I’ve been meaning to link to this Tim Noah piece in Slate for quite a while.
Not long ago, I spoke with a Democratic moderate about the war in Iraq. He said he considered support for the Iraq war to be a necessary prerequisite to assuming any powerful role in the party. It showed that the person in question was willing to project U.S. force abroad. But wait, I asked. Do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea? After some hemming and hawing, he admitted that he’d rather we hadn’t gone in. Then why make support for a mistaken policy a litmus test? Because, he repeated, it shows that the person in question is willing to project U.S. force abroad. I should emphasize that we weren’t talking about whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, which is an entirely separate and vexing question that speaks to our responsibility in a country whose previous government we destroyed. What this man was saying was that it was better to have been wrong about Iraq than to have been right. That’s the prevailing (though not always conscious) consensus in Washington, and it’s completely insane.
Via Atrios. Also, Shadow of th e Hegemon has an interesting post on the subject.
Yup, that’s much of the left for you, “willing to project American power abroad.” Disgusting.
nah, that’s the centrists. my observation’s been that most of the left thinks that mentality is absofuckinglutely insane. and they’re (we’re) right.
This is classic centrist thinking, though I’m not sure most self-described centrists are self-aware enough to be conscious of what they are doing. But anyway, the idea is to find out what most powerful people are saying on a given issue and then plant yourself somewhere in the middle–if you’re wrong, you’re wrong with the best people and can’t be blamed for it.
More or less the same as the Darwinian logic underneath the instinct which herd animals follow–you can’t be singled out if you’re part of a crowd.
The political process in the U.S. has become totally colonized by the marketing modus operandi. The people behind the scenes decide what you should want, and then market it to you, regardless of the rightness or utility of their positions. The media and supporters then stay “on message,” no matter what happens, in the way that once a product is “branded,” nothing can be uttered that might destroy the image of the brand.
Here, obviously the image of being “tough on terror’ and maintaining America’s commitment to “projecting force” has completely trumped the rationality or utility of the war in Iraq.
The people behind the scenes (and the top media) are not interested in the effects of their policies in the real world, because they will not be affected by anything that happens. As with deceptive advertising and the production of defective products in order to shave more profit, by the time that the public realizes that something is wrong, the people responsible will already have laughed their way to the bank.
The purpose of the political marketing is simply to get re-elected and to stay in power; despite the large factions of social conservatives and neocons, the most effective and sinister Republicans do not seem to really care about issues (or they would think them out better). The media behaves in the same way, only its “defective product” is the news, and their goal is to increase ratings and profits thereby.
The Republicans understand this by instinct, because so many of them are business people. The liberal Democrats and leftists don’t understand it, or if they do, they are repulsed by it due to their background in leftism.
But criticizing the colonization of politics and governance by predatory capitalist marketing practices does not mean that you have to endorse Communism. It is just common sense.
It’s only wrong if you think going in was a bad idea.
I, for example, do not think that going in was a bad idea. I didn’t want it to be Bush who went in, and I think he screwed it up royally, but you know what? Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator who killed his own people and attempted to start wars with the country around him, killing others as well. He fomented hatred of and violence against Kurds, Jews, and others. And you know what? More of my family would be alive if we had stopped Hitler sooner, also. It’s very easy for “liberals” to think that we shouldn’t disturb “sovereign nations” who don’t pose a “danger to us” when they’re only slaughtering Kurds and Kews. Then again, that only works if you think that we here are more important than Kurds and Jews in Iraq. But, of course, most “liberals” do.
For the record, I’m a lefty and voting for Kerry. I just got nauseated when Michael Moore tried to suggest that Iraq was a happy go-lucky place under a benevolent ruler before we went in a screwed it up. It wasn’t, and we shouldn’t try to fool ourselves that it was. Bush is a moron, and has no idea what he’s doing, but I wouldn’t have any problem with us going into the Sudan, either, to save innocent people’s lives.
I can tell you from personal experience there are many, real warriors who said this BEFORE we went in. They are mostly quiet about it now, because it does no good to Monday Morning Quarterback.
The reasons we went into Iraq were valid. However, our military was not equipped to fight a three front war after 15 years of decimation by Bush I and Clinton. The TIMING was aweful. But it was necessary. I hear my friends complain that we are doing nothing in Darfour and in the same sentence question why we are in Iraq. The U.N. has made a resolution — Darfour has BEGGED for an extention to show they are doing something. Now U.N. resolutions have teeth. The U.N. sanctions were doing nothing but killing the people of Iraq. Now people are able to go to coffee shops everyday. Families can eat out at places only available for the rich. These are good things.
My wife is going over soon as a Helicopter pilot and I have lost lots of friends because of Rummy and Wolfs meglomania. To say now that it was not the right thing to do, however, only encourages the bad guys. You have to understand the mentality of the Middle Eastern male. The are not touchy feely like the “White Male” (a pajorative term used by Middle Eastern men as a slur to indicate weakness). If we show weakness now, it only emboldens their efforts and gets more people killed. If you REALLY support my wife, who is a mother of three girls, then tell all of your friends to denounce the Monday morning quarterbacking.
It is good to discuss the policies, but it is safer for the troops to do it out of the public forum. Write your Congressman not your reporter.
I’ve gotta disagree vehemently with ADS. There are a whole bunch of very good reasons why going into Iraq was wrong. First and foremost is the international law (or custom if you will) that one country is not allowed to invade another unless in grave danger. That has been around for hundreds of years. We have set a precedent that would allow China to invade Belize on the flimsiest of excuses. Secondly, if you’re going to remove a murderous, genocidal dictator, it is necessary to ensure that life for the masses following the invasion is MORE secure, not LESS secure. Thirdly, the USA has a history of supporting (not to mention installing) murderous, genocidal dictators. Hussein was one of OUR guys for over a decade. If his brutality was fine with us in the 80’s, why is that suddenly a reason that WE need to get rid of him? Iraq was certainly not a “happy go lucky place” under Hussein, but it was safer, women were better off, and it was not a recruitment poster for anti-US, fundamentalist terrorists.
So you see, it’s not only “”liberals” to think that we shouldn’t disturb “sovereign nations” who don’t pose a “danger to us”.” It is the world for the last several hundred years that has believed this. It has been a staple of international relations.
I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it here for now.
You know, J, the important distinction in the middle east isn’t that we wear the white hats & they wear the black hats. It is that we are the ones who wear hats and they wear towels. Towels!
Now people are able to go to coffee shops everyday. Families can eat out at places only available for the rich. These are good things.
Have you paid any attention to the news? Women can’t go out on their own. It is not safe to be on the streets in most places. Unemployment is unbelievably high.
Don’t lie to us. We do read the reports.
Don’t discuss it in a public forum! Only a traitor would dare question our government in public.
Bleah!
Jake,
I understand your sentiment. Could you believe that it is possible the news is not reporting the news, but making headlines?
How many people do you know who are over there? How many times have you been to Iraq. In the early 90’s you would think that every mother on welfare was a 19 year old black girl with three kids. Don’t believe the hype. Until you have had boots on the ground walk with caution. Talk to someone who has been there. One thing that is wrong in your assumption — unemployment is high — that is true. Do you think it is higher than it was before the war? Iraqi incomes have gone up substantially and access to services are no longer for the rich, but for all Iraqi people. Is it dangerous, absolutely, in some areas at some times it is dangerous, but those areas were dangerous before the war. Regarding women not being able to go out on the streets. That is not the whole story. In parts of Falluja and Sadr City women would be abducted regularly so they could not go out on the streets. These are things that went on before. Reporters just could not report on it.
“Don’t discuss it in a public forum! Only a traitor would dare question our government in public.”
Hey look I am working on cases regarding reservists being involuntarily held on active duty. I have been a criminal defense attorney for hundreds of servicemembers. I question the government everyday. It is good to question the government, it is not good to get the troops killed. Going into Iraq with our current force and committments was a mistake, but if someone says they support the troops then does things to get them killed. Don’t be surprised if the troops question that support.
“First and foremost is the international law (or custom if you will) that one country is not allowed to invade another unless in grave danger.”
Come on, we invaded Kosovo. We carpet bombed Bosnia in 1998 destroying most of the historical beauty of that country. Did you support those campaigns?
We have invaded Columbia on the war on drugs, Panama, and Somalia. You would be surprised how many countries we invaded and how many conflicts President Clinton engaged us in. We are still embroiled in many of them.
What kind of grave danger? What if the grave danger is caused by U.N. sanctions, which starve the people and kill the economy. The sanctions do nothing for the people and make the leaders of the country and those countries willing to starve people out to make a buck, filthy rich.
Buried in the sand we found Mirage airplanes. That was odd given the Iraqi airforce flew Russian Migs? Why did they have Mirage’s buried in the desert if they did not authorized to purchase weapons systems. Vouchers were to purchase food and essential medicine for the Iraqi people — why did Suddam have over 60 brand new Mercedes? Essentials?
War is about money. The Russians, Germans, and French did not want to support the war because they were getting rich off of the backs of the Iraqi people. American business wanted to get rich, but our justice system would not allow them to do it off the backs of the Iraqi people. Now, the Iraqis can share in the wealth of their country and not just Suddam and those who supported his murderous regime. Don’t be so naive.
I have a very hard time believing that voicing disapproval for the invasion will get any troops killed. Troops getting killed may very well increase the quantity of voices raised in disapproval, but that is hardly the same thing. What is viewed as weakness, from the mid-east point of view, is not leveling Fallujah, not steamrolling the country into submission. It is not my voice raised against wrong that is viewed as weakness. I raised my voice well in advance of the invasion. Are you going to blame me for all the troops killed thus far? Or is it just that I should shut up now that we are in. I believe that by voicing my disapproval, there is a chance that we could change our strategy to something sane and workable and that that might save troops in the long run.
And, yeah, I believe that the news does not really report the news. That is why I read and watch as wide and varied sources as I can find. I am able to balance CNN vs. Rolling Stone vs. Al-Arabiyah vs. BBC vs NY Times, etc. Since I can’t actually speak to the “boots on the ground,” I have to judge voices reporting from Iraq. Do you think that I didn’t notice that the murdered “contractors” that sparked the whole Fallujah standoff were actually mercenaries? And on and on.
I do have to admit to being offended by your racist statement that, “You have to understand the mentality of the Middle Eastern male.” While there are definitely cultural differences between the mid-east & the west, it does not come down the the “… mentality of the Middle Eastern male.” It comes down to cultural standards and means of social interaction which, in this case, include women as well. I’ve been to the mid-east, I’ve lived with mid-easterners & I am well aware of the differences. And it is not what you imply. Your statement comes off sounding awfully similar to the old cliche, “They don’t value human life like we do.”
Mirages? Can you cite a source for me on that? I haven’t heard that before.
And those planes threatened the US, how? Of course Hussein was cheating on the sanctions. We all knew that. We all knew that the sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq & not SH. That is why so many of us were against the sanctions. Where are the WMD and the means of delivering those WMD to targets in the US?
Face it, the war was an excuse. An excuse for personal vengeance by GWB and an excuse to get the Administration friends and family ungodly sums of money. Halliburton can’t account for how many billions? And there was no open RFP for those contracts? And who is getting the money from Iraqi oil today? Don’t tell me to shut up because my voice is killing troops. Stand up and shout that Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. are killing troops for personal gain.
J Stevenson — just one question. Is it all right to tell the American people that we are going to war to protect our own security, then have that reason go POOF! and tell them that the war they thought was for security is actually for humanitarian reasons?
This strikes me as undemocratic and elitist. If the American people are willing to spend the resources of money, lives and our allies’ friendship in order to make life better for Iraqis, then I applaud their altruism. But don’t pretend that Bush sold this war to the U.S. on the basis of helping Iraqis. Especially when Bush said in the 2000 campaign that Clinton was right not to have intervened in Rwanda.
“What is viewed as weakness, from the mid-east point of view, is not leveling Fallujah, not steamrolling the country into submission.”
I know that was viewed as weakness. I think we made the right choice. The leaders on the ground wanted to go in and level it, but we our lawyers advised against it because it would be contrary to our commander’s intent. Trust me, the 1st Marine Division would have had no problem leveling Falluja. To what end? If our purpose was to occupy and invade Iraq, that would have worked. Our purpose over there was to assist in self determination. That is why we pulled back and let the Falluja Brigade win the peace. The key component of self determination is “self”. Over the last fourteen years the U.N. model of self determiniation assistance was not working. Saddam was getting stronger and the people were getting weaker. It is the same that has been going on in North Korea since 1990.
We did not go into Falluja because that would completely defeat the purpose of us being there. The tack we took allowed the Fallujans to win their own peace and it is working. The same in Najaf. That is why we did not destroy Falluja, that is why the Marines tolerate Sadr (who is hated by the Iraqis, something you would not know by watching the news).
“I raised my voice well in advance of the invasion. Are you going to blame me for all the troops killed thus far?”
Most certainly not. The media did not report it during the build up but there were many military members who did not want to go to Iraq. You will hear passing references to the “Pentagon Wars”. There is a different culture in the Pentagon since 2001 than there was when Mr. Cohen (a Republican) ran things during the Clinton years. Protest is good, protest with timing is better.
When you say Bush has committed war crimes they use these clips to accuse us of war crimes and as evidence in our beheadings.
The clips of the local protests in Baghdad are used to foment the Americans to protest. I remember one clip from CNN that was shown as a protest against unemployment. They were actually chanting “Sadr Get Out” (rough translation).
Don’t believe anything on the News it is there for hype. The Iraqi people do thank us for being there. From the personal accounts of my friends who speak (in Arabic) with the Iraqis everyday at the Bagdad coffee shops They are skeptical because the U.N. left them there to die and did nothing for many years. For the most part the Iraqis like Americans (especially the Marines) and are happy we are there. Some have even asked why we did not just kill Sadr or level Falluja. when we explain why they understand and respect our decision.
“there is a chance that we could change our strategy to something sane and workable and that that might save troops in the long run.”
I agree with setting up something sane and workable. How is (don’t be offended, but it gets to the point) bitchin’ gonna get us to that end? We have to come up with a better strategy, but that strategy is lost. Perhaps having the troops strength to do something like this? My friend’s died because the President did not listen to his military leaders. You won’t hear them speak ill, but you can hear their feelings — “following with my body, but not with my heart” or “Whatever you want Sir. or “I’ll can make it happen.”
What is best for the troops. What will really show support is to come up with a plan and start bitchin’ about not paying attention to the plan.
“They don’t value human life like we do.”
That was not what I meant at all. What I was talking about was the machismo that is found in the culture. When rooting out fighters in Falluja, we put a person in the street with a bull horn. In front of an insurgent safehouse and say: “Why are you hiding behind your women and your children — come out and fight like a man.” Of course, the men came out ready for a fight. They were arrested, at least the ones who did not decide to fire. It was not racist, it was based on culture. They do not make fun of White American men for nothing. Because of our policies we are seen as weak and pacifist. That is one reason they were so surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. We had six major terrorist attacks in 12 years and we did nothing to stop them. As soon as the Army started bleeding in Somalia, we ran like chickens. What else are they going to think?
“Is it all right to tell the American people that we are going to war to protect our own security, then have that reason go POOF!”
It is absolutely not ok. The initial reason for going to war with Iraq was because SH posed an immediate threat to the United States. It was immediate to the Marine, Navy, and RAF pilots who were getting shot at everyday enforcing the stupid U.N. resolutions. Was it immediate to those who are sitting around at cocktail parties in Georgetown. Of course not.
I personally think we should have let other countries of the U.N. handle it all by themselves and pulled our troops out of enforcement of Iraqi airspace.
SH shot at American and British forces 470 times from 1992 to 2000. The U.N. did nothing about it, but talk firmly. We were taking the risks while the other members were cashing in. We were taking the risks as late as 2002 — Particularly chafing are the restrictive rules of engagement. U.S. and British jets . . . find themselves being shot at frequently but are seldom given the go-ahead to return fire.
The no-fly zones were a US/British/French inovation, they are not mentioned in the UN resolutions, and they were specifically disavowed by the the UN. No other countries would have taken over the no-fly zones, because no other countries supported them. Furthermore, no US or British pilots were killed (or even shot down) by Iraq during the enforcement of the no-fly zones.
To try to argue that the war was necessary to protect the safety of US and British pilots has to be one of the dumbest arguments for the war I have ever heard. Zero pilots died enforcing the no fly zones. How many have died inflicting the war? How many ground troops? How many Iraqi soldiers? How many Iraqi civilians?
Even if the war had been executed according to Dick Cheney’s fantasies, the US casualties from a perfect war would still have been infinitely many times the casualties from enforcing the no-fly zones, and the Iraqi casualties would have still been thousands of times the casualties from enforcinfg the no-fly zones.
JStevenson, I know that you delight in making ridiculous arguments for others to batter down, and I know (since I don’t find that particularly amusing) that I should simply ignore you, but this was ridiculous enough that you managed to get my goat.
Congratulations.
“US or British pilots were killed (or even shot down) by Iraq during the enforcement of the no-fly zones . . . To try to argue that the war was necessary to protect the safety of US and British pilots has to be one of the dumbest arguments for the war I have ever heard. Zero pilots died enforcing the no fly zones.”
Charles — you must have missed something when you spilled your drink. I never argued that the war was necessary to protect the safety of the US and British pilots. I said it was the initial argument. I did say that Saddam was an immediate threat to those US and British pilots who were shot at. I also never said anyone died.
Are you so lost in your need to disagree that you can’t even open your mind enough to realize someone may actually agree with you. Making up arguments for people then saying they are making “ridiculous arguments”, is what should truely be “ridiculous enough . . . to get [your] goat”.
Grab a towel, clean up your spill and pour yourself another one.
jstevenson,
I label you troll and say, “Begone.”
Jake — what insults have I thrown to deserve such wonderful and humane treatment?
Charles would prefer Saddam was still in power I suppose.
“I am able to balance CNN vs. Rolling Stone vs. Al-Arabiyah vs. BBC vs NY Times, etc.”
What are you balancing there? All those outlets are an echo chamber of leftist spin.
We are in, or so we have been told, a War on Terrorism. Now this is not a war in a traditional sense with a cleary defined enemy or clearly defined point at which victory can be declared. Even the fairly nebulous Cold War had an end point which could be well recognized.
The War on Terrorism has no such point. It is in a sense more like the ongoing War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty. As Terror is a method, not a person or a country, it is impossible to conquor absolutly, and the War on Terror must be considerd essentially unending.
However we are, they say, engaged in a war, and therefore the country must be run on some sort of wartime footing. All well and good, but if we are at war, then the decisions of the President should be bent almost soley to the resolution of that war.
In this regard, the invasion of Iraq has been a total disaster.
We have spent considerable resources in Iraq, in time, in manpower, in the goodwill of our allies, and in money – over 150 Billion dollars worth, and there has been no net profit in reducing terrorism. I would suggest that there has been a net loss here, and much has been said about this elsewhere.
To just briefly make one point in this line (out of many), the chaos and confusion which the invasion has created, has allowed cells of anti-US groups to organize and in many cases strike against the US, at least within Iraq. There is a high liklihood that such cells (which could never have formed under Hussein) will continue to operate long after the US pulls its forces out.
I should think the $150 Billion spent in Iraq could have found far more efficient usage of that money. In particular, as there is still a large contingent of Taliban and Al Quaeda operating in Afghanistan, the money and effort could be far better spent reducing the threat in that well defined theatre of operations.
Perahps even more importantly the Iraq invasion has been a public realtions disaster in the Islamic world. In order to persecute the war on terrorism, we must undercut the support of the terrorists. If we give them the moral high ground they will propagate. If we can defuse the key issues that the terrorists use as anti-American propagand, by listening and positively responding to moderate Islamists, then the stance taken by the terrorists will prove unnecessary.
The imposition of a new order in Iraq by force, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the ‘precision’ airstikes in Fallujah (killing innocents in an act that must seem all to similar to Israli tactics) do nothing to alleviate the fears of the Arab world. It becomes apprent, at least to the eyes of the Islamic world, that the United States cares nothing for the lives of thier people. This is by no means helpful in the War on Terrorism.
The final result of the Iraqui invasion is still far down the road. Hussein, for all his tyranny, did embrace western culture. It is quite possible that the in future a far more opressive regime will come to power, either as a demorcaticlly elected Islamic state (such as in Iran), or through the result of years of civil war. Should the Kurds demand, and recieve an autonomoous state, we could find five or ten years down the road, a clash between the Kurds and Turkey, and an even greater instability in the Mid-East.
Bush went into Iraq wearing rose-colored glasses, thinking everything would just come out fine and dandy. That is not the kind of leadership that is needed in today’s world. The necessary leadership requires the understaning of the reality of terrorism, not just the projection of brute military force.
Michael
Phi,
You poor deluded soul. CNN is “an echo chamber of leftist spin”? What do you consider centrist? Fox? Ha, ha, ha! The NY Times a purveyor of leftist spin? Have you ever read the paper? Or are you just quoting that junkie, Limbaugh? Would you consider Savage Nation to be centrist? Do you see the Bush admin as a centrist government? If you answered, “Yes,” to any of these questions you may want to educate yourself.
Continuing from Jake, I’d like to point out that the BBC is respected worldwide for being about as objective as a broadcasting corporation can be.
Yes, it reported against the war in Iraq, but mostly on the grounds that deception and incompetence were found in the intelligence reports etc. leading up to the war (the “Dodgy Dossier” as it was delightfully known).
You mean the BBC that was censured for printing falsehoods about the info you sited Andrew?
“LONDON: Tony Blair’s government has been cleared of the charge of “sexing up” its controversial 16-month-old dossier on Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and later, cynically driving its leading WMD scientist to his death. ”
“But the BBC, one of the pillars of the British establishment, has been severely censured for reporting the sexing-up “falsehood” and making “very grave allegations” against Blair’s government. ”
Sources:http://www.queensjournal.ca/articlephp/point-vol131/issue9/features/story1
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/450332.cms
I remember when the media could be trusted. Now everything is “wow, is this true, or is it an AP piece?” Sad. Mainstream media is turning into The National Inquirer. Why do you think blogs are so popular? Why do you think the mainstream media HATES blogs?
I’d like to jump into the arguement. I really would. But reading the contention that somehow “Mid-East” machismo is the source of our troubles in Iraq has me about to fall off my chair laughing. Ummmm… “Fundie Machismo,” may not have the same alliterative charm, but it obviously played a major role in this shithole we have gotten into over there. So, for that matter, did “Liberal Machismo” and “Machismo” from all corners. All of which are very American in nature, and by no means endemic only to some land six time zones away.
In the post-911 world, our society’s distrust in general of all things supposedly “feminine” has shifted into overdrive. This is why you saw so many Liberals calling for war just as loudly as Shrub and his pals. (Only they did it more decorously than Ann Coulter.) This is why you have Kerry STILL making Reaganesque noises about “staying the course” for war. This is why peace symbols weren’t allowed on the floor of the DNC, for pity’s sake !! These pathetically vain and hopelessly unimaginative idiots simply can’t let go of their macho stance even though it should be clear by now that it’s detrimental to their own damn campaign. They can’t let go even though their nonsensical babblings are clearly being made over the objections of the majority of their party’s rank-and-file.
Even Dennis Kucinich, graciously permitted to speak at the DNC while not so much as one splinter of the “unfashionable” platfrom he brought to the convention was adopted nationally, had to pay homage to American machismo by referring to the country’s social problems as “weapons of mass destruction.”
Yes, I am bitter. (How could you tell ? :p ) This shit makes me sick to my stomach. Were that it was only to be found amongst Muslims in the Mid-East. It’s everywhere, and it’s despicable.
alsis,
“These pathetically vain and hopelessly unimaginative idiots…”
I love the narcissism of the left. The people running the DNC are idiots…sure. They’re actually a collection of brilliant minds, it’s Kerry who is the problem. His out of touch gaffes and poll whoring have them beating their heads against the wall.
“…simply can’t let go of their macho stance even though it should be clear by now that it’s detrimental to their own damn campaign.”
I’m sorry, but you really don’t know what’s going on if you really believe this. If Kerry went anti-war he’d be blown out of the water.
You make an interesting point:
“our society’s distrust in general of all things supposedly “feminine” has shifted into overdrive”
Though I disagree that feminism owns the anti-war platform, I get the jist of what you are saying. But how can you say this, and then say team Kerry is stupid for recognizing it and adapting?
Kucinich “had to pay homage to American machismo by referring to the country’s social problems as “weapons of mass destruction.”
Ok…you lost me. Paying homage to machismo? Taking an opponents talking point gaffe and using it against them to illuminate social policy ineptness…very smart…very effective.
Is the world less scary, or easier to understand, or is it easier to claim intellectual superiority if you grossly oversimplify the current geo-political turmoil down to “machismo”?
Like you said…bitter.
I love the narcissism of the left.
Ummm… I don’t like the Democrats or pro-war pandering, ergo the Left is (somehow moreso than moderates or radical Righties)… narcissistic. You wanna’ run that one by me again ?
The people running the DNC are idiots…sure. They’re actually a collection of brilliant minds,
…which must be why they ran shitty campaigns in 2000 and 2002, getting their asses handed to them in the process. Their brilliance strikes me as that of a professional sports team that can’t really be bothered to think up decent strategy because, WTH, they get paid even when they lose.
Mind you, there are smart people aligned with the old-school Democratic ideals, but it’s not as if they’re being embraced by Kerry or his handlers.
it’s Kerry who is the problem. His out of touch gaffes and poll whoring have them beating their heads against the wall.
First of all, I could do without the word “whoring.” Second of all, I fail to see why I should distinguish between Kerry and the people who have engineered his campaign. What, they’re strangers to each other ? Please.
I’m sorry, but you really don’t know what’s going on if you really believe this. If Kerry went anti-war he’d be blown out of the water.
You base this theory on… what, exactly ? In 2002, Democrats all over the country tried to out-macho the Republicans and got pummelled to dust. They also failed to get non-voters up off their butts and to the polls. Certainly a strategy of trying to get people to the polls by offering a signifigantly different worldview than one’s opponent couldn’t be any more of a miserable failure than the Democrats’ current tack has been.
I disagree that feminism owns the anti-war platform,
I never said that feminism “owned the anti-war platform.” I said that “peace” is in general thought of as a “feminine” value and that “war” is in general thought of as a “masculine” value. There’s a difference.
I get the jist of what you are saying. But how can you say this, and then say team Kerry is stupid for recognizing it and adapting?
Because Kerry is trying to run as a photocopy of a Republican. That IS stupid. Why should people take the photocopy when they can get the original by casting the same ballot ?
Politicians are not required to simply put their ears to the ground or treat the views of society (or in this case, the views that the media and pollsters CLAIM are the views of all society) and pander accordingly to our worst instincts. They can, you know– just for laughs– try to bring their audience up a moral notch rather than down.
“Kucinich ‘had to pay homage to American machismo by referring to the country’s social problems as “weapons of mass destruction.’
Ok…you lost me. Paying homage to machismo? Taking an opponents talking point gaffe and using it against them to illuminate social policy ineptness…very smart…very effective.
Effective for who ? My point is that the only way Kucinich felt like he could get over with the Party leaders at the DNC and with the more macho-than-thou corporate media was by absorbing and regurgitating war metaphors before a national audience. Not by appealing to compassion and empathy, but by defining social ills as weaponry. Then, and only then, I guess, will macho men want to rise up and “beat back” poverty, illness, the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, etc.
I saw Kucinich speak in public three times (and once on video. I can personally vouch for his Spanish being better than Dubbya’s BTW). And not once did I hear him use “weapons of mass destruction” in that way. Frankly, it was disappointing. But then again, Democrats have been a disappointment to me for a long time. I don’t know how I got the idea that this year would be different somehow. Must’ve been drunk. :p
The trouble with war metaphors is that they are seldom skin-deep. The approach they describe is destructive and short-sighted. “War on Drugs,” anyone ?
Is the world less scary, or easier to understand,
No, it’s not. I only offer my idea as a way of trying to explain something that, to my mind, is wholly founded in knee-jerk, oversimplified reactions to complex problems. It also explains why a minority of people in this country set the tone for domestic and foreign policy that often seems hopelessly at odds with the view of the majority. In this case, the majority is female and the minority is male. And, no, I’m not saying that all men love war and all women love peace, so please don’t drag that red herring into it. This discussion by nature does’t allow for much nuance.
None of that by any means makes it all less scary to me. Quite the opposite, in fact.
or is it easier to claim intellectual superiority if you grossly oversimplify the current geo-political turmoil down to “machismo”?
I’m not interested in intellectual superiority. I’ve met plenty of more-macho-than-thou intellectual males. So you can stop looking down your nose now. The slavish manner in which the Democrats have been pandering to the public by aping Republican policies since 911 is itself a grossly oversimplified way of viewing the world. So I’d look twice if I were you to see if that acusing finger of yours is hiding a guilty hand, Phi.