May 22, 2005
Purgatory
Marcus Cicero says he’s in purgatory for now, stranded somewhere between the political left and the political right because neither deserves his loyalty. I know how he feels.
The political right isn't much fun. And yet life-long lefties like Keith Thompson at the San Francisco Chronicle are still abandoning the fold, even after the 2004 election, for reasons that I am entirely sympathetic with.Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos. I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.Plenty more where that came from, so read the whole thing.I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
[…]
One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.
This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.
True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.
Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.
All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.
"reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode."
Yeah, right, like it didn't implode long ago I'm afraid. This guy is in total denial.
When you force a country to priviatize off its economy to foreign bidders as the viceroy Bremer did and you force it to accept military bases for the long term, the left is entirely right I'm afraid.
Pity the delusional couch warriors
Posted by: stan at May 22, 2005 02:43 PMI think you're missing the point, somewhat. Thompson's take is not that he has stopped being a liberal, but rather, that the left has moved away from him, spiralling down into a progressively more insular and self-referential loop.
As for Cicero and your own sense of being stranded between left and right, check out the book "South Park Conservatives". As your own threads here show, there is a broad and noisy range of opinion and options on the political right, whereas if even one person on the left accuses you of being not "progressive" or "liberal" enough, you are effectively apostasized as the stampede of panicked lefties thunders to embrace their new definition (just as the most simple example, who outs gays these days for political advantage, the left or the right?).
C'mon over. You know you want to...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 22, 2005 02:48 PMWhy should the left support a clown who thinks that democracy is happening in a country that was forced to hand over vital decisions about how its ecnonomy will be organized to a viceroy like Bremer? Or forced by the IMF to accept debt renegotiation conditions demanding wholescale 'readjustment' policies or else. The guy is not someone any serious leftist should embrace. I love his playing 'victim' though after he endorses with sloppy rationale the current occupation of Iraq by the US
Posted by: stan at May 22, 2005 03:18 PMSerious leftists embrace George Galloway and Islamist thugs, of course.
Posted by: Martin Grossman at May 22, 2005 03:32 PMI wouldn't say we have to emrace anyone. But we should avoid those who believe that somehow democracy is being built when a conquering army forces a country to accept its control over major ecnoomic policies such as how much of the country to privatize and under what conditions. why should any leftist accept that as desirable? It'd be like arguing the Repubs should accept increases in progressive income taxation and then whining that you were 'rejected' or 'shunned' when you did such a thing. Farcical reasoning.
Reminds me of all the folks who saw Hitchens as a victim of The Nation after he voluntarily quit the mag and they offered him the chance to come back at any time unconditionally! another 'victim'...
Stan, the problem with you leftists is you're all bitch. So, you don't believe Iraq has a democracy. Was Iraq better off under Saddam than under the current regime? If you think Saddam was bad, how would you have gotten rid of him? For that matter, the creep running Uzbekistan needs to go; the world awaits your solution.
At least us couch warriors want the world to be a better place. You guys seem happy if you just have a plentiful supply of ankles to bite.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 22, 2005 03:56 PMNewt and Hillary... hmm... it would at least be an interesting campaign. Might be worth it for the entertainment value alone.
Posted by: chuck at May 22, 2005 04:25 PMIt is vital that true leftists abstain from criticizing the leadership. Have the patience to receive the consensus of the day and then go with it. That is all we ask. Play ball with the team.
Why should leftists respect someone who is critical of the leftist circular consensus spiral?
Posted by: Munchausen at May 22, 2005 04:53 PM"For that matter, the creep running Uzbekistan"
Gonna be kinda hard as long as your gov't keeps on supplying him with dollars and guns, eh? hypocrisy to the hilt I say!
Is Iraq better off now than say the most immediate years of memory for most Iraqis? I'd say definitively no. In 2000, there were sanctions, repression of political dissidents [though not that much more than in, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or other 'friends of democracy' whom the US aids with $$ and guns]. Most mainstream opinion in the US and Iraq agree that life is not better and in many ways considerably more horrifying. But hey, we got to force the gov't to privatize under any condition we like! I guess it is better off as an economy entirely dependent on the outside world for development.
If Iraq were doing better you'd see the Tottens of the world going to Iraq to report on how much better things are btw, or the couch warriors signing up to make up for the huge declines in the US of recruits for the Iraq occupation. You can't be serious in your delusional state.
Posted by: stan at May 22, 2005 05:34 PMActually, I brought up the creep in Uzbekistan for that very reason; he's got to be dealt with, the US has taken measures, but it's not clear to me we're doing enough, or that they're the right measures. So ideas would be nice.
But instead we hear about how delusional I am.
Thanks Stan for making my point for me.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 22, 2005 05:44 PMAlright, Stan, quit monopolizing my comments section. You've made your points, now give someone else a chance.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 22, 2005 05:49 PMStan raises an important issue. The Left would embrace what America has done in Iraq if we instituted a state controlled economy there. Any other criticism of the Iraq effort is only smokescreen.
Keep it up, Stan, and more will leave the Left. Equality of opportunity trumps equality of outcome. Marxism is dead.
Posted by: Syl at May 22, 2005 05:51 PMPersonally, I bet stan drops the false consciousness bomb sometime soon....
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 22, 2005 06:08 PMReally? Tell me where markets are doing better these days, state dominated China or shock therapy Russia?
Be serious.
Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients,
Nailed it on the head.
Duty, responsibility, sacrifice-- this is just the rightwing oligarchy trying to deny the downtrodden masses their civil liberties and entitlements.
Posted by: at May 22, 2005 06:14 PMStan!
I just told you to stop monopolizing my comments section. And I mean it. Stop it right now.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 22, 2005 06:17 PMI think all of us, right/left/center/sideways/slantways, need to take a serious chill pill and re-evaluate what issues are really going to affect us. And I mean we put some thought into it and be deadly serious. There are some absolutes that we need to take to heart. Oil is a finite resource and the impending lack of it will change the entire way we view ourselves and the world. What good is a left and right if you can't move freely, spend freely, relax freely, eat freely, etc. All which can be adversely affected by the lack of oil and the mischief that will be going on to preserve the "little bits". I'm a husband and father so I just don't think of myself; I think about the future my children will be living in. And the "moving from the left or right" is small potatoes to me.
When are we ever going to learn that the best way to unite is to solve the universal problems that affect us all?
Posted by: Solomon Mason at May 22, 2005 07:13 PMI sympathize with those who have had to turn their backs on their prior political allies and admire those who do so with the panache of this gentleman and our host. As a past Libertarian voter (pause to let the hoots of derision die down), but one who, following the Dems debacle in 2000, will NEVER vote outside the two major parties again, this process begs a series of questions.
1.When one is dissatisfied with the leadership or direction of one's party or movement, how long does one try to fix it from within before one bails.
2. When one does bail, it seems unlikely one will head all the way toward the other major option. So one is sort of stuck in a hinterland. How does one effect change from there? Is a vote every two years enough to do that?
3. If it isn't enough to effect change, then aren't you doing two things at the same time a) weakening one's own political influence, a kind of opting out of sorts and b) necessarily helping the extremists on both sides who, in primaries for example, needn't deal with your ilk?
4. Shouldn't one either stay and slug it out within one's party or group, or join the other party, or attempt to create a third party which would eclipse one of the other two?
I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I could join the Dem party of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, barbara Boxer, Cynthia MacKinney, Jimmy Carter, the Kossite Brigade etc.I certainly could see myself voting for Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh or Bredesen of Tennessee for President. But until the Dems show some notion of nominating/valuing someone like that? Going to the Dems with my money and effort isn't a real option even if I would vote for their candidates. I suspect for libs leaving the left/Dems, the view is the same. So where does one's money and effort then go? How is one improving the situation/furthering their political goals?
Posted by: spc67 at May 22, 2005 07:23 PMA left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.
They don't believe there is real democracy in America. All the proof they need that democracy is an illusion is the simple fact that the ignorant, cud-chewing masses don't buy into their Leftist agenda-- proof positive that the Rightwing Sith Lords have captured the reigns of government and have prevented a level playing field by which the Left could compete in the marketplace of ideas. Given they don't believe in the existence of a level playing field, they don't mind undermining our democratic system with their continuous accusations of "rigged elections" and "fraud", etc. If our system is weakened, so much the better-- after all, it has permitted the masses to be "easily manipulated" by the Sith Lords. A rigged system-- or a "corrupt Senate"-- deserves to fall, or be brought down, and it's leaders brought to justice or assassinated by an enlightened Jedi vanguard elite (read Liberals). It's for the good of the Republic, and the masses (which they consider no better than cud-chewing cattle).
Posted by: at May 22, 2005 07:27 PMDoes anyone (not counting stan) think that it would be possible to move to the right and just elbow our way in to the big tent. It seems like both parties represent a very loud minority. Would it be possible to take over a party and elect people who don't suck?
Posted by: Mike #3or4 at May 22, 2005 07:40 PMSpc67: you raise some interesting questions.
Someone, I forget who, once said "Neither side has a monopoly on sons of bitches". I would also say that neither side has a monopoly on truth or intelligence. When things get polarized, as they are now, the best anyone can do is simply speak the truth as they see it, based on the values they hold, and engage in sincere dialogue, without rancor, with people of good will from all sides.
Forget about what camp you belong to, because right now I see a lot wrong with both of them.
Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 22, 2005 07:45 PMAll of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built.
holy shmoly, this article is just chock full of goodies. If Libs took him up on his words you'd see many an old gaurd Lib come back to the Dem party-- probably not myself, as I'm way too far gone by now-- but many.
Posted by: spaniard at May 22, 2005 08:03 PMYes, Stan has been monopolizing the comments section here, but it's interesting in a way to read what he writes because he is such a good illustration of some of the reasons a person such as Thompson feels the need to abandon his identity as a liberal.
Interesting questions raised by spc67. If one leaves the party, how does one change things for the better? Has one lost power by walking away from the party? Although there is a time-honored non-affiliated tradition known as being an Independent (something I now call myself), do Independents have much influence in elections? Well, they can be quite important in close elections, like the last one. But it's much harder for Independents to influence the process by which a candidate is nominated. As spc67 rightly points out, the primary process tends to make both parties choose candidates who represent their more extreme wings. Third party movements have traditionally been very difficult to get going in this country.
What's the rememdy? I really haven't a clue. But I don't think it is acceptable to remain in a party the main tenets of which you have come to repudiate, whose candidate you despise, and the majority of whose members you disagree with.
Because of the Thompson article, the topic of leaving liberalism has been much under discussion. Coincidentally, I started reading David Horowitz's "political change" autobiography Radical Son today, and I find it quite fascinating. Here's a post I wrote earlier on the subject of Horowitz's book, his process of political change, and the failure of the Utopian dream involved in leftist thought.
Posted by: neo-neocon at May 22, 2005 08:47 PMNeo-neocon, do you think it is possible to create a thrid party? Would it be better to take a share of the big two?
Comment fun (if Totten does not mind). What would your platform be if you created your own party?
Posted by: Mike#3or4 at May 22, 2005 09:27 PMMike #3 or 4: It's certainly possible to create one. Whether it would get any traction is another thing entirely; I tend to doubt it, based on past experience. As far as the platform goes--well, if I were doing the choosing, it would be socially middle of the road, hawkish in foreign policy. But that's just me.
However, now that I've said a third party wouldn't be likely to get any traction, I wanted to mention the following very interesting and apropos article in today's Boston Globe--which indicates maybe I'm wrong. Apparently, there is a middle-of-the-road coalition being formed in the Senate, and it has some chance of tempering the polarization there. Here's the article. An excerpt:
The group of about 15 senators has been quietly forging a compromise even as their more partisan colleagues bludgeon each other daily on the Senate floor. They comprise at least six members of each party, the current margin of power in the Senate, and thus could decide any vote that falls along party lines.
Close Senate observers say the coalition's work could shift power from the majority and minority leaders and revitalize the political middle, with moderates who have found themselves out of the mainstream of their own parties enjoying heightened influence on major legislation.
If they are able to work productively together on other issues, their influence could expand, with the docket including such contentious issues as Social Security, stem cell research, reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and John Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations.
Posted by: neo-neocon at May 22, 2005 10:09 PMThompson had the bravery to denounce Stalin at a lefty dinner party!!! Wow! What balls. Thompson should get a medal for his bravery.
Posted by: Drydock at May 22, 2005 10:50 PM“Apparently, there is a middle-of-the-road coalition being formed in the Senate, and it has some chance of tempering the polarization there.”
The Vietnam era leftists have captured the Democratic Party. These people, like Howard Dean, are convinced that American power is the real threat to world peace. The war on terror is essentially a con game to enrich Halliburton and other capitalist entities. Nothing is going to change anytime in the near future. I strongly suspect that the national Democratic party died last November 2. Am I too pessimistic? OK, I’ll concede that things might turn around in 2012. Who is willing to be that patient?
Posted by: David Thomson at May 23, 2005 01:02 AMMichael,
It's a little late to give up on the left. That should have been done a long time ago. But it's too early to give up on the Democrats.
spc67 is right. Barak Obama and Evan Bayh are shining lights. And it's amazing that Bob Casey Jr. is running in Pennsylvania. Talk about moderates. The Democrats went with a pro-lifer, and all of the others in the race dropped out.
Mike,
You're really into comment fun.
If the "shining lights" of the democratic party move to allow an up or down vote on presidential judicial nominees, then they are truly a welcome change from the brain dead majority of their party. But if they go along for the ride on this unprecedented distortion of constitutional checks and balances, they are just more of the same old necrophages.
Posted by: Arcosan at May 23, 2005 04:29 AMHey Michael,
this is turning into a stampede. Soon you'll be able to form your own purgatory party.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 06:31 AMoops, scratch that last post! I thought it sounded familiar :=)
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 06:32 AMThe third party exists and it is the Independents. While not structurally defined it numbers at about 23% of the voters. That number doesn't match either of the two major parties. Yet. The majors are pissing off enough people that it might soon. Don't vote along party lines. Do your homework and vote for the individual. Nothing says your money or support must go the the DNC or RNC.
If you feel you want the increased weight of an individual party then choose the one that is doing the best work. If I had to choose one now it would be the RNC. They are hitting the streets, talking to the people. Right now the DNC is talking AT me and that is kinda annoying. I'm really tired of being referred to as a "Red-State Goober, Religious Extremist, ChimpHitlerMonkey Loving, Ignorant Hick." Really doesn't motivate me. On the flip side the Schiavo affair, the deficit and the expanded Patriot Act isn't exciting me about the RNC. In 2004 I voted exclusively Right but it was an insipid Left that put me there. We'll see what happens next year.
Semper Fi
Posted by: RickM at May 23, 2005 06:33 AMAnd once again we see what may be the most diabolical folly of humans; pretending that they're similar, when each one really appears as a unique and quite mad individual.
Anyone who felt that the hippies were right and joined up with the left in the 60's and 70's, should have been smart enough to realize that "No War" and "Make Love Not War" meant, er, well, No War. These people seem to take a position against nationalistic wars. This would seem a key part of their ideology. Most of them are against all war and all violence. A completely insane position, perhaps, but not one that's been kept in the closet. If you were a Democrat in the 90's and actually thought that most vocally active Democrats would support any sort of war, you were deluding yourself and should seek professional help. Helping the poor is part of being Liberal, so in the UN, so are peaceniks.
Not that the other side appears better. Libretarians hold their noses and vote Right then get surprised when a Conservative Christian president wants to keep a vegatated woman alive and was willing to help trump State laws to accomplish the goal. Just because someone shares some values, doesn't mean they share many or even most of them.
If you're stupid enough to base your ballot on D's and R's instead of trying to find the right person for the job, then please don't come out and vote. You're not helping. If you don't base your ballot on D's and R's then don't worry about these dinosaur parties that have more baggage than Imelda Marco at a shoe sale.
If you can't find someone you think worth voting for, then you may just realize how sad our political scene appears these days.
Posted by: at May 23, 2005 07:34 AMMichael -- I think you were out of line with Stan. He wasn't monopolizing your comments section -- merely responding to what other people wrote in response to him. He made his initial comment, and then Martin Grossman responded. His second comment was in response to Martin's comment. His third comment was in response to something Mark Poling wrote about him. Then you stepped and told him to desist. His fourth comment was in response to something Syl said, again, about him. Then you told him to be quiet again. I guess he's shut up since then.
If say, David Thomsen or Mark Poling decided to go to the Daily Kos, and got into a back and forth exchange with one of the many 'Stans' who post there -- say on the topic of Middle East democratization -- and he was then told after three posts to be quiet, I'd be pissed. So would you, I think.
I don't think that Hitchens plans to shrink from a verbal duel with George Galloway, as much as it appears that Galloway "won" the first round with his vigorous defense in front of Senator Coleman (and Hitch). You, and those that agree with you, shouldn't shrink from verbal duels with George Galloway wanna-bees.
Posted by: markus rose at May 23, 2005 07:51 AMThere have been musings about a third 'Centrist' party possibly emerging, but I think the chances of that happening are slim. The American political system, operates in such a way as to reward a two party system and to make the chances of legitimate third party emergence improbable.
I would like to see a more expanded American electorate with Green party reps and Libertarian party reps, sharing the floor in a debate with the Democrats and Republicans, but that will probably not happen.
The second best option is the possibility of the two major parties extending the roofs of their tents and incorporate a plurality of views.
I would like to see my own party (Democratic party) become a centrist party with a liberal wing, rather than an explicitly liberal party. And while Ron Paul type libertarians will never be Democrats, I would like to see the party make a push to recruit more 'small l' libertarians and Reason Magazine style libertatians into the fold.
Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at May 23, 2005 08:19 AMWhat I appreciate right now about some Republicans is that, for better or worse, they have picked up the torch of spreading liberty to preserve our own. They're being proactive in an uncertain world, not sitting around waiting to be smacked. I am fully aware of the pitfalls of the Bush Doctrine, but at least it's a strategy for ejecting the US out of the world that gave us 9/11 -- though fraught with risk.
I think some of the neoconservative agenda is liberal in conservative's clothing. Perhaps that's why it's hated so much by people who call themselves liberals, but are actually champions of the status quo. Liberals are the ones who are supposed to conceive, grasp and promote big, sweeping ideas. But instead, Bush is doing it.
I have a lot of liberal friends in San Francisco -- believe me, I'm pretty ensconced in that slice of society. By and large, most of them are materially doing very well -- their form of liberalism at best seems to be a concern for abstracted have-nots that are outside of their immediate circles. They believe in big ideas, but not if they have anything to do with the military or extending beyond accepted liberal causes, established 30 or more years ago. They're form of idealism is like giving a few dollars to Save the Children at the office -- completely abstracted.
But I also know this: So Bush & company are leading the idealist's charge into places like Iraq -- idealism can be bracing, but it can lead people to dark places. I have a fear that there are no brakes at all with this administration. Once upon a time, the ideals of the liberals were fresh, and truly idealistic -- ideals that were acted upon in Congress, and in the Whitehouse. Well, now it's 30 years later, and look at the Democrats. They're apparatchiks to stale politics. They're entrenched. Defensive. Dull. Dated. No longer on the cutting-edge. That can happen to neoconservativism too. It probably will.
Perhaps all I am really doing is identifying a kind of universal law that idealism always corrupts over time. I think the antidote for that universal law, if it is true, is that there should be real competition with respect to ideals and optional directions. Unfortunately, that's not the case right now.
My little essay fantasizing about Newt and Hillary running together in 2008 was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I think those two have too much baggage to get along. But my fantasy was a cry for something new -- something completely intriguing and captivating. Something that captures my imagination, and inflames me to be energized and positive. Kerry's 'No Campaign' relied on contrarians' politics. There wasn't a grain of 'yes' in it.
Bush the dope, the chimp? Explain to me, Democrats, how a chimp beat two smarties in a row, Gore and Kerry? And don't give me any of that hogwash about how stupid Americans are, and now America is so dumb that they're the majority. What a bunch of elitist crap. Explain your vision, people. You're irrelevant right now.
Believe me, if someone like me is voting for Bush, putting Dean in charge of the Democratic party is a very, very big mistake. That did it for me -- if Kerry wasn't bad enough, they put the biggest loser of the primaries in charge of the whole political showboat.
Speaking of stupidity, how stupid is that?
Posted by: Marcus Cicero at May 23, 2005 08:28 AMDustin Ridgeway -- it sounds like you want both parties to become more libertarian. I, on the other hand, also a Democrat, would rather our party became more like the party of Truman, JFK, LBJ -- more hawkish, less culturally elitist, more economically populist. Such is the impasse -- those substantially dissatisfied with either party disagree on too much amongst themselves to form a third party.
And even those with a shared libertarian bent tend to disagree sharply questions of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy.
Posted by: Markus Rose at May 23, 2005 08:29 AMRoss Perot's run in '92 showed that a third party could in theory blossom, but the same run shows the problems. Here's a list of conditions where I think such a thing could be successful, and where we're at regarding those conditions:
1. Massive dissatisfaction with the current choices. Check.
2. A "fat pipe" channel to put a new platform in front of the electorate. (Perot with his infomercials and charts comes to mind.) Check.
3. Reduced institutional barriers to third-party political participation. Missing. (Not critical, as Perot showed, but the deck is certainly stacked toward a two-party system in most states.)
4. A charismatic leader/figurehead who can capture the attention and imagination of the electorate. Unidentified. Ross Perot showed exactly how important it will be to a new party to have a "face". (He also showed that it doesn't have to be a particularly pretty face.)
5. The above, with the psychological stability to ride out the turd typhoon which will inevitably follow initial success. Unidentified. Ross Perot at heart was a damaged little egomaniacal control freak who couldn't stand not being in total control of his environment. When it got hot, he got weird. And considering there wasn't any real platform other than his personality, the most recent credible attempt at starting a mainstream third party failed.
Arnold Schwartzeneger is the obvious choice to launch a third party. He's apparently doing a good job in California, he appeals to a broad swath of the center, he's got charisma out the wazzoo, and he doesn't seem prone to flaking out.
Only problem with this scenario is, he seems happy to be a Republican.
Ditto Giuliani. Less charisma, more political experience. Same basic problem of being happy in the Republican Big Tent.
McCain? Maybe. Strikes me as Perot with more cojones. Not so happy with the pachyderms. But getting old.
Can't see any identified Dem with the potential to break away in the near future. (Obama? Very green, but give him 10 years and a lot of smart airtime, and who knows?)
Someone from outside, like Perot?
None really jump out, although Oprah or someone like her could cause a lot of noise.
Not to perpetuate the Blogosphere Triumphant meme, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place....?
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 09:00 AMMark Poling: "Only problem with this scenario is, he (Schwartzeneger) seems happy to be a Republican."
Also he isn't American by birth, thus making him ineligible to be president under current law.
Posted by: VinoVeritas at May 23, 2005 09:18 AMTrue, but I was thinking of Ahnuld as more of a standardbearer for a new third party. (And of course it is possible to ammend the Constitution in time for the 2012 election....)
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 09:24 AMIndeed, I certainly understand how Marcus Cicero feels. I've always considered myself a moderate liberal Democrat, and for all intents and purposes, a man of the Left. I will always be a liberal, but it seems that many in the left-wing elite have abandoned their posts, and are not really liberal anymore, just insular, isolated, close-minded, and hardly progressive.
Clearly, the right is no home for us, but for those of us whose views on foreign policy have for some reason fallen out of favor with the anti-war elite (despite the liberal pedigree of those views), we must recognize that we're not excatly at home on the Left either.
Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 23, 2005 09:34 AM“Ross Perot's run in '92 showed that a third party could in theory blossom”
Ross Perot did nothing of the sort. The exact opposite occurred. He provided abundant evidence of the inevitable futility of a third party in American politics. This option is virtually doomed to fail. At the very best, it is something that might be successful---if you can be patient for another fifty years. No, you are far better off becoming a Republican or a Democrat . But am I not the one arguing that the national Democratic Party probably died last November 2? Hey, what can I tell you? Life is a bitch and then you die.
Posted by: David Thomson at May 23, 2005 09:35 AMOf all the assorted weirdness in this article, I think this bit is the weirdest.
Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?
What does Thompson base this on? He doesn't say. He mentions that Brownback "speaks openly" about the Sudan. Way to go! But can we agree that China has a shoddy human rights record, and that it oppresses its own people? Well, for one example, Brownback voted for permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000 at the same time people of "the left" like Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, and Robert Byrd were voting against it. That's one of many important human rights votes of the last decade or so, of course, but you'd think the senator with the "best" human rights record would have taken a stand. No dice.
This article as as tiresome as it is unconvincing.
Posted by: Gary Johnston at May 23, 2005 09:37 AM:Michael -- I think you were out of line with Stan. He wasn't monopolizing your comments section -- merely responding to what other people wrote in response to him. He made his initial comment, and then Martin Grossman responded. His second comment was in response to Martin's comment. His third comment was in response to something Mark Poling wrote about him. Then you stepped and told him to desist. His fourth comment was in response to something Syl said, again, about him. Then you told him to be quiet again. I guess he's shut up since then."
This is an excellent and accurate assessment of what drove Mr. Totten to tell me to, to borrow from Mr. O'Reilly's favorite phase, "SHUT UP!". Mika in the Sun thread has been going on and on as often as he likes, but dominating discussions and being right wing is no problem evidently. It evidently upsets Totten when a leftist on his comments board doesn't act like one of O'Reilly' meek and pet liberals.
Hey, are the Freepers attacking Tillman's parents now? He's attacked the military leaders and the Bush administration pretty harshly. Maybe he's a terror-symp?
"Clearly, the right is no home for us, but for those of us whose views on foreign policy have for some reason fallen out of favor with the anti-war elite (despite the liberal pedigree of those views), we must recognize that we're not excatly at home on the Left either."
Elite? they can't even get their views on the Cable shows or network newsshows, be serious. When's the last time you heard the view that the US should leave Iraq immediately being given any time on the networks or Cable shows? The majority of AMericans believe the Iraq was was not worth the death caused...but ya don't see this "elite" able to get representation, not even from NPR who stick with interviewing Anthony Cordesman to get the views of 'critics' of the war. Surely you emrbace a distorted view of 'elite'.
My apologies for "dominating" Tottens board and oppressing the echo chamberists.
stan, you know the smelly guy ranting on the subway? the one who's really pissed off and wants to be sure everyone knows it? the one the government is out to get because he knows all their secret plans?
oh, never mind.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 10:20 AMI think that third-party candidates could be successful at the Senate/House levels, where they could be disproportionately powerful, due to the relatively split nature of those bodies. (Not so much the House at the moment, but certainly the Senate.) Of course, that would depend on which side they came from; if they come from the weaker side it would only make them weaker.
A third-party Presidency would only be successful if there is some extreme issue that obviously needs to dealt with "now", and neither party seems capable of doing that. Otherwise, the third-party would just endup weakening one party or the other, depending on the issues at the time.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at May 23, 2005 10:20 AMNow all we need is mika to show up, outing secret jihadists. Tinfoil for everybody!
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 10:22 AMnope, mark ya got the wrong guy. i can't stand conspiracy theorists, especially since so many tend to be on the extreme right.
oops, I responded to someone who is taunting me, I'm 'dominating' the comment board again and vicitmizing the echo chamberists
The biggest factor favoring third party candidates, in my humble opinion, is the rapid disintermediation of information distribution.
It just isn't that hard to get a powerful message out these days.
Parties exist(ed) to amplify a set of more-or-less harmonious voices. They still do that in primaries, but the primary system is producing (at best) deeply compromised candidates.
At some point Americans are going to realize parties are the problem. What happens then, I don't know. A "flash party" isn't out of the realm of possibility (but I obviously see that as a dead-end, in terms of political evolution). A grassroots movement to eliminate (or radically alter) primaries wouldn't surprise me. But I really believe change is coming.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 10:28 AMMarcus -- accusing the Democrats of having "no vision" is a cop-out. Kerry had a wide, wide range of policy prescriptions last year. Democrats in Congress this year have introduced or cosponsored a wide range of legislation that has no chance of passage -- but that exists to state where cosponsors stand on a given issue.
And both Kerry and most Congressional Democrats have stated their support for scaling back the biggest mistake of the Bush presidency -- the tax cuts which are the main source of the public debt burden we are in the process of institutionalizing for the younger generations.
And why is that you only accuse the Left of neglecting the duties of citzenship in favor of the rights of citizens (or groups of citizens)? Bush HAS been good in asking Arabs to assume these duties. But just what has he asked of Americans in the past five years?
Posted by: Markus Rose at May 23, 2005 10:37 AMMarkus Rose
"Dustin Ridgeway -- it sounds like you want both parties to become more libertarian."
Somewhat. My own political outlook would include a much larger role for government, and a larger concept of what constitutes a public good than libertarians, no matter how small the L. I am just generally more fond of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, and feel that more libertarians in the Democratic party would be keen allies to many of the Centrist platforms I would favor.
"I, on the other hand, also a Democrat, would rather our party became more like the party of Truman, JFK, LBJ -- more hawkish, less culturally elitist, more economically populist."
Hawkishness is good. I must confess though, that I am a little less hawkish than I was a year ago. Just as I saw some of the faults in pure dogmatic liberalism that needed adjustment, so am I now skeptical of the limits of dogmatic Wilsonian foreign policy. Still, I am troubled by the isolationist instincts of much of the Democratic party and wish it was more in line with the post-war consensus of the good of spreading democracy.
As for economic populism; there are good aspects of economic populism and bad aspects. I support the good aspects (Minimum wage, collective bargaining, EITC) and wish the Party would discard with the bad aspects (Protectionism, Anti-immigration etc)
"Such is the impasse -- those substantially dissatisfied with either party disagree on too much amongst themselves to form a third party."
True. Many so called independents really don't have much in common with eachother. Several aspects of what makes independent voters independent, are things that shouldn't be courted or encouraged by either party.
"And even those with a shared libertarian bent tend to disagree sharply questions of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy."
Yes, libertarians tend to be of an isolationist bent. That's an aspect I don't particularly care for about them.
Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at May 23, 2005 10:53 AMStan, you're welcome to post. I just don't want my comment threads to be all about one person.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 23, 2005 11:08 AMThe way for a Third party to be successful, if it is ever done, is to start small. The problem with the Libertarians and the Greens is that they go for the big enchilada every 2 years (White House, Senate etc.) and unsurprisingly come up short.
First you get an organized party, and put it behind one man/woman running for a statewide office. Concentrate on getting someone elected to a local office. The more success you have, the more momentum you will build. Maybe after a few years, you recruit a candidate for a house seat. Before you know it, you've got yourself a state party. Eventually you can build yourself into a regional party encompassing a cluster of states. It takes a long time, but eventually, if you play smart, you'll have a legitimate alternative.
Third parties also need to learn how to compromise. The problem with the more infamous Third parties in the U.S. (Greens, Libertarians) is that they are so dogmatically idealogical. If I was the libertarians, I would have tried to recruit someone like Jim Jeffords to formally join the party. I would concentrate my fund and efforts in conservative but not especially religious states such as Alaska or Texas.
If I were the Greens, I would concentrate all my resources into getting people elected to statewide offices in places like Vermont and Northern California.
If I were the Constitution party; I would concentrate my efforts in uber-conservative states heavy on religion like Utah and Kansas. I would immediately target the religious culture and pander to the anti-immigrant, protectionist sentiment of the public.
If I were the Democratic Socialists, I would get Bernie Sanders to formally join the party.
Politics is fun.
Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at May 23, 2005 11:14 AMStan, you're welcome to post. I just don't want my comment threads to be all about one person.
Sure Michael, that's a fair principle if you do the same to others who dominate threads. You plainly don't in my estimable opinion. And there are dozens of examples of persons on the right end of the spectrum who engage in back and forth in other threads that far exceed what we've seen in this thread. No conspiracy there, just odd.
Posted by: stan at May 23, 2005 11:25 AMNow all we need is mika to show up, outing secret jihadists. Tinfoil for everybody!
I've got the perfect Burka for you girl. Of cos I'll also have to teach you a lesson for your immodesty.
Posted by: mika. at May 23, 2005 11:42 AMHey Stan, if you ever need to get a root canal done, don't do it. The pain will be a hell of a lot worse the day after the surgery than it was the day before the surgery.
And by the way, stop whining so much, you sound like a little bitch.
Posted by: mnm at May 23, 2005 12:17 PMStan,
I was in a bad mood yesterday. Apologies. As you were.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 23, 2005 12:48 PMmnm, you mistake saying it as it is for whining.
michael, fair enough.
Dustin:
The way for a Third party to be successful, if it is ever done, is to start small. The problem with the Libertarians and the Greens is that they go for the big enchilada every 2 years (White House, Senate etc.) and unsurprisingly come up short.
Obviously I don't agree. I think both the Greens and the Libertarians should be able to siphon votes from the Big Two in local races, but in practice have trouble generating "buzz" around their issues. On the other hand, Ross Perot after his meltdown in '92 still managed to pull in 19% of the vote. If the Reform Party had actually had anything like a core message, and/or less meddling from the freaky gnome who founded it, they might have been able to build a base over time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Ross' proto-fascists didn't take off. But as a study in what could be done, I think there are lessons to be learned.
As a postscript, assuming the MoveOn Villagers-With-Pitchforks base gets fed up trying to win from within the strictures of the Democratic Party, expect them to find a Perot type to run in '08. (Do NOT be surprised if Al Franken winds up in the role...)
Short term that would be a disaster for the Dems, but long term it might actually be what the party needs to move to the center. (I actually think Perot did that for the Republicans.)
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 02:44 PMIs Iraq better off now than say the most immediate years of memory for most Iraqis? I'd say definitively no.
Wow Stan, you can read the minds of most Iraqis? That's quite amazing. You are very talented. What else do most Iraqis think? What's their favorite color?
Most mainstream opinion in the US and Iraq agree that life is not better and in many ways considerably more horrifying.
And you can read the minds of most Americans too? Truly impressive.
Here is a WSJ article on a lot of good things happening in Iraq, btw.
If Iraq were doing better you'd see the Tottens of the world going to Iraq to report on how much better things are btw
This was special: Stan posts crap nonstop and then takes a cheap shot at Michael on Michael's website, Michael tells Stan nicely to STFU, and then Stan starts whining that he isn't being treated fairly by the host. Stan is quite a man of character. When you spit in someone's face you shouldn't expect them to give you flowers and candy. Moran.
Posted by: Timmy at May 23, 2005 02:51 PMstan,
if you think Michael favors rightwingers on this blog, then you couldn't be more wrong. I've seen him drop the hammer on many a rightwinger. He just doesn't like annoying people, and frankly, you're a bit annoying.
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 04:40 PMSpaniard is speaking from experience.:-) But my own opinion is that it isn't a good idea to chase off people who represent the extremes. After all, they provide the anchors for the debate that largely takes place in the middle. I haven't seen Stan say anything that warrants banishment. I find his opinions challenging. But then, I would say the same thing about our long lost right-winger, Carlos. The extremes are challenging. There really is nothing worse for a blog than devolving into an echo-chamber but then that applies also to the concept of "moderation", doesn't it? Isn't it possible for a "moderate" blog to devolve into a "moderate" echo-chamber due to banishing the extremes? And isn't that a prescription for a blog to lose it's political "edge" (as in "edginess")? Well, just asking...
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 05:26 PMI should have added - let the commenters take down the extremists. Why deprive them of their 'raison d'etre', vous saviez?
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 05:38 PMHell, I think this site needs to know there are people willing to stand up for the legitimacy of Chairman Mao and the merits of Saddaam Hussein.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 05:43 PMI haven't seen Stan say anything that warrants banishment. I find his opinions challenging. But then, I would say the same thing about our long lost right-winger, Carlos.
Caroline,
but the spirit of Carlos live on!
Stan,
Personally, I think Michael has a trigger finger. But it's doesn't tend toward one side or the other.
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 05:46 PMMark - if you want to stand up for either, I'm prepared to take you down. Wanna stand up for Islam while you're at it?
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 05:47 PMNow that the left is reduced to defending Saddam and other mass murderers, there is only so much listening to the broken record litany that is worthwhile. Soon the repetition becomes wearying. That point has been reached and passed by the troll in question. Perhaps he can email Caroline with his ideas every two seconds, if that will make her feel more noble.
Posted by: Rutgers at May 23, 2005 05:49 PMCaroline, I believe the effect I was aiming for is called "sarcasm."
And I wouldn't call Stan's opinions "challenging" so much as "challenged".
I know I'm being harsh on him, but so far I'm batting 1000 in feeding him sucker pitches. Give him the right opening and he'll be defending OBL's favorite mode of speaking Truth to Power.
One thing I can't stand is a jerking knee. And I hate it most of all when it gets a kick out of American misfortune.
Call me jingoistic. I'm sure stan will.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 05:56 PM"but the spirit of Carlos live on!"
I know Shakespeare said a rose is a rose by any other name. But 'Spaniard' is not 'Carlos'. I wanna talk to Carlos. The rest is just dumb. But that's probably cause on the internet, we ARE our monikers! I could change my name tomorrow and no one would know the difference. But aren't we already deprived of any recognition? Any accountability? Any of the things that we rely on in the human realm? Honestly, I don't know I how I feel about this newfound and quite bizarre anonymity. I just think, aren't we anonymous enough? Spaniard - I know you're Carlos. I don't have the slightest idea who else you are. But dammit - you're Carlos! Can't you just be Carlos? Personally, I would sign an MJT petition to restore your moniker. I mean, the cat is already out of the bag, so why pretend? What is the point (unless, of course - YOU want to pretend, and then that IS a totally different story!)?
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 06:01 PM>>>"Can't you just be Carlos?"
Caroline,
"Carlos" was banned. That's all I'm at liberty to say. But if you got "Carlos" reinstated that would be pretty cool!
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 06:09 PMWe should all be different people tomorrow.
I will be Fernando; a 36 year old Cuban exile living in Puerto Rico, where I drink expensive wine, chase beautiful women, and secretly plot the overthrow of the government of my lifelong socialist enemies. I will be a scorpio, with a faint scar across my otherwise flawless right cheek and 6 fingers on my left hand. I prefer checkers to chess.
Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at May 23, 2005 06:14 PMDustin, I like it!
I will be a professional poker player who publishes poetry pseudonymously.
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 06:18 PMI will own a pub in Pamplona, and run with the bulls every summer in July. This gives me a big leg up during tourist season, and I have my pick of the swedish beauties who come to my very popular establishment. You Americans consider me cheesy for this, as it is not your way and you are jealous, but I mix a killer sangria, the ladies love me, and I'm having a great time, so I don't care.
Posted by: spaniard at May 23, 2005 06:33 PMOK - forget it! OBVIOUSLY Dustin is NOT Cuban! Obviously Commenter is a white boy from the NY suburbs (rather than a taquiyyah practicing Muslim as Mika bizarrely professes),now working for the DOD and living in a DC suburb! Obviously Spaniard IS Carlos! Obviously Mark is a sweetheart who could never take a shotgun to defend the west against those who are plotting to destroy it! :-) I will say, though, that I have never told a lie. Caroline IS my name, only it's a completely foreign name to me. It's what one would call my "formal" name. Comes in handy on the blogs though. :-)
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 06:33 PMObviously?
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 06:43 PMYes Mark - obviously! :-)
I'm sorry - you're too sweet. You strike me as a decent person. Is that a bad thing to say? Am I wrong? If I am - show me your most evil dark side. Really - I want to see it. I have shown mine. I promise to show it again if that's necessary but really - I have shown it. To me, you've only showed your niceness. What else you got - in all your anonymity. :-)
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 06:53 PMCaroline,
You should see the tatoo she carved on my ass with her talons. And yes, I'm talkin bout "Mark Poling". And I do believe she's a Scorpio. And did I mention I'm Japaneza?
Keith Thompson nails it. Like many on the growing ranks of the ex-Left, he came around after the January 30 elections. The venue of this column is especially interesting, and it's sure to generate some discussion in the Bay Area - and beyond.
Posted by: Asher Abrams - Dreams Into Lightning at May 23, 2005 07:08 PMAll I can say is a lot of people like a 12 guage, but I think for sustained accurate fire it's hard to beat a 20 guage pump.
:)
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 07:12 PMHere's my attempt to define "middle" in American politics in 2005:
1. War -- as self-defense; Afghanistan = yes; Iraq = we'll wait and see; Iran = no, find another way
2. Life issues -- no to capital punishment except for cases of terrorism or mass murder, and no to abortions, with more education on preventing pregnancy
3. Homosexuality -- More legal options for those who want to have rights in questions of medical care for a partner, or questions of wills, but no to marriage between members of the same sex
4. Taxes -- A strong national defense, whatever it takes, and willing to pay the price tag; balance the budget, and don't saddle our kids (and grand kids) with huge deficits; let families take care of their own elderly, and get the government out of the pension business
5. Education -- keep it at the local level
6. National service -- Have everyone do something at age 18 -- inner-city service, or Peace Corps, or military, but give something back
7. Religion -- a respect for all faiths, as long as they don't encourage terrorism; the best guarantee of freedom of religion is to maintain a religiously neutral government
8. Mandatory foreign language learning beginning in the 5th grade -- Kids learn languages easier at younger ages, and heaven knows we need people with language skills to translate the documents of those plotting the Big One.
9. Creation care -- Talk the language of the Bible on this one; not tree hugging, but responsible conservation -- what ever happened to that word?
Doubt any party would adopt all of these positions, but I suspect there's 34% of the electorate who could come on-board.
Those weren't talons, bucko.
Bottoms have such elaborate fantasy lives....
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 07:15 PMMika - Man - you are SO bad that really - you needn't show off your badness here...:-)
But, what I really want to know - no serious, okay? Are you Jewish? That's seriously what I want to know. Cause I think you are.
P.S. All the regulars assuming alternative identities above? Seriously - you guys made me laugh! I'm in mourning, OK? For the West, ya know?. I stuck my head out from under the covers for a minute and y'all made me laugh. It was worth it. Really. I mean it. :)...
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 07:24 PMDidsbury - You're looking pretty good to me. What is your position on immigration? The missing #10?
Posted by: Caroline at May 23, 2005 07:30 PMCaroline,
It's all in my biography. You just need to go and read it.
Caroline,
It's all in my biography. You just need to go and read it. And girlfriend, that was no fantasy. It was a scene from Gan Hinnom.
No, seriously, get a mirror, check your ass. That's a tattoo. Hope you can read backwards.
:)
Posted by: Mark Poling at May 23, 2005 07:39 PMI'm reading "999". What the hell does that mean!?
Caroline: Isn't it possible for a "moderate" blog to devolve into a "moderate" echo-chamber due to banishing the extremes?
No. Moderation is the only place where real dialogue is possible. A group of moderates are bound to disagree anyway. No echo-chamber there.
I still get emails from reasonable people who are chased away by extremists. Ever wonder where Tosk went? Now you know.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 23, 2005 08:13 PMAsher Abrams — I bet it doesn't. I bet, if the Chronicle publishes any letters about it at, they'll be a lockstep condemnation of Thompson.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 23, 2005 08:13 PMKind of off-topic, but please have your readers look at this post--it's important:
whowilldietoday.blogspot.com
Posted by: rk at May 23, 2005 08:14 PMMichael -
Amen to your policy.
Hey, they don't call it "comment moderation" for nuthin' ...
Posted by: Asher Abrams - Dreams Into Lightning at May 23, 2005 08:29 PMRichard -
No doubt. But people will be talking in the Starbucks and so on ...
Posted by: Asher Abrams - Dreams Into Lightning at May 23, 2005 08:38 PMEver wonder where Tosk went? Now you know.
But, but... wasn't he the squirrel of discord? Hey, if you're going to run up and down Yggdrisal and piss off the Gods yah gotta have a thick hide.
Posted by: chuck at May 23, 2005 10:11 PMMichael, thank you muchly for warning Stan so strongly up at the top; your apology was more gracious than I would have been able to muster given the provocation. He should get his own blog and write about Stan, there -- I have mine for me. Stan wanted the thread to be about him, NOT about the great article. But more reasonable Leftists should be welcomed.
This Leftist domination of the Dem Party is really important. I've called it Secular Fundamentalism; the Pope calls it a Dictatorship of Relativism. My wife calls it Egoist Hedonism (and I think of it now as Secular Hedonism). The US has been moving towards a theocracy, that of political correctness, including anti-religion.
True Liberals are interested in how to organize society so that folks who strongly disagree on important issues can, nevertheless, live agreeably with each other. European "Classical Liberals" are what we libertarian(-types) are.
The article was so good. It included body-counting.
Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
In MJT's comments I've claimed that 2500 is a good number to use in judging Bush and Iraq and "whether it was worth it". But nobody seems willing to support Body-Bag Calculus -- yet none offer an alternative. (Vodkapundit/ Instapundit)
How is one to judge whether a war is worth it or not? And do mistakes in war (the sinking of an amphib ship in WW II caused some 875 US soldiers to die), which are inevitable, mean the war was a mistake?
Earlier Thomson noted his reason for being and supporting a Liberal: [who] promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections,
It's Vietnam. Again. Where those marching "for peace" got what they wanted -- America leaving Vietnam. And SE Asia got genocide.
Genocide is the alternative that the marchers got, marchers who almost certainly thought 'anything must be better than more My Lais, more Kent States'. They thought anything must be better. They got some thing -- genocide.
How many Asians must be murdered before it's a mistake that the US left? (rather than stay and enforce victory by changing the mistakes the US was making).
In the same way those against the Vietnam war were united in opposition to various amounts of injustice (including the draft), they were NOT united in what they were in favor of. Very, very similar to those Iranians marching against the Shah of Iran in the late 70s, along with Leftists against the Shah (a US ally == evil; thus, 'anything must be better'). Umm, wrong. (And anti-apartheid folk aren't SOOOO happy with Mugabe in ex-Rhodesia; but they just ignore the results of following their policies.)
This is very relevant to forming a third party in the US. A face is certainly needed, but also a driving issue. With Perot, it was protectionism (a terrible anti-Liberal issue). With indep-Rep Anderson (remember him in 1980?) offering a moderate Rep over Reagan. And of course it was Wallace the ex-Dem racist who made Nixon get elected in 1968 -- so the Leftists could marry their anger at LBJ's war with anti-Rep anger against Tricky Dicky (the crook should have gone to jail) AND rail against the wealth creating capitalism and Free Enterprise of America.
Only a fascist, big-gov't Control Freak type of third party will get electoral votes -- when folks see a big problem, getting bigger, and both Dems and Reps failing to solve it. And the gov't should DO SOMETHING.
But it's OK to vote Lib, or Green (watermelons -- where is their call for higher gas taxes?) or Constitution or any party that has issues. The Rep or Dem that loses, in a loss that is less than the votes of the Libertarian (say), will more likely try to adopt the best policy of the third party.
But like Michael said -- what do Moderates agree ON? A specific immigration reform? Education vouchers to improve education? Gas taxes? Increasing taxes, and gov't? (and problems, and calls for more...) More religion in public? Less?
Life for fetuses, or death row inmates? Death (for the inconvenient)?
Finally (I often only have one post per thread, no monopoly )
the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up."
This is so Libertarin, so good -- but not quite right. Humans are born after one man impregnates one woman -- individuals are NOT sustainable. But families are. And my own Conservatism is to support families, BECAUSE of the desire to sustain a free society.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 24, 2005 03:32 AMCaroline -
Immigration fits mostly under national defense, i.e.
homeland security. Obviously, it needs major tightening up along the southern border. On the other hand, there should be quicker processing of those who can languish for months with no representation, once nabbed. Mainly, let's apply the law evenly to all comers, whatever that law is.
"Elite? they can't even get their views on the Cable shows or network newsshows, be serious. When's the last time you heard the view that the US should leave Iraq immediately being given any time on the networks or Cable shows? The majority of AMericans believe the Iraq was was not worth the death caused...but ya don't see this "elite" able to get representation, not even from NPR who stick with interviewing Anthony Cordesman to get the views of 'critics' of the war. Surely you emrbace a distorted view of 'elite'. "
Stan, you have a point. Perhpas elite wasn't the right word. I was trying to say that a lot of the high-profile anti-war Dems have a real problem with liberal hawks like myself, despite our liberal pedigree.
Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 24, 2005 01:30 PMIf one's belief is that the elections in Iraq are for show, because Bush is a thug who cynically uses the trappings of democracy expansion and human rights to justify his corporatist agenda, it's hard to get excited about watching millions of people risk their lives to give the President a PR win.
It's not liberal to allow one's beliefs to be manipulated by a guy with a fascistic theory of government. This Thompson fellow disagrees with the left on one issue only -- is Bush serious about this stuff or is he using us? It shouldn't be enough for a serious person to abandon their worldview.
Posted by: Kimmitt at May 26, 2005 02:38 AMHi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much! Greetings from me!!
Katalog Stron WWW Camcoo Website directory WebVerzeichnis Website directory CANADIAN WEBSITE DIRECTORY ANNUAIRE DE WEBSITE EEEBY AUSTRALIAN WEBSITE DIRECTORY INDICE ITALIANO DI WEBSITE DIRECTORIO ESPANOL DE WEBSITE EEEBY EEEBY EEEBY.pl EYOUBAY WebVerzeichnis foto cocoo
Youll should use Direct TV Deals.
Youll should use Free Dish Network.
Youll should use Direct TV Offer.
Youll should use Direct TV Deal.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Direct TV Offers.
Youll should use Dish Network Deals.
Youll should use Direct TV Offers.
Youll should use Direct TV Deal.
Youll should use Dish Network Offer.
Youll should use Dish Network Offers.
Youll should use Free Direct TV Offer.
Youll should use Direct TV Offers.
Check out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Horse Racing Tips :: Free NFL Pick :: How to Gamble in America :: Sports Betting Strategies :: Pacific Poker:: Online Gambling Forum
Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.
Posted by: How To Gamble at August 8, 2005 11:25 AMcanon canon aparaty sony sony
lg telefony gsm samsung samsung siemens siemens kuchnie philips philips creative sharp sharp telewizory plazmowe panasonic panasonic kamery
analne nogi @ analne oral @ analne oralnie @ analne oralny @ analne penis @ analne piosenkarki @ analne polki @ analne polskie @ analne porn @ analne porno @ analne pornografia @ analne pornograficzne @ analne prostytutki @ analne rozdziewiczanie @ analne rysowane @ analne rzniecie @ analne seks @ analne seksowne @ analne seksualne @ analne sex @ analne sexowne @ analne sexualne @ analne sexy @ analne slawne @ analne uwodzicielskie @ analne walenie @ analne xxx @ analne zdjecia @ analnie @ analnie 69 @ analnie alessandra ambrosio @ analnie alizee @ analnie amatorek pierdolenie @ analnie amatorki @ analnie amatorki dziewice @ analnie amatorki erotyka @ analnie amatorki fotki @ analnie amatorki gole @ analnie amatorki lolitki @ analnie amatorki nagie @ analnie amatorki nastoletnie @ analnie amatorki polskie @ analnie amatorki porno @ analnie amatorki rozjebane @ analnie amatorki xxx @ analnie analny @ analnie angel anderson @ analnie ania @ analnie anna kournikova @ analnie aria giovanni
Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 04:53 AMHi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker
very nice site, ok.
Posted by: Kancelaria Prawna at October 16, 2005 03:26 AMTake your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1
tamiflu without prescription
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami2
tamiflu in canada
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami3
tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami4
tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami5
real tamiflu price
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami6
buy tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami7
order tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami8
tamiflu online
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami9
tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami10
tamiflu and no prescription
Tami Flu
new online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com
http://www.casino-los-angeles.com/poker
Posted by: poker at December 11, 2005 09:42 AMAirfareLowest.net provides great tickets at cheap airfare prices for everyone. We have cheap hotels and cheap rental cars available. You can buy cruise tickets all over the worlds. Feel free to check out our prices so you can see that we have the cheapest prices for all tickets. We have all Airfare our tickets are all Lowest Airfare prices for all Cheap Airfare prices world wide. First Class Airfare is available so as Last Minute Airfare Available. We also provide Cheap Hotels for all Hotel Visitors and we do our own Hotels Reservations including Las Vegas Hotels, London Hotels, New York Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Orlando Hotels. We have all Rental Cars for all the location if you take a cruise ship plus cruise reviews available for all cruises. Plane Tickets available 24 hours a day on our secure server. A fare is the fee paid by a traveller allowing him or her to make use of a public transport system: rail, bus, taxi, etc. In the case of air transport, the term airfare is often used.
The fare paid is a contribution Hotels to the operational costs of the transport system involved, either partial (as is frequently the case with publicly supported systems) or total. We have Hitlton Hotels for all hotel motel places such as chicago hotels for hotels deals. Paris hotels are available all the time San Francisco Hotels 24 hours a day with Habbo hotels, for discount hotel rooms, plus all hawaii hotels, and sheraton hotels, plus malaysia hotels. It's great to spend time in radisson hotels with hotel rooms in New York city hotels plus miami hotels, and singapore hotels. We provide all kind of boston hotels for disney hotels and cancun hotels, plus discount vegas hotels for all our clients. San Diego hotels available with best western hotels in bangkok hotels, and cheap new orleans hotels, amesterdam hotels with great view of the city. Number one choice hotels at wyndham hotels for Prague Hotels and Hyatt Hotels, bellagio hotel. Doubletree hotels phuket hotels and westin hotels we have them all at all times plus toronto hotels, and niagara falls hotels. Many bus and rail systems in the United States recover only around one-third of their operational costs from fares.
The rules regarding how and when fares are to be paid and for how long they remain valid are many and varied. Rail and bus systems usually require the payment of fares on or before boarding. In the case of taxis and other vehicles for hire, payment is Cheap Rental Cars normally made at the end of the ride.
Some systems allow fare transfers: that is to say that a single payment permits travel within a particular geographical zone or time period. Such an arrangement is helpful for people who need to transfer from one route to another in order to reach their destination. Sometimes transfers are valid in one direction only, requiring a new fare to be paid for the return trip.
A Net dating service, also known as hispanic dating service online dating or internet dating, is an example of a dating system and allows individuals, couples and speed dating groups to meet online and possibly develop a social, romantic or sexual interracial dating relationship. Net dating services free dating services provide un-moderated lesbian dating matchmaking through the use of personal jewish dating computers and the Internet.
Such black dating services generally allow people to provide personal information, then search for other individuals using sex dating criteria such as age range, gender and location. Most sites allow members to upload photos of themselves dating lexington online and browse the photos of asian dating others. Sites may offer additional services, including webcasts, dating chat online chat, and message boards. Sites dating advice typically allow people to register for free but may offer services which require a monthly fee.
It seems that everywhere bbw dating you turn today been going to dating sites, people are online dating from site dating. More and more American singles use the online dating services to find love, online personals, friendship, or simply an online friend for matchmaking sites. We were launched to help online dating louisville singles of all ages for free online dating and free dating, religions such as christian datind christian dating services and sexual interests, find exactly what they're looking for with singles dating. Every personals or singles site gets reviewed before being posted here on dating web sites.We have availablegay dating, on our online dating sites, LDS Dating also available for everyone. We have dating tips for everyone, all ages dating available such as seniors dating , internet dating and also we have dating personals We provide all kind of dating such as singles for all singles websites so guys and girls can meet single girls to meet singles online. Many sites are broad-based, with members from a variety of backgrounds looking for different types of relationships. Other sites are more specific, based on the dating personals type of members, interests, location, or matchmaker dating relationship desired.U.S. any dating eharmony has href marriage match more online per service than residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and dating issue personals in 2004, the largest segment of “paid content” on the web, according to a study conducted by the Online free dating personals Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks.
In terms of the dating of free dating site complete authoritative texts, there are dating idea three main versions of the relationship dating Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first indian dating assembled russian dating in the 4th century CE. The oldest chicago dating known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the yahoo dating oldest complete match dating text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the christian dating services tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, married dating which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest dating or services copy of the Septuagint is dating direct centuries older than the seattle dating oldest complete Masoretic text, and texas dating fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which teen dating emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the web dating northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a dating game variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining latin dating authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE.
Online casino, also recognized as virtual casinos, is the online description of land-based casinos. They permit you to play casino games through the internet casino. Some online casinos supply various games such as casino gambling, while others only offer only one type of game. Online poker is also very well-liked and there are many devoted companies that offer this activity such as casino bonus, free casino games, grand casino and world wide such as uk online casino, las vegas casino.Online casinos can for sure have games offer better odds than casino on net. Land casinos on slots and other formats where the chance of captivating is resolute by the house. Table games like casino gaming, blackjack which have an casino poker, recognized house edge: for a given set of rules, they offer the similar payout, online or offline. Reliability and faith are hard to gambling casino online establish. To solve this issue, many online casinos purchase their software from well-known best casino, companies such as Wager Works, Microgaming, OddsOn, Playtech and Cryptologic, though a little study casino on line, into credentials of any e-commerce site you plan to use is gambling casino, ordinary sense. These software companies use a casino online gambling random number maker online casino slot to ensure that the casino online gambling, numbers, cards or dice appear randomly. All reputable companies in service in a regulated environment use robust random number generators.
For this particular online casino game example, this would mean that a player depositing $100 would start with $200 in his account. He must make $5000 in wagers online+casino before withdrawing. This can be played at a game such as blackjack.
online pharmacy, pharmacy, canadian pharmacy, vicodin online pharmacy, canada pharmacy, phentermine online pharmacy, online pharmacy valium, xanax online pharmacy, ultram online pharmacy, pharmacy online, alprazolam online pharmacy, discount pharmacy, mexican pharmacy, internet pharmacy, mail order pharmacy, canada online pharmacy, overseas pharmacy, foreign pharmacy, phentermine pharmacy, tesco pharmacy jobs, on line pharmacy, pharmacy technician, online+pharmacy, international pharmacy, viagra pharmacy, pharmacy job, canadian online pharmacy, pet pharmacy, pharmacy discount, canadian pharmacy online, pharmacy drug, pharmacy canadian, pharmacy order tramadol, cvs pharmacy, pharmacy drugs, lortab online pharmacy, lortab pharmacy, mexico pharmacy, vicodin pharmacy, pharmacy jobs, ultram pharmacy, online pharmacy affiliate program, soma online pharmacy, pharmacy on line, canadian discount pharmacy, discount online pharmacy, viagra online pharmacy, adderol online pharmacy, canadian pharmacy affiliate, online discount pharmacy, vicodin+online+pharmacy, online pharmacy tramadol, canadian pharmacy on line, diazepam online pharmacy, pharmacy schools, online pharmacy no prescription, online canadian pharmacy, valium pharmacy, foreign online pharmacy, hydrocodone, online pharmacy, cialis online pharmacy, wholesale pharmacy, cvs pharmacy career, phentermine+online+pharmacy, brooks pharmacy, line pharmacy, online+pharmacy+valium, xanax+online+pharmacy, alprazolam+online+pharmacy, ultram+online+pharmacy, pharmacy school, walgreens pharmacy, international online pharmacy, mexican pharmacy online, hydrocodone pharmacy, pharmacy tech, best online pharmacy, online internet pharmacy, ambien pharmacy, online doctor pharmacy, pharmacy no prescription hydrocodone, online pharmacy celebrex, online pharmacy medicine, line pharmacy phentermine, pharmacy technician schools, canadian on line pharmacy, online pharmacy pay pal, pharmacy tech online, online pharmacy canada, canada+pharmacy, mexican pharmacy ortho novum cheap florida online pharmacy, canada in online pharmacy, law online pharmacy, aldara online pharmacy, online pharmacy technician, online pharmacy technician course, online pharmacy florida delivery phentermine, pharmacy tech online schools, pharmacy technicians
Posted by: Airfare at January 5, 2006 10:52 PMpuz, sl, zdrowa żywność, mieszkania Warszawa
ogłoszenia nieruchomości, projektowanie stron
tworzenie stron, agencja reklamowa, reklama w internecie, psycholog, nauka angielskiego, soczewki kontaktowe, psyche sf, jk, nls, projektowanie wnętrz, hydraulik Warszawa, opcataloz, domy opieki, freetimes, jidds, fabrykapoe, sfworks, polskepoeje, pb, pp, jk, wypadki, opony, agroturystyka, klimatyzacja, apteka, dentysta, f, kray, ewes, angs, git, akupunktura, sc
压力开关
压力变送器
压力传感器
流量开关
流量计
液位计
液位开关
温湿度记录仪
风速仪
差压开关
可燃气体检测仪
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
dofus kamas