Imust say my first impression before reading was that I thought it was an article about wieght loss.
But upon reading it I find it an interesting essay on America's political thought, as for describing Bush as moderate that surprised me, but then again he hasn't done all that much that would make him a fascist, all of the efforts to take away American freedoms seem to be half hearted at best and meant only to help for as long as it can and disaapear quickly afterwards.
As for appeasement it is my feeling that what some people may or may not call appeasment is simply diplomacy. Diplomacy is nessasary because even for a super power fighting multiple wars regardless of the technological level is fool hardy. You only intervene with allied support and popular opinion on your side.
You only appease when your power is insufficient to accomplish short moderate goals by force. It was neither politcally possible or militarily possiblefor England and France to invade German in 1936 andin 1938 popular opinion would have slung in favor of Germany, we we are both fortunate that Germany invaded Poland providing a casus beli for war, but unfortunate on the results the war has wrought.
But alas history is always in a state of flux, and the 2 Parties ability to maintain any such extemism will only last as long as momentum can carry it, aftwards gravity brings everything crashing down, possibly with the creation of multiple other parties, forcing the need for coalitions.
Everything has a halflife, eventually it fades to insignifience.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:You only appease when your power is insufficient to accomplish short moderate goals by force. It was neither politcally possible or militarily possiblefor England and France to invade German in 1936
Actually, as Germany had only started rearming in 1935, France would have been able to use their then superior military might to force Germany to abide by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was in violation of the treaty and it would have been legal for France to rearm them.
Generally, you only appease when you lack the political will to be firm.
quote:You only intervene with allied support and popular opinion on your side.
Some people might say that it's better to intervene when it is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you have allied support and popular opinion on your side.
Heh, how do you like that "some people" line? Any time you read in a newspaper that "some people say that..." remember that "some people" is a code word for "I". But it looks so neutral when I avoid mentioning that it's my opinion.
quote:As for appeasement it is my feeling that what some people may or may not call appeasment is simply diplomacy.
"Diplomacy is war by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz.
[ November 07, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: tern ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Phew! I didn't know what this topic was about, and thought I was out of a job.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
omg, papa there is no way we'ld ever wish to loser your valued servcives.
More at 11:00.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Card is correct about Bush being a moderate (on many things), but his support of moderation is ill-conceived.
quote:And what I called for in domestic politics was not to abolish ideology, but to keep it within rational bounds, nominating moderates where moderates can be found, because the party that consistently does that, and is seen to do that, will become the majority party of this nation for a generation.
In both cases, what I'm calling for is moderation: rationally ideological foreign policy; rationally ideological domestic politics.
It is impossible to have a moderate ideology. Those politicians that are labeled "moderate" -- John McCain, for instance -- are not courageously committed to moderate ideals, because there ARE no moderate ideals. Moderates are necessarily the kind of people OSC describes Harriet Miers as -- men-pleasers.
Many issues are inherently polar. I'll use abortion as an example, since it's such a point of contention anymore. Abortion is either murder (which anyone but an anarchist agrees the government ought to prohibit) OR it is a private medical procedure in which the state has no business whatsoever. There's no middle ground. So-called moderate positions on abortion (third-trimester restrictions, rape exceptions, etc.) are not based in any sort of 'rational ideology' -- they are artificially manufactured to please the greatest fraction of the public. The public is uncomfortable with abortion on demand up til the moment of birth, but they're also uncomfortable with denying it altogether -- in both cases, for reasons so vague and nebulous that the typical voter would be hard-pressed to articulate any rationale at all. This position is popular but utterly irrational, and "moderate" politicians will pander to it shamelessly.
There is no courage or "core" in a moderate.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
I wish I had been the one to start this thread - ah well.
Mr Card. I want to say this to you - I loved what you wrote. I don't always agree with you - and what fun would it be if I did? What would be the point of reading your thoughts and work if I already knew what you were going to say? Where would be the challenge?
Neveretheless, on this one I admit that you are 100% correct. Bush <b>is</b> a moderate. No one seems to recognize that. Well, at least here in NYC no one seems to.
Your take on campaign finance was not something I had ever considered or thought about - yet when I read it, I immediately thought "he's right!" Here in New York we have a Mayors' race where the Bloomberg has spent upwards of 70 million, while his opponent, Ferrer, barely spent a third as much. Mainly because the campaign finance laws make it impossible for anyone to raise any amount of cash. Meaning that only the rich kids can play.
-ron
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Papa Janitor makes me laugh.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Irregardless:"It is impossible to have a moderate ideology. Those politicians that are labeled "moderate" -- John McCain, for instance -- are not courageously committed to moderate ideals, because there ARE no moderate ideals."
I VERY violently disagree with this. It is not only possible to have a moderate ideology, it is quite easy. I think an awful lot of people succeed in doing it without any trouble at all.
Your example of abortion is just as wrong. There are a number of moderate positions on the subject, and they are not the result of mere compromise. Many of them are quite principled, and often we moderates feel just as strongly about them as do those that hold the more radical positions on both left and right.
Irregardless:"There is no courage or "core" in a moderate."
If anyone says that to this moderate's face, he is likely to get a boot to the head.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by UofUlawguy: It is not only possible to have a moderate ideology, it is quite easy.
OK, articulate one.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
UofUlawguy what makes a position "moderate" as opposed to simply being "correct"?
Just asking.
-ron
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
ballantrae:"what makes a position "moderate" as opposed to simply being "correct"?"
In my opinion, a moderate position is one that recognizes that it is very, very unlikely that any side is wrong about everything. It's one that mistrusts any argument or position that most people disagree with. It's one that places no inherent value on stubbornness, or "winning", or "making a point". It's one that refrains from viewing any other position as the enemy. It's one that feels entirely comfortable adopting portions of another group's position without any obligation to accept the entire position or to reject an entire opposing position. It's one that assumes that most people are not on the radical fringe of either right or left, and for very good reasons. It's one that has actually considered the arguments of various opposing sides and thought about them, without dismissing any of them out of hand, although once they have been considered a firm decision will be made.
However, even the most politically moderate person will not take a moderate position on every issue. Even taking all of the above into consideration, a moderate still might find himself taking a stand much further to either left or right on a particular issue, but he will not allow the remainder of his views to drift in that direction (right or left) as a result. In fact, a moderate might be much MORE principled than a staunch righty or lefty, because he is unwilling to go with the flow just because he agrees with one side or another on one or two specific points.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Irregardless:"OK, articulate one." (a moderate ideology).
The first thing that comes to mind is your abortion example. This isn't the best example, however, because it's one that many people who are otherwise quite moderate might be drawn to take a more radical position on. However, there are still a number of principled moderate positions that can be, and are, taken.
(One additional point, however, is that I don't think there is any single moderate position on any issue. A number of related but distinct positions can all qualify as moderate in most cases.)
A moderate might, for example, think that there really is an important privacy right inherent in the Constitution. She might also think that the unborn are due some right and/or protections that provide a counterbalance to another individual's right to privacy. A moderate might not think that the unborn's rights are the same as other people's rights, and so might not be willing to grant the unborn full, legal "personhood". Finally, a moderate might allow that an individual's right to privacy might be voluntarily abridged by that individual's choices, when those choices affect the legal rights of others, even the unborn.
This hypothetical moderate might then formulate a position that says that, since the unborn have rights and/or should be protected, abortion should not be completely unrestricted. However, since the rights of the unborn are not the same as those of those of other people, abortion should not be completely restricted, either. If there is a medical problem that threatens the life of the expectant mother, abortion should then be allowed. If there is a medical problem that would deprive the expectant mother of the ability to properly care for other, living children, e.g., then abortion should be allowed. If the expectant mother had no choice as to whether to perform the sexual act that caused the pregnancy, but has been subjected to the severe physical, emotional, financial and temporal rigors of pregnancy and parenthood, then the choice whether to carry the pregnancy to full term should be extended at least part of the way into the pregnancy, although the moderate might be more uncomfortable with this the closer the due date comes, because the rights of the unborn become more compelling.
In addition, the moderate might take the position that, if the expectant mother freely chose to participate in the sexual act that caused the pregnancy, she should not be given a second chance to choose to avoid pregnancy once it has already happened; that is, although her rights generally trump those of the unborn, they should not trump them twice. However, since there are many who vociferously oppose this position, the moderate would be willing to listen to such arguments and hold open the possibility of adjusting her position accordingly.
Finally, the moderate might take the position that minimizing the incidence of abortion is a very desirable policy, and that it would be wise to promote programs that minimize risky sexual behaviors and, thus, unwanted pregnancies, as well as programs that promote adoption, strong families, education, and good health.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Irregardless: Your name isn't even a real word.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Whhhaaaaa....
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kent, it's a word. It just doesn't mean what people think it means.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
It is a word in the sense that anything people use in spoken language is a word but it is an incorrect or non-standard form which combines irrespective and regardless leaving you with a word that is a double negative all by itself.
You can do something regardless of the facts or with regard to the facts but irregardless of the facts is just a messy way of saying with regard when it is broken down.
Sergeant
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent: Irregardless: Your name isn't even a real word.
Irony is.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
My name isn't a word either.
Seriously, though, the article was pretty good. Some parts, especially the part about Fanatical Money, really made me think. I hadn't really considered that before, but it seems at least worth looking at.
There definitely were some parts I would question. First off, I'm not really sure I would label the current administration as moderate. I have some serious issues with their domestic policy. This is especially true in regards to the breaches in civil liberties, such as the FBI's expanded surveillance ability and long term imprisonment without due process.
I'm also curious what OSC's position is on John McCain.
quote: We as a nation were extraordinarily lucky in 2000. Because of his name recognition and genuine likeability, his just-folks charisma and that core-and-courage thing, George W. Bush won the Republican nomination despite being despised by the ideologues.
I don't know about you guys, but most people I have talked to would certainly view McCain as being more moderate than Bush. Even if you consider Bush to be a moderate, I hardly see why this would make Bush's nomination such a fortunate event.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Let me help UofUlawguy with another example. (One his brothers do not understand at all ) A person may understand that there is no private right of gun ownership inherent in the Constitution. But, also understand that most of the proposed limitations on private gun ownership are ill concieved and inappropriate in most locations.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Contrariwise, a moderate could also believe that there IS a private right of gun ownership in the Constitution, but that quite a lot of regulation of that right is both permitted and appropriate.
Posted by Javelin (Member # 8643) on :
I am SUCH a flaming moderate sometimes...
Posted by KidB (Member # 8821) on :
ballantrae,
A fellow New Yorker! What part of the 'hood are you in? We might be neighbors...
I can see Bush being a moderate Republican on social issues, but that does not mean he is in the political center. I'm not going to say more than that since I want to remain calm.
RE: Card on statesmanship. I'll never understand the Hussein/Hitler connection. Other people have made it. Germany just before the war was a technologically advanced, oppressive regime in the middle of a less technological and less militaristic Europe (Italy excepted). Iraq before the war was an utterly depleted oppressive regime surrounded by less-depleted, even more repressive regimes. He was never less of a threat to America than at the moment we invaded.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
omg, papa there is no way we'ld ever wish to loser your valued servcives.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)