “feels right” and anything is “wrong” that “feels wrong”.
Well, this is a gross misunderstanding of postmodernism, so again: I don’t really feel to bad about skipping the essay. The more you describe it, the less interest I have in reading it! Amazing!
But if I were indiscriminate by postmodernism, how do I know that you, too, haven’t been made indiscriminate by postmodernism and simply believe what you believe because you have no ability to discern good arguments from dreck? Maybe you believe what you do because it “feels right” as well, without even reading it! I suggest you go back and read that essay very carefully, and then check yourself for postmodern cooties. Why, it’s possible that everyone here lacks the capacity for reason, and is reduced to arbitrarily parroting one side or the other! How would we ever know who authentically believes what they believe, and who does so out of a lack of rational thought?
some guy:
You might want to check out Bill Ardolino, on Iraqi politics:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/02/inside_iraqi_politic_2.php
It’s rocky, to be sure, but you do realize that the United States took 12 years to ratify the Constitution? I’m always amazed that folks who complain about how slowly Iraq is moving toward “democracy” ignore that our own esteemed Congress can’t even muster enough amity to cure Social Security or pass a budget on time.
And you want Baghdad to be Zurich in a little over 5 years?
some guy, the primary intent of the Bush Doctrine was to protect the U.S. from further 9/11-like attacks. It’s got a perfect record.
So how would it be “pragmatic” – i.e., not sub-rational – to enact a risk against the possibility that the perfect record regarding no further 9/11-type attacks upon the U.S. has something to do with our current involvement in Iraq – by withdrawing from Iraq as per Obama?
Iow, to withdraw as per Obama is going to involve a bet against a policy’s perfect record. Is that “pragmatic”?
You’re right, guy! I don’t have to read anything I disagree with! It’s all dreck! I’m right, I’m right, I’m right! You’re stupid! I’m stupid!
Barack Obama is the Second Coming!
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”
J. Peden, I have a paper clip that I guarantee protects its owner from bear maulings. As proof, I offer only that, in the time I have owned this paper clip, I have never once been mauled by a bear. If you’re interested in purchasing your own anti-bear protection system, I urge you to contact me via email to arrange payment and delivery.
But seriously: 9/11 was orchestrated from Afghanistan with cells formed and trained in Germany with funds sent through UAE. al-Qaeda didn’t need Iraq to organize 9/11 then and it likely wouldn’t need it now. If anything, a state like Iraq would be not very conducive to the planning of a major operation like al-Qaeda; this is why, though you might see terrorist violence in a place like Iraq or Somalia, you are unlikely to see terrorist command-and-control set up in these places. Even terrorists like running water, not getting shot at, etc, while planning their nefarious deeds.
Some Guy–I agree with a lot of your analysis of the Iraq situation. We are certainly haunted by the old British empire boundaries that grouped various ethnic communities inside them.
You have to realize that by advocating ‘just leaving’, you are certainly risking a genocide of at least one of the ethnic groups.
That’s the sticking point for me on the leaving thing. I’m not sure as a nation we have the stomach for the killings that will follow. It’ll be Darfur, but it will be our fault.
The we will be back in there at a disadvantage having to re-surge all over again.
I disagree with one of your statements: “Let’s back up: at the most basic level, a state is an organization with a monopoly over the use of force in a given area.”
Only a totalitarian state has the monopoly on force in a given area. Democracies have armed citizens “being necessary to the security of a free State”.
You inadvertantly showed the totalitarian leanings and goals of The Left with that gaffe.
“You’re right, guy! I don’t have to read anything I disagree with! It’s all dreck! I’m right, I’m right, I’m right! You’re stupid! I’m stupid!”
No, I simply want to know: if you can be sure that I, the product of modern American education, believe what I do only because I am incapable of rational thought (thanks to that system), then how can you be sure that you believe what you do by virtue of reason? If the result of this system is an arbitrariness in thinking, an inability of those who have gone through it to discern good arguments from bad, then how could you ever be sure that your beliefs are in any way valid?
You presume that conservative beliefs are the result of reason, and that liberal beliefs are the result of an inability to reason. I posit that one made unable to reason might be just as likely to adopt conservative beliefs as liberal, and that person might be….you!
Or, it’s all just horse shit. I think…the latter.
al-Qaeda didn’t need Iraq to organize 9/11 then and it likely wouldn’t need it now.
So how long were we supposed to tie up US combat power enforcing those no-fly-zones and enforcing the sanctions? 12 years wasn’t enough? 20 years?
If anything, a state like Iraq would be not very conducive to the planning of a major operation like al-Qaeda;
Until ‘a state like Iraq’ provides more advanced weapons to the terrorists.
this is why, though you might see terrorist violence in a place like Iraq or Somalia, you are unlikely to see terrorist command-and-control set up in these places. Even terrorists like running water, not getting shot at, etc, while planning their nefarious deeds.
Like the stable, calm atmosphere, sound infrastructure and running water in post-soviet Afghanistan–oh, wait–that wrecks your argument.
We couldn’t enforce the no-fly-zones forever and we can’t leave Iraq like the soviets left afghanistan, so here we are….
“Only a totalitarian state has the monopoly on force in a given area. Democracies have armed citizens “being necessary to the security of a free State”.
You inadvertantly showed the totalitarian leanings and goals of The Left with that gaffe.”
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Are you serious?
This is a definition of a state – an entity with a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory – that goes back to Max Weber, who also authored The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Quite the pinko!
No, sorry. This is the basic, fundamental definition of a state agreed to by pretty much anyone interested in political science, international relations theory, sociology, public administration, etc etc etc. No state ever has a perfect monopoly over the use of force, but any state – democratic or not, with armed citizens or not, etc etc etc – works to limit and punishes unauthorized uses of force.
“Or, it’s all just horse shit.”
Yep. Pretty much everything you write.
“Like the stable, calm atmosphere, sound infrastructure and running water in post-soviet Afghanistan—oh, wait—that wrecks your argument.”
Well, yes, actually. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, though offering fairly rudimentary accommodations, was certainly more stable than is Iraq at the moment – thanks only to the Taliban’s incredibly ruthless enforcement methods, of course.
“So how long were we supposed to tie up US combat power enforcing those no-fly-zones and enforcing the sanctions? 12 years wasn’t enough? 20 years?”
I’m not sure if this is supposed to be an argument for or against tying up well over a hundred thousand US troops and far more combat planes than were used to enforce no-fly zones for the foreseeable future – a hundred years, according to McCain! But, if your question is: is the situation worse than it would have been had we not intervened, I tend to think: yes, I’m pretty sure it is. It went from a terrible situation to a really really really terrible situation.
“That’s the sticking point for me on the leaving thing. I’m not sure as a nation we have the stomach for the killings that will follow. It’ll be Darfur, but it will be our fault.”
It’s a chance. But honestly, this is going on already – sectarian murders, ethnic cleansing, pretty much everything we’d want to stop. It’s a question of trying to guess the scale – I think it would get worse for a time and then improve. I think that if we stay, it will continue at its current level indefinitely. So, it’s a question of a lot of people dying for a long period of time, or more people dying for a briefer time.
And no, not really like Darfur. Darfur is a whole other set of issues.
“Until ‘a state like Iraq’ provides more advanced weapons to the terrorists.”
Well, I suppose that North Korea – a state with actual nuclear weapons and until recently an active nuclear weapons program – might also provide advanced weapons to terrorists, though I guess that the chances of that are as likely as the chances of Saddam giving them up were. But, we won’t invade North Korea, topple it’s government, etc. If the requirement for invasion is “might give WMD to terrorists,” then our current policy doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I tend to assume that since we invaded one and not the other, other criteria must have been in play.
(Unless your calculus resembles something like, “Saddam opposed us and was a Muslim. bin Laden is a Muslim and opposes us. Since they’re both Muslims, they must be in cahoots!”)
“Yep. Pretty much everything you write.”
Stumbley! I must have hit a nerve! Why won’t you engage my very serious argument? How can you know that you believe what you do out of reason and not out of unreason? I mean, wow! You totally opened my eyes. I have come to realize that I believe everything I do because it feels so good. Mmm, mmm, I love rubbing liberalism all up and down my body. Does conservatism feel as good for you? Because, I mean, if it’s possible that my belief was arbitrarily arrived at, why not yours?
But it’s actually a serious question: if you honestly believe that some people lack the capacity for reason (for whatever…reason) and believe what they do for non-rational reasons, isn’t it possible that some of those non-rational people adopted conservative, rather than liberal, beliefs for non-rational reasons? How would you know that you were or were not one of those people?
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Are you serious?
Deadly serious.
This is a definition of a state – an entity with a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory – that goes back to Max Weber, who also authored The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Quite the pinko!
But the American state doesn’t have a monopoly over (I see now you threw the word ‘legitimate’ in there) the use of force in America. Are we not a state?
That definition is manifestly wrong.
No state ever has a perfect monopoly over the use of force, but any state – democratic or not, with armed citizens or not, etc etc etc – works to limit and punishes unauthorized uses of force.
Now working to ‘limit and punish’ unauthorized use of force is a completely different definition than ‘having a monopoly of force in an area’.
As I said, your gaffe revials the totalitarian thinking and goals of The Left.
Well, I suppose that North Korea – a state with actual nuclear weapons and until recently an active nuclear weapons program – might also provide advanced weapons to terrorists
They have and we are playing a game of cat-and-mouse with them over that. Hmmmm, wonder what the Israelis bombed in Syria?
Does conservatism feel as good for you? Because, I mean, if it’s possible that my belief was arbitrarily arrived at, why not yours?
It’s a fair question.
The essence of liberalism is to avoid ever making a hard decision and protect people from themselves like Big Nurse.
Conservatism doesn’t actually feel that good ‘cuz you make the hard decisions and take the risks and rewards inherent in freedom, interacting in a free and uncontrolled environment (where you can have guns and smoke and not have to pay for healthcare!)
No, conservatism doesn’t feel that good–it’s about the hard decisions, but being free of Big Nurse.
So if you want the warm, stifling protection of a totalitarian government, be a liberal. It feels good like a straightjacket and a padded cell.
If you can stand the fear and reap the rewards of living in the real world of free markets, liberty, and Dangerous Things, be a Conservative!
You’ve jumped the shark, some guy. Give it a rest. Or, you know, read the essay so you know what you’re arguing about.
“Now working to ‘limit and punish’ unauthorized use of force is a completely different definition than ‘having a monopoly of force in an area’.”
I’m actually a little surprised at this. I thought pretty much everyone was familiar with this definition.
I’ll direct you to a Bush administration official, Richard N. Haass:
“Historically, sovereignty has been associated with four main characteristics: First, a sovereign state is one that enjoys supreme political authority and a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within its territory. Second, it is capable of regulating movements across its borders. Third, it can make its foreign policy choices freely. Finally, it is recognized by other governments as an independent entity entitled to freedom from external intervention.”
http://www.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm
At its most rudimentary, a state cannot exist as a state unless it and it alone monopolizes the legitimate use of force over its territory. States that do not have such a monopoly are states facing insurgencies – ie, challenges to its legitimacy. If the insurgency is successful enough (either de jure, as was the case of East Timur or Croatia, or de facto, as the case was of Kurdistan under Saddam and might be for the Sunni militias now), then the state might lose control over a territory and – presto – you have a second state.
I doubt that the Sunni areas of Iraq will actually break free from Iraq, though they will very likely become de facto independent if they become true no-go areas for Iraqi government troops, areas where Sunni militias, not the government legislates, then the Iraqi state will have serious problems all of its own.
“If you can stand the fear and reap the rewards of living in the real world of free markets, liberty, and Dangerous Things, be a Conservative!”
Free markets? Like the tariffs Bush slapped on steel, shrimp, Chinese bras, and so on?
Liberty? Like arbitrary detention and suspension of habeus corpus?
Dangerous Things? Like…well, what, exactly?
Seriously: the differences between Democrats and Republicans, as important as they are, are far from the unbridgeable gap you seem to imagine them to be, Americans on either side have far more in common with each other than either side has with, say, Lyndon LaRouche’s folks, and neither side has a monopoly over good stuff like free trade and liberty. I’m a Democrat and I’m more pro-free trade than the Republican president! Down will all tariffs and subsidies! Boo steel tariffs and farm subsidies! Booo!
“Historically, sovereignty has been associated with four main characteristics: First, a sovereign state is one that enjoys supreme political authority and a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within its territory.
Some guy, you didn’t have the word ‘legitimate’ in your original definition that I shat on.
That’s a different matter. Stop changing definitions and moving the goal posts.
That little word ‘legitimate’ (in our case, meaning ‘according to the will of the people’) makes all the difference in the world.
Your gaffe still showed what was under the mask for an instant.
Liberty? Like arbitrary detention and suspension of habeus corpus?
Only if you are caught bearing arms against the US.
Dangerous Things? Like…well, what, exactly?
tobacco, guns, transfats, butterfly ballots, cartoons of mohammed… Should I go on?
I’m a Democrat and I’m more pro-free trade than the Republican president! Down will all tariffs and subsidies! Boo steel tariffs and farm subsidies! Booo!
I agree with you there.
“That little word ‘legitimate’ (in our case, meaning ‘according to the will of the people’) makes all the difference in the world.
Your gaffe still showed what was under the mask for an instant.”
Oh, I really just give up. Yes, I am a totalitarian! I’m a fascist! Ooga booga! It was so close to the surface, I could barely contain it! All that talk about free markets, about liberty and democracy, it was all a smokescreen! You found me out! Drat that one word I casually omitted from an apparently obscure political science definition! Drat! I knew that would slip me up some day!
“That little word ‘legitimate’ (in our case, meaning ‘according to the will of the people’) makes all the difference in the world.”
No. In political science terms, it simply means “the state is the only actor within the state’s territory that is free to use force; no other actor can use force without the state’s permission.” An actor that uses force without the state’s permission is either a criminal (as is the case with a murderer) or an insurgent (as when the several states of the Confederacy took up arms against the US government). The term “legitimate” is being used as a neutral term; it does not imply “democratic legitimacy,” only the monopoly itself. A state without that legitimate monopoly – a state like Iraq – is a state in which many non-state actors, be they defense contractors or Kurdish Peshmerga or Sunni militias or Shi’a militias, use force with impunity.
Is that good enough? I mean, is that explanation sufficient? It’s not even my definition! It’s a ninety-year-old definition! It’s a consensus definition – it’s so common, I really had no idea it could possibly generate this kind of drama.
Anyway, I’m done; I’m one man against a mob, I’ve done my best, toodles.
some guy, why is it not sub-rational to claim that we have not already been attacked by the Bear and ignore that we haven’t been attacked by one since we embarked upon a new strategy, when the previous strategy didn’t work at all, then decide to change the strategy which works perfectly as far as we can tell – and in a big way – thus making an unnecessary bet against perfection?
[I live around Bears and don’t ignore their threat to begin with, but I’m not going to change my strategies when they have obviously worked perfectly, opting for another one which is not only untested but also looks like it would encourage Bear attacks.]
I think we should withdraw from Iraq because our presence is, by and large, not really helping the situation.
What will really help the situation is for people to get behind the US military’s strategy in Iraq. Root for your team, unless you switched teams all of a sudden.
When he announced The Surge, Bush laid out fairly explicit goals:
This has nothing to do with what Bush laid out, and everything to do with what you want to do.
I eat lunch every day with a sabbath-observing Jew who votes Democrat
Nothing special about Jews or blacks voting Democrat.
Somehow we all manage to get along! Actually knowing people is infinitely superior to making broad, grossly wrong generalizations about people.
The only people folks here are talking to and about is you. Just because we disagree and say things about you, doesn’t really mean we said such things about other people we don’t know.
Well, this is a gross misunderstanding of postmodernism, so again:
Obviously if Stumbley saw it your way and believed in your dogma, you two wouldn’t disagree now would you.
But if I were indiscriminate by postmodernism, how do I know that you, too, haven’t been made indiscriminate by postmodernism and simply believe what you believe because you have no ability to discern good arguments from dreck?
You just said that Stumbley misunderstood postmodernism. You can’t take that back. So obviously Stumbley is not indiscriminate like you are, because Stumbley doesn’t believe in the same things that you believe. Or else you wouldn’t say he “misunderstood” postmodernism.
I’m always amazed that folks who complain about how slowly Iraq is moving toward “democracy” ignore that our own esteemed Congress can’t even muster enough amity to cure Social Security or pass a budget on time.
It’s always easier to blame other folks and put the burden on them, than it is to take care of your own problems, Stumbley.
And you want Baghdad to be Zurich in a little over 5 years?
He doesn’t want Baghdad to exist, period. It’s a problem for him because of the very existence of Baghdad. Things would be better if the whole problem never had existed.
As proof, I offer only that, in the time I have owned this paper clip, I have never once been mauled by a bear.
You also need to offer proof that a bear has been around you. Because Al Qaeda has been around and inside the US, and attacks have been stopped. You can’t say the same thing about your little bear fantasy.
A state without that legitimate monopoly – a state like Iraq – is a state in which many non-state actors, be they defense contractors or Kurdish Peshmerga or Sunni militias or Shi’a militias, use force with impunity.
That is no more different from cities with gang and drug problems.
There is no magical solution, as the Left thinks, concerning human fallibility.
From a political prospective the major difference between liberals and conservatives is the former place a higher value on equality of condition and the latter on individual freedom. History has taught us that the “masses” so beloved by liberals have faired much better in their material condition and overall quality of life in those societies that place a higher value on individual liberty. Some guy prefers the freedom curbing power of the state to produce his vision of a more equal society which inevitably produces higher unemployment,low growth and ennui. That’s not my cup of tea.
some: Anyway, I’m done; I’m one man against a mob, I’ve done my best, toodles.
Aw, c’mon, guy — don’t give up now! You’re just getting warmed up! Grab a bite, catch some z’s and come on back — you’re funny! You could tell us some more stories from your poli sci class, for example. Or do that ooga booga thing you do so well!
By the way (while he’s gone), I’ll just point out that “some guy” is an old troll around these parts who pops in from time to time when his liberal sap is warm and running (Obama fever?), with the usual trollish behavior traits — taunts, moves goalposts, jeers, changes the subject, jabbers, monopolizes threads, etc., etc. Quite pointless to engage in argument, but good for keeping a comments thread running, isn’t he?
I’ll just point out that “some guy” is an old troll around these parts who pops in from time to time when his liberal sap is warm and running (Obama fever?)….
No doubt! That abuarrdvark’s got a bad case of it, too. Here’s hoping for the day when it “progresses” to the talking-in-tongues stage, so we at least don’t have to do anything directly except watch – and then gig them as necessary once they convert to frogs.
Rationality is a rather recent evolutionary trait, it had risen only in classical Greece and in only tiny fraction of population – philosophers and mathematicians. Later it was restricted to educated clergy, due to adoption of Aristotelian logic as a basis of theological education in Catholic tradition. Non-literate laymen were discouraged by clergy even to read the Bible, because they were rendered not mature enough to comprehend it. So the vast majority of people always were subrational in their thought, and still are. No wonder, all ideologies for mass consumption in 20 century were blatanly irrational and operate by suggestion bordering with mass psychosis to get traction. They are totalitarian by definition, need charismatical leaders to push their agenda, and in this context only obamomania can be understood.
well, labeling “some guy” an old troll does nothing to diminish his arguments…and “rationality…had risen only in classical Greece”? That’s a fascinating idea, and necessary I suppose for the rest of the argument to hold.
Nothing comparable with Western science ever emerged in any other culture. Technology – yes, science – no. Theoretical thinking is an unique property of Western tradition. Elsewhere it is a secondary, imported good, and exist only in tiny fraction of westernized elites.
“well, labeling “some guy” an old troll does nothing to diminish his arguments”
No, he does that all by himself.
Gots to go back to my original point. Jonah Goldberg said that liberals think it will be different this time.
This time, commanding the economy in pursuit of fairness won’t have a disastrous effect.
This time, setting the precedent that the government, while it can’t get into your bedroom, can get into your kitchen for your own good won’t have the effect of, you know, spreading out just a little, and, possibly, back into the bedroom.
This time, letting the bad guys do their thing won’t contribute to a horrid war, not like the Rhineland in 1936. Or Munich. See, there are always differences. Hitler had a small mustache, not a large one, and Saddaam didn’t speak German. So it will be different this time. ’cause those differences are important, and, besides, you’re a mean old poopyhead.
My favorite part is how he woofed this one off:
Me: “That’s the sticking point for me on the leaving thing. I’m not sure as a nation we have the stomach for the killings that will follow. It’ll be Darfur, but it will be our fault.”
Guy: “It’s a chance. But honestly, this is going on already – sectarian murders, ethnic cleansing, pretty much everything we’d want to stop. It’s a question of trying to guess the scale – I think it would get worse for a time and then improve.
There. Right there is why I call them ‘dirty leftists’.
“Genocide? M’eh…. Maybe a little.”
The Mind; it boggles.
Jonah Goldberg said that liberals think it will be different this time.
Yeah, and that sounds a lot like one of the main Faux [non-Classical] Liberal tactics of argument: repeat, repeat, repeat ad nauseum as though that alone will make it true – although what is repeated often starts out being even worse itself, as some kind of meaningless mantra, etc..
some guy: I think it [the slaughter] would get worse for a time and then improve [once we surrendered as per Obama].
I guess that’s just the very special kind of ‘rationality’ and ‘ethical nature’ which makes some guy ‘human’.
But honestly, this is going on already
So long as it is not someone fake liberals care about, millions can die and they will still have their tea party.
I think it would get worse for a time and then improve
When people stop bothering the rich and useless with inconvenient truths, it obviously has improved for the better.
I think that if we stay, it will continue at its current level indefinitely.
The only ones trying to create endless strife and warfare are Arab terrorists and Western socialists.
Now, now Yamar, your being an inflexible conservative extremists. Your principals have no place in the new Republican party.
When people stop bothering the rich and useless with inconvenient truths, it obviously has improved for the better.
Oooooo….. That’s gonna leave a mark. Good one.