Roger L. Simon: The New Reactionaries

I guess I'm not the only one calling my old colleagues on the left reactionary. Here's Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe: Radical Bush vs. Reactionary Kerry.This is a taste. Read it all if you're interested in how the playbook is changing in the new era.

Kerry is a liberal Democrat, but in this campaign he is running as a reactionary: one who wants to reverse course -- to go back to the attitudes and practices that guided US policy when Clinton and the elder George Bush were in office. The younger Bush may be a Republican, but he is running this year as a radical. Profoundly transformed by 9/11, he sees the old playbook as feckless and is set on a revolutionary new course.

Very few find it easy to adapt to new times - I struggle every day - but I would remind all of the words of the I Ching: "Change. Opportunity." (hat tip: Robert Snider)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

“In a Kerry administration there will be no effort to modernize the Middle East with freedom and pluralism. Democracy? ‘You can't impose it on people,’ Kerry says.”

We indeed cannot impose upon others a political system that they utterly reject. But who says we are? The evidence indicates that most Iraqis do desire a democratic government. Look at what also just occurred in Afghanistan. No, it’s only a minority of “insurgents” who prefer to remain loyal to the reactionary past. So what in heck is Kerry talking about?

I hope everyone here saw John Ellis's "endorsement" of his cousin, George W. Bush.

A keen sense of the possible: that is what I find missing in liberals these days.

While I tend to agree with the descriptions of each man, radical or reactionary, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that 9/11 fundametally changed either man.

Kerry is repeating his own past, that of trying to change that with which he diasagrees by any means, but primarily through unilateral action, that is tearing down and trying to conquer and win, without even the lip service of dialogue, cooperation or personal risk.

During the Vietnam War, he went directly to the communists we were fighting, not to Cambodia as he claims. Today he has a bigger microphone. He gets to appeal to the world, including our present enemies, who can use his words to try to divide and demoralize us, exactly as the NV used his words to demoralize our POWs.

President Bush, on the other hand, while perhaps utilizing a strategy which would be radical if he were, say, a liberal, in fact is demonstrating a much more tempered and compassionate battle strategy than most of his supporters, including me, would prefer.

His original self-description was as a "compassionate conserative", and I don't see a lot of change his outward expression of that philosophy. He has not massively bombed suspected rebel holdouts, for fear of hurting innocent civilians. That I call compassionate.

He has also left much of the discretion as to how agressively our troops approach those rebels, by doing exactly as he said he would, in that he promised to get the Iraquis in charge of their country as quickly as possible, so that we can finish the job we started and get our troops home again.

That's called "keeping your promise", a conservative concept I have so far observed is foreign to both John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

The fundamental hypocrisy of the left that leads to this new reactionary attitude can be found in the disconnect between these two beliefs......

1. All conflicts can be settled through negotiations and diplomacy. Wars are never necessasry.

2. When people of color from Third World countries commit acts of war, it is always a "reaction" to something bad that somebody else did to them......a "legitimate greivance" with a "root cause". Yet when a rich, powerful Western nation like the U.S. commits an act of war, it is because we are an evil,imperialistic nation (especially if a Republican is in the White House).

In other words, you can always negotiate with the likes of Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong II, etc. Whereas, people like Bush and Sharon MUST be thrown out of power. In the eyes of the left, evil countries like America and Israel have to elect the most benign, appeasing leaders in order for there to be any hope for negotiations, while brutal dictators from Third World countries need not be removed from power.

So what the left if ulitimately saying is, all conflicts can be solved through diplomacy, but only if Westen democracies have the right leaders in power, because we're the bad guys.

Their belief that "we all want to live in peace" is a lie that they themselves don't believe in. They don't think that evil Republicans want to live in peace. They don't think that evil capitalists want to live in peace. They don't think that evil religious Christians want to live in peace. But everybody else does.

Get rid of these evil white males and THEN we can solve all conflicts through diplomacy, because you can NEVER negotiate with monsters like Bush and Sharon.

The left is old. They are ancient. They cling to the 60's like an aging woman clinging to her youth.

This is not chronological. This is about attitude. The left believes the end justifies the means. Any bogus body count, any forgeries, any lies you can tell, any nasty documentaries you can make are alright because they establish you are better than the other guy. That is all this is about, the left are the good guys, the right the bad... end of story. They don't need to earn it, it is theirs by right.

Bush read that line from the founding fathers about all men being created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and he believed it. Bush believes America can make the world a better place, and must if we are to survive.

The left knows America is an evil place that deserves whatver it gets. Kerry is trying to appeal to the latter and Bush is dedicated to the former.He will not say he is sorry for being a Christian. Democrats prefer hypocricy on this score, the old I am a Catholic but... stance.

I talk to old friends about this rarely. They try to lecture me about the evils of war etc and I tell them if they were all that concerned about war they should have taken the initiative and dealt with this stuff earlier rather than dumping it on Bush and bitching about the way he handles things. That tends to end most conversations.

The left say they think Bush is too religious, but it seems to me they are the preachy ones.

How long can people listen to Kerry's message of doom and gloom and not adopt his self-loathing? One of the things a leader is supposed to do is inspire. Bush does, Kerry doesn't. Bush is fighting the current war, Kerry is still stuck in Vietnam, the war he spent more time helping us lose than actually fighting it even though he took an oath to do so.

One of my favorite writers, Dorothy Dunnett, put the following words into the mouth of one of her characters: Change. Change and adapt. President Bush has done this since 9-11, Kerry hasn't, not in thirty-odd years.

I think Jeff Jacoby has pointed out the essential difference between the earlier version of liberals and the current version of liberals--and yes--the labels dont mean much. The liberalism I embraced--that all humans are created equal, endowed by their creator etc etc--has now been abandoned by the people who now claim to be liberals. Who can not in good conscience understand that people want to be free; that democracy is a value to supported; that the threat from a virulent religious viewpoint is a danger to civilization (irrespective of what religion).

I personally did not think that George W Bush would have amounted to much as a President--I saw him as a caretaker nursing a weak mandate. But I also saw him rise to face the danger to western civilization posed by 9/11--he understood the threat; he understood the remedy. That remedy resides in our American state papers: the declaration, the constitution and the federalist papers--I honestly believe 9/11 transformed him.

Regrettably that situation did not transform the group of Americans: the liberals, that I thought would have risen to that challenge. For whatever reason, and I still have not sorted those reasons out, but things like "multiculturalism" and "post modernism" all come to mind, the "liberals' have not embraced those values that I thought were genuinely liberal. I think that historians will have to sort through the paralysis that keep what I thought to be good men (the 1960 liberals) from doing nothing; and worse, embracing evil.

It is easy to call yourself an American when all that means is your dollar buys you a nice vacation in Mexico or whatever. It is a lot harder when it means you might have to lose your life or take some one else's.

Vietnam marked us and while liberals say it was the worst time they don't mean it. It was their shining moment. They saved the world then and they are going to save it now. Iraq is another Vietnam and any idiot can see it, the world hates us and they can't all be wrong. It is our job to accept their judgment and to accept defeat in Iraq and admit we killed thousands for oil. Their sense of purpose is not roused by victory but by defeat. War is always wrong, only the bad kill. Except for their daddies in the Big One, that was different. But in truth of fact these same people would have been calling for appeasement of Hitler and self blame for Pearl Harbor. They would have disgraced their fathers' generation instead of their own.

Fuck em. I am tired of trying to be nice to these people. Saddam was an evil man, let them explain why leaving the bastard there to torture small children gives them some moral superiority.

In the 19th century there were two different definitions of liberal. In England, a liberal was dedicated to popular democracy and free markets. On the Continent, Liberal refered to nihilists and all forms of socialism. Radicals were the European equivelent of English Liberals because they stood in radical oppostion to European elitist undemocratic rule. Since the 1960, when small "c" communism subverted the Democratic Party American liberalism was transformed to continental liberalism. In "The Possessed" Dostoyevsky refers to the socialist as Liberals."

Actually today's "Liberalism" has once again been subverted by another alien ideology. The Post-Modernism that has taken over American instutions has it orgins in Sorel and National Socialism. Paul De Man, who is the Godfather of Post-Modernism was squarely in the Fascist camp. He was a member of the Belgian Nazi party in WWII. The reason that today's liberals are at heart anti-Semites is because post-Modern Amereican "leftiss" are really the intellictual successor to the Nazi movement. They have become the "new" Neo-Nazis.

oops I hit post instead of pasting to Word. No spell checking or rewriting of the last post.

Terrye--I think you are right about the "lesson" the left (or liberal as I use it) took from Viet Nam. And I think you have nailed it when you talk about the nature of evil--there is evil in the world, and it isnt a matter of communication--there is evil, and the current crop of liberals doesnt not call it when they see it (BTW Terrye--your use of anglo-saxonisms is really getting pretty good--makes this ole cavalryman blush)

Jerry: yes, liberalism as probably you and I understood it in the early 1960s has transformed itself into something very very ugly.

Today we drove through the University District and the striking thing was how old everything seemed. Old in terms of ideas. Fifty five year old guys in tie-dyed shirts and Rastafarian hats, Che posters, espresso shops with itty-bitty tables - just like Paris, no?

And I was reminded of that video of Kerry, sometime in the primaries I think, standing up on a stage pretending to smoke a doobie. Old, old. old. I want to die before I get old. That song, preserved in amber. Pitiful.

I would add that modern liberalism is evil, or the tool of evil. It has an inverted sense of morality, and fails to recognize evil or bad - except where there is none.

Modern liberals have no understanding of human nature. This has actually been true of leftist movements in general for a long time. Liberalism has inherited the Marxist idea of perfectable man, and in the process searches out already perfect people, usually finding them in violent revolutionaries and others who are "oppressed."

The oppressor/oppressed Manichaen viewpoint of liberalism leave no room for ordinary folks, and confers respectibility and goodness on anyone who is oppressed (Palestinians, for example). At the same time, the liberals consider corporations to be oppressors (another dead and smelly Marxist idea), even though they are happy to consume the products and services of those corporations. To see the real hypocrisy of this, look at any big city alternative newspaper. It will have advertisements for more personal goods than the mainstream paper. This paper of the champions of those oppressed by profit-making corporations has stereos, jewelry, music and videos, travel packages, good restaurants - all the things upper middle class liberals want to consume.

Another thing inherited from Marxism (or perhaps Leninism) is an "end justifies the means" attitude. How else can the New York times justify its severe twisting and concealment of the truth in its campaign to elect John Kerry?

For the 60s generation, liberalism had a lot to offer. It adopted social justice causes such as civil rights, womens' rights (minus justice for fetuses). It adopted environmentalism. That it was inherently anti-capitalist made little difference, because there were plenty of causes to keep one busy. It also picked up a feeling of immense moral superiority from these causes - especially the early civil rights activities.

Now, many years later, those are still liberal causes, but they have hit the limits of practicality long ago. Hence the efforts in these areas tend fo be counterproductive - such as fighting to extend affirmative action, and adopting ever more extreme environmentalism. The need for perfection is there - moderation is not.

Furthermore, modern liberalism has started to seriously degrade society. Teachers as a group have adapted liberalism (and it's ugly siblings - rabid environmentalism, rabid multiculturalism, rabid anti-religionism) and are failing to educate our children in much other than insipid ideological viewpoints. College professors are even worse - especially in the humanities - conservatives who want to do graduate work in history are warned not to because they will never get tenure.

Essentially every major opinion forming part of society, from churches to entertainment media to schools, have been captured by liberals and distorted to reflect the flawed liberal world view.

The Kulturkampf in society is between all of these liberals and the institutions they control, and the people who still have reasonable and traditional values. The liberals have a major advantage in the power of their institutions (New York Times, CBS News - what will they spring tomorrow on 60 minutes? Hollywood, Universities, schools, etc). That anti-liberals have an advantage of being right on many of these issues, and of being able to demonstrate it through examination of the consequences of different actions.

In a way, it feels like we have been invaded. I didn't see this when I was a kid, but my kid sure experienced a bunch of nonsense. She did have one fun experience. She is blond, blue-eyed and tall. She went to a "multicultural training" session for extra credit. At the session, members of minorities harranged the crowd, en mass and then one at a time, for being evil white people. When they came to my daughter, she said "Hey, you can't do this to me. I'm a native American" and so they left her alone. Now it is true that she has a bit of Native American blood, but it certainly doesn't show.

Anyway, this sort of crap reminds me of a Communist block meeting with confessions required.

The Fop
Agree completely. You described the very essence of what has informed my decision for Tuesday.

jerry:
I hope to G-d you are not close to the truth (especially if the country goes Blue). I do believe the Dems are becoming the new political home to anti-semitism, though they don't have the audacity to admit it...yet.

I do not believe Bush would have been an especially good president without especially perilous times...for this synchronicity I am thankful (and often glance skyward with the thought "maybe You are there, after all"). If it didn't change Bush, 9/11 certainly brought out the best in him and made him focus intensely on what's most important. I don't think he has the compartmentalizing ability oft attributed to Clinton, but that's not what is needed right now. Persistency, tenacity and a love of America and the freedoms we hold dear. That's what we need in a leader, and that's we've got. Do I wish he had more "intellectual curiosity" than he appears to have? I'm not sure. It seems to me that intellectualism and the fallacious premises that The Fop identified above are not the things that will motivate OBL and his minions from staying in the shadows and watching their backs every minute...which by the way makes it much more difficult to re-group and deal with meticulous planning. We must keep them on the defense until we find them, then make a football field out of them. They know this is all Bush wants to do, and they really would like the Hudna of a democratic presidency.

Thank you for another thoughtful post. I personally have a powerfully negative visceral response to any phrase "of the possible", since Lyndon Johnson used to define politics as "the art of the possible", and I think that he was the worst president during my lifetime, which extends back to the last six months of Truman's tenure. Nonetheless, I agree with you, and would add only that the President, unlike his predecessor and his two major opponents in Presidential elections, is willing to tackle hard tasks; that's also a distinction between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis.

Which University district is that? Just curious. I see some of that here in Silicon Valley, in Palo Alto more than most other places, but not a lot.

You'll find that the anti-capitalist, the anti-modern, the anti-semitic, and the anti-American often get rather gruesomely intermingled.

Exhibits? Like Jimmy Durante, I got a million of 'em. Here's an in-depth article about the racist roots of socialism, here's a speech by Goebbels condemning American crass consumerism, here's a review of a Nazi flick about the Titanic (the Teutonic Titanic, I call it) which was full of anti-capitalist propaganda.

It's hard to tell them apart after a while. It's like when George Costanza combined food, sex, and television into one giant disgusting urge.

Sometime late afternoon on 9/11/2001, the President came to the conclusion that the radical Islamists would have to be brought to justice. Many mistake his language for something approaching Senator Kerry's approach. Nothing could be further from the truth. The President meant and means God's justice. Let's set aside all the lefty qualms about God and imposing this or that since those to be adjudicated are not American citizens, but rather murdering sociopaths, outside any sane world community.

The President's vision of justice for the terrorists is tantamount to annihilation. He intends that they be killed or forever in custody.

His radical vision is a product of his primary focus--to bring radical Islam to justice. If freeing the enslaved will further the goal of bringing the radical Islamists to justice, then that is a noble goal--who does that sound like?

Let's be pragmatic for a moment--like Lincoln and Like W--the cause of freedom is noble, but the cost is survival. If freedom for the enslaved is the best tool to destroy the Islamosfacists, then let's free the enslaved. But let's never lose focus on the prize--the Islamofascists must be brought to justice.

The other good example of liberals-as-reactionaries can be found in the area of education. The current administrative structure of the education system is viewed as something sacred, to be preserved regardless of its actual performance and its impact on the lives of its raw material ("students")

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109771234500123086

The only time we need "good" or "great" Presidents are in times of trouble. Sure, you get a man like TR every once in a while who makes his era. However, the nation would have been just fine with another man in office in 1900. It is only in times of crisis that some level of greatness becomes necessary. In a forever Pre-9/11 world it would have matter not a wit if Bush were as dumb as the Mooristas think he is.

Bush has one asset that made him rise to the occasion. It is his fighter pilot's personality. Fighter pilots are pretty laid back until something needs to be done. Then they focus on it and get it done. The ABB crowd loves to ridicule Bush's National Guard service because they associate the Guard with the gentleman's draft evader NG of the Vietnam era. The Air Guard has never been like that. It has always had an active military mission. His service in the TANG prepared him much more thoroughly for a vigorous response to UBL then did Kerry’s swiftboat adventures.

And that is why the troops love him and so despise Kerry. If Kerry is elected, we will get worse than Clintonian levels of demoralization. As Wretchard asked (paraphasing here) "what would happen if the ACLU office burned down and the firemen refused to take the call?"

Any University District here in the Northwest is ossified in about 1972. At least you guys have a Fry's on El Camino Real . . .

I agree. The left has fetishised its old heroes (Che and friends) and its old ideas - "capitalists are pigs", "Imperial America", "fascists and racists", "stop the war", "fight the power", "revolution"... and above all they firmly believe that protesting is always the highest form of good.

Those ideas have become detatched from their context. To hold the ideas, mouth the words - those are the important things. Context is relevant only in that it provides a cue to join in the chants and marches.

The communal nature of it is undoubtedly highly reinforcing. So everyone comes back for more.

You can see the mummification of these ideas in the words used by the anti-war crowd - they talk anachronistically about "carpet bombing", they love the word "quagmire" so much they use it to describe the fastest-moving offensive in history (and really, a quagmire in the desert?). Freeing Iraqis and Afghanis becomes "killing brown people". The anti-democratic efforts of Ba'athists, religious fundamentalists and terorists becomes "the resistance". They shout "baby killers" and spit on soldiers and whip themselves into a frenzy over Halliburton and label contractors "mercenaries".

It's so very 60's. I can see that and I only knew the summer of '69 as a blastocyst.

I find this whole thing about religion weird. I mean, this idea that religion is somehow evil. A point of view that seems particularly prevalent in Europe. I have many religious relatives, they are good people. Certainly better than many of the "enlightened" Left folks I run into. And what have the "enlightened" folks replaced religion with? Nothing much as far as I can see. The moral philosophy of the Left is shallow and trivial; has been from the beginning. Mostly it consists in denying that there is such a thing as morality. Beyond that, capitalism bad, that is about it. Everything else can be excused or blamed on capitalism. At each individual's convenience of course.

...Speaking with Agence France Presse (it figures he’d pick the French) while in Warsaw, Swayze criticized the United States for being “insensitive” and "disrespectful" in Iraq.

"I know a great deal about the Middle East because I’ve been raising Arabian horses," he said.

My Grandmother's dying words were Thank you Lord I am catching the train to hapiness. She read scripture every day of her life and so far as I know she never harmed a living soul.

I don't know why people fear religion either, but what is interesting is the weird relationship of the left with God. Clinton often mentioned God, even included bible verses in his speeches but that was Bill and we knew he was just trying to pacify the Jesus freaks. So the important people let it go by, but Bush really means it and that worries them. But why? Do they believe that other presidents were atheists?

Just wait until the election is over and if Bush does not win you will hear some really serious freaking language.

What if Kerry wins? He will have a Republican Senate, a Republican Congress and a whole bunch of people like me that think he is a chicken shit back stabbing son of bitch traitor.

The standard of comparison is any chief petty officer in the Navy, or a boot camp DI.

I think people fear Bush's religion because it means that on certain issues, there is no way they can change his mind. Also, they imagine that the belief is irrational and hence he is irrational.

The thing that has always struck me about the American Left is just how unoriginal they are. For the most part they just attempt to slavishly imitate European theories about how a country should be run. Their goal it often seems is to turn the United States into a European style welfare state, and to implement dry rot socialism where the outward legal fiction of private ownership of the economy is maintained but all the traditional prerogatives of ownership are effectively taken over by the state by laws and regulations.

These are old ideas. There is nothing "progressive" about them. We can see how well this is working for Europe. The economic gap between Europe and America is growing, and it is not in Europe's favor. History has discredited the very premises upon which their world view is based, but the reactionary left is blind to this.

And so it is with the naive idea that everything can be worked out through negotiation and empathy, and that violence is never necessary. They cannot seem to comprehend that there are situations in which no compromise is possible or even thinkable. If a burglar breaks into your home with the idea of raping your daughter, one does not negotiate with him concerning the number or type of sexual acts that he can engage in with the girl. If its in your power you will destroy him, and this is a concept that the governing elites of Old Europe and their American sycophants don't even seem to be capable of grasping.

There can be no negotiation with the likes of OBL or the monsters who masterminded the Beslan massacre. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deranged.

On the question of why the left hate religion, I'm not sure (I'm not knowingly acquainted with any religion-haters), but I suspect it's because Catholicism and those lumped as 'fundies' don't let the left completely co-opt them. They continue to believe in good and evil and that it matters. This, of course, puts barriers in the leftists' trajectory to utopia. Believers in religion are those who are less likely to follow the secular/leftist/progessive/etc. line because they have other standards. And as we've all seen in the last few years. the s/l/p/etc. can't handle disagreement, it's their way or the highway. So the existence of true believers in power is a threat to them because by being in power they legitimize their beliefs instead of the s/l/p beliefs. Clinton was safe because he only mouthed the words, they knew he didn't mean them.

As for historical presidents, like Lincoln, say, who frequently spoke in Biblical terms and rhythms, they're deconstructed to be non-threatening, and safely dead and out of power. (For those who know history at all, that is.)

I think that many people see religiosity as a form of delusion that is bound to lead to irrational or self-interested decision-making. The idea of listening to God sounds to them like hearing voices.

They think that people with strong religious beliefs are convinced that they know exactly what God wants them to do.

They believe that the "voice" they imagine Bush hears is really just a way to justify to himself any crazy desire his Id dreams up and to be convinced that it will necessarily succeed.

If they think that, you can see why they might be frightened by a President with strong religious beliefs.

On the other hand, they may simply be reacting against the traditional moral beliefs that tend to go with it.

There's been a lot of great writing on this site in the last six months or so, but in my humble opinion you have all outdone yourselves on this short little thread. You just summed things up so well.

John Moore, last I heard, DI's are not allowed to use abusive and/or profane language. It's not the old Corp.

Yes I know, they think Bush is on a mission. Now if he would just screw an intern they could breath a sigh of relief.

Religion can also bring peace to a troubled soul and hope for salvation and comfort to those who mourn.

I rmember that when my Dad was dying of cancer he went to Church as long as he could bear the pain. And his last words were of concern for me, not himself.

I am not a big church goer myself, but I know a lot of folks who are and they don't burn crosses in their yards either. In fact I would say that Bush's willingness to say he is a Christian explains why so many more blacks are supporting him. Dr. Martin Luther King was not an obgyn you know. He was a Minister.

I think that the Left's visceral hatred of fundamentalist Christians is because of their reliance on an objective standard (the Bible) to what is good and evil.

They are fine with someone who only mouths such platitudes like we should help the poor or not impose our will on others. These are generalities that sound moral, but don't require much action or sacrifice.

In contrast, the fundamentalist who says that something is evil is compelled to do something about it. Now the fundamentalist's resulting action might sometimes be misguided (e.g. Salem witch trials for example), but that is not what scares the relativist.

What scares the relativist is that the fundamentalist took responsibility for what he had denounced. How else can someone denounce Bush for freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant? Only because they are scared that a precedent has been set that good nations will have to now free other countries of bloody dictators. There is no nuance or escape route to take to absolve one's personal responsibility.

I'm repeating myself here, but my own husband said, just the other day, "In education the Democrats have some policies that are unintentionally racist." Coming from him, that's serious.

If you want evidence of the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to education, check out Tom Loveless's paper on teaching computation & the achievement gap at Brookings.

He has data showing that black children's math scores rose under Reagan, then fell under Clinton, and are only now, under Bush & NCLB, beginning to climb back up.

And with mathematics, once a student loses ground, he doesn't make it back up. The young black children who fell behind on Clinton's watch will stay behind as teenagers and adults.

I don't think I'm misstating when I say that Loveless sees these shifts in black achievement as a direct result of federal policy. Good policy in the case of Republican presidents, bad policy in the case of a Democrat.

I became a supporter of President Bush because of 9/11 & the WOT, but I am remaining a supporter of President Bush because of education.

I won't be able to vote for a Democrat for president again until the party radically changes its view of education policy, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Say you're an atheist and your car breaks down in a strange town. there's two garages. Do you call "Atheist Car Repair" or "God-fearing Mechanics"?

Terrye, we'll be hitting the sack around here in a couple hours. Do you think you could do another post around then? A really long one? Thanks, you don't know how much an old guy appreciates you.

What scares the relativists is that there maybe something greater than themselves.

Terrye, so, you'd think they'd at least look into it. But, nope, too worried about them 'freedoms'.

On education policy and Democrats, how much do you think that has to do with the Teachers Union? Any at all?

I have thought that Republicans seem to approach Education more from the perspective of student or even parent and Democrats depend largely on the support of teachers.

I have said many times before that I have never felt more progressive in my life then this year which will be my first Republican vote for Congress and President. No doubt Bush is the Radical and Kerry is the Reactionary.

Why do believers in a morally relativistic system that can be summed up as Hegel to Hefner to hell in a handbasket have a problem with believers in the 3,000 year old foundation of western ethics and morals?

I just hope I don't dream of Lurch, I mean Kerry. creepy. The coyotes are howling tonight, not a good sign.

I live in the sticks so I only had one trick or treater. I always get candy and carve a pumpkin and all that stuff because I am afraid the little vandals [I mean darlings] will show up and there will be no candy. Bad for everyone.

This is not good. My ass is getting wider just looking at the stuff. I would feed it to the dog but it would probably kill him and my cat may like raw nasty mice but she won't go near chocolate.

The only reason I didn't included orthodox Jews is because the Left vilifies them because they are Jews, not because they are fundamentalist.

To come back to Roger's original point, I agree that Kerry is reactionary. It is his only choice. Kerry has no vision so he can devise a strategy to achieve something. He doesn't have an original thought in his head. It is all reruns of old line liberalism, embracing government as the solution with European socialism as its goal.

Kerry has few convictions. Perhaps the strongest ones I can fathom from his months of rambling are: (1) Kerry believes America has somehow brought this on herself by her actions; and (2) Kerry is viscerally opposed to military intervention regardless of the circumstances.

I have a harder time with Bush as a radical. I don't think it is radical to adjust to a dramtic change in circumstances. 9/11 happened and like a good, professional CEO, Bush grappled with what was known at the time (read imperfect information) and developed a strategy designed to keep America as safe as possible.

I don't see Kerry as being capable to do the same thing. As such, Bush will get my vote.

I should have ended with Bush is a pragmatist and not a radical. Only a pragmatist would have the ability to adjust to the situation. If Bush was a radical, he never would have been elected in the first place.

Yet of course Clinton evoked religion even more than Bush, trust me I know, yet the left doesn't seemed to be bothered by it... why? Very easy, they know that for many if not most Democrats religion is a political issue so Clinton didn't mean it! The flip side is Bush does and that is scary... Oh my God he really believes this crap!!!.

What I really can't understand is why Leftist will say that fundamentalists are stark raving mad but don't even blink an eye concerning Terry McAuliff or Kerry?

I'm repeating myself here, but my own husband said, just the other day, "In education the Democrats have some policies that are unintentionally racist." Coming from him, that's serious.

I believe that his education policy, plus his heartfelt religious beliefs have accounted for most of his increased support in the black community. Simply the announcement that up to 18% of black voters plan to vote for GWB hurts Kerry, because now the pro-GOP voters know that they aren't alone.

Hmmm... my copy of the Economist magazine arrived today. I wonder if there's anything about the election inside?

I have nothing. I have nothing that has not already been said far better than I could have ever said it.

What I can say is, I have thoroughly enjoyed all of the fine commentary I have read here tonight.

Religions are not accountable or under the thumb of the state. So, like the family unit, they are hated by those who put their faith in the almighty state.

Terrye - "I would say that Bush's willingness to say he is a Christian explains why so many more blacks are supporting him."

I'd be surprised if the poll showing 18% of blacks supporting Bush is accurate. But even if it is it's a pretty pathetic number.

Actually he was a communist and a fraud and not a real minister as he plagiarized the thesis from which he was awarded his doctorate. But in politically correct America one is not allowed to mention such things. Even the "I Have a Dream" speech was stolen from someone else. The fact that Americans honour this man with a holiday but denounce the great George Washington is a sign that Europe is not alone in committing suicide.

Although I generally agree with the anti-leftists sentiments expressed in this thread I disagree with the view that the Iraq war was conservative. Roger is right, the supporters of the war are progressives and they are cut from the same cloth as the socialists. Just listen to the arguments the ignorant Bush makes in favour of the war. Just as socialists always claim their theories can overcome history and human nature Bush claims Iraq is fit for democracy. He talks about universal values and the need to use force to allow such values to triumph - just like Leon Trotsky!

The US is engaged in international social engineering, yet conservatives are supposed to oppose such things. They are supposed to be aware of the limits of the state and it's ability to change society. Iraq has its own history and its own course to follow. Big government policies from Washington will not succeed in Iraq for the same reasons that big government does not work at home.

The Left hate religion for a very simple reason. God transcends the state. The Left wants ultimate power and ultimate authority.

Listen to Kerry. In one of the debates, he talked about rights being granted by the government. Has he ever read the US Constitution? Our inalienable rights are conferred by the Creator, which is why government cannot take them away. The Left despises this notion as well as the notion that they themselves are subjected to a higher authority.

I disagree with your assessment that supporters of the Iraq war are progressive cut from the same cloth as socialists. Bush states that people crave to live in freedom. Who would disagree?

Regarding whether Iraq is fit for democracy, what other form of goverment would you have? What other form of government best supports the cause of freedom and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? As an American, who supports the US Constitution, I see no other choice for Bush to make.

I grew up in the southwestern United States in the 60's. Do not presume to know more about this than I do. I remember Martin Luther King.

Martin Luther King was not a hero to blacks because he was a communist but because he was a minister and there is a strong conservative religious strain in the black community. They responded to it. You can call him a fraud, but his effect on people was profound and since he was shot to death and is not around to defend himself I don't really think it is appropriate to trash him now.

After the Civil war there were no black Democrats however thanks to demagoguery the Democrats with the help of people like Sharpton and Jackson have managed to control the black vote as a block. Only time will tell but if even 18% vote for Bush that could signal a change. I know the Dems are concerned about it.

Religions are not accountable or under the thumb of the state. So, like the family unit, they are hated by those who put their faith in the almighty state."

"He talks about universal values and the need to use force to allow such values to triumph - just like Leon Trotsky!"

"Big government policies from Washington will not succeed in Iraq for the same reasons that big government does not work at home. "

Well, at least to the extent that you are able to write what you write, without a visit in the middle of the night.

"What I really can't understand is why Leftist will say that fundamentalists are stark raving mad but don't even blink an eye concerning Terry McAuliff or Kerry?"

Dylan, it is my belief that moral relativism, in its elevation of ego to the godhead, can justify any conceivable conduct that has as its ends the advancement of the believers aims. They don't blink an eye because they share the aims of McAuliffe and Kerry and there is no tactic too reprehensible to use as long as it advances those aims. What are the aims? Political power. That's it and that's all of it. I could tolerate that if there were ethical limits beyond which they would not go in order to preserve their power, once achieved, but for the moral relativist there are, definitonally, no ethical limits to their conduct. They will act as if they believe anything and do anything in the pursuit of power. The past year provides ample evidence of that statement.

Rick, that is precisely what makes these people so dangerous. We all know what certain family folks 60 yrs ago in middle Europe did in their day jobs, before coming home to the darndest little Norman Rockwell lives you could ever imagine!

I'm not a big churchgoer either, but I also know many people who are. I don't know any who unquestioningly believe that they know God's will. They try to act morally, and more to the point they think about what that means.

Religious belief gives many people the courage to face that which must be faced and to do that which must be done - I have seen it give great comfort to many in my family as well.

"What scares the relativist is that the fundamentalist took responsibility for what he had denounced"

This mirrors a thought that I have had and read here many times on many different issues. Declaring against the war in Iraq. The unwillingness to use the term "genocide" in Rwanda the Sudan. The failure by the world to call Palestinian terrorists "terrorists". The implicit idea that all forms of government are equally legitimate.

The public education system is profoundly racist - I'll go along with "unintentionally" only in the sense that these folks really think they are helping.

A close friend teaches in the public schools in the city of St. Louis. The misguided policies impact the education of her mostly minority students every day. Weak policies surrounding discipline and the administration's unwillingness to do what little is allowed. Ridiculously leniant grading and "passing" criteria. The overriding idea that it is up to the teacher to "make" students learn.

The common thread is always low expectations, of both students and parents - Bush's "soft bigotry" statement nailed it perfectly. Low expectations surrounding behavior; respect for teachers, classmates, and property; academic rigor. Ironically, demanding that high standards be met is considered racist because the culture doesn't change magically. That change would require that some minority students be disciplined, suspended, expelled, and flunked, because they have been brought along to expect that there will be no consequences for their failure to meet whatever standards there are, no matter how low.

If the UN and all its myriad of NGO's is not social engineering for profit what is it?

We could ignore Saddam or take him out. If we ignored him he could/would hurt us. If we took him out we could either help establish a government that the Iraqi people could live with or leave them in chaos in a part of the world of great strategic importance not to mention instability.

It is not social engineering to allow people the oppurtunity to live in a country whose government does not gas its own people.

As of 9/11/01 it became very obvious that many of the citizens of the Islamic world were not content to keep their social and political dysfunction to themselves, it then became our business.

You are right about the Left and moral relativism. However, once you have made a leap that far, situational ethics become the farmework. Now there are no constraints. History fully depicts what human nature is capable of doing.*

This is why the Left is so dangerous and will undermine the Constituion if given the chance. How else do you explain judical legislation? Look at the desire of the Left to remove the moral, Judeao-Christian foundations of our legal system.

You watch, if this election is close, diverges from the popular vote or is decided in the courts, the electoral college will come under a full assault by the Left.

* Here is an interesting question. Has the nature of man changed or stayed the same over the course of recorded human history? Or has only the technology changed?

Barrett - "The Left hate religion for a very simple reason. God transcends the state. The Left wants ultimate power and ultimate authority"

Exactly. They oppose any institution that gets between the state and the individual. Especially one people are more loyal to than the state.

Barrett - "Listen to Kerry. In one of the debates, he talked about rights being granted by the government. Has he ever read the US Constitution? Our inalienable rights are conferred by the Creator, which is why government cannot take them away."

I heard Kerry saying that and I shook my head in despair. Surely even atheists can understand why having rights conferred by a Creator rather than a state is better for everyone.

Barrett - "Bush states that people crave to live in freedom. Who would disagree?"

I disagree. People in Iraq probably care more about the security and power of their extended family than about freedom. It's not that much different in the West including my native Northern Ireland. The freedom ideologues don't seem to understand the power of ethnic tribalism and nationalism.

Barrett - "Regarding whether Iraq is fit for democracy, what other form of goverment would you have?"

I don't care what kind of government they have as long as it doesn't have an impact on the West. It didn't under Saddam. Besides, Christians and secular women seem to be more vulnerable now than when Saddam was in control.

Coisty, if the jihad didn't exist (read 911), you'd be on firmer ground viz Iraq war. On MLK, I don't agree with the holiday, on federalist grounds. But MLK's personal life is not what his role in history is concerned with. He focused a despairing people, and gave them positivism and optimism. And, I was there, too. As Terrye says, the front wave of southern white Boomers remembers.

MLK helped black folks of course, but insofar as southern white society ALSO is enormously healthier and happier without Jim Crow, there's little reason not to give him a pass on the political-theory thing. Hell, Jim Crow couldn't help BUT radicalize black America. Thank MLK for busting it out in the open before it got any stronger underground.

Terrye - "Martin Luther King was not a hero to blacks because he was a communist but because he was a minister and there is a strong conservative religious strain in the black community"

Terrye - "You can call him a fraud, but his effect on people was profound and since he was shot to death and is not around to defend himself I don't really think it is appropriate to trash him now."

He passed off somebody else's hard work as his own therefore he was a fraud. That doesn't mean he didn't have a real effect on people as you say.

Obviously Bush isn't as extreme as Trotsky and life is better in his America than it could ever have been in the USSR had Trotsky taken over. But
Bush seems to agree with Trotsky in that the power of the state should be utilized to bring about revolutionary change around the world.

"The only time we need "good" or "great" Presidents are in times of trouble. Sure, you get a man like TR every once in a while who makes his era. However, the nation would have been just fine with another man in office in 1900. It is only in times of crisis that some level of greatness becomes necessary."

TR established the concept of federal stewardship of public lands that we know today. Before Roosevelt, federal land policy was pure exploitation. I routinely hammer contemporary environmentalists...but I would have been in Green Peace had I lived in 1900. We had created a Chelmno of devastated forests and poisoned lands across every industrialized corridor of the northeast, extending into the midwest steel belt. Roosevelt embraced the land in his persona as government itself, and the concept stuck. How well we have performed over the years is a matter of debate, but it started with him.

Big issues presidency? How about preventing the reemergence of aggressive European imperialism in the American Hemisphere, twice, without a shot being fired? Or the taming of the trusts? Putting teeth in the USDA? TR also influenced a potentially disastrous coal strike settlement in such a way that the resolution became acknowledged as an agreement between parties, and not a defeat for either side - an unheard of achievement in big labor/industry relations. TR's experiences in Cuba drove him improve the military (granted he fell in love with the Navy over the Army) to the point that when the United States weighed in on a subject, our opinion mattered. He could as well have gotten his Nobel for preventing the early kickoff of WW1 between Germany and Russia had his involvement been public at the time.

There are good presidents and bad presidents - but there are times that are more forgiving for bad choices. Now is not one of them. Bush isn't perfect, but he's far from being a bad choice at any time. He's the right man for this time.

I don't want to get into the religious aspect of G.W. Bush. I'll just let it go with this: Bush believes his office is a duty, not a prerequisite of privelige, and that's all the Left needs to know to hate the air he breathes.

Bush seems to agree with Trotsky in that the power of the state should be utilized to bring about revolutionary change around the world.

I would argue that W has determined that the security interests of the United States are best served by the establishment of bases from which armored strike forces can be dispatched with the expectation that they will be able to fight their way through to Teheran, Damascus, Riyadh, Amman or Cairo in a matter of weeks (consecutively rather than concurrently). I would also argue that the security of those bases is to some extent dependent upon the good will of the people of the nation in which the bases are located and that said good will is more likely to be obtained through assisting them in becoming a democracy than by any other means.

Freedom for the Iraqis is a wonderful thing in and of itself but keeping the despots that rule the ME uneasy in their sleep is even better.

I understand the need for security and concern for one's family. It is a prerequisite to the exercise of freedom. The power of one's extended family is more important the more limited freedom is because it may be on the only means of obtaining "something".

Ethnic tribalism and nationalism reflect the heterogeneous tendencies of most social groups. The fact that this is so doesn't change the desire of people to live in freedom. Being oppressed by a dictator of one's own tribe, can be just as horrific as being oppressed by another nation (e.g. the Japanese in WWII).

Coisty, "I don't care what kind of government they have as long as it doesn't have an impact on the West. It didn't under Saddam. Besides, Christians and secular women seem to be more vulnerable now than when Saddam was in control."

I don't know how you can say Iraq did not have an impact on the West under Saddam. It is just not so in so many ways. Events in Iraq will continue to influence the West regardless of who wins on Tuesday. This is inevitable. The issue for us, what will the Iraqi influence on the West look like.

The issues being faced by Christians and secular women in Iraq reflect security and religious tolerance matters. Iraq has had a small Christian population for many centuries. Isalmic radicals attack them because they are vulnerable and are symbolic of the Judeao-Christian heritage of the West (which is whom they are trying to destroy). A democray will give the Christians and secular women the best chance to prosper

I also think that the women in Iraq are, in general, happy that Saddam and his raping and pilliaging sons are no longer a threat.

You think that Bush is trying to use the power of the state to transform Iraqi society for ideological reasons, just like Trotsky.

I agree that a belief in the universal desire for human freedome is part of what is motivating Bush. But I also think that we have a selfish reason to do it.

You will no doubt agree that if we were to kill or capture every single member of Al Quaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and every other terror group tomorrow, this would not solve the problem of terrorism. Others would take the place of those we eliminate.

The societies of the Middle East are a threat to us becuase they produce terrorists. The nations there are crucibles of hatred who churn out a large number of fanatical, angry young men year after year after year. Some of those nations also have access to vast wealth, which heightens the amount of damage that the angry fanatics can do, as they have access to sophisticated weapons and technology.

Eventually, one or more Middle Easter terrorist groups will finally get ahold of weapons of mass destruction. When they do, they will use them on us. There are plenty of hateful young men, and plenty of nukes, and sooner or later the former will acquire the latter. It is a two part equation: hate-filled fanatics on the one hand, and weapons of awesome power on the other.

Our only hope of preventing this diaster is reduce one or both sides of the equation. We can't get rid of all of the weapons. They are not that hard to make, and the people of the region have plenty of money. And once they acquire them, we can't really prevent their use here. We can never install enough metal detectors and infrared scanners. Once they get a nuke, they'll find a way to bring it here and use it.

Therefore, since we can't rid the world of those weapons, we have to eliminate the hatred. Admittedly, this is no small task -- but at least we have a chance. We can't eliminate the hatred altogether, of course -- there will always be lunatics in the Middle East and everywhere else for that matter -- but we can reduce it substantially. For instance, maybe there are anti-Semites in Germany today -- but they're not in control of the government, and they're not acting on their hatred. We forcibly remade their society and now they are less of a threat.

So yes, we are trying to democratize the Middle East -- for selfish reasons. We're trying to do it to ensure our own survival.

You probably think this is a naive goal, and that the bonds of tribe, religion, etc. are too strong. Not everyone wants democracy, people have to come to it in their own way on their own terms, etc. Well, then I ask you -- what is your alternative? Should we just resign ourselves to losing a few cities?

I do share a lot of your cynicism, frankly. When the war started, I was absolutey certain that we'd be able to democratize Iraq. I thought we were changing the GOVERNMENT, not changing the SOCIETY. I'd see those martyrdom videos on Al Jazeera and think that people watched them becuase they were frustrated by living under dictatorships, that they'd been rasied on a steady diet of totalitarian propaganda and turned to Al Jazeera becuase it was familiar, etc.

Sure, the Iraqis probably believed that we were coming to take their oil, rape their women, and convert them to Christianity. But once we arrived, they'd see that our intentions were honroable, and -- poof! -- they'd embrace our way of life. Sure, the terrorists from Iran would make trouble. Sure, the Chemical Alis of the world would realize that their future consisted of a hanging and would not go down without a fight. And sure, a few people would find the transition from totalitarian society to freedom too mentally unsettling and would long for the days when someone told them exactly what to do and how to think. But the average person would be thrilled with their new life and would embrace the progresive future.

That's what I thought until they killed our contractors in Fallujah, anyway. That was like a bucket of cold water in the face. The kind of savagery we saw that day doesn't happen in a vacuum. The whole society has to be really sick to allow that sort of thing to go on. You wouldn't see American kids dancing around corpses hanging from a bridge and poking them with sticks. There were probably 50-60 boys there and not a single one of them was worried about getting in trouble with mom and dad. And the men didn't tell them to go home, either. It never even occurred to them.

It was then that I realzied just how primitive the people of the Middle East are. Murder, torture -- these are FACTS OF LIFE over there. It's what they do! You rise to the top by killing and terrorizing those below. And those below let the thugs dominate them. The Iraqi people could have rid themselves of Sadaam, but they didn't have the cojones. Terror and murder are part of everyday life -- and they are accepted by the average person.

It was then that I realized that Al Jazeera broadcasts those videos because their audience enjoys them. Those sick bastards love seeing Paul Johnson and those poor other people beg for their lives. They get a visceral thrill from the beheadings.

Our handling of Al Sadr also reflects this fact. The man is a hate-filled thug. He wants a 7th century theocracy. He has called himself the "striking arm" of Hamas in Iraq, and he has issued fatwas calling for the ENSLAVEMENT of female American and British soldiers. He's killed scores of our soldiers. But he's still breathing. Why? Because he is popular. There is a constituency for the hate that he is preaching. Americans would never follow such a "leader" -- but some Iraqis flock to him.

Frankly, I would like very much to wash our hands of the whole situation. Fuck the Iraqis, and the rest of the Middle East for that matter. Let them murder one another -- why should we help?

But three things stop me. First, we can't ignore them. They are coming here. They will get WMD's. They will use them. We cannot stick our heads in the sand here. Second, there are moderate Iraqis. Maybe they are primitive, but a lot of people over there really are trying to build a better life. The ethnic groups haven't started slaughtering one another, though they certainly hate one another. That is becuase ordinary people don't want to see a bloodbath. There are Iraqis joining the police and risking their lives to build a better life. I am sure that a lot of people really appreciate the freedoms we have brought.

Finally, there really is no reason why Muslims cannot live in a secular society. I know several American Muslims. Obviously, they are free to practice their religion here. They get along perfectly fine in our secular society. If it can happen here, it can happen there.

Agian, I understand that this is not easy. I also understand that it may fail. We may not be able to democratize the Middle East. But what other choice do we have? They are coming to get us.

Multicultuarlism, anyone? They did follow their own course - and ended up in contravention of a bucketful of U.N. resolutions that that august body declined to attempt to enforce. So we did, because it was in our interest to do so.

"Just as socialists always claim their theories can overcome history and human nature Bush claims Iraq is fit for democracy."

Socialism has failed throughout history because it attempts to impose a fraudulent behavioural template on populations. People are best motivated by acting in their own interest, every time. Socialism rejects the ambitions and potential of the individual in favor of a 'safe' or 'just' or 'predictable' authoritarian state.

Democracy, on the other hand, demands that individuals take responsibility for their own governance by giving them the ultimate power within the system. Government becomes an appendage, not the master, of the society. Even in our over-beauracratic state and federal systems, the ultimate direction of policy is restrained by the confluence of institutions such as elections, constitutional restraint, and judicial oversight. We can screw up our choices, but we also can fix them, independent of any individual or party that happens to be in power at the time, via those institutions.

BTW, when 'social engineering' appears in an opinion, I think it's always important to define context. What the meals on wheels social engineering meant was that we would arrive in some craphole and pass out MRE's to the hungry and slap down whoever the politically incorrect faction or dictator happened to be, then move on when CNN got bored with the story. That's how we ended up in Somalia. Kosovo was a problem for the EU that they didn't want to confront, (leaving out our own domestic politics here), NATO member nations were incapable of addressing militarily, so we ended up bombing for months.

The social engineering we are involved with in Afghanistan and Iraq are essential to our security AND national interest. Without the nations of the Muslim arc become civilized to the point where their populations cease excreteing fundie Islamist jihadis as a byproduct of tribalism, despotism, ignorance, poverty, and paranoia, we have no other option but to target the populations in order to end the threat.

We faced that situation in WW2, and the resources at our command dictated that we fight wars of annihalation. So we did. In 2004, we can afford to do the liberal thing and fight our war with a premium placed on sparing the lives of people whose only crime is to be born in a swamp. We fight a movement that manifests its worst behaviours at the level of the individual. We must find and kill the soldiers...but without we change the culture they sprang from we are just wasting time.

The Bush Doctrine is progressive almost to a fault...and the president's faith in the power of individual freedom to alter societies for the better is humbling. I believe in that power...but doubt I would bet a presidency on the commitment of this country, with its current political divisions, to make it stick.

What a thread. I feel like I'm sitting in the dugout of the Red's dugout during game seven of the '75 world series...

Why are your commenters better than all the talking heads on television? I am befuddled by why they receive so much attention. I say that as I listen to Ms. Kearns Goodwin talk about American politics with Mr. Russert.

I guess it's too late for me but the rest of you can get out of here before it's too late.

"But
Bush seems to agree with Trotsky in that the power of the state should be utilized to bring about revolutionary change around the world."

So, are you using it in the context of Michael Moore and his sympathy for the terrorists shits in Iraq? Or, are you using it in the, shall we say, leftist understanding of the term? I do admit it has been used and or abused by many. I also submit that democracy is the ultimate revolution. Power to the 'people' so to speak.

And, what other power are you going to come to the party with, anarchy? As well as, do you see no difference between the ideals of the United States and the ideals of despotic regimes such as the former USSR and or present day Iran, Syria, North Korea? Is it just the idea of the primacy of the state over the individual that you are talking about? Just what is it that you would do different if another state/entity were doing/threatening harm to you or yours? What is this 'state' of perfection that you appear to be alluding to?

Sorry for so many questions, but I am a plain old 'draw a line in the sand' kind of guy. Not much on nuance.

That Bush is radical is shown by the invasion of Iraq. It was a radical and risky step - radical because it was a pre-emptive war against a power that was not related to 9-11.

Bush understood what others here have said - that perhaps the best hope for eliminating Islamic terrorism is reforming some Islamic societies. It takes vision and courage to act on that. Vision to create and understand this strategy, and courage because of the risks inherent in any war, and the long term political risks.

That the left dislikes this action shows their lack of vision. Liberals used to be in favor of liberating people from oppression, but now that is a fraud. When the real opportunity appeared and Bush took it, the left did nothing but condemn him. There is no way to interpret their position other than preferring to leave Iraqis in the bloody hands of Saddam and his spawn.

This is also radical to conservatives. Liberating countries is not a core conservative value. We liberated the people of the USSR because that country was a clear danger to us.

In Iraq, we can see both idealism and pragmatism. The reasons for the war were many - it wasn't fought just to liberate Iraqis. But the idea of spreading democracy through the middle east is idealistic. We don't know if it will work. But one thing we know: Iraq isn't a WMD threat any more. And if it ends up with a somewhat authoritarian government, that will still achieve our goals.

Coisty questions the Iraqi desire for freedom. It is there. You can have tribes and still want freedom (we have lots of tribes here in Arizona). People tend to want safety first, then freedom (Mazlo hierarchy). But the will forego safety to achieve freedoom under some circumstances. I think that the average Iraqi would tell you they want two things: an improvement in the security situation, and freedom.

Martin Luther King was a force for good, in spite of himself. His delivery of "I have a dream" was an important event, the message beautiful. It's unfortunate that his successors in the civil rights movement turned it on it's head. It was a message of equality, not racial quotas and a racial spoils system.

MLK was a communist, an adulterer, and generally not the greatest guy. But his effect was powerful and important.

I did oppose the MLK holiday, not wanting to be so quick to displace an important holiday of one of our founders. Arizona felt the same way. We were coerced into the holiday by the NFL, which would not allow a superbowl here unless we had the holiday. I found that outrageous.

Liberals and religion clearly no longet get along. Christianity holds man as imperfectible and flawed. Behind most liberal philosophy is the idea that with the right environment, people will grow up to be perfect. In other words, they do not believe in innate traits. Innate traits means they cannot, through environment, create the ideal person. The most extreme case of this philosophy was Pol Pot, who had all with any knowledge killed, trying to removve all "corrupting" influences so that he could create perfect agrarian communists.

A new and bizarre trend is the attempt to remove all references to religion from government. An example is the removal of the cross from the LA seal. The cross symbolized the influence of religious missions in the history of LA - even the name of the city is religious. Why people are so sensitive that they have to take that historic cross and throw it down the memory hole escapes me. But even though our society has done pretty well for over two centuries, all of a sudden these symbols are a danger and have to be removed. This is a sign of radicalization of the liberal movement (some libertarians are just as silly, btw). There are similar assaults on history taking place all over the country.

Others have covered many of the Religion issues - the inflexible standards and the scariness of powerful people having "irrational" beliefs.

The UN charter includes the doctrine that no country should attack another without a security council resolution (which we had for Iraq), except in cases of *immediate* self-defense. This was, in its day, an extremely radical departure from the kind of strategic intervention that successful powers had been using for thousands of years. For example, when Selucid Syria conquered Ptolemaic Egypt, the Roman Republic forced them to disgorge (and thus preemptively saved themselves from being swallowed by a rebuilt Alexandrian Empire). France intervened in the Thirty Years War to prevent Germany from uniting (and when you consider what happened to France within a single man's lifetime after Germany finally did unite...I really can't say I blame them).

The UN Charter idea has not stood the test of time. It didn't stop what Red China did to Tibet, or what the Soviets did to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or many other horrific conquests and oppressions throughout the last 60 years. Leftists are therefore in a peculiar reactionary/radical position: they are clinging blindly to an idea from the past, but it's from such a recent past (and is such a failure even in that time) that it enjoys none of the advantages of the traditions conservatives admire. Bush's policy, I believe, is a return to the older, better, time-tested way.

I think the most interesting aspect of the whole Bush is raicial idea is that he is accused of being radical for enforcing UN resolutions and for living up to the philosophy of our Declaration of Independence.To say that Iraq was not influencing the West when we were spending billions every year just to patrol the no fly zones and Saddam was perpetrating [along with the UN] the largest financial scam in history is to deny realiity. That son of a bitch was a problem whether the West liked it or not.

I read once that Irazqis used to fight city to city and tribe to tribe and in the early part of the 20th century the Brits would call in the artillery to stop Iraqis from killing Iraqis. Now maybe Coisty thinks this is a future that most Iraqis aspire to, but would he?

So tell me Coisty would you want to live in a country such as that just because your daddy did? Would you want that for your children? Are you better than they are?

Hmmmm ... the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby on Kerry's character flaws:
"Dear Senator Kerry," it began. "I urge you to support President Bush's request that Congress approve the `use of all necessary means' to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. To deny the president's request would encourage further aggression."

On Jan. 22, Kerry replied.

"Dear Mr. Carter," he wrote. "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Bush administration's additional deployment of US military forces . . . and to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On Jan. 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president immediate authority to go to war."

Nine days later, he replied again.

"Dear Mr. Carter," Kerry's second letter said. "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush. . . . From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and . . . our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

As his glaringly inconsistent responses to Carter -- both form letters, of course -- make clear, Kerry's habit of coming down firmly on two side of controversial issues didn't begin with his presidential campaign. It has been a hallmark of his political career.

And then, here's another Boston Globe story that starts:
On Tuesday, either George W. Bush or John Kerry will go down to defeat. But in the long run, some observers are already suggesting, to the losing party may go the spoils.

I don't recall seeing these "the South shall rise again" stories in '92, '96, or 2000.

I'm thoroughly tired of that Yeats poem at this point, but it sure looks like "the center cannot hold" in the Democrats' lines.

Speaking of reactionaries. How pervasive is the anti-Semitism within the John Kerry campaign? Read the following:

October 31, 2004 -- THIS campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students.

"Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'" Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress."

Catherine — The reason you don't see "progressives" (they are NOT liberal, in any grammatical or political sense of the term, anymore) embracing a "sense of the possible" is that once you say something is possible, the next question becomes "then why don't you?" with its attendant obligations of action and assumption of responsibility, something "progressives" are loathe to accept. They are all about telling other people to act and accept responsibility.

October 30, 2004: The New Reactionaries - Part 304

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post