I’ve been off doing non-political things since I last wrote (psychological coping mechanisms at work.) Now that I’m back, I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of those who say that Democrats should not try to move further to the right. I think this for several reasons.
* First, we are already running to the right, as many of you pointed out in the comments to von’s last thread. Democrats enacted welfare reform, as a result of which poverty seems to have dropped off the face of the earth as a political issue. Kerry did not support gay marriage, and the party as a whole seems to have ceded gun control as an issue, except when it concerns weapons that only a gangster or a private militia would want to own. Moreover, on economic issues, the party has become well and truly centrist: we have our protectionist wing, but it’s no more powerful than the analogous wing of the Republican party (though its motivations are different), and while I can recall a time when there was a serious and powerful wing of the Democratic party that was skeptical of market solutions to problems in general, that has not been true for decades. As far as I can see, the dominant foreign policy faction in the party is not the faction that’s almost always opposed to military intervention and wary of the military; it’s the Biden/Gary Hart wing, which is not hostile to the idea of military intervention in general, though it is insistent on the need to think things through before getting involved, and as a result its members often oppose the invasion of Iraq in particular. I do not see how we could run further to the right without sacrificing genuine core principles of our party.
* Second, since some of our Republican readers here might doubt my first point, it’s worth pointing out that whatever our liberal leanings might be, in practice no Democrat who had a shot at the nomination really proposed acting on them this time around, and I do not believe that this will be different in 2008. Domestically, the need for deficit reduction is (it seems to me) obvious, and it should not be a partisan question. The Democrats who ran for President (leaving out some of the vanity candidates) all accepted this, and anyone I can imagine having a serious shot at the nomination in 2008 would accept it as well. This means that any broader vision we might have will have to take a back seat to debt reduction for the foreseeable future, just as it did during the Clinton administration. The one exception to this, domestically, is health care; but that’s a special case, since it seems fairly clear that our system of providing and paying for health insurance is badly broken. (And this is not just because it leaves 45 or so million Americans uninsured; the combination of rising health care costs and a system in which employers provide health insurance is bad for business. And a system in which we expect hospitals to care for the uninsured when they need serious medical attention, and thus end up paying for that care in the form of higher insurance premiums, is nutty, since it encourages the uninsured to put off care until it’s desperately needed, which is not good either for the uninsured or for those of us who pay for it.) — The point is: domestically, on every issue but health care, we will be completely constrained by the deficit, since unfortunately for the country we are now the only party controlled by fiscal grownups.
And internationally, we would be constrained by the need to find some way to achieve a decent outcome in Iraq, and to do whatever we could to deal with terrorism. Again, these are not partisan issues, and both in 2004 and again in 2008 they are likely to dictate a lot of the serious policy choices an administration might face. They would not, of course, dictate how competently an administration dealt with those choices and implemented its policies, nor would they constrain the amount of imagination an administration brought to the task of working out ways to deal with them, but they set very clear limits on what any administration can do.
These constraints mean that we were not running to the left this time, and will in all probability not run to the left next time either.
* In my opinion, the way to reposition yourself on issues is not to accept the list of available issues as currently understood and move yourself in one direction or another on some of them, but to try to find ways of rethinking them that allow you to claim for yourself an issue that has belonged to your opponent without doing violence to your principles. As an example, consider what Bill Clinton did with the issue of crime. (Note: if my understanding of the history of that issue is wrong, I would of course like to know, but it’s ‘the issue as I understand it’ that I’m holding out as a model.) As I understand it, the basic history was this: back in the 60s and 70s, concerns about law and order, as used by many people, were understood by Democrats to be code for concerns about blacks, and as a result we tended to be skeptical of them. As a result of that, the Republicans presented themselves as the party that cared about law and order and getting tough on crime, and Democrats were perceived, with some (but not entire) justice, as the party that did not. Bill Clinton came along and said: wait. First of all, law and order is a serious problem, and we can think about it in non-racist ways; and second, it is in particular a problem for the poor, in whose neighborhoods crime disproportionately occurs. So let’s get really serious about this issue in ways that are not racist. (E.g., by putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets.) And Bill Clinton was absolutely right. This was an issue that Democrats should have been concerned with all along given our core values, and that we could therefore commit ourselves to without compromise. All it required was the thought: the problem isn’t being concerned about crime; the problem is taking ‘concern about crime’ to involve racism. Obvious once you see it. This, in my view, is what we need to do more generally.
* But even if we reclaimed any number of issues in this sort of way, it wouldn’t be enough. It seems to me that Democrats have what one might think of as a branding problem: our candidates have to overcome not only whatever problems they and their policies create for themselves (and I am not arguing that Kerry did not create some of his own problems), but also the widely held perception that Democrats are weak on national security, committed to excessive government spending, fans of big government and regulation, bad for business, moral relativists (if not actual fans of immorality), and moreover that we secretly hate our country. Now: those of you on the right might argue that this isn’t perception, it’s reality. And I might argue against you. (The part about hating our country and having no values is the sort of thing that would have led me to challenge someone to a duel a few hundred years ago.) But it seems to me beyond argument that this perception is real, and therefore that Democrats have to prove themselves in all sorts of ways in which Republicans do not. (Would a Democrat who had not singlehandedly saved the country from attack, preferably on videotape, be credited with being strong on defense?)
I do not believe that this problem can be solved by adopting policies that are further to the right, since even if we did, either people would not believe it or they would regard us as doing so for political reasons and despite our (supposed) deep inner conviction that there should be more regulation, weaker defenses, less economic growth, and rampant immorality. I mean: if the record of the Clinton administration is not enough to convince people that the Democrats are decent stewards of the economy, I do not know what will. And if running further to the right would not solve this problem, then it seems like a particularly bad reason to abandon our principles.
* Besides, I think that abandoning core principles is in general wrong, not just morally but politically. People want a candidate with clear convictions: a candidate who says what s/he means, and believes in what s/he says. It is possible to fake this sort of conviction. It is also possible, and (I think) more common in politics, for people who do believe in what they’re doing to be cast by their opponents as shameless opportunists. But genuine conviction gives you a big head start, and Democrats will not have it if they sacrifice what they truly believe in. And since, in my view, we have already sacrificed a lot of inessentials in our turn to the right, a lot of what we have left to sacrifice falls under the ‘true convictions’ heading.
* And finally, I think that we do, in fact, have the best set of convictions out there. (To my friends on the right: you are, of course, free to comment on whatever you want, but I do not see this assertion as the central point of this thread 🙂 I will probably write about why I believe this later, and you can jump all over me then.) We need to do a much better job of articulating our convictions, and we need to figure out how to overcome what I called the branding problem. But making a really good case for a really good position is much easier than making a really good case for a bad position, and I see no need to abandon this advantage. Besides which, it would be wrong, and as a Democrat who cares about moral values, that’s something I can’t accept.
Right, as I just wrote on the previous thread, the questions aren’t primarily about policy. Having said that, what has been crucial to the right is how they have developed a popularized version of a bigger right wing philosophical/policy vision. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, “It’s your money!”, etc. Progressives need to find ways to defend progressive taxation, for instance, in response to flat tax visons of fairness. But while there are philosophical defences of liberal views of progressive taxation what is lacking is some practical connection between these philosophical justifications and appealing popular expressions of them. Ultimately we need to find a whole set of popular easily expressed phrases that serve as shorthand for more developed philosophical positions — we need the liberal equivalents of “it’s your money” and “death tax” and so on. The right really understand (as one might perhaps predict) that a view has to be *sold*. And we do need some more regular folk (or at least people who can connect with regular folk) doing the sales for our side.
Here is a major point: Given how effectively the right-wing media uses social class issues in their anti-liberalism there is a kind of silliness in the Dems not acknowledging that it might be a bad idea to go with candidates who can so easily be spun as emotionally reserved, know-it-all-seeming, aloof etc. Of course, the reality is that we had 2 blue-blood bonesmen to choose between. But the Dems will counter the culture/class card a lot better if they pick some candidates who are more representative of the average American — or who at least (as W undeniably does) can transcend his class background better than, say, a Gore or a Kerry. Dems might not like to hear this but part of learning from this election involves learning the right lessons (even if unwelcome to some).
You can’t counter this image problem with a policy solution (or at least: merely a policy solution). That’s what is so mistaken in thinking that, say, economic populism in policy is the cure for being seen as the party of the (intellectually and culturally) snobbish elite.
here’s another thing: most of the press will automatically treat Democrats’ and Republicans’ factual assertions as being equally true or false, their arguments as equally logical and honest, and their positions as equally extreme or moderate. (They will actually probably treat Republican positions with slightly more respect and deference, because they need to do this to get access & Republicans control all three branches of government, and the Democrats have no bully pulpit like the Presidency.)
A significant minority of the media will treat Republicans as pure and good and true, and the Democrats as extremist, unpatriotic, lying, villains, regardless of the merits.
You will not be portrayed as more moderate just by being more moderate. Your position will be defined as “left”, and the Republicans’ as “right”, and the position exactly between you will be defined as “center”. It doesn’t matter what the content of your policies is. It doesn’t matter what the facts are.
That’s why running right will do more harm than good politically.
yes, someguy, I think that’s right.
I strongly agree with someguy. The he-said/he-said style of “balanced” reporting means that the mass media will never treat a Democratic claim conflicting with a Republican one as anything but the left-wing side. (There may be rare exceptions to this, as with most things, but it’s the standard outcome.) Of course getting the mass media to accurately report what the Democratic side actually says is hard, too. In any event, the “run to the right” strategy seems to me to assume facts not in evidence about how candidates communicate with the public.
Values, values, values. Show people that you care. No more “I have a plan.” Get out in front on the cultural wedge bullshit, a la Von. I see no reason to move right on substantive policy matters, because the public doesn’t care about that stuff anyway, and they use heuristics to make up their minds if they actually do care. And if you don’t meet the values threshold, not very many people will take your promises seriously.
Values, values, values. Show people that you care
That’s meaningless.
The values of the average person from the urban northeast or west coast are quite different than the values of the average person from the rural south. A politician who tries to pander to the values of the latter will quickly lose the votes of the former. This map is reality, we do not share the same values.
Values, values, values.
Here’s one:
An Honest Day’s Work for an Honest Day’s Pay!!!
40 hours, 50 weeks a year should put a roof over your head , clothe & feed yourself and your family and leave a little something for the small luxuries of life.
“40 hours, 50 weeks a year should put a roof over your head , clothe & feed yourself and your family and leave a little something for the small luxuries of life.”
Yes, well put. It’s amazing, too, how much more power and appeal this has when put this way, as a simple expression of conviction rather than, say, a point about the tax code.
Now put these common values in the mouth of a more comman man or woman. And away we go.
* Warning: Conservative advice to libs *
The more I think about this, I do think it is largely an image and tenor problem.
Correctly or not, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Barbara Streisand, the anti-war marchers, d-Kos comment threads etc, are viewed as being associated with the Democratic Party. What do they share? Arrogance, condesencion, plain meanness, snark. That approach persuades no one and alienates many.
Simply do what Republicans did with Buchanan. Basically told him to get lost. Simply don’t allow your party to inteact with them (not sure that is possible with Kos). The folks I have listed are NOT your mainstream, so whay let them tar you? I don’t really think your issue is issues, it is approach.
I suspect a chunk of W’s vote wasn’t W as much as “I’m not gonna be associated with THOSE guys.”
What do they share? Arrogance, condesencion, plain meanness, snark
Arrogance? Please.
Which party’s candidate claimed to act on the direct orders of God?
Arrogance, indeed.
Similar points could be made on the other items on the list, if one wished to debate plain meanness with partisans for the employers of Karl Rove.
“Would a Democrat who had not singlehandedly saved the country from attack, preferably on videotape, be credited with being strong on defense?”
Actually I think that the fairly weak on defense Clinton was considerably more strong on defense than Kerry. The problem is that you have so many candidates who are truly weak on defense, and those who aren’t are associated with those that are. This is a problem that can be remedied only by being strong on defence as a party for years. It isn’t impossible, but it certainly hasn’t happened yet. It doesn’t help that you have the party that panders to the Michael Moore–we invaded Afghanistan for an oil pipeline–crowd. I think spc67 is right, if you don’t want to be associated with them, you have to stop associating with them.
Correctly or not, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Barbara Streisand, the anti-war marchers, d-Kos comment threads etc, are viewed as being associated with the Democratic Party. What do they share? Arrogance, condesencion, plain meanness, snark. That approach persuades no one and alienates many.
As opposed to the fine people at RedState, Tacitus and Free Republic!!!
When George sends his daughters to Iraq, I’ll support his little war!
I am not holding my breath!
I think spc67 is right, if you don’t want to be associated with them, you have to stop associating with them.
Really?
So, when can we expect you to disassociate yourselves from Jim Imhofe, who famously remarked the outrage over Abu Ghraib was worse than what happened there?
Tom Coburn of rampant lesbianism in OK and ‘let’s execute abortion doctors’ fame?
Tom DeLay, anyone?
Reverends Robertson, Falwell, and the other “Christians?”
And I assume you’ll be soon disassociating yourself from the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys, Savages, etc.
And, to be clear, Buchanan was never booted out of the GOP. He still earns very good money on their speaking circuit.
And the one you continue to ignor. Do not nominate a weak candidate running a weak campaign.
IIRC, at the present time federal expenditures are running about 22% of GDP (unfortunately, federal income is substantially less than that). State and local expenditures are running about 11% of GDP (fortunately, most state constitutions require a balanced budget). Whatever the message, it must explain why the government(s) should collect and spend a third of the nation’s gross income. The message must make sense to the upper-middle-class taxpayer whose total marginal tax rate currently approaches 40%. The message must make sense to the working poor, whom we tax at a 15% federal rate to start (half hidden, of course), plus state gasoline tax, local sales tax, etc.
Over the long term, most people will vote their pocketbook. We need to present a message that shows that they’re getting a good deal. Or put it this way — if 51% of the people think they could get a better deal keeping the money, they’re going to vote for whoever promises to let them keep it.
Don’t forget Paul Weyrich, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer.
Dennis Hastert, who says that Soros gets money from drug cartels, and Tom DeLay, who says that Daily Kos raises money for Iraqi insurgents. Jim DeMint. James Inhofe. Actual elected officials, all of ’em. Two of them the House and Senate leaders!
But fewer people know about them, I’ll grant you that.
What we really need is a TV news network. Not a Democratic Fox–not half as biased or half as crappy. Not like Air America. A serious, credible, reasonably entertaining cable news network, that does fair and accurate reporting, breaks stories that the rest of the echo chamber misses, and is utterly not intimidated by charges of liberal bias.
Good idea, someguy. I wonder if Al Gore is interested.
is that actually happening?
I hope he’s interested in serious reporting, and that he’s not news director…
I bet you’ll get a few power-mad liberal Nielsen families leaving it on, muted, 24 hrs a day. I might be tempted.
“Reverends Robertson, Falwell, and the other “Christians?”
And I assume you’ll be soon disassociating yourself from the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys, Savages, etc.
And, to be clear, Buchanan was never booted out of the GOP. He still earns very good money on their speaking circuit.”
Robertson was last a major figure in the Republican Party almost 20 years ago. And the fact that you confuse Robertson and Falwell as being essentially the same only reveals your utter ignorance about Christian leaders.
I do dissociate myself from Coulter and Savage, and think it isn’t particularly necessary for the other two. And you are missing a key distinction–your side is closely tied to the Moore and Streisand types who have a huge failing on national security. The ones you are trying to tar me with have huge failings on social issues. The fact that you think those are equal-weight problems illustrates the reason why Democrats have such a problem looking serious on defence. If you think a problem on defence is remedied by talking about internal social issues, you don’t look serious about defence.
And you are wrong about Buchanan. He makes lots of money on the crazier right-leaning but non-Republican speaking circuits. He was booted from the party. If you don’t think so, you might look in to some of his more recent presidential runs.
Hey, this post cheered me up–it’s the first quantitative-ish argument in favor of hilzoy’s point. I might have to return my subscription to “Conservative Christianity Today” after all.
Short version: political theory says that by shifting to the right, the Democrats actually force the GOP to the right. Interesting argument.
Short version: political theory says that by shifting to the right, the Democrats actually force the GOP to the right. Interesting argument.
The argument in that post fails to hold true in a three party race.
Sebastian,
Equating Moore’s influence with Limbaugh’s (a paragon of “values,” there), or Hannity’s is silly. One movie vs. years of right-wing bilge? Fahrenheit 9/11 was shorter than a single Limbaugh broadcast, and Moore does not have the ear of leading Democrats the way Limbaugh does of leading Republicans. He is not representative of the Democratic Party in anything like the way Limbaugh and Hannity are of the Republicans.
And when will you stop associating with DeLay, Hastert, Coburn, et al?
Someguy’s point about a new TV news network is a good one. One possible model might be NPR. You would, of course, have to hire a few folks who have faces for TV.
Sebastian: I really don’t know what the claim that John Kerry was weak on defense is based on, especially when compared to Bush when he took office.
Also, an unrelated observation: I just spent another evening with DC people, who report universal despair among policy types. The idea that e.g. career EPA staffers are unhappy about Bush’s reelection would not be surprising. But the people I was talking to were discussing the attitudes of the career military and the diplomatic corps, and according to them both groups are appalled by the election results. Fwiw.
I have a serious question: how do individuals who aren’t high-ranking officials with power to revoke memberships and the like actually “dissassociate” themselves from loud obnoxious twits? This is not trolling. It’s something I’ve often thought about, as there are people who share my convictions and hobbies, or claim to, that I really dislike and disapprove of. But I can’t drive them away, since they’re not “here” in the sense of occupying space I can evict them from, and I have no power to make them shut up. They claim to speak for me, and I can’t follow them around 24/7 saying “no no it’s not true”. Just what does one do as J. Random Person about this?
And you are missing a key distinction–your side is closely tied to the Moore and Streisand types who have a huge failing on national security. The ones you are trying to tar me with have huge failings on social issues.
Y’know, I tend to think that Coulter et al’s call for genocide might be at least as great as any national security failing of Michael Moore’s…
“Sebastian: I really don’t know what the claim that John Kerry was weak on defense is based on, especially when compared to Bush when he took office.”
There is foreign policy inexperience when elected in a time (mistakenly) thought to be of peace–Bush–and there is attempting to be elected during a time of war after being horrifically wrong on nearly every foreign policy you bother to articulate as a Senator for 20 years including the nuclear freeze, Reagan’s policy to force a USSR-bankrupting arms race, a belief in the 1980s that the Sandinistas were a peaceful government that needed Senatorial help, and a dangerous belief in 1991 that Saddam could be turned back from Kuwait without war–Kerry. And those are just the positions that pertain directly to what your average voter might think about.
And I’m sure there is plenty of nuance in those positions, but the nuance is of the very style that leads to suspicions of being weak/appeasing on defence.
The difference between Kerry & Bush, is that Kerry has actually been shot at, and therefor is not particularly eager to put people in position in which they will be shot at unlike our fearless leader (and most of the Repug political leadership) who can’t wait to do so.
Amusingly, most sane people who have gone to war seem to have an aversion to it!
The Sandanista compared to Somoza whom they replaced and to the Contras who we funded with Drug money were Saints.
Robertson was last a major figure in the Republican Party almost 20 years ago. And the fact that you confuse Robertson and Falwell as being essentially the same only reveals your utter ignorance about Christian leaders.
The ignorance is yours. To claim Robertson and Falwell have little or no influence in today’s GOP is a profound and somewhat distubing denial of reality.
Fair And Balanced on CC. It looks like for a group you claim reached its zenith 20 years ago–it’s still managing to attract most of the GOP leadership.
Just to clean a few things up:
Tacitus and Redstate have substantial overlap, and aren’t exactly major media figures.
IMO Savage is a major tool. I can’t stand listening to him for more than a few seconds on end. And I’m a guy who can listen to Sean Hannity for up to fifteen minutes at a stretch. I never listen to Rush. I pay no attention to Coulter (Even when she worked at NR, she tended to lose me. And she was tamer back then.) and none to any of the more visible religious leaders. Falwell and Robertson I’ve had on ignore for at least a couple of decades. Their opinions matter as little to me as that of Kos, just to pick an example.
But none of that matters. You’re responsible for your own opinions, even if you got them from someone else. If you’re vocal with opinions that have little or no factual backing, you deserve a bit of ridicule.
It doesn’t help that you have the party that panders to the Michael Moore–we invaded Afghanistan for an oil pipeline–crowd.
Obviously, Sebastian hasn’t seen Moore’s documentary. Otherwise, I’m reasonably sure he wouldn’t have issued such an easily debunked claim.
Moore certainly brings up the fact certain US companies, certain Texas-based companies, met with the Taliban to negotiate a pipeline deal. Enron was certainly involved in the various deals. Nowhere in the film does Moore say we invaded Afghanistan for a pipeline. Moore does, however, strongly suggest a large number of Bush cronies and supporters would and did benefit from the invasion of Afghanistan.
Moreover, Moore actually criticizes Bush for not prosecuting the war in Afghanistan more aggressively by not putting more troops on the ground thereby allowing OBL to escape and AQ to regroup.
The ones you are trying to tar me with have huge failings on social issues. The fact that you think those are equal-weight problems illustrates the reason why Democrats have such a problem looking serious on defence.
This needs to be nipped in the bud right here, right now.
Count me as among those who thinks that non-defense “social” issues deserve equal billing to national defense, and that this does /not/ make me “weak on defense”. Rather, I recognize that defending our country’s physical security is meaningless if we lose our soul in the process–which I firmly believe we are in the process of doing under this administration.
I explained this at more length (and with more vehemence) in my single-issue voter diary. Let’s take this to two extremes. Would you tolerate someone who was phenomenally effective at enacting the perfect GOP non-defense agenda if they were weak on defense and let another 9/11 happen? Would you tolerate a strongman who kept the country safe and stomped out terrorism if they stomped all over the bill of rights and turned this country into something you could scarcely recognize in ways that would take generations to undo?
I suspect the answer to both is no. If this is not so, we have no basis for ever discussing anything other than how I can keep you far away from any elected office.
It is not “weak on defense” to assert that while we must protect the country from attack, we must be even more diligent about protecting it from those who would rape its core ideals in the guise of keeping us safe, whose every policy action suggests they are unaware of or indifferent to the fact that they were elected to serve the country, not just the part of it that voted for them.
The “weak on defense” meme has been going on a lot longer than these last four years, and it’s been going on despite twenty years of being called “interventionist” because we believed in doing with a scalpel what Bush has done with a sledgehammer. I call bullsh17. If you’re going to challenge my seriousness about defending this country because I give equal weight to what we do to each other at home, then I get to challenge you on caring about America. It’s just as accurate, and just as insulting.
As for comparing Coulter to Moore, Limbaugh to Franken, Falwell to Streisand, and what have you–we’re talking about apples and oranges here. The examples that have been cited for the right reflect and repeat the /stated/ policy agendas and rhetoric of the GOP. I’m not talking about the average working voter–I’m talking about the party leadership. DeLay and others have made accusations about their enemies as vile as anything Coulter’s said. Bush himself spent the post-debate campaign trashing “liberals”, as if unaware or uncaring that he was insulting nearly half the country he’s supposed to be leading. The GOP party platform for 2004 was rubber-stamped by the religious right.
Contrast with Kerry: voted to give Bush authority to go to war, spent the rest of the campaign alienating the Michael Moore wing of the party by standing by the decision to confront Saddam but criticizing the execution of it. Bush channels Limbaugh on the campaign trail and adopts a social platform that could’ve been ghost-written by Falwell, and the best the right can do is say “look! Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter for a few minutes!” Color me surprised.
When I hear the GOP party leadership publicly tell Limbaugh he’s out in (ahem) left field, repudiate Coulter’s psychotic ravings, or adopt a platform which does not largely agree /in substance/ with what the theocratic wing of the party is saying, then I’ll take you a little more seriously when you insist that the Democrats have to distance themselves from Moore et al. As it is, the vast majority of your party–whether you /personally like them or not/–are perfectly willing to let Coulter and Limbaugh spew their bile, and Hannity and Savage lie and rave, because they’re useful surrogate attack dogs.
The stupid claim about the pipeline appears in many places, but the easiest one I found was in a March 6, 2002 letter supporting his book tour:
“When you send our kids to go fight and die on a foreign land so that you can finally build a pipeline for your oil backers across that country, THAT is un-American.”
I’ve seen him say similar things on television (where I can’t find transcripts).
“Moreover, Moore actually criticizes Bush for not prosecuting the war in Afghanistan more aggressively by not putting more troops on the ground thereby allowing OBL to escape and AQ to regroup.”
Yes he does that to. He doesn’t let logical consistency get in the way of a good attack on Bush.
“It is not “weak on defense” to assert that while we must protect the country from attack, we must be even more diligent about protecting it from those who would rape its core ideals in the guise of keeping us safe, whose every policy action suggests they are unaware of or indifferent to the fact that they were elected to serve the country, not just the part of it that voted for them.”
You are right, that isn’t weak on defence, positing that the Bush administration is out to rape America’s core ideals is a completely different way to alienate most of the US voters. I never said that Democrats only had one way of alienating voters. I just suggested that their general weakness on defence was one of them.
Again, Sebastian, it is really beyond dispute that certain companies closely aligned with Bush had more than a passing interest in what transpired in Afghanistan.
It’s simply more evidence that corporate cronyism and foreign policy/national security have no discernable boundaries to Bush and his friends.
BTW, Moore’s 6 Mar 2002 letter also claims it’s unAmerican to “allow criminals who are stealing the pensions of workers and retirees to come in and hand-pick the head of the agency which is supposed to be regulating them, and then you place some of the criminals’ top brass in your administration to “serve” as the secretary of the army and White House counsel, and then these criminals turn out to be your number one financial backers – and their law firm turns out to be your #3 backer”
You lefties are of course free to associate with whomever you wish. And yes, the Republicans have folks associated with them that make my skin crawl, Savage and Coulter in particular. But you have a problem the Reps don’t have.
You’re getting creamed electorally. When the Reps got creamed in 1992, they cleaned House. Keep associating with Moore and his ilk and keep losing.
It is simply a question of tactics.
“they cleaned house”
Yup, they did. And brought in Gingrich, Coulter, Savage, Delay, etc. You kicked one guy out. Buchanan.
Looked good. Fooled no one except for the 51% November 2.
Creamed electorally, Spc67? I don’t think so.
You are free to pretend Moore hurts our side but, gosh, he sells an awful lot of tickets and books, doesn’t he?
And as far as your folks ‘cleaning house’ in 1992–that’s true. You got rid of the moderates and put the lunatics in charge.
“Brought in”? As in, they weren’t around beforehand and we just sent out for some general purveyors of right-wing agitprop? As in, they only showed up as the result of a request?
It looks as if Delay ought to be shown the door, but tell that to the people of Texas. I’m all for relegating him to no committees and no role, but it’s not my decision.
Let’s see, you’re down to 45 Senators and 200 Reps, lost the WH to a guy many lefties see as an incompetent, God-talking, dishonest, cokehead and you DON’T think you have a problem? Cool.
Keep on keepin’ on!
Spc67: You guys own the media; that’s why you can run an incompetant, AWOL cokehead and win.
But you have a much more difficult task now; you have to clean up your messes. There’s no more ‘Bill Clinton did this or didn’t do that.’
Welcome to the ownership society.
It’s going to be much more difficult spinning your failures and incompetence. Not that you won’t try–it’ll be really much more difficult.
Slartibartfast:
With all respect, without Limbaugh, Delay, Gingrich, Coulter and the lovely radio spewfests of the past 15 years, the Republican Party would not be where it is today. Hell, I admit it was effective. Why can’t you? I don’t think it’s very nice to drop these folks like hot potatoes without a gold watch or something. Didn’t request it? You didn’t, but Luntz, Gingrich, and Delay did.
Then Moore showed up. Wasn’t brought in, either. But effective in making it a close election. When we win, we’ll drop him. Unless he is liability now. So we’ll drop him now.
“Keep on keepin on” Well, some will and some will modify their approach. If the ones who modify their approach win, then the ones who keep on keepin on will then be free to enact their nasty agenda. Just like now.
Slarti,
It looks as if Delay ought to be shown the door, but tell that to the people of Texas. I’m all for relegating him to no committees and no role, but it’s not my decision.
Whether he is in Congress or not depends on the people of his district. whether he occupies a prominent and powerful leadership position is not. That is up the House Republicans. DeLay’s continuation as Majority Leader says a lot about that group.
I agree. I’d rather see practically anyone in his place. If I ever get into some position of authority, he’s toast. Dunno who I’d replace him with; the 90%-of-everything-is-crap rule is particularly accurate (maybe even understated) in politics.
“Then Moore showed up. Wasn’t brought in, either. But effective in making it a close election. When we win, we’ll drop him. Unless he is liability now. So we’ll drop him now.”
This is probably the difference of opinion. You think you got more net votes by sticking with Moore. I suspect that you lost more net votes that way. If you think you got more net votes out of him, of course you should stick with him. I think you might want to find out whether or not that is true.
Sebastian, I frankly don’t know the vote-gathering effectiveness of Moore’s schtick. I do know folks who were energized to vote for Kerry rather than not vote at all after seeing Moore’s work. Much the same function as Republican fire-breathers serve.
Like Limbaugh, Gingrich, Delay and company, who did it better. So did Zell Miller. So did Buchanan, but he committed apostasy. Like Nader. I admire all of them. They demonized me. They defeated me. So you could get the tax code sharply revised. They are useful until they are not, is all I’m saying.
Hmmm…how, exactly, would you know that?
I suspect that you lost more net votes that way.
The folks who hate Moore and lie about him are overwhelmingly hardcore GOP partisans who aren’t going to be swayed by any argument–let alone dumping Moore.
This, in and of itself, is a testament to Moore’s effectiveness.
Moore sells a lot of movie and appearance tickets and books. And it’s not just to the hardcore lefty true believers. Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. sell books but their market is the amen chorus. The rightwing recognizes this and that’s why they fear Moore.
Slart:
Personal friends. Not many. Two, to be exact. I don’t claim it as a trend.
I also have Republican friends who would have voted for Bush anyway, but broke the voting machine doing so after seeing Moore’s schtick.
O.K. I don’t know anything about broken voting machines.
John:
Ah. Missed the “who” in that claim. It’s a bit more difficult to take without it than with it.
Sebastian: opposing (what one believes to be) stupid wars that actually undermine our security is also not being weak on defense. Neither is opposing military buildups that (one believes) didn’t actually do much of anything like what their supporters claimed.
Now, reasonable people can disagree on which wars are in fact stupid, and which military buildups actually have good effects. Indeed, these are often not easy questions. But framing such disagreements as strength vs. weakness is intellectually dishonest.
I think that, for instance, there’s a damn good case to be made that the 1991 Gulf War was a huge net negative for our security, and that Kerry’s opposition to it should in retrospect look both right and prescient. Whether you agree with that case or not, you ought to acknowledge its existence.
The whole thing, or just the way we got out of it? If the former, how much of the ME do you think Saddam would currently control if we’d not gone in?
To the first question: the whole thing.
To the second: Kuwait and maybe, though far from certainly, Saudi Arabia as well. Who cares? Remember that in July 1990 Saddam was not our enemy, and would happily have kept selling oil to us from either or both of those places. His control of Kuwait therefore posed no threat to us at all. And if we really wanted to keep the bigger Saudi prize out of his hands a defensive tripwire force would have sufficed. (Though there would actually have been some distinct advantages to letting him take it: his secular dictatorship would have been a lot less likely to funnel cash to al-Qaeda than the theocrat monarchy, and the female half of the Saudi population would have experienced an Iraqi invasion as a liberation).
Jadegold,
False. There is no pipeline in Afghanistan, there won’t be one, and this was more or less settled while Clinton was President. What this has to do with the Bush administration is the question, given these facts – and this is precisely why Moore was ridiculously misleading.
False. There is no pipeline in Afghanistan, there won’t be one, and this was more or less settled while Clinton was President. What this has to do with the Bush administration is the question, given these facts – and this is precisely why Moore was ridiculously misleading.
There is no pipeline in Afghanistan for the very reason(s) UNOCAL and Enron found it too risky to make that investment–Afghanistan is, and was, a war-torn country.
Was the issue “settled” during Clinton’s administration? Not really. The missile strikes of Aug 1998 certainly discouraged firms interested in developing a pipeline project. War, internal and external strife tend to discourage firms that way. UNOCAL decided it wasn no longer interested until (keyword) an internationally recognized Govt was in place in Kabul and some measure of security could be established.
There is absolutely no dispute Bush had substantial links to the players interested in seeing a pipeline built: UNOCAL, Halliburton, Enron, Carlyle Group and others.
So…would the corporate friends of Bush interested in a pipeline benefit from an invasion of Afghanistan? Sure.
Jonas,
BBC – Central Asia pipeline deal signed (Friday, 27 December, 2002)
Sounds like an pipeline to me.
Italics begone!
Jadegold,
It was my understanding that UNOCAL had a completely different route that didn’t involve Afghanistan and Pakistan at all, and the only reason the one through Afghanistan was considered was because realpolitik concerns regarding Russian influence over the alternate route might compel the US to partially underwrite the construction.
UNOCAL? I don’t think so as I’m quite sure they had already moved on, and I haven’t heard the connection between Bush and UNOCAL other than the fact they’re from Texas. Halliburton benefits no matter who we invade. Meanwhile, nobody is ridiculous enough to imply that the invasion of Afghanistan was done because of corporate concerns, given the reason we invaded.
Don Quijote,
From your link:
I’ll believe it when I see it. Where are all the lusty corporate types who were so enthusiastic about having this done?
Jonas: The reason there is no pipeline isn’t because it’s not desirable–it is extremely desirable. And not just from a business perspective; it also has geo-political benefits.
The attractiveness of a pipeline hasn’t disappeared. It’s just that putting one in a country that’s, at best, engaged in a civil war or, at worst, a state of anarchy is simply too risky for commercial enterprises to bear.
You’re dead right, that’s what I’m getting at. It’s my understanding that the Caspian pipelines will be built through former Soviet republics to Turkey, which is far less risky.
There is no other way for a pipeline to go. To get from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean you must either cross Iran or Afghanistan. As soon as the mayor of Kabul can get the rest of the country under his control the financing will be found.
India urged to join trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project
but like every else Georges touches this too was screwed up.
You’re dead right, that’s what I’m getting at. It’s my understanding that the Caspian pipelines will be built through former Soviet republics to Turkey, which is far less risky.
A pipeline is more than a mere conduit from point A to point B.
You must also rememberthe geo-political implications as well as the financial considerations. A pipeline running through the former Soviet republics and Turkey would be far more expensive and offer less in the way of transit points. Additionally, such a pipeline would be in countries which pose their instability risks.
You’re getting creamed electorally.
False.
Since 1916, the electoral margin of victory for a winning candidate has only been smaller than it was in this election once – in 2000. Claiming that that is “getting creamed” does not pass the laugh test.
Well, the whole pipeline thing would be a lot easier if we had a good relationship with Iran; then we wouldn’t have to monkey around with idiots like Turkmenbashi … the thing about a pipeline in Afghanistan is that it would be FRIGGIN AWESOME for that country to have some foreign exchange that wasn’t drug-related. So I don’t see what Michael Moore is all pissed about. Doesn’t he drive a car? Use electricity?
someguy’s rule:
as a political weblog thread grows in length, the possibility of Michael Moore or Ann Coulter being brought up approaches 1.
MM’s argument have very little to do with the Pipeline per se but with the motivations of the people who sent us there.
If there had been no pipeline would the US have taken over Afghanistan and put a puppet goverment in power or would it have just closed the country & sent in a bunch of Special Forces to snatch/kill Bin Laden?
the slightly more extreme version has Bush deliberatlly letting 9/11 occur so that he would have an excuse to invade Afghanistan and have it’s cronies build the Pipeline?
the extrenme version the Bush admistration planned 9/11 so that it could have an excuse to invade Afghanistan and have it’s cronies build the Pipeline?
MMs views, best I can figure it out, Bush is either incompetant or a traitor. Take your pick.
Well, the whole pipeline thing would be a lot easier if we had a good relationship with Iran;
And we would if we had not overthrown their goverment and put the Shah in power.
. So I don’t see what Michael Moore is all pissed about.
I don’t think this gets noted enough, but Moore supported Nader in 2000, and I have to imagine that it is a healthy guilt complex that is pushing him (I leave interpretation of the meaning of “healthy” to the reader). I really have no explanation for Ann Coulter.
My guess is that Coulter saw that there was a niche for way-out anti-liberal venom and occupied it, then found she had to get even shriller to maintain her position against the competition or perhaps just to keep in the public eye.
I haven’t heard the case that letting Saddam take over Kuwait and be in an excellent position to threaten to Saudi Arabia would be good for anyone’s security. I also haven’t heard the case where letting him continue his nuclear program (which according to the relevant UN agency was only 6 months from completion when the real inspections began after Gulf War I) would be good for our security. If you care to make such a case, feel free. Until I hear a good case, I don’t think I’m required to acknowledge its existance. And inattention to details like the ones I mention is exactly what gets Democrats into looking bad on security.
Which would make perfect sense to people who don’t understand anything about military operations in a mountainous country run by someone like Bin Laden. “Seal it off?” Are you aware of Afghanistan’s position vis-a-vis the world at the time? Obviously not. Which once again….
I haven’t heard the case that letting Saddam take over Kuwait and be in an excellent position to threaten to Saudi Arabia would be good for anyone’s security.
Saddam hadn’t heard the case that it wouldn’t. Moral: don’t shake hands with dictators.
Now, why, exactly, is Donald “born in rural Chicago” Rumsfeld still a federal employee?
Until I hear a good case, I don’t think I’m required to acknowledge its existance (sic). And inattention to details like the ones I mention is exactly what gets Democrats into looking bad on security.
Let’s get this straight, a Republican administration cut deals with Saddam Hussein, lied to the American people that it was Iran, rather than Iraq, that was using chemical weapons, sent Donald Rumsfeld to the region to assure Saddam Hussein that his use of chemical weapons would be ignored by the US, failed to make it clear to Saddam Hussein what the consequences would be if he invaded Kuwait (a failure that cost American lives) and yet, it is Democrats that you think look bad on security.
That’s a really, really bizarre argument, and I don’t see any reason that it should be taken seriously.
Inattention to details. Please.
Republican failures in the runup to the first Gulf War led to a needless conflict and the needless deaths of Americans. That looks really bad – unconscionably bad – on security, in my opinion, your agitprop notwithstanding.
One should never forget about the babies being thrown out of incubators in Kuwait by the invading Northern Barbarians, or the Tank Division on the border waiting to invade Saudi Arabia.
Oops, more Republican Propaganda, never happenned!!!
Sebastian,
it’s obvious that the war in Afghanistan was a great success, since there is now gender equality, the rule of law, the complete elimation of the Drug Economy and a 6 foot 6 Arab who needs a dialisys machine to stay alive is rotting in an American Prison. NOT!!!
If we had a real liberal media every broadcast would start with this sentence, “Today November,9 the 900th day of the hunt for Osama, the Wascally Wabbit stil has not been found”.
As for the status of Afghanistan in pre 2001, it was a Pariah Nation in which one no one would think of doing business exept for a few Texan Oilman.
Sebastian: when pressed to make the case by Slartibartfast, I did so several comments above yours. To restate: in July 1990 Saddam was not our enemy. His having Kuwait, or a nuke, need not have made him our enemy. Kuwait’s security problems are not ours. Israel might not have liked the nuke thing, but Israel’s security problems also are not ours. And as Don Quijote mentions indirectly, the charges that Saddam was going to invade Saudi Arabia were never substantiated by evidence, see e.g.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
Note that this is not a case that these things would have been positive goods for anyone’s security, only that they would not have been threats worth responding to with war.
I’m actually surprised you’ve never heard a case like this, since
(a) you seem to be generally libertarian-leaning and to spend a fair bit of time conversing with libertarians
(b) many, perhaps most, libertarians are non-interventionist in general and were against the first Gulf War in particular
(c) the above is pretty much the standard non-interventionist libertarian case against that war.
Thanks for your response, Nicholas. I’ve been busy writing about master/slave relationships (this isn’t what you’re thinking, probably) and wasn’t paying nearly as much attention as I ought to have been.
So, your point was: if Hussein had invaded Kuwait, we ought to have ignored Kuwait’s cry for help. And then, possibly, ignored Saudi Arabia’s request for help.
I don’t agree, obviously. I can’t think of one good thing that could come from such a course of inaction.
Saddam wouldn’t have been dangerous with nuclear weapons is the “damn good case to be made that the 1991 Gulf War was a huge net negative for our security” which I have been ignoring?
I’m unconvinced.
Overall, I agree with you, hilzoy. But I do have a few quibbles. First, if this is the welfare reform you are talking about I think it’s just about as fair to say that it got passed despite Democrats as by Democrats. The party was very deeply divided about this issue. Second, it’s way too dismissive to say that Democrats would be constrained to find a decent solution in Iraq since I’ve heard quite a few Democrats advocating the “cut and run” approach or a reasonable equivalent thereof. I’ve got major disagreements with the Republican Party. But my main disagreement with my own party is that the party needs to recognize that in national politics foreign policy is not a distraction and that the party needs to have a vital, agressive (and I don’t mean belligerent) foreign policy. It doesn’t have one now.
Slartibartfast: well, for starters we’d almost certainly not have had September 11th. No Gulf War I = no Iraq sanctions or troops in SA = bin Laden’s main stated grievances neutralized and his ability to appeal to others very much lessened.
The key word here is “blowback”. It is not our job to answer other countries’ cries for help, and because of blowback, it is not in our long-term interest to do so if the threat they’re crying about is not also a direct threat to us. We’ve refused to answer plenty of cries for help in our history, including several in the past couple of decades, with no noticeable detriment to our security.
Sebastian: that’s a gross oversimplification. The case is that the possible bad consequences of not having the war (Saddam w/nukes) would have been considerably less bad than the actual consequences of having the war (among others, the rise of al-Qaeda). One reason for that is that, as I’ve pointed out a couple of times now, Saddam was not hostile at all to us prior to August 1990, and non-hostile states with nukes, though they are not good, are much less bad than hostile states with nukes– which we are likely to get more of soon due in large part to the chain of events set in motion by GW1.
Of course not. Change the past, change the future. But it could just as possibly been something even worse. Who knows? Our lack of intervention in Saudi Arabia, accompanied by the deaths of the entire bin Laden clan, may have pissed him off even more.
Well, maybe. As a general historical principle, though, actively meddling in other people’s countries seems to be far more likely to piss them off than staying coldly on the sidelines. bin Laden’s point about nobody attacking Sweden is a true one in spite of its source.
Not doing things that make enemies does not by any means guarantee that one won’t have enemies. But it helps.
Slart: I supported the first Gulf War, for the record. But the case against it, as I recall, was that we were protecting one rather odious tyranny from invasion by another rather odious tyranny, and that we would not have bothered had it not been for the oil, which was (in the view of people who held this view) the only real interest we had in the matter. Recall also that it was not clear, before the war, that it would be as nearly casualty-free for the US as it was. I mean, we knew we’d win, but not how much it would cost us to do so. People thought, at the time, that it was not worth some of the worse possible scenarios to save the royal family of Kuwait. (At the time it was also not known how close Hussein was to acquiring nuclear weapons.) The alternative would have been to deliver an extremely serious warning to Saddam Hussein about the consequences of invading Saudi Arabia, and to be prepared to act on it.
I supported the war partly because I knew more about Saddam than most of the people I knew, having happened to be near the Turkish/Iraqi border during the Anfal campaign, but mostly because of concern for those international norms that Sebastian is skeptical of 😉 I mean: I think that it’s a good thing when the world agrees that certain sorts of action are just out of bounds, in something like the way I and most of the people I know think that stealing is out of bounds: it does not occur to us as a live option even when we have some problem that theft would in fact help us to resolve. There are very few such international norms, but “you don’t go around conquering other countries without a very, very good reason” is one of them. (Possible good reasons include: you or another country being attacked by the country in question, and certain sorts of humanitarian catastrophes. In both cases, international norms require getting out when there’s a government that will not be a threat to its people or its neighbors.) It seemed to me that this was a very important rule to have, and that this war was necessary in order to enforce it. This was also one of the reasons why I opposed the latest invasion of Iraq, since (in my view) we had not exhausted our other options (like the inspections). (I also thought Bush would not prosecute the war competently, and that it was much less important than working against terror, and I did not see this war as contributing to the war on terror. Rather the opposite.)
Booting Saddam was Good. America wants to be good. Read Norm Geras on why there should be no moral argument about booting Saddam — opposing Bush’s anti-Saddam war is, de facto, support for Saddam.
Oh, I forgot. In Dem dreamland, de facto doesn’t really matter — just intentions. If you intend to get rid of Saddam in some other way, that’s just as good — plus avoids any of the real costs.
Real policies have real costs. When the US decided to follow Kerry’s 71 Peace Now advice, it left Vietnam. And accepted Killing Fields. That was not good.
Clinton accepted genocide in Rwanda. Not good.
If the Reps really put Human Rights above national sovereignty, that WOULD be good — and morally superior to the “support dictator” realpolitik folk.
Nonsense, Tom Grey. U.S. policy as of 1971 was to leave Vietnam. It was just a question of when and with how many more pointeless American deaths. You want to blame someone for losing the Vietnam War? Blame the idiots who ran it.
I haven’t heard the case that letting Saddam take over Kuwait and be in an excellent position to threaten to Saudi Arabia would be good for anyone’s security.
And I repeat: wouldn’t it have been a good idea to let April Glaspie in on that reasoning?