This is lifted from the SCOTUS thread, which I can't quite get a handle on. Suffice it to say I disagree with the decision, (strongly) but as has been voiced by several people: The liberal vs. Conservative thing doesn't seem to make sense. So just to deal with that issue, here goes:
From Dagonee:
"Oh, and Flying Cow, as you say, it isn't out of line of "stated" ideologies. It is out of line with distortions heaped on those stated ideologies by their opponents."
I have a problem with definitions of "Liberal" vs. "Conservative." Commonly conservatives brand liberals as "big government" and lay claim to "small government" as part of their ideology.
My own feeling is that whichever party is in power tries to expand the government branches that support their agenda, and reduce or eliminate branches that they oppose. This is certainly the case with Bush, it was also with Reagan. I don't think it's anything new. It has nothing to do with enlarging or reducing government as an ideological agenda.
My own view is that conservatives attempt to "conserve" the status quo, whatever that is currently. Conservatives opposed the end of slavery, because they were frightened of going through the changes that would be necessitated by a fundamental change in the way the economy was structured. Likewise, conservatives oppose "soft energy paths" that would undermine the existing petrochemical economy, and require that we all get used to a different way of life. It strikes me as ironic that "conservatives" often run into conflict with "conservationists," both of whom are trying to conserve what we have.
The accepted definition of "liberal" has been imposed by conservatives to mean "using a liberal dose of tax dollars and government intervention in order to acheive their goals." (or something close to that). Historically this comes from FDR's solution to the depression, which was to spend our way back to a strong economy, but I don't think it can be generally applied. Liberals seem to be the ones who want to pay down the debt while the economy is strong.
To me liberalism has nothing to do with spending, and everything to do with a liberal outlook. That is, being open-minded enough to make necessary changes, even if that means that we go through pain in making adustments. Those might be economic adjustments, where CEO's learn to live with fewer than three vacation homes, and the average worker learns to find a new type of job, because the industry they are accustomed to working for no longer makes sense in a modern context. Unions were liberal when they changed the power structure between business leaders and labor, but they are conservative when they cling to an outdated job market.
It also means being open-minded enough to change your mind. Liberals during the 20's and 30's for example were quite racist by today's standards, but by being open to new possibilities, (essentially, by listening to the wants and desires of black people) they changed their own perceptions, and in turn society as a whole has absorbed the perspectives gained by that open mindedness.
Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were known as "waffles," or "flip floppers." They were accused of doing whatever was politically expedient, given current public opinion. Well, that's as it should be, given that they are both liberals. That is to say, they both were willing to listen to public opinion, and change their minds and policies as the result of new information. That's good politics, by definition.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Let me guess—you consider yourself liberal. :D
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Glenn, you have inspired me to quote Chesterton again... (everyone duck):
quote:"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular."
"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative."
"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
So...all conservative are innately the black hats, and liberals innately the white hats?
Nice to have that cleared up.
Posted by Leon the Professional (Member # 8267) on :
I feel as if I'm in a conundrum here. I grew up with a father who's family was strongly conservative, but my dad seems to hate Republicans for some reason. My mother's side of the family, while much more liberal, is all over the spectrum. I have an aunt who is essentially a commie, my mother, who I grew up believing to be more of a Democrat, actually seems to have changed recently. Basically, I don't like talking about politics too much because I grew up with misinformed understandings of liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic, left and right, etc.
So, where did that put me? Right in the middle. I used to never like taking sides, save for certain issues; but even there, I was conflicted.
Por ejemplo, I am strictly against abortion, but at the same time, I don't approve of the death penalty much. I don't like the government taking as much money out of my paycheck as it is, but at the same time there are many good reasons for the government to do so. I don't give panhandlers any money, but I feel that something needs to be done to get them off of the streets.
Nowadays, after basically starting from scratch and reading a lot of material to understand the world today, I find myself being mainly a conservative guy. I still don't agree with everything that some conservatives say and do, but hey, that just means I'm not completely close-minded.
So, with such a poorly informed childhood, it's difficult for me to ever talk about politics. I could go either way on so many topics that I appear to be weak because I won't take a stand for either side. It even transfers to dorm life and my roommates. Out of the 4 people in our room, my roommate is extremely liberal, and I despise his views because he's so damn biased. Another roommate, the one I get along with best, is conservative (but not extreme), and my other roommate is a bleeding heart liberal. To side with my conservative friend betrays the other 2, who, for some reason, simply ASSUMED that I was as liberal as they were (and believe me, I'm nowhere close to those 2). But siding with the liberal guys is a lie and a betrayal to my friend, who I agree with about many things in politics.
Unfortunately, I fear that I'm not the only one who is in such a dilemma. I can't necessarily blame my parents for what happened, but I was misinformed. Basically I just want to make it clear to everyone that if you meet someone who was as uninformed as I once was, do your best to help them out. It makes things easier on that person and it's for the good of everyone to inform those who aren't.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
The biggest problem presented by the liberal and conservative parties in America is not their difference, but rather, their similarities. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Their ideologies are different.
Their behavior is the same.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Let me summarize Mr. Arnold's post:
"when I think of liberals and conservatives, I think liberals are good and conservatives are bad."
Is that about right?
Posted by Leon the Professional (Member # 8267) on :
Are you referring to the idea that, instead of the political spectrum being a line, that it is rather a circle? That the further right or left you go, you begin to loop in a circle? And even to a further extent, that the spectrum is not only a single line but rather a Cartesian plane, where: left=liberal right=consrvative down=libertarian up=authoritarian If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I think that's pretty interesting stuff.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And the similarities are legion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, Leon, for making a thoughtful reply to the original post.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Yeah, folks, quit complaining about the fact that Glenn actually belongs to one of the groups he's describing. I mean, sheesh, wouldn't you sound a little biased in the other direction if you wrote a similar kind of post?
I thought his post was a remarkably clear explanation of why he thinks the common perception of the left/right dichotomy is flawed, and why he values the one he belongs to. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm a liberal... I'm all for liberty.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I didn't find it that balanced. It was just too transparently biased to be what he said it was. My first reaction was "agenda."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny thing about that...I didn;t see a lot of what he is being accused of in that post at all.
Maintaining the status quo isn't a "bad" thing, not all the time. Liberal is right, and a lot of mistakes and pains ARE caused by the changes they advocate at times.
Sometimes the benifits outweigh the pain.
Sometimes not.
What I got out of his post was that people label each of those groups based on their own leanings without trying to understand where they are coming from, and that results in skewed perceptions of what their agendas are and what their goals are as well.
It is far easier to demonify your opponant, conservitive or liberal, than to ever admit that he makes some good points...take Ann Coultre for example...or Michael Moore for another. Both are very good at pointing out the flaws in the others arguments, but neither is objective or rational about the other side at all.
Which is why neither of them get any respect for me at all, although I occasionally listen to both of them.
To be honest, I think they are BOTH idiots, and I would be ashamed to be related to either of them for many, many reasons.
Kwea
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Conservatives want school choice, restrictions on abortion, Constitutional law, lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade. It isn't even close to reasonable to define this group as wanting to preserve the status quo.
Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans. It isn't quite as unreasonable to define this group as wanting more freedom, but it's still pretty unreasonable.
I don't have a really good definition for either group, but let's not get caught up in what the words look like. If we do, we'll have to conclude that conservatives are a variant on conservationists, and liberals are a variant on Liberace. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find about equal support in strongholds of both ideologies for speech codes -- generally corresponding to whichever side is in power at the location.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans.
Speaking as a liberal, those are definitely the top four points on my agenda.
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
Republican - base word "Republic" = The Few making descisions for the many.
Democrat - base word "Democracy" = Everyone making descisions together.
America - base word "Vespucci Americo" = Democratic Republic, Everyone voting for the few who make the descisions for the many.
Well now I'm just plain confused! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think what everyone was harping on Glenn about is his blatant misunderstanding of what "conservatives" actually believe and why they believe it. In short, he makes the same error he is complaining about when he says:
quote:The accepted definition of "liberal" has been imposed by conservatives to mean "using a liberal dose of tax dollars and government intervention in order to acheive their goals." (or something close to that).
because he merely spouts the accepted (and convenient, for his arguments) definition of "conservative." And, with no ill will towards Glenn, I will point out that we have a word for complaining about something which you yourself are doing. I say "with no ill-will towards Glenn" because we are all guilty of a little hypocrisy and probably more often than we could comfortably admit.
One of the more frustrating things here on hatrack threads of substance (and why I stayed off of them for a long time) has been the usually poor or non-existent attempt to understand the other person's position. People get so hung up on "winning the argument" that they often willfully misinterpret the other side's point of view. If you are only listening to the other person to see how you can twist their words into nonsense, why are you bothering?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How's this as a more charitable definition of conservatism?
Conservatism as it exists in the modern West seems to be chiefly concerned with desert. Thus they support free markets (in principle, at least) out of a belief that people deserve to keep what they earn. They support aggressive social policies because they believe rights and responsibilities go hand in hand: we deserve the right to lifestyle choice only insofar as we choose responsibly. (Here the basic notion of desert is combined with a particular, often religious, view of which lifestyles are appropriate.) They are tough on crime because they believe criminals deserve retribution. Etc.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That's not a half bad description, destineer... as with any broad brush, it has its flaws and I would definitely say that not all conservatives support "aggressive social policies" but it would take me awhile to outlay where I disagreed and why.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I heard an interesting theory about values. There are two axes of values. One axis is traditional versus secular , and the other is individual versus survival. Many Middle Eastern countries, for example, believe in traditional and survival values. Some of the Western European nations (particularly the Scandinavian ones) focus on secular and individual values.
The U.S., however, tends to hold both the traditional and the individual values, which can come into conflict more than the other pairings. This is how we can believe that abortion is wrong, but be hesitant to regulate it, for example.
I don't think this whole conflict between traditional and individual (or secular or survival values for that matter) explains political ideals, but it does add another dimension.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
con·ser·va·tive Audio pronunciation of conservative ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv) adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. 4. 1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. 2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Conservatives want school choice, restrictions on abortion, Constitutional law, lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade. It isn't even close to reasonable to define this group as wanting to preserve the status quo.
All of the things related to trade enable those with financial power to remain in power and give them free-er reign to do with their money as they please, which is to say exercise their power. It also enables them to make more money than the poor, which is to say become more powerful than the poor. While it can be argued that a rising tide raises all boats, is it not true that those with wealth definitely got much wealthier during Republican times of power and that their share of the pie increased?
As to values, is anyone here arguing that it is not much more frequent for someone who has 'traditional values', which is to say is a social conservative, to be a Republican?
quote: Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans. It isn't quite as unreasonable to define this group as wanting more freedom, but it's still pretty unreasonable.
I would say it's unclear on regulation (who knows), definitely wrong on speech codes (would say many more conservatives either favor them outright or support polices which would in the long term make it easier for them to be in place, ie community standards), and smoking bans are pretty much a bipartisan issue. I will grant you that liberals often want higher taxes more than conservatives in order to redistribute financial power or provide a check to financial power.
[ June 25, 2005, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I have no idea what this means.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Constitutional law: law based on and consistent with the Constitution. That would include free speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection, and would not include Roe v. Wade, McCain-Feingold, or reverse discrimination. And it would definitely not include SCOTUS's recent decision that governments can force you to sell your property to rich people who want it.
I found the earlier claim that opposition to abortion and school choice are ways to make the rich richer, to be quite interesting. The only explanation I can think of is: if we assume conservatives are about enriching the rich, then it follows that all their positions are about enriching the rich, regardless of what those positions may be.
Conservatives absolutely despise speech codes (by which I mean, rules on campuses to prevent political speech, not the MPAA ratings system). They also don't like public smoking bans, at all. Some liberals oppose these, I'm sure, but there has to be conservative support to make it bipartisan.
The dictionary definitions of conservative, above, are legitimate meanings used outside politics. But if these are the only definitions for "conservative," clearly Republicans are not defined by conservativism...
"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change": that describes Democrats, but not Republicans, on Social Security reform.
"Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit": that describes Dick Gephardt, but not Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate": maybe -- but I doubt we can get Democrats to agree.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I should have been more clear. I was referring to "lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade". Do you dispute that the rich got more richererer than either the poor or the middle class did when fiscal policies using those ideals were used?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: more richererer
*head explodes*
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote: quote:Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans.
Speaking as a liberal, those are definitely the top four points on my agenda.
I didn't say it was the top four points on your agenda. I said it was four things that liberals want. If I'm wrong, and the things liberals do want are all about freedom, then liberalism may really be based on freedom. But since these are things liberals push for, and they are things opposed to freedom, liberalism must be based on something else. It probably isn't a rejection of freedom, since few liberals want ice cream (say) outlawed, but it's something that's neither freedom nor unfreedom.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I should have been more clear. I was referring to "lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade". Do you dispute that the rich got more richererer than either the poor or the middle class did when fiscal policies using those ideals were used?
Interesting question. I don't care if the rich get richer or not. They've already got enough. What I care about is whether the poor get richer, and, to a lesser degree, whether the middle class gets richer.
Lower taxes, deregulation, and _especially_ free trade make everyone richer. There's a proposal now to include Central America plus the Dominican Republic in a free-trade agreement with the US (and, I assume, Canada and Mexico). These are poor countries that could benefit tremendously from trade with us. Opposing it will keep them poor. If it passes, it's possible that some of us rich Americans will also get richer. That won't upset me.
Deregulation makes things cheaper. That means the poor can afford more. This is a good thing!
I can say a little more on the taxation issue. In dollars, a rich man saves more than a poor man even after progressive taxation, because he's got more to tax. But in terms of need, the poor man benefits more from a tax cut, because he needs the money more. $20,000 to a rich man is another car he doesn't need; $2000 to a poor one may mean the difference in bankruptcy or staying afloat. So it's correct to say that the rich man benefits more AND that the poor man benefits more, depending on what we measure. I think what's important is to measure human need. Lower taxes is a luxury to the rich, but it can be a necessity to the poor.
Anyway, the topic was conservatives' motivation, right? (And liberals'.) Conservatives oppose the drug trade and the sex trade, both of which are ways that the rich rake in the cash. They also oppose the abortion industry. So it's obvious that something other than enriching the rich must be conservatives' motivation.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
A lot of blanket statements there. "Deregulation makes things cheaper" ... "Free trade makes everyone richer" ... I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I want as much regulation as it takes for society to take responsibility for the widow and the orphan (that's a symbol, btw). It'd be nice if we churches did it better -- and we should be an example -- but my philosophy is that that is what society is for (secular or religious).
I want taxes to be as high as they need to be for the elderly to be cared for (oh yeah, and the widow and the orphan, too). I'd rather keep my whole paycheck, too. Or at least more of it. But I realize that I'm paying a premium for where I live and how I live.
I actually think people should be able to say what they want, but that the government needs to take care in what it endorses.
I'm delighted when people aren't allowed to endanger my health or aggravate my asthma in a PUBLIC ENCLOSED PLACE. (Although I am also enamored of the enormous plexiglass cubes that enclosed the smokers and their toxins in one Korean airport.) But I do think that separate smoking facilities are generally adequate, and that outside is a different matter.
So what does that make me? Seventy-five percent liberal?
Heck, forget it. I am one! I hate freedom!!! NO ONE should have access to adequate public education! NO ONE should get married! Bwhahahah . . . whoops . . . ummmm . . . wait justasecond
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Anyway, my point being that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on freedom. We all care about it -- we all have different philosophies about what it means. Obviously not everyone in a nation may have perfect freedom and still have a society. I'm tired of both sides trying to co-opt a term to the point that it becomes a meaningless catchphrase or buzzword.
Can we respect that the other side has the world's best interests at heart? No matter what my personal beliefs about, say, the Terri Schiavo case, I was able to believe that the people who were diametrically opposed to my own opinion were trying to do or encourage good.
I suppose I'm an incurable optimist, but I'm with the 14-year-old who was about to be exterminated. Despite it all, I do believe that most people are mostly good. (Or to be a little Phillip Larkin-ish, that they're not trying to be un-good.)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm still not used to this whole "other Glynn around hatrack" thing. I don't know any other Glynns in meatspace. It's kind of odd.
Oh, and you spell your name wrong. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting you mention opposition to the drug trade, when its actually the absurd criminal penalties attached to many drug-related activities which create all the profit on those activities.
Decriminalization is known to cut the legs out from under the drug trade as a major funding source for further crime, as well as cut down greatly on violence related to drugs.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And allowing anyone to cross the border would cut down on illegal immigrents, because it would no longer be illegal....
But it wouldn't mean people would stop crossing the border. If nothing was illegal then there would be no cirme....
How far should we go with this line of thought? Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Nice logical fallacy there, Kwea.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:A lot of blanket statements there. "Deregulation makes things cheaper" ... "Free trade makes everyone richer" ... I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
I was speaking of deregulation and free trade in that post, not of repealing antitrust legislation. I would agree, repealing antitrust law would be a terrible idea.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Nice logical fallacy there, Kwea
Not really...and it isn't really a straw man either, because I was not trying to draw a true compareason between the two situations.
I was using an exaggerated example to demonstrate a logical flaw in the original atgument.
But since you don't have an answer to that point, nice smokscreen, RRR....
My point wasn't that we should make everything legal, or that there was some sort of slippery slope argument here, but that simly making something legal doesn't reduce the frequescy of the actions, nor does it halt the behavior.
I have heard a LOT of points about legalizing drugs, and while some of the points are interesting, I don't buy it, not at all.
If you want to reduce crime you don't go about it by ending the laws that make an action illegal. While statistically that would work, IRL it makes things worse.
Unless you are Danzig, in which case not much changes. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
Wow Geoff! You're much older than I thought!
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said anything about legalizing? I said decriminalizing.
And its not like this isn't something that hasn't been tried -- take a look at the states in Europe which have decriminalized drugs and note the drastic drops in drug related crimes, particularly drug related violent crimes, the increase in state revenues due to easier taxation (we tax drugs right now, just not very successfully), and the virtual elimination of a large profit segment for the underworld, because there's nothing keeping the price high any longer.
There's a nice, solid dataset in support of what I'm talking about, which you're telling me doesn't exist or isn't relevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since this is based on a comment of mine, I feel I should respond. Yet, I have no real interest in chopping definitions on this. At best, conservative and liberal are terms of convenience, usable to roughly identify a grouping of political beliefs that are, at best, coincidental (as in, happening to coincide in a large group of people).
As indicators of positions, they are still fairly accurate as long as the user realizes that most "conservative" will have more than one non-conservative position and most "liberals" will have more than one non-liberal position.
As indicators of underlying philosophies which lead to those positions, they are almost utterly unusable now. The words have detached from their linguistic roots. I will say Glenn's definition of the philosophical underpinnings of "liberals" is far more accurate than his corresponding effort on the conservative side. I don't see malice so much as an inherent misunderstanding.
I should also clarify that I was speaking specifically of legal conservatism, which is far more limited in scope and far more precisely defined. In this arena, Glenn's liberal definition is even more accurate, but his conservative definition is far less accurate. In this arena, "liberal" and "conservative" may be used with far more connection to the dictionary definition than they can be in the political arena.
Of course, one can point to exceptions, generally when a justice allows his/her conservative/liberal political views to trump his/her legal philosophy. But, in general, the divide is sharper and the words are more firmly related to their linguistic roots.
Dagonee
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:Constitutional law: law based on and consistent with the Constitution. That would include free speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection . . . .
Hmm. As far as I can tell, then, it is liberals who believe in Constitutional law.
EDITED to be less confrontational.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I suppose you could make a case with respect to free speech with the flag burning amendment, but only if you choose to ignore the thousands of other instances where conservative groups have defended free speech rights of specific groups, not all conservative.
Freedom of religion? Depends entirely on how it's defined. Conservatives have been on the forefront of protecting free exercise over the last three decades.
Equal protection? Again, it depends on what you mean.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: conservatives and liberals all believe in civil rights. However, since the exercise of most rights interferes in some ways with the exercise of other rights, they disagree on which ones should be given primacy.
Anyone trying to convince you that only one side cares about constitutional rights, or even a particular explicit constiutional right, is either over-simplifying or pushing an agenda.
Edit: Based on Mega's original post above, but the overall point is still relevant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I doubt you'll find either side is generally for UN-Constitutional law, merely that they disagree as to what constitute Constitutional law. There are exceptions on both sides, of course.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
(This is why I edited my post: to try and minimize the offense given to the many fine conservatives here, who are not making absurd and exclusive claims to particular virtues.)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It means that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want the constitution interpreted.
BTW, I know of no one who "wants higher taxes." That's a strawman if I ever heard one.
But I know some pretty conservative VIP's from my old employer who were getting amazingly adept at arguing FOR corporate welfare while calling for welfare reform. I heard some really twisted logic there. Likewise, for military spending.
You want a REAL tax break? Balance the budget and pay off the national debt.
As far as the whether the dictionary definition of the words still applies, it pretty obvious that the terms democrat and republican are meaningless in today's vocabulary, since the two parties have done a virtual about face since the Civil War.
Today we equate Republican with conservative, and Democrat with liberal, but during the civil war the republicans were "radicals," (liberal) and Democrats were for "states rights," which seems to be a republican theme nowadays.
If you equate republican with conservative, and Democrat with liberal, then suddenly you've lost the meaning of two perfectly good words.
Actually, I stick with my definition of conservative, but I have to clarify or replace "status quo."
Status quo doesn't change in someone's mind the instant a legal decision is made. In fact, I think it remains as long as a person's memory. So where Roe v Wade may represent the status quo legally, for many people "the way it was is the way it should be" is based on the fact that prior to 1973, status quo was that abortion was illegal.
To those who are pro-life and were born after 1973, status quo is clearly the wrong term. But I think the term conservative still applies since the motivation is to return to the previous state. Likewise for religious freedom, lower taxes and less regulation. All of those are responses to a perceived change compared to the past, and conservatives want an approximate return to the previous state. It's a matter of conserving what we had, as opposed to what we have.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
I appreciate the edit, and would have posted something quite different had I not been responding to the unedited version. I would have left out the examples and moved in to the larger point about differing definitions.
Note I did not defend the suggestion that liberals do not favor constitutional law at all. In fact, I explicitly disclaimed that either side was against protection of rights.
Also, I pay more attention to your posts than Will B's, so the only context I applied was the specific quote of his, not his larger post.
No offense intended.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Glenn: Well, some debt is actually a good thing, and a powerful tool for a nation, but yes, we are rather overburdened, and were it mostly paid off (though this by nature requires an un balanced budget, albeit in the opposite of the traditional direction) we could reduce the budget significantly in the future.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
None taken. And sorry for the stiff tone; I think I have The Princess Bride on the brain. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Then why are you smiling?"
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Clearly I cannot vote for the candidate in front of me.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
Clarification: I didn't say (or believe) that liberals hate every aspect of Constitutional law. I said conservatives support it. One side supporting something doesn't mean the other side opposes it. Both sides oppose slavery, for example. We were discussing what each side is about. Conservatives' support of Constitutional law can't reasonably be based on distaste for change, which Glenn suggested as their defining characteristic, since judicial activism is the status quo.
It means that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want the constitution interpreted.
It means nothing of the sort, of course, and you aren't qualified to tell other people what I mean. 20 lashes with a wet noodle for you! It means that when conservatives want a law changed, they usually push for legislation, which is the Constitutional way to do it; and if they want the Constitution amended, they try the amendment process. They aren't willing to find a Constitutional right to a pornography-free country, say, "in the penumbra of the document." Liberals often rely on the courts to ignore Constitutional restrictions on law and to make up extra-Constitutional restrictions on law. Prime examples: abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action. The Constitutional way to make a Constitutional right to abortion would have been an amendment. The Constitutional way to make gun control legal would have been to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ignoring what the Constitution says and making up new stuff is the "living document" doctrine that conservatives abhor.
quote:BTW, I know of no one who "wants higher taxes." That's a strawman if I ever heard one.
Don't you remember the tax increase in the Bush I admin, with Democratic senators explaining that tx increases were a good idea? The attempted tax increase in the first 2 years of the Clinton admin, pushed by Clinton and Democratic legislators? Taxes don't raise themselves; they are raised by legislators who support them and vote for them. If nobody wanted higher taxes, there would never be a tax increase. It's amazing to hear this basic function of democracy -- policies enacted because people support them -- called "straw man."
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I'm for higher taxes
(but not for me)
In all seriousness, though, no one is "for higher taxes" just like no one is "for war." Both of those are the means -- the end is what people are "for."
izzielay
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"The Constitutional way to make a Constitutional right to abortion would have been an amendment.
Agreed.
"The Constitutional way to make gun control legal would have been to repeal the 2nd Amendment."
I disagree. Conservatives interpret the 2nd ammendment to prohibit gun control. This is a prime example of what I meant when I said that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want it interpreted.
Likewise for freedom of religion. Prayer in school issues aside, the 1954 law adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was blatantly unconstitutional, but very few conservatives will concede that point.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Let me back off what I said about gun control. I should have said, the Constitutional way to make carrying guns illegal. "Gun control" is a little vague. A2 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but that wouldn't prohibit some gun-control type law, like "keep your shotgun barrell no shorter than X number of inches."
I don't know what most conservatives would say about "under God." This is an issue where I'm libertarian: I don't think the government has any business telling 6-year-olds to pledge allegiance to anything. However, I am fairly sure conservatives would give up on this symbolic act in exchange for overturning Roe v. Wade, reversing the judicial repeal of A10, banning racial discrimination, and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing. I know I would.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Doesn't QUITE seem like an even exchange there ... and I assume that by "racial discrimination", you're referring to Affirmative Action? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:. . . and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing.
Are you saying that this eminent domain thing is a liberal thing? I was not under the impression that it was.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I think that there are a lot of people on both sides of this issue. and they defy labels. But in defense of the traditional "conservative" judges on the SCOTUS, THEY were the ones who voted against this, and who wrote the dissenting opinion slamming it.
Kwea
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Hmm. I was shocked that the court decided as it did, but I have not read the threads on it, so I lack specifics. Based on what little I know of the issue, I am dissapointed in all involved.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:since judicial activism is the status quo.
Nice to see you are trying to be impartial.
Even nicer to tell you you have failed at it.
This "living document" is exactly that, thank god, something that HAS to change with the times of become irrelevant. Also, the Constitution is what gives the legislative branch it's powers, and allows them to rule on situations that would have never been thought of when the Constitution was drafted.
Also, I hate when I hear someone (not that anyone has yet, but I am sure they will eventually) talk about "what the framers intended" or their intention regarding "states rights vs. federal rights". Read up on this a bit and you will find that there was an impassioned discourse about these very issues even while the Constitution was being drafted, and that there was no clear consensus between the primaries about what was proper.
They made the language fairly vague because to that, actually. It was one of the only ways to get agreement from so many people, all of whom held differing ideas about the role of government.
This is the SAME discourse that occurs every day in courts across the land, not something new or some sort of "judicial activism"....by it's very nature a lot of judicial affairs ARE activism; or at least that is what the side who loses the case calls it.
[ June 26, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs
You mean I get $5.15 an hour AND a Coke? Sign me up!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Wow that's quite a statement. Banning abortion all together, or does that make allowances for when the life of the mother is in danger, rape/incest? Cause I'd be willing to go along with that. Except, swap out the whole God thing and the COLA thing and replace it with Pro-Environmental legislation.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The phrase "pro-environmental legislation" makes me imagine a nonexistent opposing lobby filled with people who want to expend resources to destroy the environment for no good reason
"Fricking trees! Always looking at me when I turn my back! BURN THEM!"
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Sorry for the random snarky posts, by the way. I'm up late at work, and I'm getting a little punchy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well if you want I could go more in depth, but I didn't want to bore anyone with the ramblings of a rabid tree hugger.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Puppy, it's not the trees you have to worry about.
It's those damn evil squirrels.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
I beg to differ. Squirrels are not evil.
They're tasty.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Well.
I could give you a counter offer, but of course, neither of us are in a position to carry them out, so it's kind of irrelevent. But the issue isn't whether you're willing to give it up, it's whether you would admit that it's unconstitutional.
But actually, I would have said I'd never heard of a conservative who would concede that "under God" was unconstitutional, except I'm pretty sure you already had. You get to be the exception to the rule.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Banning abortion all together, or does that make allowances for when the life of the mother is in danger, rape/incest?
Life or physical health of the mother, yes. Rape/incest, no.
Although, of course, I would vote for a law that allowed it in cases of rape/incest if it were that or nothing.
Posted by Leon the Professional (Member # 8267) on :
Since there's been some discussion about "Under God" and the Pledge, I thought the least I could do was provide the history of the Pledge. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm If you don't feel like reading the whole page (but it's worth the time), I'll be concise in a short summary. The Pledge was written by a socialist Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy (later asked to leave his church because of his political idealogies).
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
So there you have. I'm not going to say anything about what I think about the Pledge and its wording. I think I was pretty fair about representing both sides' viewpoints, but now it's your guys' turns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But actually, I would have said I'd never heard of a conservative who would concede that "under God" was unconstitutional, except I'm pretty sure you already had. You get to be the exception to the rule.
That's complicated. There are two standards of constitutionality: what SCOTUS would decide based on precedent, and what SCOTUS should decide based on the Constitution itself. If the phrase didn't exist in the pledge today and were passed now, I would say it's unconstitutional under both standards.
Back in the 1950s when it was passed, it would have been unlikely for it to be considered unconstitutional by SCOTUS going by precedent. I think it's unlikely to be considered unconstitutional by SCOTUS today, based on the phrase's 50+ year history.
By the second standard, I think it's unconstitutional in all three scenarios. We probably part company as to the suitability of certain religious displays (I don't know what your opinion is on them), but enshrining religion in law is at the heart of the establishment clause.
Dagonee
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:However, I am fairly sure conservatives would give up on this symbolic act in exchange for [stuff] and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing.
quote:Are you saying that this eminent domain thing is a liberal thing? I was not under the impression that it was.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying conservatives would give up on "under God" in the Pledge in exchange for the things I listed. As I said earlier, "One side supporting something doesn't mean the other side opposes it. Both sides oppose slavery, for example."
Liberals AND conservatives hate the new eminent-domain ruling. I've only heard one defend it so far -- a liberal -- but he's an exception.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Well, that seems to make two conservatives who consider the "under God" thing unconstitutional -- assuming Dagonee accepts that label! Out of how many conservatives posting on this thread? It may not be rare, after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For the record, only conservatives were among the dissenters in both the recent eminent domain case and the recent medical marijuana case.
I have seen lots of defenses by both liberals and conservatives of both cases, though.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote: quote:since judicial activism is the status quo.
Nice to see you are trying to be impartial.
Even nicer to tell you you have failed at it. [Wink]
This "living document" is exactly that, thank god, something that HAS to change with the times of become irrelevant.
And the Constitution has a built-in way to change with the times. It's the amendment process. It works, and it's democratic! Letting 5 appointees ignore the Law of the Land in favor of their own biases is not democratic, or Constitutional.
I didn't say I was being impartial. I'm very partial, to truth. Roe v. Wade is law of the land. So's the New London ruling. So's ignoring the 10th Amendment. These actions are not in the Constitution; they are activism, and they are judicial, and they are status quo. I think it's reasonable to make verifiably true statements, without regard to whether it makes me look partial!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I see the "Under God" thing as being no different than "In God We Trust", but I definitely think we have bigger fish to fry... and would not try to argue that it *was* constitutional.
This in answer to Will B's "how many conservatives posting on this thread think 'under God' is unconstitutional?"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, at least you admit it which is more than most?
Ignoring a law and interpeting it differently that you do are two completely different things.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I read an interesting take on the eminent domain ruling (and itself) by a left-leaning former coworker. It said what I thought much better than I could. Here it is:
quote:Liberals have long attacked the sanctity of private property for corporations because these artificial entities can perpetrate great wrongs due to their size and power, and seem to ignore their chartering "for the public good" even more than they ignore the benefit of their share-holders. This shows up as mandatory health and safety laws, pollution controls, and civil-rights standards.
The problem lies in the distinction between a home or pocket-knife owned by a real person and twenty factories owned by an entity created by the state of Delaware. To many property-rights advocates, both are "private property" and deserve equal protection. I don't think this is reasonable, and one consequence of tying these two very different type of property right together at the ankle is that the sort of treatment that should probably be acceptable in the case of the more artificial variety ends up happening to both.
GloboChem Co. can't mourn a childhood home, probably owns a lot more property somewhere else, and has the resources to make sure that their compensation is more than just, in which case GloboChem should be happy.
Of course, smaller corporations make for harder cases, since they're often just wrappers around a small group of people who _can_ feel pain, dislocation, and the like which can't be allayed with more money.
-- M. Turyn
I think the two worst decisions of the SCOTUS in the 19th century (I think they were both 19th century), as far as long-lasting unintended consequences are concerned, were Plessy vs. Ferguson and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. I think interesting conclusions can be drawn about how real persons were treated versus a "useful fiction", and that maybe the rationales for both decisions ought to have been reversed.
That all said, I'm with the conservatives on this one, at least until SCC vs. Southern Pac. RR Comp. is repealed in some manner.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think people are missing some pretty important distinctions when they decry the "corporation has the rights of a person" rulings.
If government has the right to block an organization from doing something, then it has the right to limit the scope of rights to what individuals can achieve. This is what the right of association is supposed to prevent.
Hypothetical: I want to run TV ads stating my opposition to abortion and desire for a new SCOTUS justice who will overthrow Roe v. Wade. There's no way I can afford to do that. I need to associate with others in order to do so. For a variety of reasons, a corporation is likely to be the best form of organization to do that. If corporations can't have their free speech rights protected, this could be made impossible.
The right to exercise rights in groups is of utmost importance. Are there cases where the reasoning becomes less compelling? Sure. But the law adapts to these. For example, attorney-client privilege and self-incrimination are both reduced or eliminated for corporations.
Dagonee P.S., from almost any perspective, Dred Scott is worse than either of those two, although its legal effects are no longer an issue.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Re: Dred Scott. That's why I mentioned long-lasting unintended effects. The political reality that it affected no longer existed after the 1860s.
Sepearate but equal, while essentially moot at this point as well, I see as superceded Dred Scott, and lasted well into the 20th century, and it's echos still inform policies and attitudes today, for better or ill.
I see your point about politically-motivated coprorations, but why bootstrap "personhood" to this particular organization (or any other)? I'd be more ready to provide personhood to the fetuses that group is trying to protect than to the group itself. I understand there is a certain legal expedience (sp) in using pre-existing legal constructs, and am not against this sort of thing (for example, my support of same-sex civil marriages) on principle, but I think, looking back on 150 years of history relating to the entity of corporations shows that the devil is in the details, and that personhood for corporations causes more exceptions than just separating out corporations as a separate entity that may or may not share certain rights/privileges that actual citizens have.
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, Dagonee. An individual must take full responsibility for his/her words and actions. A corporation is a way to to avoid such liability.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dagonee-
quote: Life or physical health of the mother, yes. Rape/incest, no.
Although, of course, I would vote for a law that allowed it in cases of rape/incest if it were that or nothing.
If you include the environmental thing I mentioned, details to be ironed out later, it's a deal! You call your people, I'll call mine!
I'm not sure if we're both centrists, or just a very confused conservative and a very confused liberal.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
none of the above...
you are people with principles and priorities.
There are more of us than you might think...
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by lcarus: Clearly I cannot vote for the candidate in front of me.
Inconceivable!
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were known as "waffles," or "flip floppers." They were accused of doing whatever was politically expedient, given current public opinion. Well, that's as it should be, given that they are both liberals. That is to say, they both were willing to listen to public opinion, and change their minds and policies as the result of new information. That's good politics, by definition.
In other words, they will say anything just to get elected?
True leaders do not allow the mob rule either.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"In other words, they will say anything just to get elected?
True leaders do not allow the mob rule either. "
Nothing like jumping to extremes.
True leaders present their ideas to the public, and judge public reaction before ramming it down our throats.
True leaders are capable of changing their minds if presented with new evidence. They aren't so worried about saving face if they find out they were wrong.
True leaders recognize that their job is to serve the people, even if that means following instead of leading.
True leaders have the option of making a stand if they think the public is getting mob-like, but they shouldn't operate under the assumption that the public is simply a mob.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: True leaders have the option of making a stand if they think the public is getting mob-like, but they shouldn't operate under the assumption that the public is simply a mob.
One of the best things said in this thread. Period.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Both parties are doing horrifyingly bad. I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin, the Terry Schiavo case, and their basic pansyness. They have simply stopped believeing in less government. And Bush has been doing an okay job, but he's dissapointed me plenty of times. Never enough for me to wish that I voted for Kerry though.
Liberals are far worse than conservaties. You on the boards might not be bad, but the ones you are putting into office are closing in on being traitors in my eyes. Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11 got liberals in a rage and they demanded his apology or resignation. Yet, Durban's slanderous remarks on comparing our troops to Nazis went by completely scot free in their eyes. And Durban isn't some minor Democrate either. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Howard Dean are just as bad as he is too. Do you liberals see something wrong here?
Both these parties care more about their nice little group then they do about America.
I think I may become a libertarian. I need to do more research on them, though. Neal Boortz is the man.
[ June 28, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Mr_Megalomaniac ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You're a very silly person.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11
You must have seen a different statement than I did, what I saw was exactally what is wrong with politics these days, regardless of political orientation.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11
You must have seen a different statement than I did, what I saw was exactally what is wrong with politics these days, regardless of political orientation.
He said that conservatives prepared for war, which they did, and liberals got ready to seek negotiations and understand the motives of the attackers, which they did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"He said that conservatives prepared for war, which they did, and liberals got ready to seek negotiations and understand the motives of the attackers, which they did."
Perhaps you will concede that the truth of the situation is a little more nuanced?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I killed the hypocrisy in politics thread with this one. I wonder what it'll do here.
quote:I'm bothered by the idea that understanding the enemy equals being soft on them. That's almost unspeakably stupid. As I said on another thread, most of what Sun Tzu said in The Art of War doesn't sound profound until you look at the history of warfare. In this case, throwing the evil label around in place of understanding why these people do the things they do nets us nothing.
The two magic words in a terrorist campaign are recruitment and funding. Pure military force isn't going to do the job. We're not fightign a static army. It's not kill X people and the war will be over. A successful terrorist organization, especially one that relies on suicide tactics has to constantly be bringing in new members. It's nigh impossible to stop that with troops and tanks and guns. If it comes down to it, the only solution we're going to have left is going to be as close to genocide as to make no difference. Terrorism depends on PR. If we can win that war as well as cut off their supply lines, we win.
I actually agree with the "spreading freedom" thing being good for us in general, except much of that region sees us as the bad guys, some of which they've got legitimate reasons for. It'll take a complex understanding of the dynamics of the region to really win out.
The Bush people tried the simplistic "People love freedom." thing and it really, really didn't work out for them. They planned for there to be an Iraq populace greeting us with open arms with only a very few hold out from the old regime resistors. The simplicity of their thinking and the lack of adequate planning cost many soldiers their lives. And even when it was clear that their original projections were absurdly optimistic, they held to that line, claiming that the only resistance they were seeing in Iraq were from a few members of Saddam's regime. Forget about not understanding your enemy. They weren't even able to admit who they were fighting.
We need complexity and an understanding of who are the people we are fighting, who could be on our side or at least against our enemies, and what we can do to shift the dynamics in our favor. Simplistic name calling and appeals to "freedom" may play well on the home front, but they suck as actual things to rely on in the real world.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I imagine it would be difficult to counteract the enemy's recruiting tactics when as the most prosperous, powerful western nation, we're the easiest scapegoat for focusing the anger of the desperate masses. I mean, given where we're starting right now, how exactly could we get to a point at which the common Muslim living in an impoverished region of the world is no longer willing to believe that our position in the world is unfair, illegitimate, and threatening?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There've been some very interesting works on exactly that topic.
Read Iannaconne's (I spelled it wrong, but you'll find it by title) Market for Martyrs to see the basic case laid out. Essentially, it may well be possible to significantly deter martyrdom (and other violent forms of terrorism, but particularly that) if we stop assuming that martyrs (suicide bombers and the like, mainly) are evil, degenerate people, and instead target the systems that generate a demand for martyrs (which aren't simply oppression or the like; there are lots of oppressed populations not commonly seeing martyrdom).
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
I care even less for the people who tried to use 9-11 for political means and jumped on the bandwagon of patriotism and then when it suited their needs, pointed fingers about what was happening in the wake of it all. This was not a bargaining chip or event to "choose sides" on.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin...
While conceding that conservative politicians can be pansies . . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
You can quote him where he says something that makes you think he's calling all liberals traitors, but after reading it, I just don't see it.
Now maybe the Republicans should tell him to apologize or resign, but I don't see a reason for this. But as I said before, if the Democrates didn't ask for Durbin, Dean, or Kennedy to apologize or resign from any of their speeches, then they have no business asking it from Rove.
edit And as for dragging 9/11 into a political debate: I don't see what's so wrong about it, especially if it's pretty truthful. Nothing seemed like an out right lie about it. Him and everyone with and against him is in politics, so it of course seems obvious that whatever topic is being discussed will be politiczed.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I would agree, Squicky, that that word "understanding" sure does get misused. "You understand, don't you?" tends to mean, "You're wise enough to excuse this, right?" Sometimes I want to answer, "Yes, I do understand -- all too well!"
quote:The Bush people tried the simplistic "People love freedom." thing and it really, really didn't work out for them. They planned for there to be an Iraq populace greeting us with open arms with only a very few hold out from the old regime resistors.
What the Bush administration said was that the task in Iraq would be tough, that it would not be over quickly, that we needed to be prepared for a long haul.
What we did get was, indeed, an Iraq populace that was happy to be free, with only a few (I'm not sure about very few) holdouts. Of course, a few sufficiently violent holdouts are enough to make it be a tough, long haul, as Bush said it would.
That word "freedom" sure is appealing, to people all over. (Not necessarily to their dictators.)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't get why 9/11 shouldn't be discussed in partisan politics.
People use "partisan" as a negative word, but I don't know why. We have a 2-party system. Partisan politics is how it works. Is 9/11 not an issue? I sure think it is! Do the parties have any disagreement on what should be done about it? They sure seem to! Why shouldn't these disagreements be discussed?
I can only think of one reason: one of the parties is vulnerable on 9/11, and doesn't want it discussed. (Unless they can find a way to make the other party vulnerable on it, in which case they'll forget that 9/11 should not be a political football.)
Republicans could do the same. If the American public starts saying, strongly, out of Iraq now! (rather than later, as everyone agrees) -- and it may have -- Republicans can say that Iraq should not be a partisan issue. When Bush makes his SC appointments, and Democrats object, he can say that we shouldn't play partisan politics with the Supreme Court. If he does, Democrats will laugh at him. And they should.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin...
While conceding that conservative politicians can be pansies . . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!
Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I can only think of one reason: one of the parties is vulnerable on 9/11, and doesn't want it discussed."
Can you really only think of one reason?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I imagine it would be difficult to counteract the enemy's recruiting tactics when as the most prosperous, powerful western nation, we're the easiest scapegoat for focusing the anger of the desperate masses. I mean, given where we're starting right now, how exactly could we get to a point at which the common Muslim living in an impoverished region of the world is no longer willing to believe that our position in the world is unfair, illegitimate, and threatening?
Wow Geoff, I didn't know you'd made enough of a study of the common Muslims and their views to make an authoritative statement about them. Could you maybe share some of the experiences and sources that led you come up with this description of them? I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I certainly wouldn't make anything close to definitive statements based on what very little I know about them, but I am aware of some people with a great deal of experience and credentials here than I have who don't necessarily agree that the situation is hopeless. Perhaps we could explore how what you're basing your opinion on trumps theirs.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It was the "living in an impoverished region of the world" part that I associated with the capacity to be stirred up to resent the West. Not the Muslim part.
And clearly, many people in that situation ARE willing to accept a negative view of America, because as just about every source anyone everyone ever cites around here says, so many people clearly HAVE one.
When the leaders in power over many of these nations, as well as these nations' media, see America as an easy scapegoat, and freely use us that way, for us to actual PREVENT their people from seeing us that way would mean delivering them an alternate view of the world that does not cast us as the unfair victors in an economic battle, the source of lasciviousness and evil in society, the reason for their hardship, etc, etc. I'm not sure how to do that. Apparently, the proper strategy here is so obvious to you that it's beneath mention, but I'm curious about it.
When the first-world lifestyle is widely publicized, yet the majority of people in the world never get to experience it first hand, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of leaders exploiting that unfairness, turning it into resentment and blame.
[ June 29, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you're an expert in that then? Could you explain the basis for your reasoning to me then? I'm quite a bit more knowledgible in that than I am about Muslim culture, however, so you don't need to dumb it down quite so much.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, if you have a counterargument, make it. And if discussing things with non-experts is beneath you, you are free to go somewhere else entirely.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't feel I need need to make a counter-argument to what appears to me to be the watered down version of "They're evil." I think you're asserting something as true in an area that you know very little about. "Oh, we can't do that. It'd never work. I know because of the very simplitic ideas and prejudices I have of this."
However, I could be very wrong and you may be qualified to offer an expert opinion. You may have valid reasons for claiming that this wouldn't work. If so, I would be glad to hear them and how I should reconcile them with the opinions of experts in the region that we are missing out on PR opportunities that would be much more accessible if we had a complex understanding of things.
You made an implicit claim to knowing what you're talking about. I don't think that this is true, but am quite open to being proven wrong. Plus, if you could explicitly support this claim, I think it would provide us with useful, novel information, as informed opinions are in very short supply.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Not once did I claim that anyone was "evil", nor did I say that this task is insurmountable. I pointed out what I saw as the most difficult challenge in preventing recruitment — the fact that the United States occupies a position in the world that makes it very easy for people to resent us. LEGITIMATELY SO. I would probably resent the United States if I lived in a third-world country. I even resent it a little bit, and I LIVE here. It's CRAZY that we depend on (and take for granted) a lifestyle that demands so much wealth and so many resources that it is logistically impossible for even a majority of the world to share it. I think that frustration over this fact plays a major part in people's willingness to believe the worst about us, and so far, all you have done is dismissed this idea (which I have drawn from many expert opinions that I have read over time), and failed to provide an alternate view.
I found nothing inherently wrong with your original post on the subject — I just wanted to know HOW you expect to accomplish this thing that seems to difficult from my perspective. If you have ideas, share them. If you don't, say so. But if you're waiting for an audience who is impressed by your credentials before you'll deign to speak, you'd might as well give it up.
If you're not here to discuss this and share your certified Expert Knowledge, then why are you here? Just because empty posturing is so much fun?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, You know, I took an air of "What you're saying won't work." out of your post that looking back on it, I don't think was there. I'm sorry. I was wrong. The way I've been reading Hatrack today is probably not a good idea. My lack of focus isn't doing me any favors. I think I'll log off for now.
---
I don't have expert knowledge and as such don't have a reliable strategy for what we should be doing. My point is that it seems that neither do the people in charge. There should be a great push towards understanding the people, but the very idea of this is being treated like a bad thing. Instead, we're fed simplistic lines like "They're evil." or "This prejudice is why taking a complex view is not going to work." You don't win a war against terrorism within a wide-spread culture on the strength of military force alone, unless you are willing to pretty much wipe out that culture. there needs to be a recognition of this and that understanding our enemies, both the ones now and the ones who may (or may not) become our enemies n the future, is vital to "winning" the war on terrorism.
There are experts with reasons and source and all that good stuff who can provide us with realitic scenarios and plans for achieving this, but they don't seem to be included in the decision-making process and the idea that what they offer could greatly benefit us is ridiculed as being "weak" and almost treasonous.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Wow, cool, we're friends again
More later, lots of work to do.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
I'll take you up on it, if that's the case! Here's what I know: the Constitution suggests eminent domain (in limiting it, in A5, to public use with just compensation), and governments (fed, state, and city) have been doing this ever since, although only recently have they expanded it to non-public use. Congress wouldn't have to pass a law for eminent domain by cities, and in fact would be forbidden to by Amendment 5, which would reserve this for the states. What legislature are you thinking of?
The one legislative body that would have to be involved would be the New London, CT, city council. I am not sure if they use parties in that city council (my city's doesn't). CT is very much a blue state, but I suppose it's possible the legislature is Republican. If so, they've got a lot of people in their party pissed off at them.
Every Republican I've heard from so far opposes this. That's the basis of my comment that conservatives detest the decision. (Most Democrats, too.)
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:Maybe I am wrong on this part, but from what I remember, eminent domain was a bill that needed to be passed by the legislature, and when the republicans held most of the seats it was passed. I just don't see how it could have originally gone through if the Republicans weren't in favor of it. And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, tell me.
I'll take you up on it, if that's the case! Here's what I know: the Constitution suggests eminent domain (in limiting it, in A5, to public use with just compensation), and governments (fed, state, and city) have been doing this ever since, although only recently have they expanded it to non-public use. Congress wouldn't have to pass a law for eminent domain by cities, and in fact would be forbidden to by Amendment 5, which would reserve this for the states. What legislature are you thinking of?
The one legislative body that would have to be involved would be the New London, CT, city council. I am not sure if they use parties in that city council (my city's doesn't). CT is very much a blue state, but I suppose it's possible the legislature is Republican. If so, they've got a lot of people in their party pissed off at them.
Every Republican I've heard from so far opposes this. That's the basis of my comment that conservatives detest the decision. (Most Democrats, too.)
I'll just go with what you said, because you seem to know your stuff. Plus I had/have a great friend by the name of William Buchanan whose's now in Iraqi, I think, so that'll be a random bonus point for you. I'll go and read about it when I have the time. Tried a little today, but I wasn't really to find anything helpful. This will be a plus in my eyes to the Republicans, but it won't be enough for me to reconsider becoming libertarian.
Thinkning at the moment
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I would never want to dissuade anyone from being a libertarian! Although I might dissuade someone from voting Libertarian, on the grounds that it's nice to have some effect on who gets elected!
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
Sooooo... *cricket*
Anybody like the Independence Party?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
When you turn 9/11 into an excuse to bash the other political party you are pissing all over the memories of everyone who cared about what happened there.
He states that liberals cared more about offering therapy than punishing the offenders....that is a fact? That liberals wanted to "understand" their enemies...but where does that preclude punishing the actual guilty parties??
Perhaps it is the Bush's administration lack of motivation and understanding of that people which has cause so many deaths in Iraq, both civilian deaths and the deaths of our soldiers.
What exactly was moveon.org suppose to do, other than a petition? They don't have the resources the government has, but they were right...we lied about proof to get into this war, and are lying about the wars costs right now. Our death tolls are low, but not because people aren't dying, but because the Bush administration changed the rules about what counts as a casualty, and has hired armies of private contractor to go to war for them. None of their injuries appear anywhere in the casualty reports or injury reports because they aren't "soldiers".
We have also ignored our own Constitution, which Conservatives claim to regard so highly, detaining people without right to trials or habeas corpus, or rights to lawyers, for YEARS now. Some of them are very dangerous people, but a lot of them will eventually be released...but it has already been years, and there are years to come still.
All I heard from the Bush administration after 9/11 was cries for non-partisan action, but now that they are having a hard time justifying their actions, like shipping prisoners off to possible torture camps in other countries, they jump all over the Democrats.
I have not heard a Democrat say we are Nazis, but that is how those comments are portrayed time and time again. What he said was that if you removed the context and told the average American some of what is happening in these camps and asked them where they thought those camps had been, they would have guessed that the Germans had done it in WWII, or the soviets in the Gulag.
He expects BETTER than that from our own people, and he is right to do so. For YEARS we complained about other governments doing the VERY SAME THINGS WE ARE NOW DOING OURSELVES..but because "we" decided it was necessary now, that makes it ok?
I don't think so.
I am a proud Veteran, and my whole family has served in the military through the years. My father, myself, my aunt, another uncle, and 3 cousins have served, and more than one lost their life doing so.
But when I hear about some of the things that we are responsible for these days, I am ashamed.
And the funny thing is that I am not even that liberal. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I would never want to dissuade anyone from being a libertarian! Although I might dissuade someone from voting Libertarian, on the grounds that it's nice to have some effect on who gets elected!
You DO have an effect when you vote Libertarian. They guy you WOULD have voted for from one of the other parties gets one vote closer to losing Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
"When you turn 9/11 into an excuse to bash the other political party you are pissing all over the memories of everyone who cared about what happened there."
I think you're being a little overly dramatic there. I'm not saying that's how you don't feel, and I'm not trying to demean what happened there, but it's still possible to be overly sensitive about what happened.
"Perhaps it is the Bush's administration lack of motivation and understanding of that people which has cause so many deaths in Iraq, both civilian deaths and the deaths of our soldiers."
Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration and the military men did not do much research on the enemy they've been fighting for this long. This is a comment that just shouldn't be made.
"I have not heard a Democrat say we are Nazis, but that is how those comments are portrayed time and time again. What he said was that if you removed the context and told the average American some of what is happening in these camps and asked them where they thought those camps had been, they would have guessed that the Germans had done it in WWII, or the soviets in the Gulag."
So, you could pull out from Rove's statements that he was blaming liberals as traitors for not believeing every living thing that the Bush admin. told them, but when Durbin said something like, "When I tell you this, you'd probably expect this to go on in a Nazis camp..." That's not compareing our troops to Nazis?
And just to verify, Newsweek retracted their story about what was happening at Guntanomo, because of lack of sources. Durbin only had, I believe, one source, and that shouldn't be enough to make such a statement.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:, but when Durbin said something like, "When I tell you this, you'd probably expect this to go on in a Nazis camp..."
See, he didn't say something like this. If that is what he said, I'd tend to agree with you. It was much closer to Kwea's paraphrase.
That said, there is a comparison, but he was obviously talking about a limited facet of all or militaries missions. He was talking specifically about Gauntanamo. As often as some conservative-minded folks claim that liberal-minded folks are oversensitive, I think this is a fairly clear case of the reverse.
As for Rove, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to figure out what he meant by the "motives" of Democrats/liberals (which aren't cleanly overlapping groups anyway).
Bush has essentially called terrorists evil, on numerous occassion... Does Rove not think that these comments could be used to help recruit people to terrorist groups?
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You DO have an effect when you vote Libertarian. They guy you WOULD have voted for from one of the other parties gets one vote closer to losing
That's the effect you see if you're only thinking in the very short-term. Here's what I have to say about that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration and the military men did not do much research on the enemy they've been fighting for this long. This is a comment that just shouldn't be made.
I have some land to sell you in Florida too, if I say it came from a Republican will you buy it sight unseen?
I have the right to say this, because it is true. More than one military leader objected to this plan, claiming it was the wrong way to do an invasion...not the actual war, but how to deal with the aftermath of it.
Bush and Rumsfeild fired them for disagreeing.
I am sure he studied them as well as he did other intelligence reports, like the ones about the WMD we never found.
He and his administration ignored or marginalized every single critic of their plans or their intelligence reports, and now claim that no one objected. Or if they did it was because they were "oversensitive", or empathized with our enemies....
Bullshit.
I was wrong about what was said in that speech, although I still strongly disagreed with it. I was thinking of another speech given about he same topic, and it mentioned a lot of the same things but went further.
But the implication was there, the whole point of that back patting, self congratulatory speech was that they were somehow "better" with their response, and while he may not have said directly that the Democrats did nothing, and acted like traitors, you can't sit there and tell me that other prominent Republicans have not done so.
Recently.
As far as being oversensitive to 9/11 references, did YOU lose anyone there? If so, you would probably have a clue.
As it stands now, you don't.
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
I came close to letting this thread go away, but I just couldn't.
"See, he didn't say something like this. If that is what he said, I'd tend to agree with you. It was much closer to Kwea's paraphrase."
I really didn't see much of a difference between the two. I guess it makes it okay that he didn't say it directly, but rather that people would think some horrible regime did these thing. But not to me. Anyway, I'm done talking about it unless something knew comes up. I'd just think he should apologize more than, "I'm sorry if you misunderstood me..."
"I have some land to sell you in Florida too, if I say it came from a Republican will you buy it sight unseen?"
Was that really neccesary? I've already stated my faith in Republicans has become small.
"Rant about WMDs"
You know... I have become sick to death about liberals saying things like, "But there were no WMDs!" and far worse, "War for oil! War for oil!" (You know, I think it would be a GREAT thing if Iraq gave us some oil to help pay for the cost of the war. It has been quite expensive.) It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrafices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
I don't know about you, but during the voting day I was very happy with what was happening. Some Americans won't go to vote, because they'd have to wait in line for a few hours. Iraqis went to vote under threat of death!
It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not. What matters is, at the end of the day, did it matter? The war is still going on, so I suppose we can't truly know, but so far the answer seems to be yes. Other nations in the Middle East have already started voting without having our military swarm in, and to me that's a very powerful message that great things may be on the rise.
Yes, numerous lives on both sides have been lost. I don't know much about military and I don't know if what these military leaders adviced were good or not. Maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, maybe Bush went with one who came up with something better. I know I can't completely trust the media, the Democrates, or the Republicans. Everyone has an agenda and will use big or small lies to get it.
"As far as being oversensitive to 9/11 references, did YOU lose anyone there? If so, you would probably have a clue.
As it stands now, you don't."
I wasn't aware that if an event didn't have as strong an impact on me than others then I could not have an opinon on it. Or maybe that gives me better insight, because I'm not blinded by rage when I hear it used in a context that I simply don't agree with. Sorry for being harsh, but it's hard not to be with your begining and ending statements.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And I actually tempered what I said because I am tired of listening to arrogant a$$holes on BOTH sides of the aisle trying to use 9/11 to further their political aims.
I didn't say you had no right to an opinion, but there is a big difference between knowing something (or thinking you do) intellectually and knowing something from experiencing it yourself. You seem to feel that it is OK to politicize something like this, but then you claim to have the moral high ground and clarity of thought on this topic?
Hardly.
quote:It doesn't matter whether there were projects or chemicals for WMDs in Iraq before or not. What matters is, at the end of the day, did it matter?
It does matter, and for more than one reason. If you can't see that then there is no point talking to you about it any more. Things matter, things like lying to the public, outing secret agents because their husband doesn't toe the party line on the WMD, and firing anyone who disagrees with you and then publicly claiming that no one told you you might be wrong.
I don't swallow anything anyone tells me, from any source, but I know a lot of things are not right with this administration, and Bush isn't the only one guilty.
But like it or not he IS President, so he IS responsible for these "mistakes".
I don't think he is a horrible person, but I have found plenty of things that lead me to believe he isn't very honest. I don't hate him, but I wish he wasn't President.
But I would have voted for McCain over any of the other candidates, at least until he sold his honor pimping for the very people who destroyed his chances 4 years ago.
Now I doubt I will vote again, which is sad considering how many of my family members fought and died to protect our right to vote.
They are all sellouts, so I don't think it really matters anymore.
quote: It's like people can't see all the good that our troops have done down there and just don't care for the sacrifices they made. They're so full of hatred at Bush that they'll do anything they can to demean what is happening there.
Where did I mention the troops at all? Where have I tried "to demean what is happening there" in this post, or any other?
I don't blame the soldiers who are over there, for the most part, because a few years ago it would have been me over there, just following orders like they are doing.
But I am sick of Conservatives (not all of them, to be sure) telling me that it is Un-American to question this war and how it started, and that I am harming the troops by questioning the very man who lied to get them into harms way in the first place.
There is very little that is MORE American that to question authority, at least when there are serious questions about the legality of the actions of the government that purports to represent them. Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes this country worth fighting for, and trying to get everyone to toe the party line simply because it is the party line is ignorant and insulting to anyone who bothers to read a history book.
I don't doubt that many of our soldiers are doing everything they can to help people over there, and I am sure that we can make things better over there if they let us...but don't they have a right to decide for themselves without having our troops over there forcing change upon them? If we force democracy on them, won't they just note the same sort of people into power just to get rid of the "foreign threat" that we have become? What right do we have to force them to do anything in their own country...besides the right of arms, that is...
Kwea
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Okay, you may not have said that I couldn't have an opionon, but you did pretty much say I had no idea about the subject, which sounds to me as if I was wrong, because I didn't know anyone who died in the attack.
---
Many other people, in other countries, believed that Saddam had or at least would have WMDs if no one stopped him. Bush may or may not have been wrong, but he didn't lie when he truly believed they had them. There's a differnce.
---
I don't agree with Convservaties who say that people who are UnAmerican who don't support the war.
However, whenever I hear people talk about there being no WMDs like it's the most important thing I still believe it demeans the troops. It's like saying, "We're sorry troops, that our President is too inept and stupid to do his job and that you're over there dying while looking for WMDs that don't exist, please just stay safe as your fellows die pointlessly."
Other than, "Well, there were no WMDs, but you've done so much good that it would have been pretty okay with me if that was the reason we went over there, and I hope you feel the same. If you don't I'm so sorry, just please stay safe."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Bush Administration did lie. That's indisputable. They said they knew that Saddam had WMD and where they were. That was a lie.
Various cases have also come up, as fugu and I have pointed out, that shows that either they lied or they were extremely incompetent. The Downing Street memos show that the Bush administration regarded going to war in Iraq inevitible after 9/11 and were molding their information around this goal and trying to provoke Saddam Hussein to provide a more favorable context for war.
It may not matter to you that your President set out to deceive you into a war that he wanted to fight for reasons that are still not clear and that he subsequently made enormous mistakes in the conduct of that war, but it should. In fact, I'd venture to argue that thinking that is unimportant could easily be considered un-American. You're putting blindly supporting a specific person ahead of the lives of our soldiers and the interests of America.
And don't you dare tell me I don't care about hte troops because I think that the people leading them lied to get us into the war and put them in harms way without proper supplies or planning. They're my troops, even the ones I didn't grow up with and/or are my family members, more than they are the Presidents. They're real people, not a set of toy soldiers that he can take out of the box and do whatever he wants with. He bears a responsiblity to them even higher than the one he bears to regular civilians to behave in a trustworthy, honorable, and cautious manner when he decides to put them in harms way. Don't you dare suggest that I'm being disloyal to the troops when I try to hold the President to this standard.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't follow you logic...it is OK to go over there even if he did lie, because you tink you might like the results anyway?
BTW, I never said anyone was dying pointlessly, I said they ewre lesd there by a man who was lying fromt the get go, or was so incompetent that he was wrong.
Perhaps the problem lies less with what I am actualy saying and more with what you think I mean.
Here is a clue...I say what I mean. I DO think that it is a shame they are over there dying...but that isn't the same thing as thinking they aren't doing their job, or that they are dying for nothing.
I wouldn't pull them out now even if it was up to me, because the job isn't even half done yet. Now that we are there, and have created a vacume of power, we HAVE to try and set it right or we will ahve hurt the people over there at least as much as Saddam ever did.
No one is offering Saddam a medal, or saying he was a great leader. But a lot of what he did to the Kurds, and to others, SI our fault. we chould ahve never gone to war the first time without following through.
BTW, do you know why BushSr didn't go after him and finish him off? Because HE felt that we would be playing right into the terroists hands and possibly cause a severe increase in recruitment of terroists, and because he saw no viable exit stratagy for the American troops.
It was all in his book, which Jr admitted to not reading.
Basically this is all cleanup from the first Gulf war, but that isn't how they sold it to us, is it?
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
I haven't been trying to sound so direct to you Kwea, except for some of the comments you made about me.
And I will apologize for not really saying till now that I wasn't being clear and that it was my fault for not pointing out that it was speaking in general, (since this is a thread about conservative vs liberal), about the one's who continually shout it out like it's the be all end all to the whole war debate. So again, sorry.
Okay, if Bush was lying it would matter, but I still don't think he was. Lying as in, he said something he didn't believe. I think he had reasonable suspicion to suspect Saddam had them, and that's enough.
And I still stand by with how I said it sounds when people only mention the WMDs. Other statements need to be made along with it. I know that only a select few idiots in America, none of which on these boards, would not support the troops, but it just doesn't sound like it the way many people comment on the none existence of WMDs. What does it matter how someone feels if that's all the troops hear? And many Liberals use this in rallys and such. I see it as very damaging to the troops.
Maybe we shouldn't have gone over there, but I feel like we should. To say Saddam wouldn't want WMDs sounds extremely silly to me, and those people really weren't in much of a position to fight for their own freedom. There's a big difference between America fighting for freedom when Britian was an ocean across and Iraqis fighting for freedom against their own military.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, maybe you're using supporting the troops in a different way than I am. For me, it means first and foremost caring whether they die and the purposes for which they risk their lives. You seem to be saying that it means supporting the President and sheilding him from being held accountible. By your definition, I guess I'm not supporting the troops. Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Man, these are sensitive subjects, for a lot of reasons. I just take offence at anyone who tells me I am not a good American because I have a problem with what I see as unethical behavior from our leadership.
Not you personally, but that is the tone that a lot of these speeches seem to be taking lately, and I am sick of it.
What other possible meaning could theer have been at that recent speech you brought up, when he claimed that all liberals wanted was to spend money, increase the size of the government, and offer to psychoanalyze the enemy.
Never mind that Regan and Bush both spent more than their predecessors, just on different things. Never mind that understanding the reason something happens is necessary if you wish to prevent it from occuring again, and that trying to understand does not preclude taking action where necessary.
I just get tired of people on both sides taking a tragedy that affected ALL Americans, and trying to profit from it politicaly. Not just republicans, but anyone.
I am off to bed, but thanks for the conversation. Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
Mr. S: "See, maybe you're using supporting the troops in a different way than I am. For me, it means first and foremost caring whether they die and the purposes for which they risk their lives. You seem to be saying that it means supporting the President and sheilding him from being held accountible. By your definition, I guess I'm not supporting the troops. Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying."
Gah, what I'm saying is that alot of what some high up liberals have said is indeed hurting our troops. How would you feel if you were a soldier, and you heard high up liberal senators or the like basically bashing the entire war, because no WMDs have been found? Probably not to good. That is most deffintly not supporting the troops in my opinon. Not because they aren't pleased no WMDs have been found, and they wonder if they were lied to, but because they don't care about anything else.
"Of course, I think people like you lead to more soldiers dying."
That seemed a little overly personal to me.
"What other possible meaning could theer have been at that recent speech you brought up, when he claimed that all liberals wanted was to spend money, increase the size of the government, and offer to psychoanalyze the enemy."
There were demonstrations of liberals wanting an understanding of why it occured I believe. So, maybe he should have pointed out he's not talking about all.
But my main reason for bringing it up was the whole, demacrates had no reason to ask... blah blah blah.
"Never mind that Regan and Bush both spent more than their predecessors, just on different things. Never mind that understanding the reason something happens is necessary if you wish to prevent it from occuring again, and that trying to understand does not preclude taking action where necessary."
No, I don't approve of all the money that's being spent either. I jumped for joy when I heard about the budget cuts that Bush was apparently going to make that he never did. Freaking ticked me off. If it's because of all the people who whined about it, then it just affirms my belief that Republicans are pansies.
"I am off to bed, but thanks for the conversation. [Big Grin]"
Whew, hopes that mean we're cool. I love talking politics, mostly because so few people agree with me, and it's fun to try and hold my own, but it does tend to get more personal than religion, so it is a hard topic to tread on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Meg, This is not a game. People live and die based on what George Bush does. You don't seem to me to be seeing the soldiers as actual real people. They are very real to me. I know many of their faces. Some of them I know their dreams and their fears. Many of the ones I don't know come from pretty much the same environment I do.
I take it very unkindly when people suggest that I don't care if they die, especially when they do it in such a way that seems to be saying that George Bush and his administration shouldn't be held accountible for their actions. When you argue that supporting the troops means not criticizing the President when he doesn't live up to his responsibilities to them, when you act like the very idea of the President having responsibilities to them is wrong, you make it so that more soldiers will die. This is a serious matter to me, because I do care if soldiers die. I really don't like it when people seem to treat it like a part of some political game.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Meg, we are cool, as far as I am concerned. I am a mix of both political views, really, so basically I dislike them all at this point...
I think I am just burned out at this point, perhaps I will feel differently at another time.
I don't know if politics gets more personal than religion, but there is a real reason why the rule exists about not talking about either at parties, you know...
I don't see anything wrong on wanting t know why thiese things happened, and I think you atre wrong...as representitives of the people they have the right, and the responsibility to wonder why, and try to prevent it from happeneing again.
I agree that a lot of what is happeneing over there is a good thing, but I don't think we really ahve a right to go around and force other people to live a lifestyle that we approve of, and I know that if anyone tried to do that to us we would ahve a problem with it, don't you think?
On the other hand, something needed done, and to be honest I thinkk that leaving Saddam alone was a horrible mistake last time around, quagmire or not.
Once you go to war, you stay th couse and get it done as quickly and safely as possible. Keep in mind that most of the people I have heard complain about the war, public figures or private citizens, hae made it quite clear that they are proud of the job that most of the soldiers are doing over there. However, if people feel that they were lied to, they have a moral obligation to fight that, and prevent it from happening again that supersedes the possibility of hurting teh soldiers feelings. I don;t thinkn they are dying in vain at all, but they are dying for reasons other than what was claimed, and those claims were made to secure the approval of people like me, who were pissed but weren't sure of who to balme.
Nopw I still don;t know, but I do know that I don't trust anything the President has to say about it, because most of what he has said has been proven to be either a lie or completely false.
Either he is dishonest, or incompetent. Either way I don't trust him to lead me, not without question at least.
Night!
Kwea
Posted by Mr_Megalomaniac (Member # 7695) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Meg, This is not a game. People live and die based on what George Bush does. You don't seem to me to be seeing the soldiers as actual real people. They are very real to me. I know many of their faces. Some of them I know their dreams and their fears. Many of the ones I don't know come from pretty much the same environment I do.
I take it very unkindly when people suggest that I don't care if they die, especially when they do it in such a way that seems to be saying that George Bush and his administration shouldn't be held accountible for their actions. When you argue that supporting the troops means not criticizing the President when he doesn't live up to his responsibilities to them, when you act like the very idea of the President having responsibilities to them is wrong, you make it so that more soldiers will die. This is a serious matter to me, because I do care if soldiers die. I really don't like it when people seem to treat it like a part of some political game.
One of my best friends is in Iraqi right now last I heard. Unfortunatly I lost communication with him and that scares me. I've already even mentioned him breifly, but you've apparently been too blind to what I've been saying.
I'll try and summarize myself:
I don't think Bush lied, if he did he should be punished.
I think the positive effects of the war is a great thing and high ups in the liberal party won't admit it and bash the war causing harm to our troops.
I never recall saying that I thought you didn't care if they lived or died. Where in the world did you get that? Please quote me so I need to know if I need to apologize or not. I'm going to bed now though, and I suggest you do the same so that you can look over it tommorow and maybe you'll understand what I typed a bit more.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. . . conservatives, AFAIK, are overwhelmingly opposed to the recent SC decision on eminent domain. So are liberals (at least, those liberals that aren't on the Court!). I realize it may be knee-jerk to blame the other side for anything you don't agree with, by now, and often it's right -- but this time, we have a rare opportunity to work together against tyranny. Let's take it!