Afghan change: when will Obama own it—or the economy?
When Barack Obama was a senator and a presidential candidate, he hated the Iraq war and every move George Bush made there.
This included the highly successful surge. In fact, Obama denied the positives of the surge—not only back when it was first proposed and almost everyone except Bush, McCain, and Petraeus was down on it—but also long after it was obvious that it had been one of the best decisions made by the Bush administration.
Now Obama, with the help of his Bush-era holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has made a change in Afghanistan, asking for the resignation of Gen. David McKiernan, the head of the Afghan campaign for the last year. He is to be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who previously had been head of special operation forces in Iraq.
Almost every article on the subject agrees that McKiernan didn’t really do anything blatantly wrong, but the problem was that he didn’t do much that was right either. The difference between the two generals is one of training, philosophy, and approach: McKiernan’s experience is old school conventional warfare, MChrystal is modern-day counterinsurgency.
In other words, Obama and Gates are emphasizing surge-like tactics/strategy in Afghanistan.
I’m all for that. I supported the Petraeus approach in Iraq, and I support it in Afghanistan. I consider it ironic that Obama has made this decision, but at least it shows that he understands the value of the tactics and strategy of the program he so deplored when that attitude suited his political purposes.
I also doubt very much, now that Obama is president, that the press will mount the sort of negative propaganda effort it pushed against similar policies when Bush was advocating them. But, if things don’t go well in Afghanistan now (and I certainly hope they do go well), at what point will Obama stop blaming his predecessor?
My answer: never. Although I suppose the more important question would be at what point the electorate would stop blaming his predecessor.
The same issue is relevant to the economy. In fact, Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times raises it today:
Anticipating D-Day, Peter Orszag, the president’s budget director, said Monday that the scarier than expected economic news—the deficit out of control, tax receipts down and costs of bailouts and “stimulus” plans up—is all the fault of George W. Bush: “It’s an economic crisis President Obama inherited.”
But Mr. Obama has already been president for more than a hundred days, and passing the hundred-day mark, irrelevant milestone as it may be, was cited as dead-solid proof that the president is the messiah he told everyone he was. Reality, however, has begun to cast a shadow over the White House, still as faint as the bright golden haze on the meadow but visible enough. “Blaming George” still makes a tingle run up the legs of all the hymn-singing true believers, but outside the embrace of the cult, that tingle is beginning to sting instead. This is Mr. Obama’s government now.
Pruden believes that slowly but surely the members of Congress and the populace will start blaming Obama for whatever failures ensue under his administration. I wonder, though. I wondered on the day of Obama’s inauguration, and I’m still wondering, nearly four months and many setbacks later, with Obama’s popularity remaining fairly high. Will the man ever be blamed for anything he says and does?
O’s supporters will eventually come to hold him accountable–about one-one hundredth as much as they did Bush.
They have to justify their initial support.
Will the man ever be blamed for anything he says and does?
Yes.
“The American people can always spot a counterfeit. Sometimes it takes them a while, but in the end they can always spot one.”
— Harry Truman, speaking to Merle Miller
Personally, I wouldn’t mind so much about President Obama bashing his predecessor for the same policies he is now adopting — walking the walk is more important than talking the talk, after all — if I could be confident that he’d see it through.
I care about what he does. If he takes credit for Bush’s successes and blames Bush for his own failures, that’s okay; the history books will correct the record. (As Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying, it’s as though he thinks we don’t know how to use Google, or something.)
I think Voltaire once wrote that if Satan should ever replace God, he would find it necessary to assume the attributes of Divinity. We’re seeing something similar at work here. Obama criticized the President mercilessly for the surge and for Guantanamo, among other things; then Obama became President himself, saw the world from a new perspective, and discovered that his predecessor got a lot more right than he’d been given credit for.
I still think that President Obama is a narcissist with very little sense of shame or accountability; nor does he understand, in the infamous formulation of Donald Rumsfeld, that he doesn’t know how much he doesn’t know. I’m very much afraid of his plans for the American economy — and, by extension, the world economy.
But he’s getting one or two things right, and he’s doing them against his campaign promises. Good for him.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
at what point will Obama stop blaming his predecessor? My answer: never. Although I suppose the more important question would be at what point the electorate would stop blamin
At some point either Obama or his glossy-eyed legions will have an epiphany — and then we’ll say well what the heck took you so long??!! Seriously, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are the same war … Obama obviously still hasn’t made this connect — not publicly at least.
I have to disagree that McKiernan did anything wrong. Frankly, I doubt he or anyone else can do much except wait for Taliban to enter Afgani soil and hit them (which is what is happening). The source of trouble lies on the Pakistani border. Because we have been trying to keep that country in our corner, we won’t attack into it (something Obama didn’t seem to realize when he proposed human attacks onto their turf). Granted, the Pakistani government has been playing kissing-cousins with the Taliban in a particularly stupid manner, destabilizing themselves for nothing. But short of making huge strikes into Pakistan, and possibly pissing off a hundred-million-man nation with nuclear weapons, we don’t have much leverage.
His high popularity numbers will never change as long as the media has a love fest with the white house and the gifted one.
If things get bad enough the MSM will simply reword their polls. Like an upbeat report on how few Americans actually want him waterboarded.
I disagree with your idea that Obama/Gates will emphasize surge like tactics.
I don’t believe now that Gen. McChrytstal is in charge that Gates and Petraeus’s philosophy will be similar to Iraq’s surge tactics. That will not work in Afghanistan.
This is not what McChrystal’s expertise is all about. In fact I don’t believe we will see a substantial increase in troops over the next few years of anymore than a maximum of up to maybe 70,000 U.S soldiers plus what ever is left of the now 30,000 NATO support troops already there, but who are slowly being withdrawn and replaced by the U.S. forces.
American base areas such as Ft. Bragg N.C., Ft Cambell KY, and Ft. Lewis, WA. are experiencing an increase in unit size of their present Special Forces detachments. This can only mean pre-training for those units whose world AO (Area of Operation) will be redefined to include South Western Asia.
What we will not see is of more importance.
McChrystal’s forte’ is intelligence network infrastructure, and small extremely mobile spec op teams, that will be utilized for an increase of undeclared disruption of enemy supply lines in Pakistan and more remote areas of Afghanistan.
Lazer guidance teams for more drone attacks on surgically specific targets. Mercenary teams recruited from the Poppy fields of Southern Afghanistan will be utilized as PRU’s, (Provincial Recon Units) and PA’s (Provincial Assassination) teams for the elimination of local collaborators with the Taliban and Al Queda.
What Obama seeks and Gates condon’s is a way out of Iraq and Afghanistan, McCyrstal’s tactics is that way out .
While increasing pressure on Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the American withdrawal of Iraq the chance of an all out reverse surge happening as we leave Iraq is lessened .
At the same time insurgency tactics of disruption of supply lines and training bases in Pakistan reduces the amount of fresh bodies equipped to reinforce the existing Taliban in Afghanistan.
The idea is to create a psychological victory in an untenable situation doomed to failure. At a predesignated point of partial success Obama will declare victory over Al Queda, pressure Karzai into sharing rule with the Taliban, (after declaring his present government corrupt), and will withdraw American forces abandoning the Afghan people.
This should come into fruition at about the same time or shortly thereafter we declare complete withdrawal from Iraq.
Obama and Gates know that if they do not get out soon the United States will become bogged down not in the two front wars of Iraq and Afghanistan but a three front war to include Pakistan.
All of this exit strategy depends on reversing the momentum that both the Taliban and Al Queda have gained in Afghanistan while holding what we have gained in Iraq.
One of the keys to success is convincing the Taliban that we will pressure Karzai into sharing his power and allow them to continue their exportation of Opium provided that they do not share their revenues with Al Queda.
Or intent is increase tribal disagreement between Taliban and Al Queda forces and leave them to squabble over government control in Afghanistan while leaving Karzai to hold the bag.
I forgot to add . The damage done by abandoning Afghanistan will be felt world wide and the confidence of America’s allies will plunge to an all time low. Especially in country’s like Israel and other former eastern block struggling nations who look for American support on their entrance into NATO.
Here is an example of the kinds of things your tax dollars fund, and when there are more tax dollars available–and there surely will be under our Maximum Leader Obama–he is the great Red Sun in our hearts– they will fund more and more studies, almost inevitably many like this one, which is trying to develop a program to enable prostitutes in China to “drink more responsibly” (see http://tinyurl.com/p5l3xq). P.S. I love the terminology, as when “pimps” are termed “gatekeepers.”
Prior examples of similarly vital studies have included such sterling studies as those designed to figure out why prison inmates wanted to escape, and why participants in competitive sports like tennis or golf got mad if they lost.
“Pruden believes that slowly but surely the members of Congress and the populace will start blaming Obama for whatever failures ensue under his administration.”
Personally I doubt it as long as the MSM remain the publicity arm of the democrats. Several commenters above nailed this one.
“…at what point will Obama stop blaming his predecessor? Again, I have to agree with some of the above commenters, never. His narcissistic personality would not accept that. Neither would those who comprise his cult like followers, especially those in the MSM who relentlessly shilled for him. There would be heads exploding all over America.
“I still think that President Obama is a narcissist with very little sense of shame or accountability.. Daniel, well put, but I think I’d also add coward. He’s afraid to get out in front and lead, if it’s unpopular and when the complaints come rolling in, he does not hesitate to throw those around him under the bus.
Gary, a very interesting scenario. However, I must say where my thinking differs from yours is that I think we must stay in Afghanistan precisely because of Pakistan’s imminent implosion and the possibility of the taliban or Al Queda obtaining nukes. Like it or not, we will see what unfolds in the not too distant future.
Well, as I’ve argued before, Neo, the fact that the surge worked is hardly vindication of the entire Bush approach. Bush didn’t change tactics until the devastating loss of the 2006 election, which eventually resulted in the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates and Casey with Petraeus. Although Obama did criticize the surge he nevertheless recognized Petraeus’ superior capabilities and certainly his retention of Gates speaks volumes about his level of respect for his intelligence and competence. So, yes, the surge was a good idea which unfortunately many Democrats, including Obama, reflexively criticized, but Obama is pragmatic and smart enough to change his approach and recognize talent and skill when he sees it. Just as I argued he would before the election.
but Obama is pragmatic and smart enough to change his approach and recognize talent and skill when he sees it.
Obama’s plans and promises are brilliant and intelligent and he is smart and pragmatic when he breaks his promises and abandons his plans!
Mitsu,
Obama recognized the superior abilities of Petraeus? Do you mean when he didn’t bother talking with him during the hearings in 2007? Or maybe you mean when he did nothing to counter the General Betray Us ads?
“Unfortunately many Democrats, including Obama, reflexively criticized…” The man Obama continues to bash at every chance stood up to those lazy, uninformed reflexes. Obama has done nothing but encourage a bunch of ignoramuses to believe he knows what he is doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day we learn that quite a few of Obama’s hires put a little pressure on him and that quite a few other people might have hinted at retiring unless Obama changed his tune. For two years, Obama spouted off without knowing what he was talking about. He said things that hurt our effort. If he his slowly learning a few things , good for us. I still can’t help feeling that he has a very lucrative student grant to take remedial courses in governing, economics, and foreign affairs.
Pingback:neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Afghan change: when will Obama own it … « Obamabidenforchange.com
The larger problem in all this is the Nuclear Pakistan. We cannot continue to fight in the “rockpile” of Afghanistan and ignore the threat of a Taliban army 60 miles from the Paki capitol. Once nukes are in the hands of the Taliban, the Indians will strike with nuclear weapons. Israel, seeing no down side will strike Iran in the same manner – better to nuke than be nuked. At what point do the Russians and Chinese step in and where are we and Western Europe in all this?
Mitsu Says:
“Well, as I’ve argued before, Neo, the fact that the surge worked is hardly vindication of the entire Bush approach. Bush didn’t change tactics until the devastating loss of the 2006 election”
On the other hand, things in Iraq were not going sideways until after Feb 06. Before then things had been moving along… except in the media’s representations… Huge strategy shifts had not really been required…
Shorter Mitsu: even when Bush ultimately is proven right, he was wrong.
And even when Obama was ultimately proven wrong, he was right.
Here’s the bottom line: by the end of the year Obama will own everything that happens. Laying problems off on Bush won’t cut it in six months. Sooner or later the Messiah has to be running his own tab.
His glassy-eyed acolytes will defend Him no matter what he does, but grownups won’t buy His attempts to shuck and jive His way out of responsibility.
He’s dropped lots of rakes out there to step on, including the big one: positioning himself as soft on terrorism (“Hey, some of my best friends are terrorists!” Of course, in His case, that’s literally true.) Terrorist attack #1 on his watch, and He will be in trouble. Big trouble.
Heh, funny you should post about this.
I was talking to an Obama-maniac friend today, she still is in the worship stage.
The rose covered glasses won’t be coming off anytime soon. Any future problems no matter what they are will still be laid at the feet of Bush. Count on it.
The amazing thing to me is that not only Obama’s acolytes but Obama himself appear not to have figured out how he’s giving hostages to Fortune.
A more intelligent man would’ve decried “torture” – thereby insulating himself from the Left – and then talked tough on terrorism – thereby vaccinating himself against charges of being soft – before appointing a commission to make recommendations…at some unspecified time in the future.
With Chrysler, a more intelligent man would’ve scolded management andlabor, then forced through labor reforms, then given the UAW its stake, and privately encouraged lenders to cut a deal. If the UAW wouldn’t play ball, he’d have said that Bush left the whole matter too late, and the patient was terminal, and pulled the plug on it. Obama, instead, has taken ownership of the problem and the cash sink it represents, but without meaningful reform. He will therefore either have to keep shoveling taxpayers’ cash onto the bonfire, or personally pull the plug on Chrysler – i.e., infuriate taxpayers as a whole, or UAW members in particular. Stupid.
I noticed tonight watching the CBS evening news that a story about how Medicare was not going to pay for virtual colonoscopy began with the word “Medicare” rather than “The Obama administration.” My recollection is that in the past 8 years, a negative story almost always began with the phrase “The Bush administration.” No bias there, right?
Dan, it’s very much like the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, which was performed by..”the US Government.”
Who was President then, and signed the relevant Executive Order? Must think…must think…
During the campaign Obama emphasized, “bin laden not dead or caught.” When he can declare bin laden dead or have him in chains, then he will declare victory and bug out. Then, once we are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, things left to themselves will go from bad to worse, again, and THAT he will own.
Occam’s Beard at 9:20 PM,
Very intelligent assessment.
Jamie Irons
Obama will be still be blaming Bush 4 years from now when he’s running for reelection.
Dan:
I don’t understand the benefit of virtual colonoscopy. With a real colonoscopy, if they find polyps they can remove them during the procedure. If they find polyps during a virtual colonoscopy, then they have to go in for real to remove them.
In either case, the worst part is the fasting and preparation beforehand. Why would you want to do it twice?
The amazing thing to me is that not only Obama’s acolytes but Obama himself appear not to have figured out how he’s giving hostages to Fortune.
Dead on. I can’t put it any better.
>even when Bush is right, he’s wrong
Again you mischaracterize my view as some sort of reflexive Bush-bashing. I’m one of the few liberals I know who actually didn’t excoriate the surge when it was proposed and who thought Petraeus was a brilliant general as soon as I started to read about him. I give credit where it is due. My support for Obama is hardly support for everything he has done or will do; nor do I criticize Bush for everything he has done. If there’s any reflexive bashing going on here, it’s in the comments to Neo’s posts, where most of you seem to find anything and everything Obama does to be somehow suspect merely because it is Obama doing it.
My judgement is, and remains, that Bush’s judgement on most things was worse, overall, than Obama’s. This is not to say he was wrong about everything, just that he was a poor manager and had poor judgement overall. I do credit him for finally appointing competent people to the Defense Department after the 2006 elections. I also think that he did a good job in the early phases of the Afghan war, but he didn’t follow through. I voted for Obama and still support him because, despite some mistakes, overall I trust his intelligence and judgement far more than Bush’s.
Unlike most people I do not judge actions merely on the basis of whether the person is liberal or conservative, or Republican or Democrat — I judge them on their own merits as best as I can determine them for myself. Yes, I tend to agree with liberals more than conservatives, but that’s just because in our present political culture I believe liberals tend to be more balanced in their approach than conservatives, who seem to be far more ideological and inflexible in their thinking.
So does Bush get some credit for making some better decisions after 2006? Sure. Even the worst leaders aren’t going to make uniformly bad decisions in every case.
“”I believe liberals tend to be more balanced in their approach than conservatives, who seem to be far more ideological and inflexible in their thinking.
Mitsu””
Yes. Flexible. As in whatever it takes to maintain their inflexible ideology is best not viewed as an ideology at all. Why…its just wonderful and compassionate ideas that won’t tolerate intolerance.
Mitsu, thank you for your attempts at being even-handed. I will take your word for it that you were equally evenhanded from 2006-2008. I think you will be disappointed in the end by Obama’s intelligence and judgement. He is essentially shallow in both intellect and emotion.
As to when Obama will be called to account by the general public, I think that will be gradual. There will be those, perhaps a considerable number, who will never relent from their opinion “Four legs good, two legs bad.” Even in the late 80’s, there were many who believed that communism was just about to work. Two generations ago, Stalin and Hitler both had true believers up until the last days, and even after. (That is not an Obama=Stalin comment, BTW, but simply an example that even the extreme failure of charismatic figures is opaque to the true believers).
But there will be gradual defections throughout his presidency. The scales will drop from the eyes. The hard left is already deeply suspicious of his military policy, the civil libertarians alarmed at his intrusiveness, the good-government types narrowing their eyes at his bullying and quick resort to corruption. The average citizen is more aware that he does not say what he means.
None of this will create mass defections anytime soon. Most of us are fully capable of supporting someone “on balance” even when some items distress us. But there are people in the above-listed groups who are true believers in their individual causes (for good reasons and bad), not in Obama per se. Those folks will eventually develop considerable immunity to his promises. His popularity numbers are solid, but not particularly high.
The Democratic methods of cheating elections – gerrymandering, intimidation, jockeying the census, funding ACORN, will offset and disguise the first defections. But those tools are not limitless.
Mitsu, sorry I missed this the first time: “”I believe liberals tend to be more balanced in their approach than conservatives, who seem to be far more ideological and inflexible in their thinking.” Forgive me for going on at length about this. It is key.
My favorite uncle, a NoCal liberal who I have been arguing politics for years, believes this as well. He has, in fact, believed it inflexibly since the 1950’s despite any evidence to the contrary. It is the anchor of progressivism, this belief that they are flexible in thought and willing to consider alternatives, while conservatives bull forward in ideology.
While it is not entirely untrue, it is only superficially true. Conservatives in general (not only the media varieties) have a declarative, even confrontational style. Liberals tend more to the appearance of discussing ideas, willingly entertaining odd thoughts and ironies in conversation. This is an essentially social, not intellectual, difference. It is stylistic, not substantive. Beneath this surface, progressives are much more inflexible. They use archness and condescension as modes of social enforcement – elegant and gentle-seeming verbal nuances.
If you doubt this, take a public, strongly-worded conservative opinion on anything among your liberal friends and refuse to back down on it (I recommend for this experiment something you actually assent to). You will be surprised at how quickly you will be required to show your bona fides by bashing conservatives in more extreme and insulting terms than you are comfortable with, or at least passively assenting to others doing so. You will immediately lose friends.
This social belief is profoundly self-deceptive, and thus progressivism has an untruth, an unwillingness to see itself, at its core. There is a stunning opacity to self-knowledge on this point. It is my belief that if this one idea were discredited, all the other bricks of progressivism would fall. Slowly at first, and not uniformly, because there is much to legitimately defend in liberal ideas (at least initially), and much to criticise about conservatives in American politics. But absent this self belief, the center will not hold.
Alternatively, there is a similar progressive belief about their own essential goodness and generosity of spirit which one might choose to question instead. The end result is the same.
AVI,
Another example of liberal inflexibility is the inability to distinguish between goals and policies. If , for example, the goal is better education for inner city kids, how can libs defend programs that have not worked and demonize those who want to try another approach to the same goal? I would define flexibilty as being able to recognize a mistake and trying to correct it. Digging in is not flexibility.
Well, of course you’re right that if you confront a typical liberal with a hard-line right wing position they’ll likely not engage with you in a very productive manner. I’m one of the few liberals I know who likes to discuss things with conservatives. However, I can and do have plenty of productive conservations with my liberal friends in which I defend policies enacted by Republicans — everything from the Afghan War to the first Gulf War to Petraeus, etc., I’ve had perfectly cordial conversations with even far-left friends and they don’t hate me afterwards. If I were to start talking about how gay marriage is an attack on traditional family values I suspect I would not be able to converse cordially with many liberals, but I believe that is because that position is just silly and impossible to defend coherently without resorting to reference to religious dogma, which I don’t feel ought to be the basis for political decisions meant to apply to all citizens, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof. (Here’s a great take on that subject which I think summarizes my thoughts on this and the thoughts of most liberals: http://www.thedailytube.com/video/7738/the-daily-show-gay-marriage-destroyed-massachusetts ).
As for goals vs. policies you’re right that liberals have sometimes defended policies which are not objectively effective. But thinking can and does change. Obama happens to be a pragmatist, in my view, evidence-based in his decisions and I think studies that show the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a given policy would carry some weight with him. This is not to say every policy Obama ever advocated turned out to be successful, simply that I believe he is the sort of liberal who is willing to change his views when new evidence comes to the fore.
conservations -> conversations
Some great posts here, and thanks for the kind comments regarding mine.
AVI’s post at 8:46 raises a question on which neo and others can perhaps shed some light: namely, how do you think Obama will react to defections?
As a layman indulging in some parlor psychoanalysis, I perceive Obama as having a burning need for acceptance and approval. He’s consistently avoided confrontation and controversy throughout what passes for his career (e.g., the “present” votes), and seems to crave adulation (e.g., the risible Potemkin-style styrofoam columns nonsense).
He further strikes me as having a rather brittle personality. So what happens when he starts getting roughed up? (And “roughed up” doesn’t mean the odd correspondent questioning whether He is truly perfect, but rather some nasty edged questioning of his judgment, character, morals, and goals. A few milliBush of vitriol will do.)
Does he crack, and turn up at public events with a parrot on his shoulder? Does he lash out? Does he feel sorry for himself? Does he try to mobilize his acolytes against the critic? Does he use the government to “get” the critic, a la Nixon? Or does he man up, a la Bush?
His (admittedly limited) track record so far (with Limbaugh) suggests lashing out as a good bet. But it’s early days. Suppose the odd criticism turns into a torrent, as for examply might happen after a successful terrorist attack (especially involving someone he released from Gitmo). How do you think he’ll react?
Slowly but surely people are starting to realize that Obama is not THE ONE they thought he was. I have a very good friend whose dad is a life long Democrat and staunch Obama supporter. He no longer is. He cannot believe what THE ONE is doing to this country and is disgusted. I have another friend who works in a dental office. With the exception of my friend, all the employees were for Obama. Now most of them are coming around. A number of them have come up to my friend, pulled her aside, and quietly stated, “OMG, now I see what you were trying to tell us.” Believe me. This is just the beginning. This is not the HOPE AND CHANGE that many of Obama’s supporter wanted.
Excellant point about there being little moral outrage over all the deaths in afghan – missle kills civilians, it maybe gets a small blurb, no outrage because it is not Bush, little bits here and there about how evil and bad the Taliban is, with considerable absence of such in Iraq when Bush was the boss.
New Commander in the Afghan theatre – well, going up the chain of command brings with it more political obligations than being a large unit commander – time will tell how well he does.
The Drone strikes in Pakistan remind me of Rumsfeld’s shock and awe statements early on in the Iraq war. Some in the COIN camp say these drone strikes will fuel more volunteers in the frontier zone of Pakistan, more fighters to engage the Pakistan army and NATO across the border.
The Taliban has poppies, time and geography on their side, 3 powerful forces……..
Mitsu – thank you.
“…if you confront a typical liberal with a hard-line right wing position they’ll likely not engage with you in a very productive manner.”
“If I were to start talking about how gay marriage is an attack on traditional family values I suspect I would not be able to converse cordially with many liberals, but I believe that is because that position is just silly and impossible to defend coherently without resorting to reference to religious dogma, which I don’t feel ought to be the basis for political decisions meant to apply to all citizens, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof.” (Italics mine.) Arch. Condescending. Followed by a link to The Daily Show, of all things. You still haven’t run the experiment I asked. As a previous far-leftie of the academic sort, I am aware of how to discuss difficult issues with bonhomie, and yes, there are those who will attend. Not what I am talking about at all.
I believe he is the sort of liberal who is willing to change his views when new evidence comes to the fore.
Or maybe his views are spurious and ill thought out and don’t survive even a whiff of reality.
AVI, excellent diagnosis. I can tell you have been there, too.
>Arch. Condescending.
There are many subjects about which I believe conservatives have a reasonable intellectual position to stake out, one which must be dealt with — for example, free markets, the need for a strong defense, the need for limits on government regulation, being tough on crime, the importance of personal responsibility, etc. On some subjects, however, I believe conservatism in the past and now is simply wrong, resisting change purely because it is change, reacting against something that seems uncomfortable mostly out of an unreasonable bias. Slavery, segregation, miscegenation laws, denying women the vote, etc. — all examples of formerly conservative positions which now most people, both on the left and right, acknowledge were mistakes. Paranoia about gay marriage, I believe, falls into this category. This is something which I believe is a fundamental civil rights matter, and I have yet to see anything approaching a coherent reason why a class of citizens ought to be denied, as a matter of state policy, the benefits and protections of marriage, simply because they happen to be attracted to the same sex.
The typical arguments raised are that it is an attack on “traditional” marriage — a view which is incoherent on its face. In what way does gay marriage threaten heterosexual marriage? Would it lead to large numbers of people suddenly deciding to become homosexual? Clearly not. It seems to me that opposition to gay marriage stems primarily from the fact that many people find homosexuality itself distasteful, which obviously makes sense as most people happen to be heterosexual and have a certain innate reaction against same-sex pairings — for themselves. I share that sort of visceral reaction but I rationally know that I shouldn’t project that onto the freedoms of other people.
So yes, there are some topics about which liberals will likely not engage in a productive manner. This doesn’t mean, however, that liberals are as inflexible as the typical far-right conservative. I believe most topics about which conservatives feel strongly are fair game for an academic debate in liberal circles, at least that has certainly been my experience.
You may read the fully essay I wrote yesterday at my own site if you wish. In simplest terms, every known society throughout time and space has sanctioned marriage only between persons of different sex. Even societies that allowed homosexuality did not have SSM. Polygamous societies do not have subsequent wives marrying the original couple or each other, but only the husband.
They may be wrong in this. All of humanity to date may be mistaken about the matter. But to dismiss such a universal human practice as “just silly” is breathtaking arrogance. That you could make such a claim suggests an unwillingness to grapple with the issue. As for traditionalist marriage, I tackled that issue as well.
Mitsu>
There are reasonable arguments that do not involve invoking the ‘icky’ clause. AVI touched on it in his blog post, but spent most of the time a bit more abstract.
The idea is that marriage is -not- a right. You are granted license by a judge or priest (acting on the behalf of society as a whole) to get married. That’s why they ask of there are any objections, and post marriage notices in the paper.
(my long original post deleted from here, we’re off the original topic anyway)
In short, society is under no obligation to support a union they disagree with. Let same-sex couples make all the contracts between each other they desire; just don’t a society who disagrees to financially support it. If you want to make a change, do so through a vote by society, not through court order. Trying to force a person’s views via a gavel is a good way to get constitutional amendments passed preventing that sort of nonsense.
I’m bisexual, so I don’t find SSM or homosexuality ‘distasteful’. However, I’m also a conservative, and I would never ask someone who disagrees with me to open their wallet for me. I’ll support my choices myself, thanks.
As sometimes occurs, when I posted my own thoughts at my blog, someone supplied a link in which someone makes my own point better than I did. Jane Galt at Asymmetrical Information has a marvelous essay on the subject – with a GK Chesterton quote to boot.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html