Ross Douthat says that Poulos and I are missing the boat on Taibbi's essay. I'm not sure that Ross and I disagree as much as he thinks we do. To be clear, I don't believe that we're going to see a left-right fusion of any sort. The value I see in Taibbi's essay is his sense that the left doesn't have a lot to offer now -- that it's populated by a bunch of cranks and juveniles who are great at whining and complaining, but who don't offer much practical help. Ross has said that it's ridiculous for a leftie like Taibbi to complain about the worthlessness of the left when everything's coming up roses for them in advance of the 2008 election.
I just don't see this. If Ross is right, would he have instructed the disillusioned rightists of The American Conservative to quit complaining about conservatives in 2004, because the GOP was doing well at the polls?
As far as 2008 goes, I see my interests losing no matter who wins. I'm trying to think about the long term, though, and I believe it's possible -- only possible -- that a GOP shellacking in 2008 could lay the groundwork for a serious reform of the party. Of course I think that shellacking is coming anyway, so perhaps I'm pre-emptively making lemonade. Anyway, if Romney/Giuliani/McCain/Thompson should win the presidency next year, I would have to work awfully hard to find that exciting news. Huckabee? Now that's a different story.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Cleveland,
What single thing has Bush done to make us a more moral society? The growing consensus in favor of torture (including its portrayal in the media and its popularity among Republican presidential candidates belies your point). By ignoring the plight of those who are not prosperous, or by only paying lipservice to them, has this administration improved our nation's morality?
To millions of Americans, the economy certainly doesn't seem strong, and given the fact that it is based on massive borrowing from foreign lenders (like China and the Gulf states) in order to finance our budget and current account deficits, I could see there point.
As for security, the things I listed are all part of the Dems' current positions on homeland security. As for bringing stability to the middle east, well, the Republican candidate may also try to bring the Pacific Ocean to the moon, but he'll have about as much success. And if you think treating any Muslim who dislikes America or practices a form of Islamism as a member of an "Islamofascist" alliance is going to make things more stable, than I recommend going to Baghdad and seeing if insulting Muhammad is another useful means to that end.
Am I worried that an abandoned Iraq could turn into another terrorist haven like Afghanistan was pre-invasion? Yes, although I think a credible case could be made the al Qaeda will end up being a casualty in the civil war that will probably take place after we leave. Especially now that we're arming Sunni militias that don't like them.
As for the main things most Democrats want, I think the chief issues for them right now are leaving Iraq, because they think we can't win and we're doing more harm than good by staying, and improving the economic security of lower middle class families. It's not gay orgies after getting home from not working at the state-owned factories. There is a certain component of the Democratic party that does care disproportionately about sexual liberation, but they are relatively few and concentrated among the party elite or a couple vocal subgroups. For the rest, issues like gay marriage (which around 50% of Dems still oppose, I believe) are, at most, a case of live-and-let-live.
There's a possibility I will vote for the Republican in 2008, but if I do so it will be because I think they will protect unborn life and continue not to fund embryonic stem cell research from destroyed embryos, not because I think they are will keep us safer, more economically secure, or more moral than the "homosocialists" will.
The big problem of your commentary is that you have stereotyped and demonised your enemies, "Islamofascists" and "homosocialists" so much that you don't understand them and can't defeat them in the first case or debate them in the latter. Both labels obscure more than they clarify.
Per Zak: "Cleveland,
What single thing has Bush done to make us a more moral society? The growing consensus in favor of torture (including its portrayal in the media and its popularity among Republican presidential candidates belies your point). By ignoring the plight of those who are not prosperous, or by only paying lip service to them, has this administration improved our nation's morality?"
Well, my friend, just off the top of my head, he (1) prevented the destruction of human embryos with our tax money years ago while others would have done the opposite, (2) just vetoed another immoral bill passed for the purpose of endearing Democrats with the homosocialist crazies, (3) expanded medicare, which was a god-send for "those who are not prosperous", rather than ignoring their plight with the lip service Democrats are known for, (4) tried to fix social security (relied on heavily by "those who are not prosperous") while it's doable with only modest pain to our pocketbooks, while being ridiculed, immorally, for his efforts by Democrats on the hill and in the media, (5) protected religion in schools and public life, which drives the homosocialists to drink more than they normally do (which I know because a few are my friends), and (6) instilled a more moral attitude in this country by his speech, appointments to two branches of the government, and refusal to get in the political gutter with his homosocialist enemies on the hill, in the media and organizations such as moveon.org and mediamatters.
And, please, Zak, stop furthering the homosocialist lie--I said lie--that the president permits or favors torture. That's calumny and a sin against him, this country and God. The Islamofascists, who use torture as a basic tool of their terrorism, just love to see him tarred with it. They do in fact take aid and comfort from seeing Americans eat their own.
"To millions of Americans, the economy certainly doesn't seem strong...".
Who cares what it "seems" like? It IS strong, despite the homosocialist's daily attempts to lie to their ignorant, lazy constituency.
"And if you think treating any Muslim who dislikes America or practices a form of Islamism as a member of an "Islamofascist" alliance is going to make things more stable, than I recommend going to Baghdad and seeing if insulting Muhammad is another useful means to that end".
Zak, I would never go to Baghdad to insult Islamofascists. I would, however, go there and elsewhere to kill them. Force is all they respect, whether you believe it or not, and thanks to 12 years of Carter and Clinton, and now Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and their ilk, they believe the U.S. soon will revert to homosocialist form. See Vietnam.
Zak, in all honesty, I really do respect your advice as to language and its effects. In the proper places and times-- political and religious diplomacy, for example--there is no valid use of terms such as homosocialist and Islamofascist. My use of such terms is meant to bluntly but accurately describe the Democrats and Islamists who hide behind such honorable labels, but who detest my Christian beliefs, and who constantly strive to take away my traditions and liberties, and in some cases my life. Be nice? Like hell! I'm retired and don't have to bite my tongue and be a diplomat with snakes (any more).
I wasn't going to respond to you because we are getting into the weeds here. The topic is which party will better serve Rod's interest, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that you are prolife, and therefore very worth while to rescue from your political delusions :-).
Cleveland,
Thank you for your concern for me. :-) In every election I have trouble finding a politician I actually believe in or agree with. I think you tend to ignore or by into Republican propaganda about the problems of the Bush administration (its incompetence, its policies that make Americans less economically secure, and its willingness to engage in twisted casuistry to justify what is in fact reasonably considered torture), but I agree that we can stop arguing about such things. I just don't accept the argument that because many Democrats are bad, somehow the Republicans are good. I accept that you use what I consider intemperate language out of a desire to call things as they are.
Zak, you misjudge your humble interlocutor. Never did I say Republicans are pure as the wind-driven snow. I spent 33 years in DC and know better. But, although there are a few Hill whores even among Republicans, the party leaders and the platform are morally and economically light years ahead of the now decadent Democrats (the majority of whom I intemperately but accurately refer to Homosocialists).
As to torture, it never was allowed. Water boarding MAY have been used in a few cases to save American cities and lives (I think that's what the incompetent George Tennant meant in his book), but so what? Our own troops are exposed to it in advanced training to prove that it will not harm you; it's simply not "torture". To save American cities I would hold my nose and accept its use against evil aggressors--this from someone who believes that evil can never be used to secure good, i.e., water boarding and the like are not always evil in times of war.
Zak, I will give you this: George W also is incompetent--he kept Tennant on the job along with other liberals in the CIA, State and Justice Departments (including the U.S. DAs); he appointed two incompetents as Secretaries of Treasury and State; he let a homosocialist author the No Child Left Behind Act (we know how that turned out); and he can't communicate to save his soul--not even to defend us from the vile Hill whores and media. But overall I thank God for him every day, and I mean that seriously.
Sorry for the 3:31 post, please delete it. It didn't look like it went through, so I wrote another one.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.