…and he wants you to know it, too:
Enough with the gotchas. Enough with the demonizing. Enough with thinking that the bad guys are our guys. Enough with the naive, simplistic blame game.
I hated it when the right did all this to Bill Clinton: Bill and Hillary are evil, they said, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours. And so I hate it when the left does this to George Bush: Dick and George are evil, they say, and if we just get them out of the White House, heaven will be ours.
Grow up.
Life isn’t that simple. I hated Richard Nixon and wanted him out of office and think he was, indeed, a crook and pond scum. But I don’t think that everything he did in office was maliciously motivated and evil. I hated Lyndon Johnson because he ran a war I hated and because I was young; I wanted him out of office and added my young, cracking voice to the mobs demanding that; yet I see now that LBJ also did great good. I don’t much like George Bush or Dick Cheney but I don’t think that they wake up every morning asking how they can ass-f* the world today. It’s not that simple, folks.
And the problem is, if you think it is that simple, then you don’t pay attention to what matters. If you think all our problems will be over when we get Bush (or Clinton or Nixon or LBJ or Carter or someday Hillary or Obama) out of office, then you’re going to wake up the next day and realize that we still have all our problems. And we have them because you were so busy demonizing the guy on the top that you didn’t go after the real demons.
Can’t think of any commentary to this – except, of course, to read the whole thing.
(Via Instapundit)
[UPDATE] Actually, I can think of some commentary. I’m at home today pretty much the combination of the recent terror alerts and this morning’s complete shutdown of the Metro Green Line persuaded me that it might not be a bad call to take that personal day. Just in case that fire or whatever it was wasn’t accidential, you know? Thankfully, nothing happened. Today.
This is the life that we all lead, now, especially those of us living in primary targets – and everything’s a primary target. The pressures on the government right now would deform titanium: they’re expected to know everything ahead of time and get everything letter-perfect, their successes tend not to be trumpeted (we don’t want them to be trumpeted; the last thing that you want to do is tell a terrorist network that it’s been compromised) and their failures will be broadcast to the skies. And all of this will still be true when a Democrat eventually becomes President again. This is not an issue of malice, or incompetence; this is an issue of imperfect institutions and imperfect men (and women). You want to think that your designated candidate will do better? That’s your privilege – but expect other people to demand specifics about why his plan is better in both its theoretical and practical aspects, because of… because of what Jeff said.
It really is not that simple.
Great post Moe. Especially the Update.
I’ve been reading similar calls for unity and really, really, really want to find some way to work toward that that doesn’t also come tied at the hip to nonsense like the FMA.
Any suggestions?
What I don’t understand is, if the intelligence is from three years ago and there are no dates given–are they going to keep these buildings on alert indefinitely? If not, what basis is there for stopping?
The “two other sites” in New York City mentioned in the Post article had just better not be the twin towers, and the undisclosed other site in D.C. had better not be the Pentagon. (I don’t think they are, I was feeling very cynical at that moment.)
And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they have used fear as a political tool in the past. But I don’t know if they’re doing it now, or if they’ve ever done it with the terror alert color code itself.
Sgt. Stryker had a similar piece a week or so ago, that was even more harsh on everyone, including himself:
You aren’t conservatives and liberals, you’re Phobos and Deimos: Fear and Panic. One of you uses the fear of external threats to win elections, the other tries to frighten us with internal threats. You both serve the same Master and that is why your supposed differences are as illusory as the fears you try to frighten us with. You’re more concerned with winning the next election than you are the real war. It’s a farce. This would make for a great comedy if it wasn’t so f[‘]ng tragic.
Suggestions? Geez, Ed, I’m a blogger. I’ve got nothing but suggestions.
Seriously… what would make me almost unbearably happy would be to turn on my television tonight to see President Bush and Senator Kerry sitting at a table together and reminding people that, no matter what specific items they dispute, there are fundamental things that they agree upon regarding the War on Terror – and that enemies of the United States ignore them at their peril.
Things like that. Symbolic actions from the top down and the bottom up.
Thanks for the Stryker link, Jonas.
This line of argument sounds like a call to disengage from the democratic process in order to unite against external threats. This is a wretched idea, a more elaborate (but similarly corrosive) version of the argument that the president shouldn’t be criticized in a time of war.
I don’t believe in cynical games of “gotcha!” But neither do I believe in assuming, against my own judgment, that my leaders are acting in my best interest. We are baffled when the subjects of autocrats cry “Death to America!” from under their oppressors’ heels, yet folks in our own ranks suggest we stifle our own dissent? I would rather we work together to face external threats, but continue our internal dialogue and disagreement, even if it sometimes gets nasty. That is what makes our nation work, and it is not a freedom that I’m going to willfully surrender.
And if Bush and his supporters want to win me over to their point of view, I’m here, waiting to hear the pitch. But guilting me into submission will never, ever work.
Bush is not the evil tyrant that the fanatics would like to make him out to be, but neither is he the benign statesman that other fanatics would like to make him out to be. Rejecting the former does not mean you have to embrace the latter, and there’s plenty of room for criticism in the latter.
Seriously… what would make me almost unbearably happy would be to turn on my television tonight to see President Bush and Senator Kerry sitting at a table together and reminding people that, no matter what specific items they dispute, there are fundamental things that they agree upon regarding the War on Terror – and that enemies of the United States ignore them at their peril.
Moe, have you read this?
There’s a reason why David Brin is my favorite author, and it’s not just because he writes knockout sci-fi. :>
This line of argument sounds like a call to disengage from the democratic process in order to unite against external threats.
Not quite. I’m guessing that people just want critque of our government officials to address what their policies and actions – as opposed to wild speculation of motives and assassinations of character.
This actually brings me to a dilemma. Bush’s policies have indeed reduced civil liberties. I oppose this, but I do not lose sleep at night. Why? Every President has done so during wartime, and Bush’s are historically speaking the least radical. Over time, we Americans tend to enjoy more liberties, with less of them restricted during crises. This is comforting.
But what is also comforting to me is the fact that the Left/Liberals and Right/Conservatives cry bloody murder when the opposite party is in power to the point of insanity. This has the side effect of preventing something completely disastrous, as even the tiniest thing gets made out to be a crisis. Therefore, maybe I shouldn’t discourage people from irrationally freaking out every time the President does anything contrary to liberty, despite believing that such criticism is not intellectually justifiable.
what would make me almost unbearably happy would be to turn on my television tonight to see President Bush and Senator Kerry sitting at a table together and reminding people that, no matter what specific items they dispute, there are fundamental things that they agree upon regarding the War on Terror – and that enemies of the United States ignore them at their peril.
Hear! Hear!
Someone else recommended that. I think it was the Jersey Girls, right after the 9/11 Commission was published.
I think that would take the wind out the sails of anyone thinking a terrorist attack would “change the election.”
How could we bring that about? I’ll write Kerry, if you write Bush.
sidereal: Bush is not the evil tyrant that the fanatics would like to make him out to be, but neither is he the benign statesman that other fanatics would like to make him out to be. Rejecting the former does not mean you have to embrace the latter, and there’s plenty of room for criticism in the latter.
I agree, sidereal, but the original commentary (as well as the article he cites in turn) suggests more than a simple call to meaningful dialogue, something I would wholeheartedly support.
From the Jarvis post:
And from the John Podhoretz article:
Am I reading too much into these opinion pieces? Do they not argue that domestic squabbling is hampering our ability to face threats abroad, the implied conclusion being that we should therefore voluntarily suspend debate? Does the Podhoretz article in particular not imply that criticism of Bush policies is tantamount to making Bush the enemy and ignoring the real enemy abroad?
Yes, it’s more of the trope that you can’t condemn the terrorists and criticize Bush at the same time. So if you’re doing the latter, you must like terrorists. It’s garbage, and deserves to be treated as such.
Gromit, I think you’re pointing out something folks need to be weary of avoiding (considering any criticism of Bush off limits because we’re at war), but I think there’s also a genuine sense among folks left and right that we’re not doing enough to prevent what happened in Spain.
As I noted above, what if Kerry and Bush did (as Moe suggested) sit down in very public way and emerged from a meeting with a unified declaration to the terrorists that regardless of who wins our election, they’re gonna be tracked down like dogs and exterminated. What would be the point of taking some action to “change the elction” then?
I’m all for suspending the nitpicks and gotchas that accompany election-year politics. Hell, I’ve been guilty of it myself, and I don’t know too many people of any stripe who haven’t. Let’s present a unified front on the things that matter, and save our bickering over supply-side economics for the next cycle.
The problem is that neither candidate is likely to agree on what issues must be stipulated and what issues should be either set aside or downplayed. On the other hand, even if they do agree what is important, neither of them are likely to agree on methods or plans.
The gripping hand is that I doubt either men have the strength of character to do something like this. Kerry is far too beholden to what he thinks is politically expedient to take serious political risks doing the right thing, and Bush is a fundamentally small man with an allergy to surrendering power or backing down.
Bush is a fundamentally small man
Big-ot.
Bush is a fundamentally small man
Big-ot.
KNOCK IT OFF! Or I swear I’ll crawl through the internet and knock some heads together!
Catsy, please rephrase your critique of Bush. You destroy an otherwise good assessment of why this might happen with an ad hominen snark that is offensive. Slarti, please take back your ad hominem statement about Catsy.
BOTH OF YOU: Tone it down!
Edward, you’re channelling my deceased father.
Dad? Dad, is that you? Where did you leave the channel changer?
Dad? Dad, is that you? Where did you leave the channel changer?
What’s the matter with you? Your legs broken? Get up and change the channel…wouldn’t hurt you to get a hair cut either or mow the yard….
Seems I’m channelling someone’s father. ; )
How would you suggest I rephrase it, Edward? It’s a valid observation. Bush has a smallness of character that comes through time and time again, in matters great and slight. People who are as averse as he is to admitting fault, relinquishing power, or backing down from a cherished position when it’s difficult and right are commonly called “small”, and it is for that reason that I misdoubt you will see Bush extending the olive branch.
Similarly, Kerry is a political opportunist. Where the political wind blows, so he goes, and the kind of unilateral disarmament that would be necessary to bring this kind of summit to the table is so politically risky that it’s simply unthinkable. His overture to Bush during the convention about knocking off the negativity? Noise. Calculated for political effect. He’d barely drawn another breath before taking a shot at the man he’d just tried to make nice with. I don’t buy it from Kerry, either.
Doing what Moe and Brin suggest would be laudable, powerful, historical–and completely beyond the limited character of both candidates.
But put me on record: if these two can get past the vast gulf of bitter partisanship this year and do something like this, I’ll donate $50 each to both the DNC and the RNC.
I’m waiting for Edward to threaten to stop the blog and turn around smack you both. Also, Jonas is touching me.
How would you suggest I rephrase it, Edward?
In a way that won’t immediately make Bush supporters tune out everything else you write. I’m not opposed to your criticism (you outline well here what you mean), but the tone and word choice immediately drew a charge of bigotry. In this thread in particular, that isn’t productive.
Like I wrote, otherwise your assessment was good. But in trying to let the theme of this thread have a fair chance, the ad hominem stuff isn’t gonna get us there.
Of course I’m still reeling a bit from the bloodletting that happened here last night, so take my “father knows best” tone with a grain of salt. ; )
Slarti, please take back your ad hominem statement about Catsy.
Well, it wasn’t so much ad hominem as it was (as it turned out) an extremely feeble attempt at a pun. Retracted, therefore, and never meant to begin with.
Still, he was on my side of the seat. Honest.
In a way that won’t immediately make Bush supporters tune out everything else you write.
Fair enough, as far as it goes. At the moment I’m having a crisis of imagination and can’t think of another way to put that; “small” seems to nicely encapsulate what I was trying to say without stepping over where I think the line is. I’ll have to think about it.
Of course, at the risk of mixing metaphors, others may have a different notion of where lies that line when I’m tipping their sacred cows.
Of course I’m still reeling a bit from the bloodletting that happened here last night, so take my “father knows best” tone with a grain of salt.
Sounds like I missed all the fun.
extremely feeble attempt at a pun.
I actually realized that about two seconds after I posted my comment. (That it was a pun, not that it was feeble.)
Scary how the older you get the more you turn into your father.
Carry on.
As I remember, my father was this grumpy at about age 30. If course by then he had six kids whose birthdays fall into a six-year span, so he probably had really, really good reason for grumpiness.
If course by then he had six kids whose birthdays fall into a six-year span
Your folks couldn’t afford a television either?
Puns are good. I approve whole-heartedly, and vote for turning ObWi into Katherine’s Crosstime Saloon. :>
I think my worst recently was observing a pho restaurant neighboring a Subway, and musing that if they merged they would sell Pho Thanh Torpedoes.
When I was a kid, we didn’t have television. We had to put on puppet shows for entertainment.
Actually, we got a TV when I was about five years old. This was right about the time when dinner occasionally having a bit of buckshot still in it stopped. ‘Course, back then we didn’t HAVE Hamburger Helper.
Civility in public discourse is a rara avis – and it is not the same thing as stifling dissent.
What I wouldn’t do for a snark-free blog, where issues get engaged, rather than conversational terrorism.
Which isn’t to say the funny can’t be brought. Proposed standard for funny: if those who disagree with you will laugh, it’s funny enough to post.
But too much of this is scoring points off each other (“gimme a cite!” “you’re stupid” “you’re evil” “you’re a Yankees fan”), and preaching to the choir, when the extraordinary thing about a heterogenous political discussion board like this is that there is someone to convince, or persuade, or (gasp!) inform.
Anyhow, even as is, this is a step above most others. It could just be more steps above. And if it starts with this community, it has a chance to work its way into “mainstream” politics, rather than the “you first” attitude of waiting for the candidates or national campaigns to radically change.
“neighboring a Subway”
Mmm. Subway. Lunchtime.
“rather than conversational terrorism.”
Is it a bad sign if I thought the Word Salad example was a reasonable question?
Mmm. Salad.
Actually, we got a TV when I was about five years old. This was right about the time when dinner occasionally having a bit of buckshot still in it stopped.
You had buckshot? Sheer luxury, many’s the time me and my siblings would have got down on out knees for a bit of buckshot in our din. We had arrows in ours.
You had dinner?
You had dinner?
If you count broken glass and barbed wire eaten from a dank hole in the road as dinner, then yes.
…and you had a dank hole?
Damn.
…you had roads
Happy Trails
And try telling the kids today what it was like, and they don’t believe you.
This is just a quick note to catch up*: didn’t see the Brin article, Catsy – a shame that I hadn’t, too, as he said everything that I said, and better. Of course, well, you know – David Brin.
And I’ll email President Bush by this weekend, Edward. Who knows? It might work. 🙂
Moe
*Interesting how things turn out; since my original post I’ve had to clean the downstairs, put together a futon, watch the first disc of Firefly and plan the formation of a early-period musical group. Oh, yes, and hurt people’s heads with songs that should not be played. So much for goofing off, eh?
Hey, I was born into priveledge. My family is Republican going back…I dunno, a couple of generations now. We were RICH, man. Plus, we got our minimum daily requirement of lead, and then some.
Now, I’ve actually had conversations like this with my elder daughter. She walks up to me [whine]”I’m bored.”[/whine]. I say to her: “When I was a kid, we didn’t have boredom. Boredom hadn’t been invented yet.” Then I invite her to sit somewhere away from me and ponder her good fortune in being bored.
Dunno if it works, but if she’s across the room, it’s harder for her to complain.
The Republicans went rabid on “gotchas” with Clinton because they could see he was fudging the truth and it drove them over the edge.
I find myself helplessly ferreting for “gotchas” now for the same reason. When faced with past lies that pulled the wool over your eyes (well, SOME eyes) you go hunting for more lies before you get hoodwinked again.
Which is pretty sad for all involved–both sides. And the stakes are far higher than they were with Clinton. It’s true. If you go looking for gotchas, you look like a fool if you are wrong and not much better if you are right. But damn, it’s hard to stop.