At times like this, I used to jump up and recommend the Libertarian Party, but the National committee has joined ranks with the pacifict idiotarian moonbat ranks. "Sure, there are millions of people in Iraq living in REAL tyranny, and as a bonus we would be a safer nation after removing an unelected despot who violates every natural law, but... um... war is bad, m'kay? Uh, we don't want to fight a war, m'kay?"

We need an Anti-Idiotarian Party that sits in the middle. I just can't think of a non-negative name for it.

Posted by: Phelps at August 6, 2003 11:10 PM

Well, I'm a neoconservative, or as one writer put it a "granola conservative." Once upon a time, they called people like me "Reagan Democrats." I have certainly never been comfortable with the country club model of conservatism.

I'm a big fan of New Urbanism as a way to begin restoring livability and community, which matter to me just as good design's aesthetics and efficiency matter.

I'm an environmentalist, but deeply cynical about Greenpeace and many so-called environmentalist NGOs. I'm also becoming cautious about the associated science claims, which is not the same thing as saying environmentalism is a con game because the core concepts are correct. Closing our eyes won't make the real environmental problems we do have go away.

I see what universal health care looks like up here, and I'm not sure you want it. Still, HMOs et. al. seem to come with their own gaps and problems. I don't know what the answer is there, and remain open to ideas.

I think taxes should favor the poor and the middle class before the wealthy, not out of so-called "social justice" considerations (which I think are a crock) but because there's a moral and societal value to working hard and getting ahead - and marginal tax differences matter much more to the poor and middle class in encouraging that.

Overall, I lean libertarian in my right-wing tendencies, but respect the faith and the arguments of my fellow conservatives about the importance of morality. It's a valuable contribution to the public debate - though they must also recognize that the same factors which so often make state action counterproductive apply to legislated morality too. I'm uncomfortable with abortion as a casual choice and I don't want it banned, but would support 3rd-trimester restrictions as reasonable.

The view is not altogether different from the other side of the fence. At least, not the sides of the fence right across from you. Start walking toward toward the fields out back, mind, and I'm not making any promises....

Posted by: Joe Katzman at August 6, 2003 11:25 PM

Phelps, that right there is probably why people take the time to point out that they are socially libertarian, rather than just leaving it at libertarian.

Michael, if Republicans keep pushing this new amendment crap, I might be joining you right there in the middle.

Posted by: Courtney at August 6, 2003 11:28 PM

Oops, I pushed send at the same time as you, Joe.

I just want to point out, in case it seemed that way, that my response to Michael about the marriage amendment was not in response to your comments about conservatives and morality.

In fact, I generally agree with you about that.

Posted by: Courtney at August 6, 2003 11:35 PM

Shall we revive the Bull Moose Party?

I realize that the "progressive" label has been tainted.

But who could reject good ol' Teddy's common sense?

Posted by: sblafren at August 6, 2003 11:46 PM

Instead of whining about the 45% or so of the country that doesn't agree with you, or making meaningless threats about forming some "third way" movement, why don't you and your like-minded allies join the G.O.P. and attempt to influence that party from within? On issues like the environment and abortion, you could help marginalize the Robertson crowd, and bring the Republicans into the 21st Century on social issues. The Democratic Party, which has spent the better part of the last thirty years torn between me-tooism and McGovernism, can give the rest of the country a platform to support, one based on honesty and fair-dealing in foreign policy, and equity and social justice in economic policy, without worrying about how it will play in the South. And yes, the Democratic Party will probably lose a good deal of the time; if there's one thing history teaches us, it's that conservativism usually prevails at the ballot box. But as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton teach us, more tends to happen on those few occasions when liberals come out on top.

Posted by: Steve Smith at August 7, 2003 12:07 AM

Steve,

I would have less influence in the GOP than I have with the Democrats. I really only agree with them about one thing, and I do so from the old left (ie, Dissent Magazine) and neo-liberal (ie, New Republic magazine) points of view rather than from the neoconservative point of view.

I am an independent thinker, and I hail from the left-liberal tradition. The only question at this point is which I want to emphasize more; my liberal self or my independent self.

I don't want to leave the Democrats, and I want even less to join the Republicans. I will not be in the same political party as Ann Coulter and Trent Lott. But there's no shame or dishonor in being an independent centrist, and so there's no reason for me to resist it. I will end up wherever I most belong. And if I belong nowhere in particular, then that's where I'll go. Maybe that's where most Americans are already and you and I are just late to the party.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 7, 2003 12:32 AM

Michael,

If you feel you gave more influence with the Dems, so be it. God knows they need folks like you to help pull them out of the ditch.

As a Republican, I'm dismayed by the self immolation of the Democtrats. Huh? Well, I think a conservative outlook puts faith in the competition of institutions such as parties, as none have a claim on virtue absent scrutiny and hard debate.

And as to Lott et al - remember many of your friends across the aisle have much more in common with you than with them, and that no party has a monopoly on rogues, either - that particular discussion of motes and beams is so boring, lets not go there.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 01:24 AM

It really does feel as if I am reading the live version of some old neoconservative's autobiography, though ... and I mean that in a nice way.

Posted by: Gideon Strauss at August 7, 2003 03:47 AM

We are at the beginning of big historical processes. The trick in the future will be to let go of old beliefs (always hard). The two party system itself is one of them.

Posted by: Roger L. Simon at August 7, 2003 04:41 AM

To me, there is no such 'middle'...

People now want to try to form a new Democratic image under a newer, flashier title. Period.

You can call yourself centrist, independent, neo, social, whatever, but it's always gonna boil down to Democratic or Republican.

I suggest standing for one of our 2 parties, then taking Steve's advice (which I've also posted on other forums) and stick with whichever party fits your views and try to reform from within.

I am not a proponent of giving up. I'm a conservative - forget all those meaningless prefixes & suffixes - and I normally vote Republican.

Sure there are things I disagree with on my side, but my basic views are generally accepted and pushed for over here, so I'm gonna stay. I disagree most of the time with liberals, lefties, and Democrats. Not all the time, most of the time. But I'm not just going to vote for a Democrat because I'm angry with what the Republicans are doing. I'm going to vote for the person who handles the things I feel are important at this particular time in our world.

Posted by: Gaijin at August 7, 2003 04:42 AM

I think Gaijin is right, you just have to work within the party that you are most generally comfortable with but vote based on the most important issues at that moment.

I think I've had a pretty strange political journey and I too have recently felt like someone without a party. I started really conservative (my grandparents were John Birchers) and have an instinctual distrust of the Democrats from having grown up in Chicago during Daly and then living in West Virginia where another Democratic machine made voting a joke. Once voting age I voted for Ford and then Reagan twice. I was pissed when Reagan announced Bush as his running mate for VP so I pretty much stopped voting Republican in '88 I've mostly been voting Libertarian since, but as with Phelps, I'm not going to give them a second thought.

So, I'm going to try and take my own advice. I'll
support any candidate who is socially libertarian, a fiscal conservative, and Jacksonian in foreign affairs :)

Now to be silly, if we do get a great center party how about naming it the "Common Sense" party! Oh wait, I know. Since we'll presumably be mostly made of center swing voters, we can call it the "Swinger Party!" Haha.

Posted by: Van Gale at August 7, 2003 05:11 AM

One should never over-generalize, but P.C. is primarily a baby boomer thing.

There are generational dynamics at work in our politics, but one should never over-generalize them. The younger GOP-leaners tend to be more socially libertarian.

Generations aside, what we all have to do is pick which party gets on our nerves less. A lot of the GOP-leaners find the same things about the GOP distasteful that you do, but choose to overlook that in favor of the things they like, hoping the latter will be predominant. The exact same goes for the Democrats.

The big question is, to what extent has the GOP actually captured the "center", and to what degree is that wishful thinking by GOP-ers?

Posted by: Mike Smith at August 7, 2003 05:19 AM

With apologies for the length of this comment, I hope it's interesting to everyone.

Gaijin - I disagree. I find political parties to be at best a necessary evil. A "centrist party" is an impossibility, because it is a contradiction in terms. A party requires an ideology to survive, but a successful centrist eschews all ideologies.

Parties are built on mistrust and prejudice but centrists must live in trust and general acceptance. Centrists of course have their moments of ideology, mistrust, and prejudice (who among us is perfect?) but there are moderate levels, and there are extremes.

What I think one must do is vote for the party which most closely follows your ideals at the time. What one can do is enumerate their beliefs, and prioritize them, then judge the two parties accordingly. One might vote for candidates from different parties in the same election, but sometimes it's better to let one party win for a little while, then switch sides.

Michael - You wrote quite a heart-felt and interesting post today. Let me repeat something I mentioned on Roger Simon's blog a little while ago, which might help explain the Democrats' implosion.

People (basically) seek three things from their government: personal security, economic welfare, and social comfort. (One could also argue people seek standards for transportation, communication, and commerce, but let's keep it simple for now.) The Democrats may understand this rule perfectly well, but they don't understand there's actually a subtle modifier.

Fully stated, the rule is actually this: People seek three things from the government: personal security, economic welfare, and social comfort ... IN THAT ORDER.

After the USSR collapsed, people believed "personal security" was established. National security seemed settled. We felt it was time to forget #1 and focus on #2. That's why Clinton's (patronizing and insulting) campaign cry was "It's the economy, stupid."

Democrats all seem to spend their time on #2 and #3, with a bit too much emphasis on #3. Of course, Republicans spend their time on social issues as well, but at least they follow the priority, starting with national security, then the economy, then social issues last. Perhaps this is a new phenomenon, now that "the Pats" have been marginalized (I don't think so, as I think it's arguable Reagan followed the same pattern), but either way the Dems are out of touch today.

Ultimately, the Democrats' true problem is, they have no solution for #1 whatsoever. Michael, you said this perfectly in your original post.

After JFK, the Democrats' ability to assemble a foreign policy collapsed. We all made fun of GW Bush and his lack of worldy knowledge in 2000 (remember the famous "General Somebody" interview in Boston?) but I'd bet LBJ hardly knew where Vietnam was on the map himself.

Then came President Carter and his own peculiar and stomach-churning form of extreme appeasement that would have made poor Mr Orwell's blood boil were he alive to see it. It all failed. My God, did it. We're still picking up the pieces in Iran and Afghanistan.

So anyway, long story short, the Democrats don't understand #1 at all, and they have not done since 1963. Today, with our national security threatened so dangerously, they have no answer at all.

Bush's campaign message should be: "It's the war, buddy."

Posted by: Hovig John Heghinian at August 7, 2003 06:38 AM

I'll go out on a limb and assume that everyone of good sense (and here I'm excluding the party machine devotees like Blumenthal and his counterparts in the GOP) holds his or her nose in the voting booth sometimes. Big tents make for contradictory and often loathsome political positions.

Those of us who are disillusioned with both parties can't just count on "the system" to sprout a new appendage to accomodate us. Instead, we need to find candidates who will campaign because they actually WANT to hold office and exercise power (not because they want to be spoilers, or push the major parties one way or the other). These potential candidates are usually to be found somewhere in or around the existing party structures.

So find a major-party candidate you like, and write position papers and op-ed pieces explaining how to sell your views to the voters. Help your candidate successfully stiff-arm the special interests and the extremists by explaining exactly why your common-sense approach can be a political winner with the rest of the population.

Posted by: Matt Frost at August 7, 2003 06:40 AM

What do you think of the Social Democrats, USA?

The New Social Democrats

Posted by: Lee at August 7, 2003 06:47 AM

Or, you could support these guys, and stay within the party with those working a progressive agenda at home and a hawkish, pro-democracy agenda abroad.

Democrats for National Security

Posted by: Lee at August 7, 2003 07:54 AM

Or, you could support these guys, and stay within the party with those working a progressive agenda at home and a hawkish, pro-democracy agenda abroad.

Democrats for National Security

An interesting comment, considering that it was a email from these guys that caused Katzman to come up with the phrase 'Mogadishu Democrats' in the first place. Not clicking through, are we? :)

Posted by: Moe Lane at August 7, 2003 07:58 AM

It worries me when I see things like this. When people like you leave the Democratic party, it is not a good day for the country.

I have voted Republican in every election for the last fifteen years. I will continue to vote Republican. I read Ann Coulter. I think Trent Lott is ok most of the time. In addition to that, I was raised in the church and while I do not practice religion today, I still let its views on morality sway a majority of my political opinion - and I do so intentionally.

The difference is that I understand that for this country to work, there has to be a two party system in place. As people like you abandon the Democratic party, the Democratic party descends dangerously closer and closer to the brink of irrelevance. While I may scream and yell in almost every form available about the obviously superior approach of the Republicans, I understand that without the Democrats balancing effect the country would spin out of control.

In other words, while I may read and like Ann Coulter I want her no where near policy. I want Rush Limbaugh on the radio, not on a Washington payroll. And I want Trent Lott in obscurity because he probably is a racist.

The political landscape stands to suffer greatly from the marginalization of the Democratic party. Every day, they drive themselves further and further away from the mainstream. My father, a lifelong Democrat, called me last night to admit that he had been wrong and that, after all, it does appear that the Democrats are nothing but a bunch of anti-American hippies like I had been saying all along. The problem is that I understand they are not; but it is quickly looking like I am one of the few that see that.

Fix your party. We need them.

Posted by: Roark at August 7, 2003 08:06 AM

An interesting comment, considering that it was a email from these guys that caused Katzman to come up with the phrase 'Mogadishu Democrats' in the first place. Not clicking through, are we? :)

Nope. That'll teach me. :)

Posted by: Lee at August 7, 2003 08:13 AM

Can anyone, possibly Totten himself, explain in what sense "the Democrats" (I'll let you unpackage this description as you see fit) have intimated that they wouldn't "want to defend" their country? The objections against proclaiming a "war on terror," which I incidentally found not at all irrational (most of them not requiring anything like Chomskian justificationism), had no apparent influence on Democratic opinion: the Afghanistan campaign was supported without reservation.

The war in Iraq is another question. But Michael, for one, has repeatedly noted that the justification he and others see for this war has little to do with terrorism per se. No anti-US attack has come out of Hussein's Iraq. So the motives for the war are technical or prudential: they are about the best ways to bring about certain ends. But if that's the case, then an opponent of the war is not ipso facto in disagreement about the ends.

To deny this is precisely the essence of McCarthyism, and, one may add, of Stalinism everywhere: to impute shameful motives to anyone disagreeing with the party line. I think this will work, for the Republicans: as someone already said before, it worked great in the 50s.

However, I personally think it's well worth to destroy a party over this sort of stuff. Not that anyone will care my personal stance, but just as anecdotal evidence: I am no extremist, and I think the war essentially immoral, the administration's policy counterproductive at best, and the attitudes they have manifested contemptible. Of course, we need now to find ways to make the best out of bad, nay, unconscionable policies. But I simply won't stand for some mealy-mouthed, poll-driven schlock like Clinton telling me what my judgement on the war should be. I would gladly vote for a Clark or an Edwards, if they can tolerate disagreement. But if the party needs to crash on this, so be it. Those who are convinced by, and listen to, the Coulters and the Limbaughs have after all the right to their own medicine.

Posted by: Pierluigi at August 7, 2003 08:46 AM

" I will not be in the same political party as Ann Coulter and Trent Lott."

How about Cynthia McKinney, or Jim McDermott? And....do Michael Moore and Noam Chomksy vote?

Two years ago, I dumped the Democrats; now I'm a 'switch hitter' with beliefs similar to Katman's noted above.

Posted by: Ellie at August 7, 2003 08:52 AM

Michael writes: "I will not be in the same political party as Ann Coulter and Trent Lott."

There are more than a handful of Democrats I would not be in the same room with, let alone party. 'www.democraticunderground.com' leaves more than a bad taste in my mouth.

But every group - even your group at work, or bloggers, for that matter - has its fringe elements. If I were to take that stance, there isn't a single group on the planet I'd want to be part of.

So you need to see the overall picture. I look, for example, at the two party's National Committee websites:

www.democrats.org

and

www.rnc.org

The Democrats' website boils down to "Bush bad. We good". And not even that much emphasis on the "We good". The Republicans' site has its emphasis on what they're doing, where they're going. Down at the bottom of the page - almost as an afterthought (I missed it the first few times) - their take on the 9 Democratic candidates. (No, they're not complimentary, but they're not mean and ornery, either.) (Nine? it seems like they're throwing their wheat into the air, and waiting to see where the chaff lands before forging ahead. Couldn't they just find some one who embraces their ideals and communicates their message?)

Maybe a third party could make a difference, but we haven't had one since sometime in the 1800s.

And maybe somebody could come along and take the best plans from both parties and run with it. But so far, it hasn't worked.

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 09:14 AM

Ellie:

for one thing, I think Chomsky would be highly surprised to be counted as a Democratic party supporter. But for the sake of argument, how about this: How much influence do Chomsky and Coulter have respectively within the democratic and republican parties? How about McKinney: do see you her making her way to a Senate leadership position soon?

Another way of putting it: how would the political distance between, say, Chomsky and John Kerry compare to that between Coulter and Karl Rove? So see, you aren't a switch hitter: you are a right winger. You are not alone, there are many like you. I am not sure why so many of you guys find this admission difficult.

Posted by: Pierluigi at August 7, 2003 09:15 AM

Michael,

You know that I respect your sentiments, but I just disagree with you in your impressions. Your mistaken in your view that Democrats are weak in foreign policy, yes they aren't the hawks, but on the war on terror they have the eye on the ball. It's the Democrats that have been pushing issues like Saudi involvement. I think democraticization of countries like Pakistan and Indonesia is an important aspect of the war on terror that the Bush Administration have been lacking on. If the way we went to war with Iraq is a litmus test, you may have an issue, but you have Biden, and Kerry who fall into that camp; and they are by no means Chomsky peaceniks.

I also think it's a bit disengenous to underplay the influence of Falwell or Robertson in the policies of this administration. I can name you a dozen important foreign policy and non-foreign policy issues that they have their finger prints on. Look at the AIDS bill for Africa, Stem Cell research, international family planning. Katzman makes a point that he's an environmentalist, well if you don't take the NGO's on the left that have been pushing these issues, then who do you have on the right that advocate environmental issues. I can understand the frustration, but stepping into a void isn't the answer; especially at a time when you have maximum influence on the Democratic party.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 09:44 AM

Michael, it's very easy to find people in the Democratic party with whom you disagree. I could do it all day.

But how much effort have you put into identifying those in the party with whom you're generally in step?

If "independant centrists" continuously declare themselves on the fringes of the party, ceding the core to left-wing wackos, that's exactly what will happen. You shouldn't be wavering over staying in the party--you should be strategizing about how to steer it.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 7, 2003 10:06 AM

A bit late to the party here but I am confused by the tacit obituary for the Democratic Party. With a notably un-charismatic candidate in 2000, more Americans voted Democratic than any other party. Support for the anything that is unquestionably related to the war on terror (Afghanistan, Dept of Homeland Security) received almost unanimous support by Democrats. Where is the melodramatic "implosion" and "irrelevancy" that this thread seems all too willing to assume?

Were the Republicans imploding when they attempted to block intervention in the Balkans? Were they slouching towards irrelevancy when they ran an un-charismatic Bob Dole in 96?

The attack on 9/11 changed a lot of things and both sides of the aisle need to re-assess their positions on relevant issues. Magically, Republicans are now firm supporters of humanitarian intervention and nation building. Where is the huge exodus of disgusted Republicans fleeing to the Libertarians?

So Dean has had a few good months in the early going of the primary, which seems to have people extrapolating beyond credibility. I do think it fair to say that the Dems are having to do a little soul searching about foreign policy direction but I hardly find the party in any way, heading for irrelevancy. Odds are that the Dems will come up short in the 2004 presidential election regardless of the primary winner and my guess is that they won't fair much better in Congress. There might be some surprises both in terms of world events or even just swings in voter sentiment that lead to better results in 2004, but I think that rumors of the demise of the Democratic Party are being greatly exaggerated

Posted by: g2 at August 7, 2003 10:21 AM

All I can say is that if Lieberman wins the presidency, I won't lose any sleep. I disagree with him on many things, but I don't think he would hurt the country.

But a Dean victory would cause me to need heart medication or emigrate. That man is nuts.
I would hope that he wouldn't have a chance, but I'm not so sure. The media is spinning him as a centrist-- hardly!

So I hope the Dems put Lieberman to the top of
the list and soon. It would make for a healthier debate and could only help the US.

MJT: "I will not be in the same political party as Ann Coulter and Trent Lott."

OOooo-okaa-ay. Coulter's just a slightly hot hack, and Lott...well, he apologized, was repudiated by his peers, and lost his position. So the GOP responded correctly, didn't it?

Take the immoderate actions, history, and statements of Sharpton, Hollings, Byrd, McKinney, anti-Semite Moran, Blumenthal, Vanden Heuvel, McAuliffe, et al, and find for me some repudiation of their bigotry or idiocy... the party lets them be and exalts them.

SO I make the case that the GOP has learned and, as the heirs of progressive reforms, the younger generation, joins the party it is becoming more like the party of John F Kennedy than the Dems!
We needed progressive fights for civil rights and social safety nets.
But do we need universal health care, or reparations? Are minorities always disadvantaged, or only some of them?

I guess what I'm saying is, go out into the community and sit and chat with a Republican or two, or talk to me and others. You'll find that they/we aren't so far from you in worldview.

From personal experience I can say that I have encountered a lot of religious bigotry from Democrats, and it hurt a lot. This was before I had developed a political identity.

Posted by: Bleeding Heart Conservative at August 7, 2003 10:41 AM

May I suggest voting for Lyndon LaRouche Jr.?

While his policies are contemptable, it will make for a great story on the day after the election.

"Who'd you vote for?"

"Lyndon LaRouche Jr."

Posted by: Jaybird at August 7, 2003 10:55 AM

Michael:

Take it from me, being an independant isn't all that its cracked up to be. During most of the general elections you wind up holding your nose when you vote (or voting for some fringe wacko in the hopes of "sending a message" nobody ever seems to hear). Independants determine the course of most general elections, but since they have little to know say in who is nominated, they rarely care.

For the last 3 years, I've been a registered Republican in the hopes tha I could influence the direction of that party. I supported McCain over Bush in 2000, and Riordan over Simon in the Gubernatorial race, so the success of my mission pretty much speaks for itself. For what its worth, I'm seriously considering re-regisering as a DEMOCRAT so I can cast a vote in favor of Lieberman (the only Democrat I take seriously). However, I seriously doubt it will do any good, and I've resigned myself to reluctantly voting for Bush in 2004.

Posted by: Sean at August 7, 2003 10:58 AM

I guess I'm still struggling with the fact that, by-and-large, the Democratic party responded to the news of the death of Uday and Qusay as if they had lost their favorite dog.

Moral clarity has value.

Posted by: Marko at August 7, 2003 11:26 AM

Marko,

Your smoking crack. The Democratic party didn't respond to the death of Uday and Qusay in any way but to say that they we happy that they were dealth with. They may have said there's still a lot of work the administration needs to do, as Biden has said repeatedly, but your ideology tints your view.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 11:31 AM

There was a rally for Uday and Qusay outside my office building two Fridays ago. There were about 50 people in attendance. The speaker said their deaths "weigh on our consciences." It was a truly repulsive spectacle.

These people were either anarchists or neo-Stalinists. They were not Democrats.

A few days ago I linked to some Indymedia fool who calls Hillary Clinton a "whore" and accuses her of crimes against humanity.

There are huge differences between liberals and leftists. Conservatives need to keep that in mind when they gripe about Democrats, and mainstream liberals need to keep it in mind and not be protective of the wing-nuts.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 7, 2003 12:02 PM

Pierluigi ,

"So see, you aren't a switch hitter: you are a right winger"

Pretty funny 'right-winger' who supports progressive taxation, environmental and pabor protection, gay marriages, abortion rights, etc., all the while despising Trent Lott!

Posted by: Ellie at August 7, 2003 12:22 PM

Where does Noam Chomsky enjoy so much influence? I don't see him in the media, and I doubt anyone who doesn't attend university and take a social sciences class has heard of, much less read his non-linguistics books.

I read several of his books, saw "Manufacturing Consent", and managed to survive and not hate America.

Posted by: Jane Finch at August 7, 2003 12:38 PM

I'm staying Democratic. Dean scares me. Lieberman bothers me (God this, God that...), but may be OK. Biden might fly as a candidate, but I still think he'd go down in flames. Kerry ? Stop joking. I'm looking for a viewpoint about Edwards, but one does not hear a lot of commentary, positive or negative. He's barely on the radar screen. Aside from being relatively new on the political scene, I have not heard why Dem voters would stay away. Is it the trial lawyer thing? From the little I have read, he seems to be a reasonable centrist choice. Educate me. Why NOT Edwards?

Posted by: BF at August 7, 2003 01:03 PM

So you guys are trying to convince me that the Democratic party wasn't disappointed to see the "Bush Lied" story swept off the front page? The discouragement was palpable. I didn't say that their favorite dog died, it was just lost.

I think Matt Y. is a fairly reasonable representation of the center of democrat blogdom yet he felt it was a minor impact on the situation on the ground and grumbled about the loss of intelligence.

Kevin Drum's comment section isn't Democratic Underground either. Mr. Totten seemed to agree at the time.

Charlie Rangel (D)
"We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody"
Personally saw it, also referenced here.

Mark Mellman, CEO of The Mellman Group, a Democratic consulting firm. "Killing Uday and Qusay is not a plan to win the peace."
...
"Now is not the time for victory laps," Kerry said in a statement this week after the U.S. military announced Qusay and Uday's deaths.

Sure, it's Fox News, but I think they are pretty fair and balanced. ;)

Posted by: Marko at August 7, 2003 01:05 PM

You guys have posted some of the most interesting, intelligent commentary on the two-party system and being a centrist that I've read in awhile.

For the record, I'm a moderate Republican. However, at the voting polls I'm listed as a independent, and I don't think it was a good idea to tell my dad (who is a hardcore Republican and a member of the Religious Right in every sense of the word) this - I think I needed a spatula to peel him off the ceiling. I only registered as an independent when I turned 18 because I was a journalism major at the time (I'm not anymore), and I didn't want to be accused of being influenced by my political biases if anyone did a check on my voting record.

I hail from the right-conservative tradition, but I'm not afraid to break away from that tradition if it seems like it doesn't serve anyone's best interests, depending on the issue.

Posted by: Rhesa at August 7, 2003 01:33 PM

Marko,

I'm missing how they were rooting for Uday and Qusay. Let's not subsitute what you would like all Democrats to do as somehow being the same as them rooting for the enemy. There are plenty of real questions regarding the re-building of Iraq, and a dead Uday and Qusay does not a democratic Iraq make, which is by the way our overall non-partisan goal in Iraq. If you think we should pack up and get out once Saddam is dead, that's fine, but none of the main democratic candidates is advocating that (I'm not sure if even the one's who have no chance are advocating leaving). So let's not Ann Coulter a series of serious quotations into a sign that the democrats were applauding the Hussein brothers.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 02:09 PM

Ellie: sorry, but you haven't answered my question, only the quip. Do you really think that Coulter is as alienated from the Republican policy-making core as Chomsky is from its Democratic counterpart?

I am trying to figure this way of thinking: "progressive taxation" isn't just a flag or "issue," I agree with it because I hold values of the political left. Otherwise, I wouldn't agree with it. Since I do, however, I simply can't regard the Republicans as just another choice (the "switch hitting" view). Their values are not by and large mine; they dislike progressive taxation for a reason, not by accident. The presence of Chomsky or Genghis Khan somewhere on the spectrum of political choices is a red herring.

But let me correct you again: you are not a switch hitter, you are a left winger! Don't worry, it's at least two of us.

Posted by: Pierluigi at August 7, 2003 02:44 PM

Kombiz, I'm missing where I accused anyone of "rooting for" or "applauding" the Hussein boys.

I think mainstream Dems definitely mourned the overshadowing of the "Bush lied" issue and also had a "That may be good, but . . ." reaction. The dems could have gained a lot by simply stating "That is fantastic news for the people of Iraq. The US armed forces deserve credit for a job well done despite the difficult role they have been asked to play."

That would have played much better than "couldn't those soldiers have just captured them?" That statement indicates a lack of moral clarity, both about the brothers and about the sack of poo the military has been handed in Iraq. As was stated by Joe Katzman, it is "a moral Rorschach Test".

As for invoking Ann Coulter, isn't that one of Godwin's corollaries?

Posted by: Marko at August 7, 2003 02:57 PM

Marko,

This is what you said, I guess I'm still struggling with the fact that, by-and-large, the Democratic party responded to the news of the death of Uday and Qusay as if they had lost their favorite dog.

My point is that no Democrats were acting as though their favorite Dog died. As far as I remember without pulling stuff off the net, I heard Biden and Kerry both say repeatedly that our troops are doing a good job despite the situation they're in. I've also heard Kerry and Biden both mention how we should internationalize this to take a load of our troops. I digress, my point is that "their dog" argument is right wing fodder. The last post is much more coherent and less heated. Questioning whether we could have taken the Hussein brothers alive is by no means rooting for them, as it gives the Iraqi's a closure to have them brought to trial, much as in other countries where genocidal leaders have roamed. You seem to be saying that the Democrats who spoke up should hold their "criticism" till after Bush is re-elected or the rebuilding in Iraq is done. Whereas I think the Democrats, realize that the project of rebuilding Iraq is not going well, and issuing a bit of caution and advice, as Biden has been doing since the war ended. The Democrats are weak on Natl security meme just doesn't fit with reality.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 03:26 PM

Kombiz,
Yes, part of the problem could be my artless writing.

But, when I say Democrats, I don't mean the 9 dwarves. I mean the people I know and talk to, the blogs/news I read and what I see on TV, all of it from self-labeled Democrats. I understand what you are trying to say - it simply doesn't mesh with what I am seeing and hearing.

I also believe that, for the most part, candidates don't define the party, the party defines the candidates. It's politics.

Gotta go.

Posted by: Marko at August 7, 2003 04:42 PM

My problem with the Democratic Party and its candidates is that they're so friggin' clueless. It's perfectly clear that national security is the defining issue in this election. If you can't undermine Bush on this issue and present yourself as more credible, then you'll go down in flames. Yet, despite this quite obvious fact, not one of the candidates has made a serious attempt to do this. Rather than attacking relentlessly where Bush is really vulnerable--his stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and his too-cozy ties with the filthy regime in Riyadh (the REAL source of anti-American terror)--they dither and nitpick about peripheral issues like yellowcake from Niger. Well, these are dangerous times for America and candidates this stupid and spineless don't deserve to be in the Oval Office.

Posted by: Manny at August 7, 2003 04:55 PM

Pierluigi,

Yes, I do really think that Coulter is as alienated from the Republican policy-making core as Chomsky is from its Democratic counterpart. (How many Republicans do you know?) I also think that Chomksy gets a lot more respect than Coulter does. And, though I support progressive taxation, I am quite firmly opposed to the idea that the poor should pay no federal taxes at all. I also oppose confiscatory taxation of the rich. And, I don’t think every election, especially, every presidential election, revolves around taxation issues to the exclusion of everything else. I support the democrats on most, but not all, social issues (I am opposed to affirmative action, support school vouchers). I drift between the two parties on taxation and appropriate federal expenditures. I am, for instance, opposed to distributing federal monies to the states as some sort of catch-all ‘bail-out.’ No matter…right now, issues of national defense are critical, and frankly, the Democrats aren’t credible in any fashion as far as defense is concerned. Lastly, I really dislike the fact that so many democrats over the past two years have been unable to even articulate a clear position on national defense, nuclear proliferation, rogue states, etc. Reassuring comments about multilateralism are, in and of themselves, without substance. Last time I checked Mr. Dean’s website, he had not much to say on those issues either. I won’t even consider voting for a democrat until I have clear answers on several questions concerning North Korea, terrorism, Saudi Arabia, funding for social security, and funding for the ridiculous (and expensive) new medicare drug plan.

Posted by: Ellie at August 7, 2003 05:52 PM

Discovered today, in the course of my catch-up reading, that Abraham Lincoln, in a Eulogy on Henry Clay, said this: "A free people, in times of peace and quiet -- when pressed by no common danger -- naturally divide into parties. At such times the man who is of neither party, is not -- cannot be, of any consequence."

I was struck by the "in times of peace and quiet," but even more by the "neither." Did Lincoln presume a two-party system? Does the American electoral system necessarily exclude strong third (plus) parties? James Skillen argues that it does, to his regret.

Posted by: Gideon Strauss at August 7, 2003 05:59 PM

For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been running on a racist platform. They've done everything in their power to fan the flames of racial hatred and combat the aspirations of minorities.

Yet every year, the Republicans stand up and say that they're champions of racial justice. No one believes this. Thier rhetoric is belied by their history.

On a similar note, there are Republicans who are not racists. I don't think George Bush is a racist; from what I can see, he's sincerely committed to equal rights. And a lot of the Republicans who are oposoed to affirmative action aren't racists either. Heck, while I am a Democrat, I myself am opposed to affirmative action.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable racist contingent in the Republican party. For every George Bush, there's a Trent Lott; for every Bob Dole, a Strom Thurmond.

The racism isn't overt any more. You'll never see Trent Lott make a speech against the evils of miscegnation. On the contrary, he'll publicly proclaim that he isn't a racist. He'll talk about his African-American staffers, and maybe he'll even get a few black leaders to campaign for him. Yet for some reason, his rallies are faithfully attended by the white sheet crowd. If asked, they'd probably say that they support Lott because of his tax policy, or his opposition to abortion, or whatever. But we all know the truth.

Lately, the Republicans have been trying to defend themselves against this charge by pointing out that Robert Byrd was once a KKK member, or that until the mid-60's, most racists were Democrats. But these pathetic arguments ring hollow.

Given the above, if the most important issue in the 2004 election were racial justice, and if you were sincerely concerned about it, you'd be a fool to vote Republican.

This is a perfect analogy for the problem that Democrats have on national security.

For the last 30 years, the Democrats have been the party of weakness and appeasement. Their standard bearers have been people like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale.

The Democrats always claimed that everything changed during the Clinton administration, citing Clinton's willingness to use force in Haiti and Bosnia, but it is difficult to assess the signifcance of this alleged "change" because we didn't face a significant threat to our national security during that era. But the one big issue that did come up, that of gays in the military, provides a hint as to how the Democrats really feel about naitonal security. The disgust and condescention was almost palpable. The enlightened, progresive Democrats were bringing much-needed reform to those primitive, bible-thumping savages in the military. That's how the Democrats thought of the brave men and women who defend us. For the record, I agree with Clinton and think that gay soldiers should be allowed to serve in the military.

Today, despite this history, the Democrats say that they can be trusted on the issue of national defense.

Of course, there are Democratic hawks, just like there are Republicans who aren't racist. I think that Clinton did a good job restructring the military, and also think that if he were still President, he'd be doing a fine job with the war on terror. Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards seem like they are up to the task as well. I'm sure there are others. I will be voting for one of these Democratic hawks come primary season.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is a sizable anti-American/weak-on-defense wing in the Democratic party. For every Lieberman, there's a Dean. For every Gephardt, a Kucinich.

On another note, 200,000 people showed up at the antiwar rally in New York City. How many Republicans participated in the rally? 1%? 2%? I think we all know the answer. The Democrats try to explain stuff like this away by claiming that "some of those people are Greens"-- sure, and all Buchannan supporters are Reform Party voters, right, whatever -- or by saying that the peace movement is "the luantic fringe." Guys, the "lunatic fringe" is not 200,000 strong, okay?

Today, like racism, the anti-Americanism and weakness isn't overt. Dean doesn't issue position papers proclaiming "I hate America and will never use force to defend her." No, he says that he's willing to use force. But for some reason, his biggest, most vocal supporters are anti-American pacificsts. They say that he's a centrist, and that they like his fiscal conservatism and his "plain-spoken" manner. But deficit hawks and people craving straight talk aren't packing his rallies; his most fervent supporters are from the peace movement. Today they're shouting "Dean in 2004!" Three months ago it was "Bush=Hitler!" and "No Blood for Oil!" I am supposed to ignore this?

No, I'm not fooled. I don't believe Dean when he says that he'll vigorously prosecute the war on terror. I don't trust him to confront the North Koreans; If you were Kim, would you rather be dealing with George Bush or Howard Dean? And I don't think Dean is going to invade Saudi Arabia any time soon (not actually adovacating this, just illustrating my assertion that Dean will not take decisive action against even those countries who he has identified as our enemies.)

You can't seperate the man from the party. I believe that George Bush is basically a decent man. He's not a hate-filled fundamentalist, and he's not a racist. But I know that these people have a lot of influence in the Republican party. Bush may be a moderate, but if he's elected, there's going to be an Ashcroft in the cabinet. He's going to have to take Trent Lott's calls, and he won't be able to disavow him either.

The same is true for the Democrats. Suppose I take Dean at his word -- I'm not prepared to do that, but let's just suppose -- that he's not afraid to use force. That's great, but I know that the peace movement will have his ear. The weaklings and the appeasers will be helping to craft his polices. This is an absolutely terrifying prospect.

As a Democrat, during the primary season, I will be doing everything in my power to reform the party. My personal goal is to drive the weak anti-American leftists out of the party, or at least muzzle them.

But if this doesn't work, and those people get their wish, I'll be voting for Bush in 2004. I'll be campainging for him. I'll donate money to him. Like Michael, I don't agree with his polcies. I don't want to become a Republican. But nothing is more important to me than national security right now, so if the price I have to pay is a bigger deficit, more tax cuts for the rich and a few Republican Supreme Court justices, then so be it. These things aren't going to get me killed, but a foreign policy based on weakness and appeasement just might.

On another note I, like Michael, am disgusted by the way that Democrats have abandoend thier traditional principles in the name of partisanship. Democrats used to be for human rights and against repressive dicatorships. ONe of the reasons why I have always been proud to call myself a Democrat is because we stand up for the week and the oppressed. But in Iraq, when we were faced with the opportunity to liberate 25 million innocent people from a horrific dictatorship, the Democrats chose to do nothing. The extremists shouted "no blood for oil!" The more "moderate" Democrats urged us to accept the weapons inspections, an act of profound moral cowardice. Hans Blix was not going to liberate a single person from Sadaam's prisons. The UNMOVIC teams would do nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to stop the torture and rape of innocent people. We had 300,000 troops on the border. It was time to go in and save the Iraqis and put an end to the horror. Yet the Democrats said "do nothing."

Now, in the postwar period, they are doing their best to sabotage the occupation. We are trying to give a liberal democracy to 25 million people. We have put an end to torture and rape. What do the Democrats do? They complain about the Iraqi museum and blackouts in Baghdad. When we take casualties, the Dems act as if something has gone terribly wrong. Dems, I have a news flash for you: American soldies in the Middlee East may, just may, be the targets of terrorist attack. Yet they claim to be "shocked" by these developments. Incredibly, they also seem to have discovered a respect for our men and women in uniform. How touching.

The biggest problem I have with the Democrats is that they seem to assume that any problem is a major disaster and will last forever. I have more news for you: We'll restore the power in Baghdad. In a year, we'll have turned a lot of policing over to the Iraiqs, and our guys won't have to guard Baghdad University and the national bank any more. Casualty rates will go down, and the lot of the Iraqi people will improve dramatically. But don't expect the Democrats to realize this today or acknowledge it when it comes to pass tomorrow. They're too busy shouting "quagmire!" and "where's our exit strategy?" to give the matter any serious thought.

Are the Democrats putting forth any constructive proposals on how to fight the war on terror, other than "let's work with the French"? No. Instead of coming up with plans on how to improve our defenses and help the people of Iraq, they scream "Bush lied!!" and whine about intelligence failures.

For each of the above reasons, I too am disgusted with the Democrats.

Michaelwhew, sorry this post has been so lengthy. I got really worked up and didn't realize how long this rant was.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at August 7, 2003 06:28 PM

thanks for your post Joe, it made a lot of things clearer to me.
However, I'd like to raise three objections. For one, I resist equating opposition to the Iraq war to weakness in the WoT. There are good reasons for the former. You may not agree to them, but crying appeasement is on par with crying "no blood for oil"(SUV/Halliburton variant).
Second, your argument concerning the Dems "the party of weakness and appeasement" is not the equvalent to calling Repubs the party of racism. The second is a social issue, and was acceptable throughout a major part of US history. The Dem position you ascribe/describe was never acceptable. Even if the comparison and description were adequate (I'd choose a multilateralist/unilateralist distinction FWIW) it could be argued the fraction of racists (remember, once the default) within the Repubs is larger than the fraction of genuine pacifists within the Dems. Especially since (third objection) 9-11. All bets are off, especially when it comes to national security.

Posted by: markus at August 7, 2003 06:57 PM

The problem, Joe, is that for the Republicans to be the "racist" party we would probably need to have the only sitting member of the Senate who was a member of the Klan in our ranks. Instead he is in yours. Trent Lott also came from the Democratic party. Your "clear" picture is starting to fade a bit, no?

And here is where your analogy falls flat. You point to National Security as being the weak point of the Democratic party, just as you point to race relations as being the Republicans weak point. But the truth of the matter is that the only sitting judge on the U.S. Supreme Court who is black was put there by a Republican - the Presidents cabinet is filled with minorities - and the cloest the Democrats in Washington come to a hawk is Zell Miller.

The truth of the matter is that the Dems are horribly weak on National Security. No amount of calling the Republicans "racist" will change that, especially when one of the elder statesmen in the Democratic party used to burn crosses for fun and profit.

Posted by: Roark at August 7, 2003 07:49 PM

Joe, that was indeed an interesting read. I must take objection to the painting of (some? most? many?) GOPs as racists, though. I would be willing to bet that at least as many DEMs in Washington are as prejudiced as the GOPs, because it's a generational issue. Almost all of them are old farts who grew up in the 30's, 40's, 50's.

And what about all those DEMs who, as you say, were racist until the mid 60's -- did they magically lose their prejudicial feelings in a cloud of pot smoke?

Even more, I don't see Trent Lott or his ilk -- or even Robert Byrd -- trying to pass laws relegating blacks to the back of the bus. Do you? If there are so many racist GOPs, why are racial issues continuing to improve daily?

** Apologies for threadjack. The broad "racist" brush bothers me.

Posted by: Mason at August 7, 2003 08:13 PM

Joe,

Nice post, here's my reply to you. I will grant that the Republican Party has been running on a right wing platform. The difference between the two parallels you draw is that while John Aschcroft is the Attorney General, the guy who runs International ANSWER has no chance of being on the National Security Council in the Whitehouse in a Democratic administration, not even with Dean in the administration. In fact no one you describe as an Anti-American peacenik will sit anywhere where they can influence American security policy, no matter how many times you may hear otherwise on a right-wing blog.

The main basis of your argument is that somehow the Democratic Party doesn't care about National Security or human rights. Now you temper the argument by listing the Democratic candidates you would support, but either major parties main foreign policy agenda is always national security. There's no two ways about the whole paradigm, to argue anything else is to tell me that me one of the major candidates, (or even minor ones) wouldn't be in Afghanistan at the moment. Now if the issue is Iraq, here's where I would disagree with you.

This rest of your argument regarding those who protested gets into some finer points of views and so you'll have to excuse the length, but I think it lays down why you can avoid be anti-American and have had problems or even protested against the war.
Iraq was not a security war, and many of us had problems about the imminent threat argument.
It was a war to remake the middle east, and some of us on the left who had serious problems with the war did so because we realized that without some sort of international legitimacy, the rebuilding would be difficult, and that non-security actions in the future would be next to impossible. Thus the argument you hear from me, and some other lefty bloggers and the likes of Kerry, and Biden that you point to in your argument about issues dealing with how long it's taking us to get power on in Baghdad, has nothing do with us wanting quagmire. It is because as CSIS said two weeks ago, that there is a closing window of time before people in Iraq reject us. I really don't think we have a year to get basic things up in Iraq, and I think it shows how ill prepared the neo-cons were. It's not because we'd like to see it fail, in fact it's the opposite, I was as surprised as most people when reports started coming out about how unprepared the Bush administration was to rebuild Iraq.

I didn't protest the war, I know good people who did. I know a veteran of the Chosin Reservoir, who thought the war was, "stupid." Most of these people weren't anti-American or rooting for the enemy. They had issues with the war that I think the Bush administration brought on itself. Here's my calculus for protestors. Take the amount of people who protested the action in Kosovo and maybe multiply by two or three. That's how many loonies there are who are just opposed to any military action. Somehow the Bush administration made everyone else so uncomfortable with the war that people formed groups like Teachers against War, and Veterans against war... etc.

In regards to humanitarian action, you somehow pull the Jimmy Carter appeaser thing straight from the right wing crowd. Here's my argument, if Iraq was the last place where people were being slaughtered, I'd have been one of you guys, but it wasn't and it wasn't the reason we went in. It's now the collateral prize for the hawks. That's fine and Iraq is much better because of it today. But because of the lead up to war you can't create a doctrine to free other oppressed people. If we weren't allowing our allies in other places slaughter civilians the administration would have more credibility with me, but at the end of the day neo-conservatism isn't a human rights policy and the only valid human rights and security policy of the post cold war world was created by and executed by Democrats. These are people like Madeline Albright, who will most likely be in any future Democratic cabinet.

Sorry, it's long, but I'm sorry I don't buy the Democrats are missing it on national security.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 08:22 PM

Joe,

After rereading your post a second, and then a third time, I have finally come to understand that your attempt to paint Republicans in the racist light was illustrative.

As such, my reaction probably seemed extreme.

And while I sympathize with your and Mr. Totten's position and angst over the direction of your party (see my first post on this thread), painting Republicans with the label of "racist" does not sit well with those of us who are not. Using politicians who are either out of politics, dead or no longer in any significant policy making positions to continue to paint Republicans as racist is as valid as me calling all Democrats communists because Eisenhower defended Alger Hiss.

I felt that you deserved at least a partial recognition from me for your reasonableness, but I also felt you needed to be called on the assumption that the Republican party has problems with race and race relations. Not pandering to the likes of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, two second rate con artists, does not make my party "racist" - it makes us reasonable.

Posted by: Roark at August 7, 2003 08:28 PM

Roark, I don't think Joe was "painting the Republicans with a racist label. But here's the difference for the the "white sheet crowd", as Joe puts it: thirty five years ago, the Democrats wrote them off. Thiry years ago, the Republicans signed them up. And this is where the situation remains. And everybody knows it.

Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was not a left wing myth, it was and is real.

Joe, please know there are registered Republicans who are working against the white-sheeteratti, as you are working against the idiots in your own party. Here's hoping that one day we can get back to arguing about school vouchers or something, y'know, normal.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 08:42 PM

I am exactly like you except I made my break from the Dem. party right after 9/11. I grew up a real liberal's liberal but I was never what you would call a "leftist". But I was a pretty strong Mondale supporter in my first election. I started having trouble with the Dems. in 1990 when they voted almost en mass against the resolution to permit the Gulf War and appeared to be hoping for disaster to strike. I supported Clinton strongly in 1992 because he said all the right things, foreign policy wise. I immediately became concerned by the fecklessness of his approach to the world. I sensed early on that he was squandering an opportunity to re-define the post Cold War world. (I hated Bush I for this reason. He was a pure status quo statist) Nevertheless, I voted for him again. In his second term, I started to get the feeling that Clinton's approach to governing was to "kick the can" forward and hope the crisis would never strike. I voted for Gore in 2000 solely because I thought Bush was too dumb to handle a crisis. But I had already begun to break with the party on local elections. Then came 9/11. Like so many others, I had an epiphany. I realized first, that Bush was superbly equipped to handle a crisis and second, that Gore was not and would not have been. I also realized that the complete failure of the governing apparatus of this country to understand the consequences and perceptions of its actions to the villains of the world had led to the attacks. Bush seemed to viscerally realize this as well. Then I started hearing Democrats pull the same old shit. Everything is about the election. Score a point here, score a point there. Blame America. Maybe if we say we're sorry they'll like us. Maybe Israel is to blame. Now I am repulsed by the Democratic party and feel that if Bush is not re-elected we will probably die at some point at a terrorists hand. (I live in New York) Nothing NOTHING matters as much as making the world understand they cannot shit on us without consequence. That goes for "friend" and foe alike. Bush is in the process of correcting the perception but it is still precarious. Rogue states CANNOT be allowed to acquire Nuclear weapons. I would rather attack N. Korea than allow that. I believe Bush agrees. Do the Democrats? Do these losers not understand what is at stake? The American people do. The Democrats are going down hard and maybe it will be for the best for them to hit rock bottom. As for the state of politics, obviously the whole country has moved way to the left. A mainstream COnservative position used to be that a state could allow segregation if it wants and the Feds have no right to intervene. The Dems can go no farther left without leaving the realm of free enterprise altogether. They have become an incoherent mess of New deal era populism and sixties leftism. Although much of the Republican party is still very conservative, a real look will show that traditional liberalism has found a home in the left wing of the Republicans. I am still a registered Dem. and cannot imagine becoming a Republican. But I know I feel more at home reading National Review than the Nation.

Posted by: dougrhon at August 7, 2003 08:52 PM

Kombiz,

[...] at the end of the day neo-conservatism isn't a human rights policy [...]

why not exactly? Doesn't neo-conservatism recognize that the key "root cause" of terrorism is the lack of freedom and ubiquity of tyranny in the middle east? And where once the US supported the whole "any SOB so long as he's our SOB" program, does neo-conservatism not now recognize that is no longer a good idea (if it ever was one, and it probably wasn't). And aren't we trying to do something about it?

[...]and the only valid human rights and security policy of the post cold war world was created by and executed by Democrats.

Valid? Valid according to whom?

I agree about the lack of preparation for the post war situation. Rumsfeld's bravado and attitude of infallibility is wearing thin.

PS, I can't seem to do arithmetic tonight. I meant to say "thirty nine" and "thirty five" in my post above.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 09:26 PM

Lewy,

Here's the difference as far as I see it. Neo-conservatism, is by all means realism with the rhetoric of human rights and democracy. The reasons are more facts on the ground rather than rhetorical in nature. The difference between neo-cons and realists is that they switch around the global power argument, so instead of building to counter China, we make a deal with China to let it take care of its Muslims and internal opposition as a weight in using China against centeral Asia. Everything else is realism, it's more stable to let Indonesia deal brutaly with it's opposition, and hope they get the fundemantalist than to try to force openness in its military or government in regards to human rights, or military in Aceh. Which is counterintuative if you consider the lesson for the middle east. The same is true in Chechnya, which has Al-Qaeda terrorists, but we're not drawing a line between the civilians and terrorists, which the population hates. I can argue the same for Uzbek, and other countries in Central Asia; and not to mention our good buddies in the Middle East, though at least the neo-cons talk about democracy there.

Valid is a strong word, it's the only true and tried method. I'm refering to the neo-liberal doctrine that was formed during the second Bill Clinton term, late to Bosnia and then to Kosovo. While neo-cons agreed with the mission there, it ended up being exectuted in such a way that it forced the destabilization of Serbia. I'm not sure the neo-cons would have had the appetite for the internationalization that went on there, since it was brutual in the lead up to Kosovo. You don't see that in Iraq. ie. This is our group of allies, we liberated Iraq, and we're pushing for human rights and democratic institutions in (pick a country). In fact the lesson seems to be as long as your not a direct threat now it's the same old realist US with 3/4 of the military deployed.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 09:55 PM

One of the things 911 has highlighted for me is that both the Far Right and the Far Left are racist. The Far Right just has more of a reputation for it, although the Far Left frightens me more than the Far Right. The white-sheet crowd know they're a bunch of racists. The Far Left is absolutely convinced of its moral purity. Not a black mark can be found on their souls! Indeed, I'd allege that anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are now politically correct racism.

Kombiz, I suppose the question is ... what would the Democrats [i]do[/i]? How would they go about solving the problem? I've not heard anything constructive. It is clear the old policies of containment and friendly dictators are strategic and moral failures. Pretending that the Al Qaeda is an isolated issue and that Iraq has no bearing on the situation in the Middle East strikes me as willfully ignorant.

Posted by: infamouse at August 7, 2003 09:55 PM

Infamouse,

I've tried to be constructive here, but couldn't get into actual specifics about what candidates would do what exactly. In fact I can imagine several scanarios where the war on Iraq would have happenend under a Democratic administration. I think the best move is that policy would be set at the Whitehouse as opposed to the Pentagon. That would have made a difference in the run up to Iraq.
Foreign policy has the views of 4 of the Dems.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_marapr_2003/democrats.html

Kerry is by far my favorite since he has flushed out a lot of his views. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_marapr_2003/JKessay.html

Besides that I won't put anything in their mouths per se', but I would hope that we can push towards reforms in Indonesia, and a more security in Afghanistan so that the Stan dictatorships don't use terrorism to continue to beat back their own people. But much of the security issues would remain the same in regards to the war on terror I imagine. Oh and hopefully some real pressure on the Saudi's and the Pakistani's but then again these are my views, I think they're right, but some of them I've not heard any candidate discuss.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 10:31 PM

Kombiz,

I read and reread your post and all I can charitably say is that I found it lacking in clarity.

You say "realism" like it's a bad thing! Your alternative is what, a human rights based "fantasist" policy? OK maybe thats trollish of me but laugh with me here, what ya sayin', bro? That we should actively oppose, eschewing all collaboration, each and every regime that doesn't live up to our standards? That kind of absolute power would be... well, it would be kinda neat. But we don't have it. Bush has been ridiculed for his GoodVsEvil™ attitude - can we as reasonable people not agree that there are shades of grey? If we can, then by all means, let's go around the world and weigh the consequences of support for the status quo ante vs insigation of radical reform (I say we start with Pakistan). But an insistence on absolute integrity of rhetoric and action admits to no discourse.

Finally, you know, I share some of your doubts about the administration, its just that I doubt the success of an attempt at "internationalization" quite a bit more, and HTML cannot provide enough emphasis on that last point.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 10:33 PM

The opposed-war-equals-favors-rape-and-torture argument is getting really tired. I opposed the war because I knew we were being bullshitted into it, and we were. If Bush, the administration and the high-profile hawks had tried to convince me that we were justified in launching a war to remake the middle east, with a focus on national security based on the neo-conservative goal of removing tyranny, and with the new-found Republican embrace of human rights in mind, I might have even supported it. I certainly wouldn't have marched against it.

However, I don't oppose our continued presence. I just hope we do it right.

The appropriate question for voters to be asking, and for candidates to be answering, is not "what should we have done before," but "what should we do next?"

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 7, 2003 10:40 PM

Mike,

Hard to find #47 when you don't number the entries?

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 10:41 PM

Mike: Sorry about that. It didn't occur to me until today to number them...

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 7, 2003 10:47 PM

Christopher,

Come on, man. If you can support a war to liberalize the Middle East, don't oppose this one just because of the Administration's bullshit.

Look: If Bush announced in advanced that we want to invade Iraq to free the Arabs from tyranny, every dictatorship in the region would have rallied behind Saddam Hussein and denied us basing rights. Of course the Bush Administration used disinformation and distraction in the build-up campaign. But you and I were not the targets of that disinformation. The wretched Saudis were the target.

Calling the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was Bush's way of signalling this fact to people like you and me.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 7, 2003 10:54 PM

Christopher,

I too wish Bush could have been a bit more straightforward. Bush is polarizing. Let's talk about Blair, at least in the same breath.

Blair pushed hard for a second UNSC resolution, as did Powell. They went the WMD route because a) it was plausible (I really do believe Blix is surprised that nothing has been found to date) and had the best chance for international support. Blair really honestly believed he could deliver France and Russia. So did Powell. And France, especially, burned their ass. If the UNSC had one percent of the honesty being demanded of Bush, they would have recognized Iraq in material breach of 1441 and the war would have had UN blessing.

So, ironically, it was the very extensive effort to internationalize the war, so often derided as incompetent or non-existent, which is at least partly responsible for the admittedly awkward situation with regard to justification. If Bush and Blair had known that the war would be labeled as a "criminal act of naked aggression" regardless, they probably would have simply said "we're for regime change, on account of the regime needs changin'", and done the deed in January. And so, perhaps Christopher, they would have had you on board?

Hmm... feeling chatty tonight. I'll go away soon, I promise, I have work todo.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 11:04 PM

Went through the torture and found it.

Points to Joe Scmoe:

I'm a Dem too and am voting for GW unless Gary Hart or John McCain gets in the race, which ain't happening, and for the very reasons you mentioned above. You want to read something, read the Hart/Rudman report of December 2000, that would be 9 months prior to 9/11. Unfortunately for Gary the main thing I used to know about him was that trashy chick he was 'bangin' (Google is the best Hahn) who later tried to make a comeback on the Howard Stern show.

The racist contingent in America likely votes Republican, however its a lot different today that it used to be. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Walter Williams, Larry Elder to name a few are not racist. What real fing pisses me off is that I bought the old hysteria per 9/11 that Limbaugh was a closet racist. Now I listen to him occassionally and realize not only that he isn't but that his fill in is Walter Williams!

Further, while you and me are likely like most in the middle of this country who would actually make John McCain the most popular candidate in the country if he could get a party to nominate him without strings attached, there are lefties and not even fring lefties like OliverWillis.com who are killing Lieberman for supposedly abandoning the party's roots and supporting fervently Dean.

Also, was it racist for Bush to be against the Michigan systems of racial preference even the left leaning Matthews says they are wrong. Should a wealthy black family's kid get 5000 place ahead in line than a poor white kid from Kansas? Time are a changing and Affirmative Action needs to adjust.

By the way you forgot to mention the most unnamed apologist populist in the Senate, Mr. Edward Kennedy. He's in CAIR's pocket and he single handedly is going to squash Pipe's nomination. Kennedy is a big time pacifist.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 11:07 PM

MJT,

Of course the Bush Administration used disinformation and distraction in the build-up campaign.

Watch it, Kombiz will accuse you of being one of those dread realists... Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 11:09 PM

RE: Michael's Reply to Christopher (no #'s sorry, lol!)

Its more complicated and intertwined Michael to say that it was a dupe to the Saudis. The Saudis are the smartest Mofo's out there. We ain't fooling any Royal over there. DebKa even thinks the Saudis are helping us reshape Lebanon. There are so many interplays and intertanglings, the last one to go and the most dangerous is the Saudis. The Royals know exactly what they are doing and they got the goods that we need to keep us somewhat in check. We only get x % from them and the next real crisis is Natural Gas perhaps, but they are the cheapest surplus suppliers on the market and they can jack up the price and Bush right out of office in a heartbeat.

I hate the fact Bush's oil buddies and his pappy are in bed with the Royals but I also hate that lefty Dems are in bed with Saudi funded "rights groups" like CAIR. Truth be told Clinton didn't do much to the Saudis either.

What am I saying? Just that your characterization is too simplistic.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 11:16 PM

One thing that I realized earlier that Michael keeps hitting home:

Out of all of the politically active people I know, I know several people who went from voting for Gore in 2000 to voting for Republicans in 2002.

I don't know ANYONE who moved the other way.

Anyone have any personal experiences of people who voted Bush in 2000 who will never again vote Republican?

This is the issue that the democrats seem incapable of realizing. Instead of actually trying to do something constructive, too many are doing the crap like Matt Yglesias is doing: mocking those who don't trust the democratic party anymore.

Posted by: Jaybird at August 7, 2003 11:17 PM

Lewy,

This is why conversations are much more productive, since we can give and take a bit. I'm not opposed to realism per se', I actually think it's a fine foreign policy philosophy. It just doesn't take into account human rights.

My argument is that neo-conservatism is realist sham. I agree with you that we can't be in all places at once, but I think it serves us to be pushing for democraticization and liberalization in South Asia. It's no suprise that Indonesia is a hotbed for Al-Qaeda to me, but the government there is using the excuse to crack down on it's own opposition elements with a thumbs up from the Bush Administration.

I think democractic reforms would help our security in Indonesia, and Pakistan. I didn't think the same thing about Iraq at all. I'm happy the people there are free, and having lived through bombing by Saddam I'm happy the fucker is gone, and will soon be caught or dead. Having said all that I think the Bush administration is doing the kicking of the can here with Indonesia and Pakistan as was not the case with Bill Clinton.

There's a lot of detail to fill in, so feel free to check in my blog over time I will blog a bit about it. But anyhow, having hit all the points I think I need to hit at the moment, I'm going to hit the sack, the little debate was nice. Oh yeah, and vote for the Democrats.

Posted by: Kombiz at August 7, 2003 11:25 PM

Jaybird its pretty simple
The country as Limbaugh notes is a 50/50 country and has been for a long time. The middle of each party and independents determine elections, as Rove fully realizes.

Whatever is the most important issue is going to drive the election. Since 9/11 its obvious what that is. Thus, if the economy holds water or gets a tad better, Bush is going to win likely.

As bad as the economy was in 92 people forget that a guy named Perot ran and took votes and the election from Bush. Clinton wouldn't have won without him and that's because the country is a 50/50 country. In fact as much as the Dems carp about the 00 election I don't think Clinton ever got more than 50% in an election.

Regardless, what any poll says is most important to voters. Post 9/11 national security and defense is very much in the mix and pre 9/11 it was totally irrelevant. Pre 9/11 not only did I buy the bullshit on alphabet news like Limbaugh was an "extremist" etc.. but I agreed that only nut job defense contractors wanted strong spending on national defense and the CIA. Shit, what the hell did we need it for? I saw the freeking wall come down and the Soviets fall. I grew up with the Soviet Union being our enemy.

Clinton had good timing and luck and GW is now having the same. Its too bad McCain isn't Pres but I'm gonna vote for GW.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 11:26 PM

last one -
Kombiz copied below with replies

This is why conversations are much more productive, since we can give and take a bit. I'm not opposed to realism per se', I actually think it's a fine foreign policy philosophy. It just doesn't take into account human rights.

Realism is the only foreign policy ex real atrocities, but in truth we nor the real humanitarians in the UN or EU did shit about Tibet or Sudan? So its all about realism and self interest. However, the US is aruably the most benevolent superpower in history with that in mind.

My argument is that neo-conservatism is realist sham.

So you feel that what its really about is self interest and oil? Can the interests co-incide as well? I think that is what has happened here? Iraq was the first strike for many reasons and of course its oil was one of them.

I agree with you that we can't be in all places at once, but I think it serves us to be pushing for democraticization and liberalization in South Asia. It's no suprise that Indonesia is a hotbed for Al-Qaeda to me, but the government there is using the excuse to crack down on it's own opposition elements with a thumbs up from the Bush Administration.

South Asia can't be run by us. Should we start a war with China or try to boycott it alone? The

Saudis have had a big headstart a good 15 years spreading Wahabism all over the planet including here!! They've got funding, infrastructure and lotsssss and lotsssss of money and lots of poor uneducated masses that hate America already.

They are also trying to get into Khazekstan and f that place up as well. Right now the leader is a somewhat moderate and friendly dictator. Should we say, 'We like the moderate Islam you practice but we are going to criticize your undemocratic country?' There is NO democracy there, and democracy isn't the magic bullet its a belief in moderation and demand of liberty. WE can't make people demand liberty, like they are in Iran now, they have to.

Should we tell the Indonesian government we appreciate help in busting down on Islamic radicals but we are going to slap your hand down for being hypocritical too? You think the real pushers of benevolence in the EU are doing this? Khomeni and Mugabe and Arafat potentially all have large suites with their name in Paris.

I think democractic reforms would help our security in Indonesia, and Pakistan. I didn't think the same thing about Iraq at all.

Democracy in Pakistan means another Taliban state this time WITH NUKES. Its that simple. Musharaf is a snake and a pro at that. However, he's not Ben Laden. Democracy is not a magic bullet its first a fundamental demand and belief in liberty and diversity. We are the exception to the rule not the rule. Too bad California schools instead teach how are "Framers" were badddddd badddddd guys.

Having said all that I think the Bush administration is doing the kicking of the can here with Indonesia and Pakistan as was not the case with Bill Clinton.

Dude, sorry but Clinton was the ultimate kick the can guy. He perfected it! He never did a thing on foreign policy but make some nice touchy speeches, until Camp David. There is nothing we can do in Pakistan right now. Its Musharaf or a Ben Laden running the country.

Which weblog do you run?

Mike

Sack time here too

Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2003 11:48 PM

Mike, thanks for replying to Kombiz. I was getting tired.

Kombiz, somewhat OT but relevant here: read "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan - MJT links to it on the right. Question: how can a "democracy and human rights" policy be formulated and applied to the emerging post Westphalia political order Kaplan describes? Discuss.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 7, 2003 11:58 PM

I have a name for a new party - drum roll please:

The Liberal party.

OK, I know its not original, but I think it is about time someone embraced liberalism again. There is no liberal (small "l") any more. The Democrats are more socialist than liberal.

Posted by: HA at August 8, 2003 03:48 AM

This is great- I go to family functions or school classes and I hear people talking about the latest thing Bush did but everybody is in their own bubble and can't seem to hear anyone talk back. I grew up Democrat and will remain one, despite my reservations about the commies and anti-globo wingbats, bla bla bla. That being said, if someone like Dean is the front runner, I will vote for GW since there are things I value more than blind partisan loyalty.

When I was young, I was unquestionably liberal- anything goes socially, how bad poor people suffer, Republicans are idiots, etc... then after work and a stint in the military I was exposed to people who believed in our country and government like I did but disagreed about other issues. Obviously more complex than this, but I also realized that we were raised to think this way, and that we were looking at the same thing from different perspectives. And we both thought the other side was idiots.

My experiences abroad also made me realize that everybody doesn't necessarily like us (I know, shocking isn't it?), and it is not easy to manage that in this interdependent world. My simplified calculus goes something like this: In order to keep people happy, they must have jobs and opportunities, in order to have business you have to be able to expand overseas and some (although preferably limited) direct/indirect support of corporations. In order to secure this, you need to have a military and diplomatic system to negotiate or protect. In order to support this defensive system, you need to have a supportive (ie happy) constituency as well as a productive economy. There is plenty of room for nuance in this formula, which I'm sure someone can pick out for our benefit, but it'll have to do for now.

From a political perspective, I think people need to feel safe first before they can worry about school vouchers, affirmative action, etc. My party doesn't seem to realize this. When they find someone who is coherent about this, I will vote for them.

My .02.

Posted by: CaryF at August 8, 2003 07:43 AM

Michael,

If you can support a war to liberalize the Middle East, don't oppose this one just because of the Administration's bullshit.

I didn't oppose it just because of the Administration's bullshit. I believed then as I do now that the decision to go to war with Iraq at that time was motivated as much by domestic political concerns as it was by national security concerns. The serial use of "Iraq" and "al Qaeda" or "9/11" in the same sentences, carefully avoiding explicitly linking the two while making every effort to enforce the relationship in the American public's mind, was just despicable. Michael, this administration's PR expertise scares the hell out of me--maybe, maybe this time around the right thing has actually been done even though the national support for it was built on false pretenses. But what about next time? (I know, this goes back to the 'grand strategy' debate that was lighting up the blogosphere a week or two ago, and it's been done.)

Look: If Bush announced in advanced that we want to invade Iraq to free the Arabs from tyranny, every dictatorship in the region would have rallied behind Saddam Hussein and denied us basing rights.

Well, we were denied basing rights pretty much everywhere but Kuwait and Qatar, anyway. And I don't think that all of the leaders in the middle east (like the House of Saud and King Abdullah, for example) were necessarily convinced that we were only there because of WMD and terrorism-link fears, either.

Of course the Bush Administration used disinformation and distraction in the build-up campaign. But you and I were not the targets of that disinformation. The wretched Saudis were the target.

I don't buy that for a second. Review the polling on domestic support for the war over the last year, and how it hinged on the aforementioned beliefs that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 and/or had ties to al Qaeda. These ideas didn't just sprout into people's heads spontaneously--right after the attacks hardly anyone believed that Iraq was involved.

I would also reiterate that if the goal of this disinformation campaign was to convince foreign governments, especially in the middle east, that Iraq did pose a threat to us because of it's WMD stockpiles (oh, wait, I mean "program") and links to terrorism, it was rather a bit of a failure.

Calling the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was Bush's way of signalling this fact to people like you and me.

Actually, I thought of it as cheap marketing. But maybe you're right; regardless, that name didn't get applied until the war started, so the signal was somewhat irrelevant by that point.

Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at August 8, 2003 09:26 AM

Re numbering. Just focus the comments window and hit Control F. That brings the "find in this page" function, where you can enter "Schmoe" or anything else.

Posted by: Stephen at August 8, 2003 02:02 PM

Since when did the war on Iraq have anything to do with the war on terror? If anything, it has served as a massive distraction from our obligations to homeland security and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 8, 2003 06:08 PM

Kimmitt,

It isn't a "war on terror." We are not at war with a military tactic.

We are war with Islamic fascists, of which Saddam Hussein is obviously one.

Bush's silly phraseology is partly to blame for your confusion, but this still shouldn't be an excessively difficult concept to grasp. We are all old enough to think for ourselves without needing the president to hold our hands.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 8, 2003 07:36 PM

We are war with Islamic fascists, of which Saddam Hussein is obviously one.

1) Why do you say that we are at war with Islamic fascists? What is an Islamic fascist, anyway?

2) By no stretch of the imagination can Saddam Hussein be considered either Islamic or Fascist. Hussein is a run-of-the-mill tinpot dictator, of a decidely secular stripe. He spent a great deal of time and money repressing Islamic groups in his country. His ideology is not Fascist -- it is not (to borrow phraseology from Orcinus) ultranationalist palinogenetic populism. He's an old-fashioned Big Man, of a type which is ubiquitous throughout history.

3) ...and therefore, this entire Iraq misadventure has been an assault on a genuinely evil (foul, horrible, awful, heinous, reprehensible) man which will cost us about a trillion dollars, tie up our military, and (most likely) leave us the colonial governors of Iraq for most of the rest of our lives. In order to do this, we have reallocated forces such that we will be less able to respond to North Korea, unable to respond quickly to humanitarian crises (thus nicely defeating the necons' logic that there was a humanitarian reasoning behind the war), and unable to do anything but watch as Afghanistan slips into a narcoterrorist economy.

All this, and we were lied to repeatedly in order to whip up enthusiasm for the war.

I can understand why a person who wanted us in Iraq would be frustrated with the Democratic Party. I simply cannot understand why anyone would want us in Iraq.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 8, 2003 10:07 PM

Joe Schmuck,

For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been running on a racist platform. They've done everything in their power to fan the flames of racial hatred and combat the aspirations of minorities.

Its unfortunate that Michael holds you up as an example of his thinking. Because all it reveals is that you and he actually buy into some of the most repulsive left-wing propoganda.

The notion that Republicans "fan the flames" of racism is a fraud. The real truth is that left is the BASTION of racism in this country. This has alaways been the case historically. This is the case today.

It is the Democrats that opposed abolition. It is the Democrats that gave us Jim Crow. It is the Democrats that wink at Louis Farrakhan. It is the Democrats that make excuses for the appalling resurgance of anti-Semitisim in this country. It is the Democrats that keep blacks disproportionately dependent on failing schools and welfare programs that have led to declining educational achievement among blacks and the destruction of the black family.

No party has done more to destory African-Americans than the Democrats. If you believe that contemporary Democratic polices will help blacks, then you must also believe that handing out crack and heroin to junkies is good for junkies. The goal of Democrat policies isn't to help blacks. It is to keep them dependent on Democrats.

Your only shred of evidence that Republcans are racists is the switch of sourthern conservatives in the post civil rights era. However even this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Southerners in the pre-civil rights era were characterized by being racist AND socially conservative. In that era, BOTH parties were socially conservative but only one supported legalized racism. You can guess which. When Democrats embraced civil rights for the FIRST time back in the 60's, they also embraced cultural nihilism.

When southerners switched to the Republicans, they didn't do so under the fantasy of recreating Jim Crow. They did so to escape the cultural nihilism of the left. They understood that the era of white supremecy had ended and there was no going back. They realigned with the party that was consistent with their cultural conservatism. Did they bring some racism with them? Of course. Is that racism fading away? Yes. If you don't believe me, go back and review the Trent Lott affair. It wasn't the left that attacked him. It was the right.

Finally, go look at the voting record for the 1964 Civil rights act. What you will find is that
61% of House Democrats voted for it and 69% of
Senate Democtats. Sounds impressive until you consider that 80% of House Republcians and 82% of Senate Republicans vote in favor.

Your smear of Republicans as racist is simply unsupported by the facts. The racists in America today are from the left. This will not surprise INFORMED observers since racism has traditionally found its home in the left.

Posted by: HA at August 9, 2003 06:20 AM

If you don't believe me, go back and review the Trent Lott affair. It wasn't the left that attacked him. It was the right.

I'm not sure Al Gore counts as a member of the Right, and he was most certainly the first major figure to speak up against the Senate Majority Leader. Lott's comments were a non-issue until Gore criticized them nationally.

At any rate, if you believe that the Party of Head Start, college loans and grants, expanded health care, the SBA, and the integration of the military has a bias against African-Americans, this discussion is more or less useless. We're just not living on the same planet.

But we digress.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 9, 2003 10:57 AM

Michael,

I do respect your views, but have a hard time understanding where you are coming from. I'm having a hard time comprehending how you can see Democrats, by in large, opposed to national security. If all the congressional Republicans abstained voting to authorize Bush to go to war it still would have passed overwhelmingly. Same with the PATRIOT act. Doesn't that count for something?
I see that the Republicans go to great lengths to paint the Democrats as hippy peaceniks, and in a superficial sense are very convincing. The reality, and the actions of individuals, bely a far more complicated situation. I hope you take that into consideration before you give up on the party.
I won't deny there is a debate in the Democratic party, and I'm grateful for it. A party showing a diversity of opinions is actually, to me, a sign of health. Irregardless of what one thinks about this specific war I think there is a broader picture we should keep in mind.
Although our population is relatively small we spend almost as much on our military as all the rest of NATO combined. It's about 1/3rd of our non-security budget. This years military budget (not including the costs for Iraq) increase (~$50 Billion) is about the same amount that Russia spends each year (who is the distant 2nd in military spending). Irregardless of whether you support the spending it is what we do with our money rather than nationalized health care, environmental cleanup, or investments in upgrading our inner city schools. Its one thing if our country can afford it... but perhaps its another if we need to borrow half a TRILLION dollars to balance the budget this year. Considering that over half of our debts are bought by foreign investors now our econmy could be crippled if the international community simply stopped buying US bonds. Isn't that a national security issue?
Is it really in the long term good for the US, and the world, for us to charge the cost of being that worlds policemen on our national credit card?
I deliberately left out the human element out of the last couple paragraphs... the cost of American soldiers lives as well as the benefits of the newfound freedom for the long-suffering people in Iraq, Afhanistan and elsewhere. Those are important considerations, absolutely, I'm just trying to say they aren't the only ones.
The fact that all Democrats aren't blindly choosing one opinion in this exceedingly complicated situation suggests to me that they are a more balanced party (even if I don't agree with many in the party). This is not a good time for an entire party (or worse, both parties) to choose one opinion and stick with it irregardless of everything else thats going on. That's not wise, thats not Democratic, and it is dangerous in the long-term.

Posted by: Micah at August 10, 2003 09:12 AM

Kimmitt,

By no stretch of the imagination can Saddam Hussein be considered either Islamic or Fascist. Hussein is a run-of-the-mill tinpot dictator, of a decidely secular stripe. He spent a great deal of time and money repressing Islamic groups in his country. His ideology is not Fascist -- it is not (to borrow phraseology from Orcinus) ultranationalist palinogenetic populism.

Firstly, Saddam is about as secular as Jesus. He described himself as "secular" in order not to invite the US's disapproval at a time when the US were keen to fight Iranian theocracy. But we're talking about a man who had special editions of the Koran printed in his own blood here. That ain't secular.

Yes, he repressed Islamic groups in Iraq, but then he repressed everyone. Remember, too, that Bin Laden is known for repressing various Muslims in the world -- generally for not being the right kind of Muslim -- and that doesn't make him secular either. Saddam attacked Islamic groups (note the difference between Islamic and Muslim here) because Islamists crave political power and thus were his opposition. He would have opposed them equally if they'd wanted to rule Iraq in the name of Scientology.

Secondly, I put it to you that Mussolini, the inventor of fascism, had he lived to see Saddam and the Ba'athists, would have recognised a fellow traveller. Saddam employed an opportunistic combination of Leninism, nationalism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism -- sounds pretty damn fascist to me.

Posted by: Squander Two at August 11, 2003 04:02 AM

Joe Schmoe's comment is "perfect"? The comment that states that the GOP runs on a "racist platform" but fails to state exactly how (and, in fact, specifically excludes the opposition to affirmative action one might think he means)? The one that strongly implies that non-racist Republicans are the exception, not the rule?

No, no, no, no. A thousand times no! His comments on the Dems are fine. But there is no 'perfection' in this patently offensive stereotyping.

Posted by: Dodd at August 11, 2003 01:50 PM

Kimmitt,

At any rate, if you believe that the Party of Head Start, college loans and grants, expanded health care, the SBA, and the integration of the military has a bias against African-Americans, this discussion is more or less useless. We're just not living on the same planet.

Except for military integration, what do any of these programs have to do with African Americans? No, this isn't a trick question.

Do I think the Democrats have a bias against blacks? No, not any more. Do I think that the Democrats are USING blacks as pawns to hold on to power? Damn straight. Democratic policies are designed to keep blacks DEPENDENT on the Democratic party.

Keep 'em down and victimized. And give them a few hand outs to foster dependency.

Its also clear that the Democrats are substituting anti-semitism for white-supremecy.

Posted by: HA at August 12, 2003 06:44 PM

The idea that a Party whose most recent vice-Presidential candidate (and current front-runner for Presidential candidate) is Jewish is institutionally antisemitic is absurd. People are allowed to disagree with Israeli foreign and domestic policy without being antisemitic; for example, a number of Israelis do so all the time.

As for Saddam being Fascist, that's not a terrible term for him; the main thing missing is the nationalism. Saddam's regime did not glorify Iraq so much as glorify Saddam; compare this to Mussolini's (or Franco's or Pikulski's) constant reference to the rebirth or rise of their respective peoples and nations. That's why I lean back toward "tinpot dictator," because of the connotations and denotations.

Yes, Saddam had a Koran written in his own blood. But he also had a Christian foreign minister (Tariq Aziz). Which is a better explanation of these two events -- that Saddam was an Islamist with a weird blind spot for one man in his organization or that Saddam was a shrewd dictator who paid careful lip service to piety while concentrating mainly on his own power?

Saddam's actions are much better explained by the "essentially secular dictator" mode of analysis than the "Islamist fundamentalist ruler" mode of analysis. Since that is the case, I lean toward the former explanation, which is why I find the continued belief that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with increasing US security to be indefensible.

Posted by: Kimmitt at August 14, 2003 04:21 PM

Kimmitt,

The idea that a Party whose most recent vice-Presidential candidate (and current front-runner for Presidential candidate) is Jewish is institutionally antisemitic is absurd. People are allowed to disagree with Israeli foreign and domestic policy without being antisemitic; for example, a number of Israelis do so all the time.

How do you account for the single-minded obsession with Israeli government policy from the lithium-left if not by anti-Semitism? You guys say NOTHING about Arafat, Mugabe, Castro and the rest of the world's thugs, yet you drone on endlessly about Israel which is in a permanent struggle for survival.

Face it. The Democrats have a strong anti-Semitic streak in the left wing of the party. Lieberman is the only centrist in the primary and he only attracts around 20% support levels. That's pathetic. If he wasnt't Jewish he would be polling much higher than he is. If the French wing of the party wasn't divided between 8 people or so, Lieberman would be an also-ran.

Posted by: HA at August 14, 2003 07:10 PM

Kimmitt,

Saying that there are two reasonable explanations for Saddam's behaviour and that you lean towards one of them is a far cry from what you originally said, which was that "By no stretch of the imagination can Saddam Hussein be considered either Islamic or Fascist." I'm willing to accept that he was a secular dictator, but not that to say otherwise is inconceivably far-fetched.

Also, it is possible that, even if he was a secular non-fascist, it was still in the interests of the USA's security to get rid of him. If you're going to assert (as you just have) that getting rid of Saddam can't possibly have had anything to do with US security because he was a secular dictator, I think you need to cite a bit of evidence.

Posted by: Squander Two at August 15, 2003 03:42 AM