Roger L. Simon: Why We Are the Way We Are

When I read Mickey Kaus, a man I know and like, was voting for John Kerry, a man he pretty much despises, in the coming election, I was reminded again what painful times we live in (sometimes even more painful than most of us realize). And, yes, I know politics is about compromise (triple duh with a brass ring on top!), but the compromises people are making now are of a substantial nature.

Kaus tells us he's made his decision because he thinks the country and the world need a rest from Bush's militant foreign policy, if only to preserve the precarious gains of Iraq and Afghanistan. I won't insult Mickey by calling this a dressed up version of Kerry's "consulting with our allies." MK is smarter than that, although like most of us subject to a lifetime of pressures, conscious and unconscious.

As is well known to those with even a passing interest in this, I feel the opposite of Mickey for almost identical reasons. I am voting for Bush to preserve those gains. And even though I don't despise Bush personally the way Kaus seems to revile Kerry, I certainly condemn the President's views on a host of issues, principally social ones. I just think an electoral defeat of Bush will be seen worldwide as a rejection of the War on Terror and at this particular point in history that could have disastrous effects.

But I could be dead wrong, of course. It wouldn't be the first time - even in the last twenty minutes! What interests me is why two men of roughly the same generation (okay, I'm a few years older than Mickey, but not that many) with generally "liberal" outlooks, fairly good educations and even living in the same city (okay, that means nothing) could come to opposite conclusions on the same "facts."

Let's leave aside those "pressures" I alluded to above, assume he and I could rise about them (yeah, right) and examine something more basic: our dispositions. In the old days my views were probably more leftist (though not Trotskyite!) than his. I am idealistic by nature and want to heal the world. I think Kaus assumes its imperfectability and just wants to live in it. He is a man of increments. I am a man of revolution. [Will you quit being a Che wannabe? It's so 1970!-ed. Humor me.]

In defense of us idealists, however, I have this to say: Without us, nothing would change. Of course, without us, there would have been no Robespierre either. "You pays your money and you takes you choice." But if we're at a crunch point in history when millions are channeling their shame over social and economic disadvantage into a violent and delusional mindset - and it seems rather obvious that we are - it scarcely seems the moment to pretend it's business as usual. For a while, I thought 9/11 had made that clear. But now many seem to want to retrench, to go back to first principals and retreat to the safety of their old teams. (Human nature, I guess.) Not me. I'm still out there, flying blind. I said some time ago that we needed new terminology to describe all this. I still believe that.

And obviously we need new sources of information, as these indespensible bloggers also make clear.

(NOTE: Those who wish to comment on this blog must now register through TypeKey. Support intelligent discourse on the Internet - Smash Trolls!)

Comments

Comments are open and unmoderated, although abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I'm certainly glad my parents' generation didn't decide to take a break from history-making and step away from the war in the 1944 election to vote for someone that would allow them to preserve the precarious gains in northern Africa, Italy, Normandy, and stop short of Iwo Jima.

Someone else pointed it out first (and I'd cite them by name if I remembered who it was) but the underlying mistake here is the assumption that you can stop a war and consolidate your gains.

The only condition under which this trick works is "victory". Right now, if we pull back to consolidate, UbL and the other fascists will simply use the time to recoup their losses and renew their attacks.

In other words, all we'll be doing is "kicking the can down the road" -- as, eg., the Clinton administration largely did -- and leave it to someone else to solve.

The only problem is that the next manifestation of the problem could easily be a mushroom cloud over DC and Manhattan.

I did my stint with progressivism, read the pamphlet, listened to the shouting (always with the shouting!). None of them seemed in control of their own lives, and I didn't see why they should have such power over mine.

Sham. That's the word that flies into my head every time I see Kerry, or hear Kerry.
It's a joke now that the guy is an spectacular waffler. Still, it's absolutely bleak watching the guy.
I am not pleased with many of Bush's positions, but at least I know his.
I couldn't begin to predict anything Kerry would do in office aside from make nice with the one body who doesn't derserve it, the UN.

This Boston Globe article by Jonathan Power dovetails perfectly with this subject.

I have lost confidence over the past year in Bush's ability to successfully prosecute the war on terrorism.

I fully supported the Iraq invasion, and still do support our goals in Iraq, but the past year's long string of strategic and tactical failures in Iraq and elsewhere indicate to me that Bush has not effectively managed the war.

I think Bush's IDEAS are excellent -- he clearly grasps the gravity of what we are facing ... but his execution has been abysmal.

I thank Bush for his strong initial response to 9/11 and his forceful advocacy of regime chang einIraq, and I appreciate that he has put America on a path that we are committed to, no matter who wins in November. But, I do not think he is the man who can win the war on terror.

I believe Kerry would, at worst, manage the war about the same as Bush has, and at best, he might shake things up and ove the prosecution of the war forward in a way that improves America's security and brings us closer to vistory.

So, given a tie on the war, I will use social issues as a tiebreaker, and on those Kerry is a vast improvement over Bush.

I don't dislike Bush, and I don't like Kerry...I vote only on what is best for the country, and I will likely vote for Kerry, unless something changes between now and November.

Mr. Kaus cannot be taken seriously if he believes that a focus on national health care is more important than the WoT. If he were to support Kerry with a rational explanation as to why he thought Kerry could effectively continue the fight on terrorism AND push national health care I might listen for ten seconds. A suggestion that we should just pull the covers over our heads and hope that the bad men will go away just doesn't cut it.

WHAT MAKES KAUS OR ANYONE ELSE THINK THAT IF KERRY TAKES A BREAK, OSAMA WILL, TOO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF RESTING,
WE MUST BE RELENTLESS.
UNLESS WE DON'T WANT TO WIN.

BUT OUR CINC AND OUR DOD AND OUR THE NATION MUST PERSEVERE IF WE DESIRE TO WIN, AND DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO LIVE IN LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY.

PEACE IS WON WHEN YOU DEFEAT THE ENEMY;
PEACE IS NOT FOUND BY RUNNING AWAY FROM THE ENEMY.

"but the past year's long string of strategic and tactical failures in Iraq and elsewhere"

You might enumerate a few. BTW we are aware of the Moby tactic - and you're not doing it very well.

When you're done enumerating the long string, please post something concerning the two John's carreers in public service that show evidence of the executive ability necessary to perform the office of President. Take as long as you need.

Unfortunately, it seems that Mickey Kaus wants to call a time out. I don't think that the Islamofascists are playing by those rules. He does not give anyone a sense of confidence that Kerry will handle the WoT seriously or well. Of course Kerry is too busy yucking it up with the Hollywood crowd to entertain a terrorist briefing from the administration.

MK's reasoning reminds me a bit of yesterday's e-mail of the day from Andrew Sullivan's site. The writer was thoroughly indignant about having a 45 minute wait at customs coming back into the country and was hyperventilating that the US has lost all respect overseas. Yeah, yeah we all want to return to 9/10/01. So let's talk instead about which candidates have better hair and whether any sharks have attacked Gary Condit lately.

2. You can edit your TypeKey profile to provide an email address, if you wish to those who click on it. I am not making this mandatory, to ensure privacy for those who want it.

4. For those on AOL, you may have to copy and paste the validation link from TypeKey, rather than click through it.

I do have difficulty with the argument "we need a break." Taking a break by changing administrations may improve the rhetoric between the US and its "allies," but those allies really do not have a lot to offer in the way of military support--in short perhaps some atmospheric changes, but no substantive payoff. On the domestic front, even should the democratics win the election, I dont see the democratics regaining control of congress--something that would certainly impede any democratic move to more "progressive," policies. I guess it comes down to my view of Bush as more decisive than Kerry could ever be, and right now I want decisive in charge.

Have you ever seen the Kerry's 1984 campaign promises to eliminate many if not most of the major weapon systems that are now used to such great effect in the WoT? Let me quote from the memo (I have the PDF; its on Kerry's Senate stationery; John Moore may have a link):

"The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability', which we now know not to exist." I think we all know which side history vindicated.

MX Missile: cancel
B-1 Bomber: cancel
Anti-satellite system: cancel
Star Wars: cancel
Tomahawk Missile: reduce by 50%

Kerry is not serious about defense and never has been. You are claiming Bush had made serious errors without citing any. But worse, you are assuming a man who has been singularly hostile to the United States military would do a better job prosecuting a global war. Your claim is unsupported by the facts.

I just want to say that the new system is great. I normally hate registration type solutions but this one is painless and easy. I hope it will have the desired effect.

Anyway, I can't possibly have the zillionth iteration of the who to vote for conversation. I'm voting for Bush. I would like him to win, but I no longer think his losing would be as catastrophic as I might have in the past.

I just want to make a comment on 9/11 "changing everything". I certainly feel this way, and I would say that some 70% of the country also feels that way. (All but the 30% or so who are hard-core Michael Moore acolyte types). I support what we've done and are doing in Iraq, and many of the reasons come from "9/11 changed everything".

However, the connection between "9/11 changed everything" and "We must liberate Iraq" I now feel in retrospect was not effectively communicated by our president. He's not an effective communicator, and I'm now starting to think that's a bigger issue than I did before.

"9/11 changed everything" manifested itself for most people in support of our going into Afghanistan, not merely to attack some Al Qaeda training camps but to actually defeat the Taliban and install a new government in Kabul as well. Everybody support that war except for the lunatic fringe.

If we had lost 1,000 men fighting in the mountains of Tora Bora, killing our capturing Al Qaeda leaders, my guess is the public would not be so squeamish about those casualties as they are about losing 1,000 in Iraq.

The relationship between going into Iraq and 9/11 was complex. It was also a bold, risky move that was expensive in terms of lives lost and dollars spent. Again, I think it was the right thing to do but to convince the electorate to go along with a dangerous, risky, expensive policy which has a complex justification is the job of the President, not Steven den Beste, the Belmont Club, or Iraq the Model.

Pace John Moore this war does register as especially bloody and brutal to an American public that has not witnessed a "real war" since Viet Nam, particularly when the war's connection to 9/11 is not something that can be convincingly boiled down to a few sentences. The country freaked out over losing 19 in Somalia, so how should we expect it to react to 1,000? But again, I think the public would be much more accepting of these kind of losses if they were in Afghanistan.

The connection between 9/11 and going into Iraq was not obvious and it needed to be explained better. I realize that the vast majority of the problem was caused by the media, but I think Bush's poor communication skills also had a lot to do with it.

I'm seeing people making these insinuations of "the Moby tactic" more and more often when someone makes a point that's even slightly out-of-step with the consensus of the blog. I've been subjected to it myself, and no doubt will be again for my comment previous to this. I really disagree with throwing around those kind of accusations as opposed to actually arguing the point. I don't know Mike Silverman personally, but I read his blog sometimes (you could also check it out), and I think he comes by his conclusions honestly.

July 09, 2004: Why We Are the Way We Are

Comments

Post a comment