by wj
In today’s Washington Post:
War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option.
The author, Joshua Muravchik, might be the poster child for the movement from the far left to the far right. Going from National Chairman of the Young People’s Socialist League in the late 1960s and early 1970s to a board member for the American Enterprise Institute and trustee of Freedom House today.
I have to wonder why, given how well the war in Iraq that he championed worked out, he gets much of a hearing on how wonderful another war in the Middle East would be.
Setting aside the point that there is no justification in international law for any such action, this guy is a sociopath:
Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary…
Well, at least he is not (yet) calling for just mass-nuking the place in order to save money*. These days that counts as moderate.
*depending on the speaker this could of course be either feature or bug.
The mark of the true believer is their willingness to burn the world down if it doesn’t comply with their vision.
People like that scare the crap out of me.
I find it pretty disturbing that this guy gets prime column inches in the WaPo.
I find it pretty disturbing that this guy gets prime column inches in the WaPo.
Very disturbing. I’ve been trying to read the Post again, but this is a setback.
I’m not sure “another war in the Middle-East” is possible, technically. Isn’t that like “another ocean in the Pacific”?
The operative question is whether we join in. My default answer to that question is always “no”, and I don’t see how anyone would expect a war there under this administration to be conducted in such a way as to actually achieve anything. He’s going to use US resources to achieve what he actually threatened to use US resources to prevent? (The destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities.) I don’t think so.
Beyond expending a lot of wealth, and killing a lot of people, of course. It would certainly achieve that much.
“this guy is a sociopath”
It’s when sociopaths begin to herd and swarm, as their Zombie cousins do, that you have to watch out for.
Here they come.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_03/why_republicans_are_ramping_up054625.php
“he actually threatened”
You don’t read the news, you self-actualize it to rationalize your therianthropic shape-shifting default position.
Your default position: it’s not your (de)fault.
the best part of that article is this:
we should go to war with Iran and make them live according to our rules because Iran is driven by ideology and seeks to impose that ideology around the world.
the guy is not only a sociopath, he’s incapable of self-reflection. he’s a vampire, out for blood.
Right-wingers often taunt us libruls with a proposition like: “If you want to pay more taxes, nobody’s stopping you from writing a check to the IRS.”
If we libruls were as shameless as the wingnuts, we’d say to them: “If you want to fight Iran, go do it yourself and stop pestering us.”
–TP
The author, Joshua Muravchik, might be the poster child for the movement from the far left to the far right.
Sadly, No. That honor has been bestowed on David Horowitz and retired in perpetuity. The YSPL was an offshoot of the relatively tame Socialist Party (Michael Harrington, for example, broke with them because they were too namby pamby on Viet Nam). The impetus for many of the neocons who made a similar ideological journey was Israel as the left increasingly began to support Palestinian rights and denounce Zionism.
Funny how our ongoing military expansion since the Founding is not seen as an attempt to “legitimize” our regime and inspire our leaders and its supporters.
I couldn’t even read it. Too frustratingly stupid. The learning curve is flat. Yeah, Iran’s Shias are out to take over the mostly Sunni Middle East (and beyond!). Whatever. That guy can go fnck off. Idiot.
As a European, I cannot help wondering whether this guy is getting paid by China. The idea of going to a war without clearly defined goals and without any visible long-term benefit is completely absurd.
The military resources of the United States are finite. Your wars in Iraq and Afghanistam taxed the resources of your armed services very much, and dominated the training of your army and marine corps for more than a decade. All this lessened pressure against China.
Currently, Russia is waging a war against Ukraine and has made some pretty threatening moves against your treaty-bound allies Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. US is also giving support to Vietnam against Chinese territorial demands.
It is quite clear that the US will not be able to wage war against Iran and maintain a credible conventional deterrent in East Europe and on South China Sea simultaneously. Something will have to give. For the Chinese, the ideal situation would be a American-Iranian war and a continued military conflict in Europe, as this would give them a lot of freedom of action.
Tom Cotton knows why Iran must be stopped…
“They already control Tehran and, increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad. And now, Sana’a as well.”
ruh roh.
@Lurker: “I cannot help wondering whether this guy is getting paid by China.” The idea of going to a war without clearly defined goals and without any visible long-term benefit is completely absurd.”
Why should the Chinese pay perfectly good money for absurdity that the GOP is willing to provide for free?
“The idea of going to a war without clearly defined goals and without any visible long-term benefit is completely absurd.”
Let us pause here, while I tell you a story about a country named “Iraq”…
The US need a local ally before they can go into Iran. Not the Kurds, that could upset the Turks. What about these guys named after that Egyptian goddess? I hear they dislike the mullahs as much as we do and are already on the Saudi and Gulf States payroll. Maybe we could bribe them with contracts on Iranian gas to go also after the caliphate. Plus we have to support the United Allah White Front against Haifisch the Asset.
They are going to control Bayreuth? That’s a step to far. Signed R.Wagner
US is also giving support to Vietnam against Chinese territorial demands.
Vietnam is in a pretty tough place these days:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/11/us-usa-vietnam-russia-exclusive-idUSKBN0M71NA20150311
Regarding the initial article, I really have a hard time taking any writing seriously when its in the format of:
Obvious question? Stupid answer.
And this one does nothing demonstrate otherwise. For example:
Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.
The level of disregard for committing the US to indefinite military operations in Iran is shocking. The follow-up is as well:
Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.
Much the same may be said in reply to objections that airstrikes might not reach all the important facilities and that Iran would then proceed unconstrained by inspections and agreements.
What this will do will push Iranian facilities deep underground, and I’m personally unconvinced our ability to penetrate will outpace Iran’s ability to dig.
Vague, handwavy arguments that we’ll just keep destroying their nuclear capabilities are stupid and dangerous.
thompson, compare Rummy’s argument that one would just kill terrorists faster than new ones could be recruited. Worked wonderfully.
Btw, the Uboat campaign in both World Wars worked on the same premise: sink more ships than can be rebuilt in the same time. The only case were it worked was against Japan because they were absolutely useless in ASW and had no resources in-country. If Iran is determined to come up with a nuclear explosive device, just bombing them (without nukes) on a regular base will not be sufficient.
But the advocates for war are unwilling or unable to put themselves into the other guys’ shoes. What would WE (esp. on the Right) do in THEIR position? But since THEY are not like US, THEM acting as WE would is nothing one could even think about.I still remember though the hot debate after the Iraq invasion, whether one should take all firearms from the native savages because they dared to use them against the Liberators or whether the Iraqi patriots should be used as a shining example to strengthen the 2nd amendment at home. Cognitive dissonance galore.
And one would think it would be realtively easy for the right to put themselves in the mullahs’ shoes. After all, while there are some theological differences, on most social issues they take virtually identical stands on what religion demands the nation do. And pretty close of the desirability of their particular religion being the national one.
Soul brothers indeed!
Just wanted to link to this item again.
Among other things, the facility at Fordow is below 200-300 feet of hard rock.
Short of attempting the overthrow of Iran’s government and the occupation of Iran, we could delay the nuclear program by a few years.
It’s something we would no doubt have to repeat ad infinitum, because a military attack which did not result in complete regime change would be highly unlikely to persuade the Iranian government to abandon their attempts at getting a military nuclear capability.
Just the opposite, I would imagine.
Hmm.
Well, there’s always nuclear penetrators.
May be best not to Google that.
Still: you’d want to think long and hard before jumping off into an endeavor like that.
Did someone take this as a serious suggestion?
it would seem that the primary by-product of attacking a nuclear weapons lab using nuclear weapons would be radioactive irony.
“Did someone take this as a serious suggestion?”
Yup.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-sen-ted-cruz-tells-girl-world-fire-article-1.2150474
In the Zombie movie genre, whenever a flesh-eating, subhuman, pig filth, verminous Zombie is about to bite and infect a child around the age of three, someone at the last minute shoots the flesh-eating subhuman pig filth verminous Zombie in the head.
Get a load of the ghastly Zombie smiles of this audience as big Zombie addresses (Mr. Rogers weeps from his grave, although I think Mr. Greenjeans would shove the business-end of his pitchfork into the Zombie brain) the kid.
They feed the kid to the Zombie.
Maybe it’s time to trot out LBJ’s mushroom cloud commercial with the little kid in it.
The Zombie genre is about saving American civilization from the inhuman.
Unfortunately, domestically in this country, Americans can’t be counted on to take the requisite action against the tens of millions who walk among us, jaws snapping.
We like watching Zombies bite and infect 3-year-olds with their hate virus.
From the Count’s link. “Julie” in this passage is a three year old:
What kind of a moron answers a three year old kid that way?
“Yes, little girl, your world is on fire”.
WTF is wrong with these people?
WTF is wrong with these people?
From one of my favorites, Mike The Mad Biologist:
“Republicans have rallied their slavering Uruk-hai by turning every political issue, no matter how mundane, into an existential crisis for white nationalists. This has been successful in the short run, but, at some point, it makes actual governance nearly impossible. This is the lens through which the modern Republican Party must be viewed: it is a regionalist, white nationalist organization with a political agenda.”
Go check him out.
ruh roh.
I blame the people who elect these ignorant clowns into office. Forget voter ID; let’s have some IQ ID.
I blame the people who elect these ignorant clowns into office. Forget voter ID; let’s have some IQ ID.
You mean like a literacy test? Disenfranchising people that you disagree with is a terrible idea. Or a terrible joke. Either way.
Iirc the majority of citizens would fail the citizen test foreigners have to take before naturalization*. This is particularly shocking since it consists of questions like “How many states are there in the United States?”, “Who is currently president?”, “To which political party does the current president belong”, “What are the three branches of government?”, “Name two of the freedoms enumerated in the 1st amendment!”. Iirc the by far most difficult question was: “How many amendments to the constitution are there?”
(all questions paraphrased).
In comparision, a proposed test in Germany for future candidates for citizenship had not 5 but 100 questions in it with a lot of them not more or less answering themselves. That would be like asking questions in the US like “What are the rules of presidential succession, if both president and vice president are permanently unable to discharge their duties?” or “Which kind of bills have to originate from the House?”, “What role does the VP play in the senate?”, “What are the conditions under which the constitution can be amended?”, “What is a bill of attainder?”. I assume that a significant number of congresscritters would fail such a test if forced to take it unprepared.
*I read a study on that a few years ago and tried my luck myself. My two thoughts were 1) It can’t be THAT easy 2) How in the netherworld can the average US citizen fail that simple task?
Literacy test? That sounds like something liberals campaigned vigorously against, way back when.
Crazy liberals and crazy conservatives can, apparently, now kumbaya together.
Iirc the majority of citizens would fail the citizen test foreigners have to take before naturalization*.
Not a quite a majority, but close: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-26/imiigrant-civics-test-americans-fail/54563612/1
But only 65% of native-born Americans could get the required six out of 10 right answers when asked the same questions in a telephone poll.
But I’m always skeptical of telephone tests. To much potential for distraction and flat out not caring. I know I’ve answered opinion polls incorrectly just because I misheard the question.
“My two thoughts were 1) It can’t be THAT easy 2) How in the netherworld can the average US citizen fail that simple task?”
They learn the answers in elementary school, and forget them as they walk out the door, would be my guess.
10/10
I’d bet Brett would also easily pass it. Also: Herman Cain, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and a whole host of others you’d want to exclude.
As filters go, it’s maybe not your best choice.
Disenfranchising people that you disagree with is a terrible idea. Or a terrible joke. Either way.
The same idea – an IQ test, for lack of a better word – has occurred to me as a voting hurdle.
Not as a serious idea, just as an expression of frustration with people who can’t be bothered to even ask if the things they believe so fervently are not only true but even remotely possible.
I try to be a nice guy, but sometimes it’s a challenge.
And for the record, I have absolutely zero problem with Brett voting, or Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz.
Herman Cain, maybe a different story, but that might fall under a “barking mad test” rather than an IQ test.
Note the tongue-in-cheek smiley:
:-J
Also for the record:
As do I.
We have a Republic, if we can keep it. It’s survived an astonishing parade of ignorant clowns so far, but we may be approaching the breaking point.
Disenfranchising people that you disagree with is a terrible idea. Or a terrible joke. Either way.
Shorter me:
When actual legislation to prevent people from voting based on their utter lack of factual information is placed on the table, maybe this will be an issue that needs to discussed seriously.
Random blog comments expressing annoyance with same, maybe not so much.
To my eye, anyway, it’s a terrible idea, but not such a bad joke.
Woodrow Wilson seemed to stump a lot of people, but it’s still not as surprising as some of the others, considering the ease of the questions.
Neat!
It fits the narrative of “we were winning when our guy was in the White House. The corollary is “your guy lost the war”.
From a more cynical viewpoint, I think this is the modern method of racism. Muslim countries are getting smacked down (invaded, overthrown, droned, etc) because they are “uppity”.
Well, there is only one party in the US who does this as their policy. Requiring ID to vote. Wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment. Stuff like that.
Granted, russell; I am not really getting spun up about this.
Or, really, about much. You might say I have deliberately attempted to increase my moment of inertia. But holding my arms out like that makes me tired, so sometimes I have to drop them and chance on getting rapidly spun up.
Good points all around, though, as usual.
But holding my arms out like that makes me tired, so sometimes I have to drop them and chance on getting rapidly spun up.
LOL
When I find that happening, I usually find a handy couch and take a nap.
🙂
Completely OT: I yesterday was able to use What I Know in actual conversation with a family member.
I had loaned (think of this as an active thing: you must read this, Dad) my copy of Krakatoa to my dad, and he took some exception to this concept of “acceleration of gravity”, mentioned in the book somewhere.
So I explained Newton’s law of gravitation to him, and how as a result the Earth and another mass attract each other with a force that is proportional (in effect) to the secondary mass. Since each mass gets attracted with a different force, and since that force is proportional to the second mass, the result is that objects of various masses, when dropped in the absence of air from the same height, experience the same acceleration.
And he got it. My dad, who is now 79 years old, and who experiences some kind of odd disabilities where it comes to understanding mechanics, got that idea, and agreed the Winchester was not after all mistaken in referring to this oddball concept of “acceleration of gravity”.
Or pretended to. There was no quiz.
Anyway, it smelled like victory.
“When I find that happening, I usually find a handy couch and take a nap.”
I crave naps sometimes the way an alcoholic craves a drink.
Good work, Slarti! Yet another convert from “intelligent falling”; hope he doesn’t fall off the wagon.
“It fits the narrative of “we were winning when our guy was in the White House. The corollary is “your guy lost the war”.”
Eh, narative, actual truth, whatever. Yeah, Republicans tend to think that Democrats were so offended by the concept of a war Republicans started being successful, that they deliberately threw the victory away when they got the chance, so as to make the war retroactively a failure.
Might even be working on doing the same thing with the Cold War.
Random blog comments expressing annoyance with same, maybe not so much.
Eh, I think its representative of political polarization, and representative of the way people have come to dismiss large chunks of the population as stupid/evil.
Not as fellow citizens, or people that can be reasoned with, or people that might disagree in some ways for a variety of reasons. But stupid. Or evil. Or both.
Look, I don’t particularly think Tom Cotton is a genius. I don’t particularly think much about Tom Cotton at all. But he got more than 50% of the vote in Arkansas, and I doubt its because all of the voters there have below average IQ.
It’s just the sort of joke that’s funny because its made by someone and directed to an audience that has zero respect for those voters.
See those people over there? The ones we disagree with it? They’re stupid. Get it?
It’s a minor thing, sure, it just bugs me because so much of our political discourse has become preaching to the choir and snide dismissals of the other side.
Dismissing the other is just one more indicator of who is in the in group. It wasn’t an ideal method of social interaction in middle school, and its even less functional in a democracy.
Stupid, evil, and insane. Must not forget insane.
The next step after that is sub-human, and then come the concentration camps.
Who’s calling whom evil now?
The next step after that is sub-human, and then come the concentration camps.
Sigh. Concentration camps? Really? Even in today’s overheated political climate that’s a stretch.
Woodrow Wilson seemed to stump a lot of people
Me, too.
What did you guys see in him ?
Stupid and evil.
Brett has earned every one of his stretch marks.
I’m actually willing to go with lots of folks who disagree with me being reasonably intelligent, well intentioned, and sane. Just uninformed (and nobody can know everything) and/or wrong (and I manage to be wrong occasionally myself). 😉
Speaking of being wrong, and admitting it, did you all catch this little gem from Jonathan Capehart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/
Obviously the man has no future in politics — where admitting you were wrong about something is just not the done thing.
I’m actually willing to go with lots of folks who disagree with me being reasonably intelligent, well intentioned, and sane.
I suppose that’s why I enjoy disagreeing with you so much.
Obviously the man has no future in politics — where admitting you were wrong about something is just not the done thing.
Yeah. Isn’t it sad that we seem to select for people that *can’t* learn?
thompson, please excuse my cycnicism but concentration camps are out because these days the radicals find calling for death more pleasing. “That person should go to jail for his opinion!” has been replaced by “Someone shoot that person!” or the alternative “Hand him over to [insert the most sadistic and vile guys known to man] to be killed slowly and painfully!”. That includes lots of elected officials these days (not even counting the losing candidates).
I admit to fantasies of e.g. Rumsfeld getting abducted by crippled Iraq war veterans and given a major dose of their personal experience (removal of most non-vital body-parts included) but would only call for him being subject to a non-biased court of law applying the full force of the same (which would lead to a death sentence in the US or life in jail, if international was used). No chance of that though since alls SecDefs and POTUSes plus many others would have to get the same and we can’t have that.
Yeah. Isn’t it sad that we seem to select for people that *can’t* learn?
Is that a particularly American thing – admiration of resolute, self-assured, stick-to-your-guns types? Is it confusion of rigid pigheadedness with courage and will? It seems somehow tied to the whole rugged-individualism thing, like people want to vote for the hero from a Western.
thompson, please excuse my cycnicism but concentration camps are out because these days the radicals find calling for death more pleasing.
I think it’s more to stand out, you constantly have to up the ante. If you want to lead on CNN, you need rhetoric that stands out. And the easiest way to do that is to say people should be shot, hanged, nuked, or whatever, because saying someone is wrong (and here’s why) just doesn’t capture audience attention.
Eh, I think its representative of political polarization, and representative of the way people have come to dismiss large chunks of the population as stupid/evil.
I have a number of thoughts about this.
First, political polarization is a reality. And it’s not just based in anybody’s Great Big Propaganda Machine, although that doesn’t help.
It’s a reality because people who live in different parts of the country, and/or who come from different backgrounds or traditions, and/or who have different interests to advance or protect, want different things.
The think different things are good, and their different understandings of what’s good and what’s not good are often not compatible.
It’s baked in. Contrary to the rhetoric, we are not united.
So, let’s start there.
The second thing I’ll say is that large portions of the population are, not unintelligent or evil, but bone ignorant.
They think things are true that aren’t true, and they are profoundly unaware of things that are true.
You are correct to intuit that I have less respect for those people than I do for folks who can actually be bothered to find stuff out.
That is not an especially kind or generous position for me to take, but the depth and persistence of plain old ignorance on the part of the folks who live in this country wears me out.
This isn’t just some weird idle bigotry on my part, and in fact at a personal level I don’t really care what people know or don’t know.
The reason I find it disturbing is because it’s likely impossible to have effective self-governance unless people take the trouble to inform themselves about basic, rudimentary aspects of their polity, and the world.
That’s where I’m coming from.
people that can be reasoned with
I’ve been hanging out on political blogs, of all stripes, since probably 2001 or 2002.
Basically, since the Patriot Act was being debated.
My experience is that there are a lot of people who can’t be reasoned with.
The limitation may be on my end, you may be a more patient or thoughtful or articulate person than I am.
Best of luck to you.
But he got more than 50% of the vote in Arkansas, and I doubt its because all of the voters there have below average IQ.
I have no explanation for why Tom Cotton is a Senator.
As a Congressman, he called for punishment of the families of people violating sanctions against Iran.
Not the people themselves, their families.
From his Wiki page:
Even a passing familiarity with how the US Constitution, US law, and historical common law addresses ideas like should really have prompted his constituents to seize the next available opportunity to return him to private life.
Instead, they made him a Senator.
So, I have no freaking idea. Ignorance, stupidity, utter lack of interest in or concern for rule of law, they thought he was a handsome and promising young man, he bought everybody beer and ham sandwiches.
Your guess is a good as mine.
I don’t live in AR, I can’t explain how people there think about these things.
Perhaps I’m being rude or unkind, but I’m afraid I have to let that stand.
Here in MA we have our own colorful characters, never you worry, so it ain’t like I’m saying it’s just a liberal vs conservative thing.
But I am saying that it’s harmful to the nation as a whole that so many people don’t know sh*t from shinola when it comes to public matters.
The next step after that is sub-human, and then come the concentration camps.
You skipped “thug” and “urban culture”.
“Speaking of being wrong, and admitting it, did you all catch this little gem from Jonathan Capehart:”
But he did manage that “Fake but accurate” save at the end. And wasn’t quite up to, “And I should have realized this all earlier.”
“Even in today’s overheated political climate that’s a stretch.”
It’s always going to be a stretch, until the day they open for business. But that is the progression: Wrong, then Stupid, then Evil, then Insane, then Subhuman, then Fit Only to be Exterminated.
First, you decide that the people who disagree with you are wrong, which is fine, so long as you admit at least the possibility you’re the one who’s wrong.
Then you abandon that possiblity, and decide they must be stupid to believe something that obviously wrong.
Then you decide they ‘aren’t even” wrong, that their beliefs are actually a manifestation of mental illness.
Then you decide that people who could believe THAT don’t even qualify as people.
And then you start exterminating the pests.
Not saying we’re destined to take every one of those steps, but that’s the journy this nation is taking.
Well, I think ‘Punishment Park’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_Park) was not an unreasonable extrapolation at the time and I could easily think of something similar/equivalent these days (let’s say under the next president or his/her successor). On the state leve anytime already. Someone please don’t call sheriff Arpaio.
But that is the progression: Wrong, then Stupid, then Evil, then Insane, then Subhuman, then Fit Only to be Exterminated.
Phrased that way, it sounds like being wrong (or admitting you are wrong) is a first step which inevitably leads to being exterminated. If someone thinks that way, it does explain an enormous and understandable reluctance to admit to being wrong….
Just quickly:
First, political polarization is a reality.
Yes, absolutely. And it will be with us, to one degree or another, forever. I just attempt to limit the polarization to things of substance, not casual dismissals.
You are correct to intuit that I have less respect for those people than I do for folks who can actually be bothered to find stuff out.
First off, I get that it is wearying, and please don’t take this as a criticism, because I totally get reaching into your bag of gives-a-craps and finding it totally empty, or even just better spent elsewhere.
But just as an alternate perspective, what I find lacking there is that you (general you, not you specifically) are dismissing whole swathes of people based on one or a handful or markers, without really bothering to inform yourself on their perspective.
Again, I totally get not caring.
My experience is that there are a lot of people who can’t be reasoned with.
My experience is that there are a lot of people that can’t be reasoned with in a single or handful of interactions. But that most people can be reasoned with if you present your (hopefully good) argument repeatedly over time, without resorting to belittling/attacking them.
Human brains aren’t wired to be wrong, and it takes time for most people to adjust their positions. Attacking or criticizing them for being wrong just hardens their positions, in my experience.
Best of luck to you.
I need it.
As a Congressman, he called for punishment of the families of people violating sanctions against Iran.
That’s incorrect. Although it’s not much of a defense of him, because he doesn’t seem to be aware that’s incorrect. Perhaps that’s even worse, I don’t know.
https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/16/nobody-including-tom-cotton-knows-what-tom-cotton-is-saying-about-corruption-of-the-blood/
It is a fine example of how much law is written by staffers, and how little is read/understood by lawmakers.
russell: “It’s something we would no doubt have to repeat ad infinitum, because a military attack which did not result in complete regime change would be highly unlikely to persuade the Iranian government to abandon their attempts at getting a military nuclear capability.”
Where ‘complete regime change’ means ‘installing a government which will operate against the wishes of the Iranian people’.
Of course, that’s been standard practice in the USA for quite a while.
That’s incorrect
Hey, shame on me. Shoulda known better than to take Wiki at face value.
For the record, the first blog I ever hung out on was FreeRepublic.
The next blog I hung out on was RedState.
Now I’m here.
I lasted about 2 1/2 days on FreeRepublic, because those folks are out of their minds. If that seems unkind, so be it.
I was RedState for a couple of years, posting about as often as I am here.
So, frankly, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand what conservative Americans are on about, and trying to articulate to them what I’m on about.
Hundreds and hundreds of hours, most likely.
Some folks really aren’t interested in hearing any point of view other than their own.
Some folks are, really and truly, thoroughly ignorant of basic, important facts about their own country and the world.
That’s what I found.
It’s true on DailyKos also, it was famously so on FireDogLake (are they still around?).
It’s not an uncommon thing.
When I was hanging out in places like RedState, I wouldn’t float sarcastic comments like “I wish ignorant people wouldn’t vote”, mostly because it wasn’t my house.
I was guest, they were very kind to put up with me as long as they did, I felt obliged to be on my best behavior. I wouldn’t last ten minutes there now, things were different there then.
I’ve been here a long time, folks generally know where I’m coming from, and it’s a much less party-line vibe than an explicitly conservative blog like RS is.
So, now and then I will vent some sarcasm. It keeps me from punching the walls, some days.
We all have our moments.
Where ‘complete regime change’ means ‘installing a government which will operate against the wishes of the Iranian people’.
Not necessarily. “Complete regime change” could also mean breaking the mullah’s Revolutionary Guard. At which point, the Iranian people, being thoroughly fed up with the way their economy has been run (for the benefit of the Guard far more than for the common people), might well institute something else.
Perhaps still with some theocratic overtones — sort of like the little island off the coast of Europe where the head of the local religion is also Head of State. An Iran resembling Britain in this might be quite tolerable . . . except for the Saudis, of course. They might not be America’s best friend, but they wouldn’t look at all like a major enemy either.
I think that by and large, countries have the leaders they want, irrespective of how the USA feels about it. There are some small exceptions to this, but Iraq wanted and got Saddam Hussein. Nazi Germany wanted and got Adolf Hitler. Red China wanted and got Mao Zedong.
And of course we wanted and got most of the good and bad presidents we’ve had, along with whatever baggage was involved in their election. Including, I say pointedly, Rutherford B. Hayes.
I was going to say we can’t even manage our own government, but that’s manifestly untrue. We’re unable to do so competently.
I think that countries are composites, an as such, can’t really “want” anything. As “wanting” is something individuals do. Some people want the government that’s in place, some don’t. Ideally there are more of the former than the latter, that’s what democracy is supposed to ensure.
I also think that many governments on this Earth expend a huge effort to make sure that what the people they rule over want is largely irrelvant.
But the majority of people can. Obviously.
I think that covers most of the rest of your observations as well.
things were different there then.
And what’s changed? If I had to guess, I’d say the conversation has become more dismissive of outsiders and more insular as a result.
And, as for better or worse, RedState is a fairly major aggregator for right-wing thought, the national conversation probably suffers for it.
Many unpopular regimes make also use of the fact that people dislike them but could not agree on what should replace them. You are pretty screwed if the likely (or perceived as likely) result is just exchanging nazis for commies (stalinist version) or vice versa. Fears (of the people) of things getting even worse in case of change has kept many a tyrant in power.
So, Slart, you’ve conceded that *some* of the people can not want the government. That being the case, why not the majority, rather than the minority?
Again, I say, many governments put a huge effort into making sure that what the people they rule over want doesn’t matter. Rigged elections, censored media, secret police…
They do that because it works.
What did you guys see in him ?
Wilson’s domestic policies are often overlooked given his by now widely known bone deep racism and his failed foreign policy vision.
As to the depths of today’s political disputes, I remind people to look up the election of 1800, or 1860 for that matter.
It could be worse. 🙂
Iraq wanted and got Saddam Hussein.
Slarti, you can’t be serious. The Iraqi military may have wanted Saddam. And the Sunni minority of the population may have. But the majority, the Shia in the South and the Kurds in the north? No way they wanted Saddam.
Not when they first got him. Certainly not when they had experience with him. But trying to get rid of him was simply a messy way to get killed. And your family, friends, and neighbors as well. The best they could do was sort of hold him at bay . . . with substantial US air support (the no-fly zone).
Now if you are going to argue that countries (and states and cities) which actually have reasonably fair elections get the government that the majority of them want — or are at least quite willing to tolerate. Then you doubtless have a case.
But in a world where a national government can field massive amounts of power relative to the bulk of the population? Where some national governments have fake elections or no elections at all? Hard to make that case.
Yes, Abe Lincoln was at the butt end of a lot of rhetorical abuse. He merited exactly none of it.
Looking at election slogans from Roman times I find that in this matter times have not changed that much. Translate them into English and exchange the names, few will notice any difference (true also for the graffiti btw). Assuming that your voters are idiots seems to have been a winning system for candidates even then.
Cynic me: Today it is enough to just promise bread and circuses, then it was still necessary to deliver (the latter even before the actual election).
Then you abandon that possiblity, and decide they must be stupid to believe something that obviously wrong.
Brett, have you never met anyone you thought was stupid (or, at least, ignorant) for believing obviously wrong things? Do you not think some things people believe are obviously wrong? Are you suggesting that thinking someone is stupid/ignorant or thinking some things are obviously wrong is a particularly liberal thing to do?
I disagree with people all the time without then thinking they’re stupid (or even ignorant) or insane. Stupid and insane are strong words, but I’ll readily admit to thinking some people are ignorant and some people are kooks (technical term). Does that make me special somehow? Is it just because I’m liberal?
Yes, I am. But it’s more something to think about than to consider self-evidently right or wrong.
What you want vs. what you’re willing to put up with, to me, is kind of meaningless.
“Yes, Abe Lincoln was at the butt end of a lot of rhetorical abuse. He merited exactly none of it.”
Oh, BS. You can say the cause was worth it, but Lincoln pulled a lot of things that deserved rhetorical abuse. Shutting down opposition newspapers, suspending the writ of habeus on his own say-so, (When the Constitution says Congress has that power.) threatening to have the Chief Justice arrested for ruling against him.
You can excuse a lot for the cause, but there’s a heck of a lot there that needs excusing.
And what’s changed?
Different editors, different editorial policy, and they sold the joint to Regnery, which introduced (or maybe fulfilled) a business model.
Brett, have you never met anyone you thought was stupid (or, at least, ignorant) for believing obviously wrong things?
A rhetorical question, no doubt?
Given his ongoing (with intermediate hissy fit withdrawals)interaction here, I should think the answer is most likely “yes”.
Different editors, different editorial policy, and they sold the joint to Regnery, which introduced (or maybe fulfilled) a business model.
Ah well, perhaps it doesn’t fit into the worldview I was describing.
Again, I totally get not caring.
Not to beat this to death, but nothing I’m saying has anything to do with not caring.
Fatigue, discouragement, frustration, at times anger.
A lot of things have changed in this country over, let’s say, the last 35 or 40 years. It’s not really the same place I grew up in, and from my point of view a lot of the changes have been really harmful.
I’ve spent a lot of effort over the last few years in an attempt to engage and affect the direction the national public life is heading. Not just hanging out on blogs, but time, and money, and physically showing up when that was possible and appropriate.
It makes me really angry when people hold positions that are based in ignorance. To me, it demonstrates a fundamental irresponsibility and laziness, and frankly it’s harmful to the quality of public life.
I could freaking yell at those people on every available occasion, or I could save my sense of frustration for an occasional snarky comment here on ObWi, where I’m generally known and where folks can take the sarcasm with a grain of salt and balance it with other, hopefully more constructive things that I might say.
We all carry around our own biases and blind spots, but some of us try to overcome them.
And, some of us don’t.
Not caring is not the issue.
Not to beat this to death
It wouldn’t be blog if things weren’t beat to death. I’m pretty sure.
with not caring
I’m sorry, that was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I was trying to get at, was that I get that engaging with people is often fruitless, and that can be extremely frustrating, and not engaging due to frustration is entirely reasonable.
I could freaking yell at those people on every available occasion, or I could save my sense of frustration for an occasional snarky comment here on ObWi
Or you could neither yell, nor get frustrated, but continue to engage with those people that make you angry and are frustrating. Or not, I don’t really care all that much. Your snark/snide/sarcasm is generally flanked by copious well reasoned text.
Look, I replied to debbie’s comment because the snide dismissal of an entire set of voters, who I’m guessing they haven’t spent much time trying to understand, is counterproductive.
You thought it wasn’t a bad joke. Ok. I don’t really care what you, or debbie, find amusing. I merely wanted to point it out that it was pretty harsh and could be taken the wrong way.
At no point was I trying to intimate that you don’t engage constructively at ObWi, or anywhere else.
Or not, I don’t really care all that much.
I don’t really care what you, or debbie, find amusing.
Thompson, for somebody who posts a lot of verbiage here, I must say you use the term “I don’t care” with a great deal of frequency.
Not that I care. Just an observation. But you probably don’t care. Just as well, I suppose.
🙂
Is it just because I’m liberal?
It’s a hallmark of being a liberal. Wear it proudly.
Slarti,
Was Rutherford B. Hayes really that bad?
My ranking: Not so bad, for a Republican.
What you want vs. what you’re willing to put up with, to me, is kind of meaningless.
When “are willing to put up with” means “are not willing to sacrifice the lives of your friends and family to maybe weaken the regime, or not”, I think it’s not unreasonable to say your equation is kind of meaningless. There is an awful lot of daylight between wanting something and being willing to sacrifice your life (and those of the people around you) to resist it, and glib declarations about how those living under autocratic dictators – especially those propped up by external gov’ts – really “want” their tyrants is as rich as it is repugnant and lazy.
When talking about Presidents, it’s really hard to make a case for anyone being worse than Harding.
What is notable in the rankings that Bobby links to is how strong the Presidents in the mid-20th century rate across every survey. I wonder how much that influences the rosey view that people tend to have when looking back at that period….
for somebody who posts a lot of verbiage here, I must say you use the term “I don’t care” with a great deal of frequency.
I care about some things. I don’t care about some other things. I contain multitudes. Sometimes the easiest way to cut through a complex discussion to simply state what *isn’t* your point.
As to the verbiage…its easy to be misunderstood online and I find being precise is harder on a blog than it is in my typical writings. Also, as my undergrads will tell you, I just like to hear myself talk.
Was Rutherford B. Hayes really that bad?
He certainly wasn’t all bad:
Hayes also advocated better prison conditions. In retirement, Hayes was troubled by the disparity between the rich and the poor, saying in an 1886 speech that “free government cannot long endure if property is largely in a few hands and large masses of people are unable to earn homes, education, and a support in old age.”
Another reminder that we grapple with the same problems again and again.
Another reminder that we grapple with the same problems again and again.
And whenever we make some incremental progress, it is championed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, practically by definition.
–TP
Because, after all, liberals are writing the dictionary, (the one THEY use, anyway.) and define progress in directions they oppose as regression.
For instance, the fight to restore 2nd amendment rights has made huge strides over the past couple of decades, for all that it continues. It did this despite the bitter and ongoing opposition of ‘liberals’, and so is not acknowledged to be “progress”.
And whenever we make some incremental progress, it is championed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, practically by definition.
Not the case in the UK, I think, where the historic balance sheet is a great deal more complicated.
Nigel, “conservative” is a whole different thing in the US, where emancipation, desegregation, women’s suffrage, Social Security, Medicare, and all that claptrap are NOT “progress” and “the fight to restore 2nd amendment rights” IS.
–TP
hsh, in our political culture you are an anomaly if you can disagree with someone without deciding they are stupid. And, imo, is the least liberal thing I can think of. The hallmark of a good liberal today is to assume anyone that disagrees with you is uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent, uncaring, lazy or just an “-ist”. No disagreement is just a difference if opinion. Conservatives certainly have their share of the above, except they don’t usually pretend otherwise.
liberals are writing the dictionary
Pesky bastards.
The hallmark of a good liberal today is to assume anyone that disagrees with you is uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent, uncaring, lazy or just an “-ist”.
Fortunately for me, I’m not a good liberal, or probably even a liberal.
If someone makes claims that are plainly not true, or are based on information that is plainly not true, I assume they are ignorant.
I consider that I’m extending the benefit of the doubt, they could also just be lying.
Not the case in the UK
I wish we had UK conservatives.
The hallmark of a good liberal today is to assume anyone that disagrees with you is uneducated, uninformed, unintelligent, uncaring, lazy or just an “-ist”
whatever you do, don’t google “ignorant liberals”. you might be shocked right out of the saddle of your very very high horse when you see all the “conservative” deep thinkers who think all liberals are … gasp… ignorant, uncaring, lazy, etc..
Here’s thing, Marty – I’m not suggesting that there aren’t liberals who do what you describe, because there are. There are also conservatives who do the very same things. It’s not even limited to politics, so liberal or conservative may be orthogonal to how people view those whom they disagree with over whatever might be under discussion.
Some people are more prone to it than others, but I don’t think there’s any demonstrable, significant difference in that regard between liberals and conservatives.
BTW, have you ever been on facebook? I have a lot of very politically conservative friends who post cartoons depicting liberals, and denoted specifically as such, as complete idiots almost constantly. I don’t see my liberal friends posting that stuff. They generally post more issue-based political stuff, making far less specific mention of conservatives.
(This fulfills your USRDA of anectdota.)
Tony, “progress” can be defined, roughly, as motion in a direction you want to go. As such, whether any given change is “progress” is inseparable from your goals, and that people who have different goals are not contributing to “progress” as YOU view it, is just a tautology.
Okay, Brett. Do you NOT view emancipation as progress? Do you NOT view women’s suffrage as progress? Do you NOT view desegregation as progress? Do you NOT view generally furthering human rights as progress?
You are certainly free not to view those things as progress, of course. Just come out and say it, whatever the case may be, instead of abstracting and generalizing on a sterile conceptual level. Where does the rubber meet the road with you?
Tony, “progress” can be defined, roughly, as motion in a direction you want to go.
Actually, progress is defined as motion forward.
If you move backward, it’s not progress.
Because, after all, liberals are writing the dictionary, (the one THEY use, anyway.) and define progress in directions they oppose as regression.
Conservatives write their dictionary also. cf “Liberty” for just one example.
I wish we had UK conservatives.
I give you Margaret “there is no society” Thatcher.
And moving backwards means towards an earlier existing state, so a move can be verified as such. So, moving forward would have to meet two conditions: 1) moving away from the status quo 2) not moving towards an earlier status quo.
Earlier status quo of course within the same system, not in one removed in space, time and culture (e.g. democracy in ancient Greece).
And forward and backwards are defined by which direction you’re facing, Russell.
I view emancipation as progress. Woman’s suffrage, too. I have a somewhat mixed view of the relentless drive to get as many people to vote as possible, but think that, with exceptions for some types of convicted criminals, generally anyone who wants to vote, and is sufficiently motivated to overcome some relatively trivial obstacles, should be permitted to do so.
Support for actual, formal racial discrimination in the US is centered on the left, not the right.
And I definately want to further human rights. Such as the right to keep and bear arms, property rights, the right not to be aborted…
I think liberals mostly think of themselves as supporting human rights, but this involves defining away any rights they wish to violate.
we have reached troll level 5
Speaking of definitions, what you do mean by “troll”, cleek?
Was Rutherford B. Hayes really that bad?
You mistake my meaning. What I meant was not that Rutherford B. Hayes was a bad President. My meaning was that people wanted him to be President badly enough to make deals that turned out very badly indeed for this country.
I am of course referring to the Compromise of 1877, which doomed the Reconstruction and facilitated the further oppression of African-Americans in this country for nearly another century.
Elections have consequences, indeed.
And forward and backwards are defined by which direction you’re facing, Russell.
We all live in time, which, at least as we experience it, travels in one direction only.
No matter which way you face.
what you do mean by “troll”, cleek?
the standard definition suffices.
Support for actual, formal racial discrimination in the US is centered on the left, not the right.
According to how you define that to suit your characterization, floating free in the ahistorical ether, where everyone has had equal opportunity since forever.
Sometimes I like captch-free commenting, and sometimes not. Mentallly italicize that first sentence, please.
There are multiple defintions. I’m guessing you’re using the ever popular, “Somebody who disagrees with me.” definition.
“We all live in time, which, at least as we experience it, travels in one direction only.
No matter which way you face.”
Well, then it’s all progress, isn’t it, no matter which way it changes.
Support for actual, formal racial discrimination in the US is centered on the left, not the right.
Actually, this is true.
And, the actual, formal racial discrimination practiced by “the left” in the US results in people with dark skin getting acceptance into colleges they might otherwise not get into, and access to work opportunities they might otherwise not get into.
And, since some things in life net out to be zero sum games, that sometimes means folks without dark skin don’t get to go to a college they might have wanted to go to, or a job or contract they might have wanted.
So, I think Brett’s point stands.
The thing he fails to mention is that the equally actual, but informal, racial discrimination, that tends to not be centered quite so much on the left, results in people getting shot, or farmed for tax and other revenue, or limited in where they can live.
Etc etc etc.
Well, then it’s all progress, isn’t it, no matter which way it changes.
See, now you’re deliberately being dumb.
If you strip the perhaps deliberately inflammatory language from what Brett is saying, it boils down to, approximately:
“Progress” is defined by liberals as things moving in a direction that liberals want them to move in. And, by extension, reactionaries are those who oppose progress.
Even if, in the view of so-called reactionaries, the movement in that direction isn’t any sort of progress at all.
This sort of supposes that all liberals are of a common mind and agree on all things, but that’s another conversation entirely. Brett is inclined to think that way, or at least write as if he does.
There are multiple defintions. I’m guessing you’re using the ever popular, “Somebody who disagrees with me.” definition.
no, Cap’n Language-abuser, that’s your own personal definition.
“progress” can be defined, roughly, as motion in a direction you want to go.
On that definition, there are essentially zero conservatives in the US.
Everybody here wants some kind of change (“progress”) after all. Some what change towards what they see as a new and better society. Some want progress towards their image of a better society, one which largely existed in the mid-20th century.
But a real conservative would want to preserve pretty much what we have today. With only a few incremental changes to address really serious problems. There may be some people who actually take that position, but they don’t seem very visible in our political discussions.
This presumes that a real conservative thinks that what we have today is good and right.
On this point, views vary considerably.
“Progress” is defined by liberals as things moving in a direction that liberals want them to move in. And, by extension, reactionaries are those who oppose progress.
Well and clearly stated.
In spite of the deliberately provocative language, I did take that meaning away from Brett’s comments.
My point is this:
If your idea of progress consists of undoing historical changes and returning to some status quo ante, then you are in fact reactionary. By definition.
Buckley:
However you see the goodness or badness of that agenda, it is, I would argue, a reactionary one. Inherently, by definition.
Not progress, but moving backward, to a preferred status quo ante.
I understand that Buckley doesn’t speak for all conservatives, but his position is hardly irrelevant to the point.
Agreed.
Undoing e.g. spying on private citizens, though: is that reactionary?
Undoing the arms build-up of US police departments: also reactionary?
Undoing the silly and ineffective assault weapons ban is progress from my point of view; probably reactionary from other points of view.
Undoing the labyrinthine US tax code and reverting to a more simple code: progress, or reactionary?
Not picking a fight; just noting that some of these movements may in fact be good and desirable movements to not a few people.
BTW the tax code comment was NOT meant as a suggestion of a flat tax; just a simplification of the current tax schedule with perhaps some adjustments to rate to keep it revenue-neutral.
Easier to say than do fairly, I admit.
Maybe a more on-point discussion would involve why something is or is not progress, rather than assuming people simply define this or that as progress.
This has been another episode of “Those other people like what they like, unlike above-it-all me, who only has principles.”
“…the fight to restore 2nd amendment rights has made huge strides..”
By his own admission, reactionary.
That second part was not directed at Slart, BTW.
Restoration of 1st and 4th Amendment rights would, then, also be reactionary?
Liberals are then, in some cases, reactionary? Because 1st and 4th Amendment rights are things that liberals tend to champion. And rightly so.
If words have meanings, at least have them be consistent.
is the goal here to prove that “conservative” and “progress” are null concepts? because, out here in reality, far above from the warm depths of your navels, they have widely accepted meanings.
I have no goals, cleek. This is just conversation.
Getting at what people mean by the words they use is sort of an interest of mine. It aids clarity, IMO.
Undoing e.g. spying on private citizens, though: is that reactionary?
All good points.
I think hairshirt has it right, whether you want to call a desired change “progress” or “reaction” really needs to consider what specific thing you are talking about.
Personally, I’m fine with calling efforts to reduce or eliminate intrusive surveillance of private communication reactionary. Ditto militarization of police.
There are more than a few movements in history that I’d be happy to stand athwart.
Perhaps it will be more constructive to address specifics, and not worry about the label. I address that to myself as much as toward anyone else.
I give you Margaret “there is no society” Thatcher.
Who was, essentially, a 19th century liberal in her politics, and pretty radical for a ‘conservative’.
I make no claim for UK conservatives being wonderful – they’re not – but it is instructive how many measures you might call liberal have been passed by conservative governments.
This presumes that a real conservative thinks that what we have today is good and right.
Actually no. What it assumes is that a real conservative thinks that changes should be small and incremental, and only undertaken when there is a clear need. It is entirely possible that there will be a clear need — this isn’t an automatic defense of the status quo.
But neither is it an enthusiastic embrace of some (real or imaginary) view of that past. That isn’t conservative; that’s reactionary. Reactionary we do have.
Slarti at 11:35, that would imo depend on whether the policies in question were themselves reactionary or not, i.e. whether the desired change is a reversal of a reversal. And that could be quite context sensitive. Communism was at times very progressive but ‘old communists’ tend to be as reactionary/conservative as their counterparts on the right. Or to use an extreme example: the Nazis were quite progressive* in some matters and their democratic successors in Western Germany reversed a lot of that progress in the period of ‘restauration’ (but kept a lot in place that should have been destroyed together with the nazi regime). On these topics it took another 1-2 generations of actual progressives before the status quo of ’45 got reached again (and as far as e.g. protection of animals goes, we are still a bit behind).
*Looking at actual Nazi campaign material from before 1933, old conservatives were almost as favorite a target as communists. They did not go as far as the Italian fascists but they emphasized the modernity and youthfulness of their movement and spat on the paleos who wanted the emperor back. After ’33 those same paleos were an important part of the inner opposition.
See, the last 18 or so comments are why I am not a troll. That was a productive converstation, which would not have occured if I had just echoed the “Ugh! Liberals good, conservatives bad!” line.
Bismarck was a textbook reactionary but to him we owe the welfare state. For him it was a tool to ward off revolution and to make the reactionary parts of his policies palatable to the masses. He had to fight the short-sighted conservatives/reactionaries who would have triggered the feared revolution pretty soon, if nothing had been done. He (unlike them) understood that in order to go back to before 1789 as far as the power structure went, some rather radical changes were necessary for it to be sustainable. Give them more to lose than their chains and they will put up with being chained (which btw is a charge levelled these days against the ‘liberal’ state by right-wing neo-feudalists and pseudo-libertarians on a regular base as part of their assault on the welfare state or what counts as such in the US).
And whenever we make some incremental progress, it is championed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, practically by definition.
I think the problem I have with this is ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’ have meant many different things in different contexts, different times, etc. I think using a broad brush in some ways blurs the distinction between cases. For example, I’d say Woodrow Wilson was a liberal. However, I’d say some of the things he did (frex: signing the Espionage and Sedition Acts) were not what I would consider liberal.
And more to the point, successes or failures of ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’ at some point in the past do little to inform the wisdom of current ‘liberals’ or ‘conservatives’.
Or more simply, what slart and russell said:
Getting at what people mean by the words they use is sort of an interest of mine. It aids clarity, IMO.
Perhaps it will be more constructive to address specifics, and not worry about the label.
Just to grab onto one of Slart’s examples:
Undoing the arms build-up of US police departments: also reactionary?
Is the wisdom and practical effects of this particular effort informed in any way if it is classified as ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, or ‘reactionary’? I don’t think so.
wiki:
and:
these are the standard meanings of the words.
See, the last 18 or so comments are why I am not a troll.
you’re a troll because you troll.
these are the standard meanings of the words.
Why did you use text from the ‘Idea of Progress’ wiki article and not the ‘Liberalism’ article?
That’s well and good. But as I have pointed out, it’s not quite as simple as pointing to a Wikipedia article as a line of cleavage.
you’re a troll because you troll.
Gotta disagree, Cleek.
Brett is not a troll because he doesn’t troll . . . that is, he isn’t here looking to start fights. I disagree with him sometimes. But neither of us is looking to start a fight; we just don’t agree. (Ditto, for that matter, Russell and various others.)
From the wiki on liberalism:
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”
Apparently, the meaning of this word diverges substantially depending on region.
Who was, essentially, a 19th century liberal in her politics, and pretty radical for a ‘conservative’.
Can’t argue with that, though I can imagine she and JS Mill would have some disagreements. I’d put her more out there with extreme social Darwinism and fringie libertarianism, so yes, a radical.
In the U.S. a pragmatic definition of “conservatism” would be the opposition to the New Deal State and its expansion, so I guess my defense of it makes me the real conservative.
There are many true Scotsmen.
It originally had the European definition in the US. Then in the early 20th century an earlier generation of ‘Fabian socialists’, noting that “liberal” was much more popular with the public than “socialist”, started calling themselves “liberals”, and in time managed to take over the word.
Apparently this never happened in Europe. Maybe “socialist” didn’t have quite the same stink there, so they didn’t feel the need for camoflage.
Much the same is happening with “originalist” right now: Living constitutionalists are well along in the process of redefining it to include their own views, and once they’ve accomplished this, they’ll narrow the definition again to exclude actual originalists.
There are many true Scotsmen.
So true.
Brett, that’s a nice summary of the history of the word “liberal” in the US.
And one might note that, also in the US, the racist reactionaries noticed that “conservative” had less negative connotations. They haven’t, yet, managed to take over the word. But they have made a lot of progress in that direction, have they not?
Maybe “socialist” didn’t have quite the same stink there, so they didn’t feel the need for camoflage.
I think this is correct.
Being a straight-up socialist and openly presenting yourself as such in much of Europe is not really a big deal.
Why did you use text from the ‘Idea of Progress’ wiki article and not the ‘Liberalism’ article?
obviously, because people are talking about the meaning of “progress”.
?
he isn’t here looking to start fights
by his own admission, he sometimes is.
obviously, because people are talking about the meaning of “progress”.
Ah, I see. I think the comparison between the ‘idea of progress’ (a relatively specific concept in intellectual history) and a political philosophy like conservatism is somewhat meaningless. They aren’t really the same kind of thing.
I think the comparison between the ‘idea of progress’ (a relatively specific concept in intellectual history) and a political philosophy like conservatism is somewhat meaningless.
Tell it to Edmund Burke.
i wasn’t comparing them.
Or, less sarcastically:
IMO wj’s 12:03 captures the relationship fairly well, as regards conservatism specifically.
I don’t think Brett’s a troll. I think he’s deeply, deeply wrong most of the time, but that’s not the same thing.
To the extent that he comes here to start fights, I think it’s because he truly thinks one is needed, not just because he wants to screw up the discussion or anyone’s day.
Mind you, he does manage to treadjack quite often, but I think whatever lens he sees the world through brings him to places that most of the rest of us would think tangential to the discussion. Of course, we follow, none the less.
If Brett’s really a troll, he’s far more cunning a person than I am, IMO.
Tell it to Edmund Burke.
He’s dead.
i wasn’t comparing them.
I see. I misunderstood that.
Yes, by my own admission, I like arguing, and this requires me to seek out the company of people who I disagree with.
But there’s a heck of a big difference between “enjoys arguing”, and “troll”. I only argue what I consider to be legitimate positions, for one thing. And I particularly try to illuminate the assumptions that tend to go unstated when people who fundamentally agree with each other are talking.
Tell it to Edmund Burke.
He’s dead
Tell it to Andrew Sullivan.
:-J
Yes, by my own admission, I like arguing
Here ya go!.
Somebody had to do it.
No, you don’t.
Tell it to Andrew Sullivan.
Thanks, that put a smile on my face.
Then in the early 20th century an earlier generation of ‘Fabian socialists’, noting that “liberal” was much more popular with the public than “socialist”, started calling themselves “liberals”, and in time managed to take over the word.
Odd, that’s not what my history books say. In the early part of the last century there were Socialists like Gene Debs (who garnered a good number of votes in those days-note the capital S), progressives like Robert La Follette (the Progressive Movement), and self described liberals who were liberals in the JS Mill sense as opposed to the Herbert Spencer sense who just couldn’t bring themselves to call for nationalizing railroads, etc. (like some Progressives).
Fabian Socialists? Pretty much a British thing.
Question for you: So if “conservatives” are true “liberals” why did they run away from the tag?
But I digress.
Living constitutionalists are well along in the process of redefining it to include their own views..
Well, I guess when your vaunted “originalists” just pull shit out of their ass they tend to cede the field in that regard, do they not?
Hi Ya’ll
Just wanted to say I enjoy your conversations.
I have been checking in on ya’ll since 2003 but seldom have anything helpful to contribute that has not already been said in words beyond my ability.
I’m not a wordsmith but often find myself in agreement with russell. I also often wish I could say “what the count said”, but thoughts or sentences longer then 10 words give me trouble.
I was just reading an article that I think may be relevant to this thread: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/13/theres-no-such-thing-as-peacetime-forever-war-terror-civil-liberties/
hey jeff, please feel free to jump in any time you like.
you might not think you’d be adding much, but then again you might surprise yourself.
never know until you try!
In the early part of the last century there were Socialists
If I follow the history correctly, socialism sort of became the Political Persuasion That Dared Not Speak Its Name in this country around the time of the Palmer Raids and the red scare(s) of the 20’s and following.
I don’t know enough European history to say anything intelligent about why it’s found a more receptive home there. I’d be delighted if folks who did have useful things to say on the topic wanted to chime in.
And here I thought at the time that Joe Haldeman was crazy. But apparently just ahead of his time. Unfortunately.
Good question! I think it’s largely because “conservative” and “liberal” have morphed to mean “social conservative” and “commie”, respectively, in the public eye.
I have come to consider myself a liberal, but not in the currently-used sense of the word. And if people are put off by that, well, I am ok with being off-putting.
Strike “commie” and insert something equivalent to “social liberal”.
Sorry for the imprecision. Early afternoon beer consumption, soon to be followed by a nap.
Early afternoon beer consumption, soon to be followed by a nap.
Are you trying to make me jealous? Was it a double IPA?
I have come to consider myself a liberal
LOL.
Not that you consider yourself a liberal, I can see that.
What’s funny is that I often consider myself conservative, just not as that word is currently construed.
And yeah, what hairshirt said.
I have come to consider myself a liberal, but not in the currently-used sense of the word.
Similarly, I would describe many of my beliefs/opinions to be inherently liberal…but describing myself as such rarely gives anybody useful information.
Early afternoon beer consumption, soon to be followed by a nap.
Man, you are living the dream.
“Similarly, I would describe many of my beliefs/opinions to be inherently liberal…but describing myself as such rarely gives anybody useful information.”
Which is why the term “libertarian” was invented.
Although “libertarian” has become to mean something more nuanced and broader in scope than classical liberal.
Although “libertarian” has become to mean something more nuanced and broader in scope than classical liberal.
Broader than the political spectrum; able to leap humanity with a single assumption; more powerful than The Enlightenment-inclusive of just about all forms of government except the Divine Right of Kings.
Nuance, baby!
Which is why the term “libertarian” was invented.
Yes, libertarian is often a more useful shorthand for my political views. Although it has its own baggage, as noted by Charles.
And more comically noted by bobbyp.
“…socialism sort of became the Political Persuasion That Dared Not Speak Its Name in this country around the time of the Palmer Raids and the red scare(s) of the 20’s and following.”
It didn’t really get to quite that point until the onset of the Cold War in the late 40’s, but yes, the war* and war hysteria whipped up by the Wilson administration was the beginning of the end.
*WW1 split the international socialist movement, so it was already weakened by 1917 when we entered the fray.
Since this is an open thread…
More lack of transparency:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/18/260260/florida-gov-scott-stops-using.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/18/260186/report-obama-administration-worse.html
It didn’t really get to quite that point until the onset of the Cold War in the late 40’s, but yes, the war* and war hysteria whipped up by the Wilson administration was the beginning of the end.
This is a hugely important point that I wish we could discuss further (except that people don’t care so much).
WWII, in many ways was a socialist versus fascist war, that after it ended became a democratic regime versus communist war.
“Socialist” (who hadn’t necessarily adopted the label) Americans booted up to fight the Nazis. The Roosevelt army was pretty “socialist”. After the war, the fear factor of the Stalinists set in (and it was well-justified). That’s when things got more complicated. And more and more complicated throughout the McCarthy era.
Getting to the bottom of what happened after WWII would be a very good project.
Not so sure that the second link means anything. From the link:
The Obama administration – often mocked for its promise that it would be the most transparent administration in history – said that in 91 percent of cases the government released all or part of the documents requested. “We actually do have a lot to brag about when it comes to our responsiveness to Freedom of Information Act requests,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
But the AP said the 91 percent figure doesn’t include instances where the document was lost, when the requester couldn’t or wouldn’t pay for copies, or when the document request was “determined to be improper under the law,” and is lower than any other year Obama has been in office.
So, I’d like to know the percentage of cases where the requester wouldn’t pay for the copies. In other words, people who were bringing harassment requests. I have done FOIA requests. Paying for copies is annoying, but perfectly fine. Most libertarians would agree, non?
Righting wrongs is progress. Everybody seems to agree about that. What constitutes a “wrong” is of course a matter of opinion, because Brett. But we seem to have unanimous agreement on some things:
Slavery was WRONG.
Racial segregation was WRONG.
Not letting women vote was WRONG.
Whatever “conservative” means (and it mainly means “anti-liberal” in the US nowadays, whatever “liberal” may mean), it was NOT people who called themselves conservatives that fought to right those wrongs when they were going on.
People who call themselves “conservative” nowadays are pretty damn liberal compared to the conservatives of yesteryear. I call that progress.
–TP
This is a hugely important point that I wish we could discuss further (except that people don’t care so much).
You might enjoy reading the following by Maurice Isserman:
Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party during the Second World War, and
If I had a hammer-the death of the old Left and the birth of the New Left
I have yet to read the first, enjoyed the 2nd.
Thanks, bobbyp. Will do.
Whatever “conservative” means (and it mainly means “anti-liberal” in the US nowadays, whatever “liberal” may mean), it was NOT people who called themselves conservatives that fought to right those wrongs when they were going on.
Yes.
People who call themselves “conservative” nowadays are pretty damn liberal compared to the conservatives of yesteryear.
I’d say it’s a mixed bag.
There are folks who want to roll back the New Deal, folks who want to roll back the 17th Amendment, folks who want to roll back Lochner, folks who want to return to the gold standard.
There are folks who want to roll back civil rights legislation, and folks who believe freedom of association trumps laws against segregation.
So, not all so pretty damn liberal.
and it mainly means “anti-liberal”
This (as they say over at LGM). A thesis similar to Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind?
sapient, you glossed over this part:
According to the AP, the government “took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn’t find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.” A third of the government’s decisions to withhold documents violated the Freedom of Information Act, the news organization said.
1/3 of the governments decisions violated FOIA, by its own admission. That’s a problem. This article has a little more detail:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ab029d7c625149348143a51ff61175c6/us-sets-new-record-denying-censoring-government-files
In nearly 1 in 3 cases, when someone challenged under appeal the administration’s initial decision to censor or withhold files, the government reconsidered and acknowledged it was at least partly wrong. That was the highest reversal rate in at least five years.
But Russell, while they may want to return to segregation, they aren’t arguing for freedom to lynch those who disagree. So some progress, at least.
Not letting women vote was WRONG.
Not letting people advocate against the war and draft was WRONG.
Neither of those things are in contention at the moment. Both were advocated for by ‘a liberal’. I am unpersuaded there is any bearing of this on whether current ‘liberal’ policies are correct, or current ‘liberal’ people are correct.
while they may want to return to segregation, they aren’t arguing for freedom to lynch those who disagree.
baby steps, y’all.
Add to your list:
Torture was WRONG
…at least around when St. Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture. But I guess that was in is later, dementia years.
and…
Genocide was WRONG
but don’t you *dare* say that word in connection with Native Americans, because SHUT UP THAT’S WHY!
My bet would be that a vast majority of elected officials and their accomplices would give (someone else’s) arm and leg to get rid of FOIA again independent of political leaning. How dare you to want to look into MY files (and as long as I hold this office they are MY files even if they formally belong to the office/government)?
And that’s true of even (most of) those people that really have nothing to hide. That’s just human. What kid likes it when the parents poke around in their room even when the prawn stash is safely hidden elsewhere?
” I have done FOIA requests. Paying for copies is annoying, but perfectly fine. Most libertarians would agree, non?”
I’ve done FOIA requests. Paying for copies is annoying. Being told, “It’s too much trouble to isolate and copy only what you asked for. Here’s a bill for copying our entire record system, pay it or we’re not complying.” is a bit beyond annoying.
Being a stubborn cuss, I used to have in a box a six inch stack of microfiche, that I got after paying the fee they demanded. I wasn’t stubborn enough to go out and get a reader, and spend a year finding the fight document somewhere in the stack.
“WWII, in many ways was a socialist versus fascist war, that after it ended became a democratic regime versus communist war.”
Actually, I believe it started out as a socialists and fascists against everybody else war, and became a socialists vs facists war on the Russian front, only after Hitler and Stalin had their falling out.
The socialists still want everybody to forget which side they started out on.
…Republicans tend to think that Democrats were so offended by the concept of a war Republicans started being successful, that they deliberately threw the victory away when they got the chance, so as to make the war retroactively a failure.
There’s generally little correlation between disagreeing with me and being stupid, but in this case, if Republicans really think that, then yes, they are stupid.
The stated objectives (Bush) of the war in Afghanistan “Defeat terrorists such as Osama bin Laden…” (there’s a lot more).
Bin Laden was eventually killed, on Obama’s watch, because Obama disregarded the advice of the Republicans’ nominated war expert (McCain) about respecting Pakistani sovereignty.
The stated objectives (Rumsfeld) of the war in Iraq “Our goal is to defend the American people, and to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and to liberate the Iraqi people”
In reality, there was nothing there to defend the American people from, the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, and there was no point in the war when the Iraqi people were on a path to freedom.
On the other hand, Obama never stood on a battleship and proclaimed victory.
The socialists still want everybody to forget which side they started out on.
Perfect example of how useless these labels are for grouping people and ideas across decades. There is nothing about socialism or communism that demands you invade neighboring countries or commit crimes against humanity. Yes, even though a nominally socialist regime and a nominally communist regime did both.
When I meet a socialist, I don’t look at them askance because *any minute now* they might annex part of Czechoslovakia.
I doubt ‘the socialists’ are particularly concerned about convincing people to forget political alliances in the run up to WWII.
“On the other hand, Obama never stood on a battleship and proclaimed victory.”
For the record, neither did Bush.
“When I meet a socialist, I don’t look at them askance because *any minute now* they might annex part of Czechoslovakia.”
Neither do I, as, thankfully, very few socialists are in any position to do this. And the Russians have given up on being socialists, are content to be totalitarian without any theoretical justification.
No, he didn’t. Nor did he appear in a military uniform. Nor…a great many claims that have been made about that particular even.
But it’s a cool talking point, so they have that going for them. Which is nice.
“On the other hand, Obama never stood on a battleship and proclaimed victory.”
For the record, neither did Bush.
No, it was an aircraft carrier. And it wasn’t victory, it was mission accomplished. And Bush himself didn’t say it, the big freaking banner that was placed prominently behind him said it.
And no, he didn’t appear in a military uniform, he appeared in military jet pilot gear.
So, all lies.
Well, that aircraft carrier had accomplished it’s mission, which is why it was headed home at that time.
So, yes, all lies, with some deliberate misconstrual.
Strain at a gnat, swallow a camel.
I believe it started out as a socialists and fascists against everybody else war, and became a socialists vs facists war on the Russian front, only after Hitler and Stalin had their falling out.
Brett, do you suppose it started that way because the Nazis were actually socialists? (After all, it said so right on the label: “National Socialist German Workers Party”).
wj, I think at least in this instance it is correct since Stalin (union of SOCIALIST soviet republics) and Hitler (a variant of fascist) conspired to invade and occupy/annex Poland and that is usually counted as the start of WW2 (although the Chinese* and some ignorant Americans** beg to differ).
*counting from the Japanese invasion in the mid-thirties
**for whom both World Wars start only with Murica entering.
There are folks who want to roll back the New Deal, folks who want to roll back the 17th Amendment, folks who want to roll back Lochner, folks who want to return to the gold standard.
There are folks who want to roll back civil rights legislation, and folks who believe freedom of association trumps laws against segregation.
There are people that believe lots of stuff, the challenge with the internet is that they can find every other person who believes it, so, it’s a movement.
There are also people who believe in the zombies apocalypse. To assign these people to your general view of conservatives or liberals is nothing more than trying to confirm your prejudice against the other side. No matter how they might categorize themselves.
There are people *on this blog* who believe freedom of association ought to trump laws against racial discrimination in housing and/or providing other goods and services.
I wish that people who think the things I named, and which you cite, were as rare as people who believe in a zombie apocalypse.
You can try to wave it away as just me revealing my own personal biases, but believe me when I say I didn’t go looking for people with those points of view.
I was, in fact, mightily surprised to find them.
Nonetheless, they are there, and not in small numbers.
I believe it started out as a socialists and fascists against everybody else war, and became a socialists vs facists war on the Russian front, only after Hitler and Stalin had their falling out.
Actually, prior to the agreement with Hitler, Stalin approached the western powers offering a military alliance. He was rebuffed. As for the “falling out”, it was pretty one sided.
Good luck preventing a Zombie from voting. They eat poll watchers.
Thing is, the longer the Zombie Apocalypse lasts, the more Zombies you have with expired IDs, and you can’t hand out death certificates fast enough because the budgets for the local government offices who do so are understaffed after conservative budget cuts, plus if you try and declare Ted Cruz dead, he steps to the microphone and goes “Arrrgh”‘ and all human survivors head for the hills.
A huge problem is that we use the same labels for political views and personality traits.
A person with a conservative personality trait is hesitant to engage in large scale upheaval in their life, and would prefer to make incremental changes. They often suspect that the radical changes proposed by people who are less conservative don’t properly weigh the chance of failure or of serious side effects.
Someone with a more progressive personality trait is willing to experiment with fairly large changes in the hope that things will get a lot better.
I tend to think that people with each personality trait should try to hang out with people from the other personality trait to get a good balance.
Unfortunately the personality traits don’t map well onto our political system, but we use the terms as if they did. Then we slip back and forth between the meanings as if they weren’t different things.
A recent poll found that 2% of the US population (claim to) consider a zombie apocalypse the likeliest ‘end of the world’ scenario. The most popular choices are nuclear war, climate change and Judgement Day though (with clear differences following political inclination).
“Brett, do you suppose it started that way because the Nazis were actually socialists?”
Well, sure. A different flavor of socialism, to be sure, but still socialists.
Modern socialists like to deny this, because Fascism managed to get such a bad reputation. Deservedly so, but the Communists don’t deserve any better rep, and the socialists don’t usually treat them as unclean.
“There are people *on this blog* who believe freedom of association ought to trump laws against racial discrimination in housing and/or providing other goods and services.”
Yup. Let me ask you a question: Do you think there ought to be enforceable mandates that you befriend people on a race neutral basis? Date on a race neutral basis? Maybe even marry without regard to race?
Pretty much everybody believes that, at SOME point, people have to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. (Which is not at all the same thing as thinking they ought to!) It’s a question of where you draw that line.
I draw that line at the government/private sector divide, because the government doesn’t give you any choice about whether to deal with them, so it ought not have any right to engage in arbitrary discrimination among those people.
In the private sector, you’ve got that choice whether to deal with somebody, so you’ve got the right to make your own choices.
And you probably believe that, too. Or maybe you think that people who refuse to eat in restaurants run by the ‘wrong’ race ought to be subject to legal penalties?
The legal system goes to town on the diner that won’t seat a black, but completely ignores the black who won’t sit in a diner. I don’t see the logic in that. The customer has rights, but the businessman doesn’t? Fie on that.
Then, of course, there’s the actual language of the 14th amendment. “No State” this, “No State” that.
Do I look like a state to you?