"The possible electoral defeat of President Bush by John Kerry raises the question of whether the Global War on Terror ultimately requires a war on the Left. That is to say whether a political defeat of the Left is a prerequisite for stamping out worldwide terrorism. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many in the Left, at least, believes that the GWOT is a war on them. America, not Osama Bin Laden is the putative enemy, and their fire is directed accordingly. Conversely, many conservatives are conditioned by the sight of a de facto alliance between the Left and Islamism to think that both parties are on the same side of the fence. But must it necessarily be so?"
An important, timely and very provocative question, especially given Armed Liberal's past posts re: "The War on Bad Philosophy." Wretchard continues:
"Answers in the affirmative normally rest on the presumption that the Left is engaged in a protracted Gramscian program of Western civilizational suicide in which Islam serves as a convenient means of attaining quietus.... Answers in the negative are predicated ironically on the malignity of the Left itself...."
Perhaps a better question is which Left will survive? The anti-fascist Left of Chris Hitchens, Michael Walzer, bloggers like Harry Hatchett and Norm Geras, et. al.? Or the self-hating, self-indulgent Chomskyite strain that now predominates in academia and many NGOs, apologizes for evil, drives people like my colleagues away from the movement, and finds itself increasingly converging with its neo-fascist and Islamofascist counterparts?
Back to Belmont Club:
"Yet in either case, the liquidation of conservatism, with its backward notions of natural law, national sovereignty and the like, is the first order of business.... Both [the Left and Islamists] are struggling for the space in which conservatism can never go and for the prize which no sane man ever covets: the dominion of souls. Without their mutual presence either could have occupied a kind of cultural sanctuary in which they would brood, proof against interference from people with simple day jobs. Together they guarantee that their places of safety, every media outlet, every school and every place of worship will be transformed into arenas of unparalleled ferocity -- to the possible benefit of the world. Is the Global War on Terror necessarily against the Left? We shall see. We shall see."
A thought provoking article. Worth reading entire.
UPDATE: As usual, there's some good debate going on in the Comments section. Thanks, AMac.
Wow. So are you guys going to literally blow up densely populated areas of liberal influence, or are you thinking about a surgical strike to decapitate the movement?
Actually, I think a war of ideas is what the author had in mind. To do that, Conservatives will need equal respresentation in the news rooms and the classrooms of our country. Watch for them to inflitrate those strongholds of liberalism in the future. The failed policies of the left leave them ripe for defeat.
Infiltrate or bypass, Maggie. Both of those strongholds rest on quasi-monopolies whose continuance is very much open to question and challenge.
Of course, if Hal actually read the link in question (which I doubt) and thought it through (apparently not), he might consider that precedent does exist in recent history, wherein a global war was coupled with civil conflict within both the West and the Left itself. This isn't going to be a straight right/left fight... nor will it go away, however much he may wish to ignore these issues.
Oy. And to think, about a week ago, I declared this one of the more down-to-earth conservative blogs. Honestly, this post is the reason there is such a scarcity of intelligent debate on this subject.
Polls show the population of the united states thinks the war in Iraq is an ineffective way of fighting terrorism. Do you really believe that half the population of the united states hates itself? That half the population of the united states longs for death, that we seek the embrace of Osama bin Ladin? You have neighbors, coworkers, schoolmates: you know them personally. Do you truly believe that they seek oblivion?
To me, when conservatives say this kind of thing, it just makes me think you have a grotesquely distorted perception of people's motivations. So ask yourselves this: have you been honest with yourselves about the motives of the left? You've told yourselves that we hate America. Do you really believe that, when you stop and think about it?
That was supposed to say, "polls show that half the population..."
Actually, Josh, yes I do.
I don't think that it is 'hate America' the way that Hamas hates Israel; but I do think that one of the intellectual underpinnings of the modern Left is opposition to America; as in: What are we for? Checking the heretofore unrestrained power of American hegemony.
Does this represent all the Left? Obviously not. Is it a strong enough theme within the Left that we in the left have to deal with it? Equally obviously yes.
I saw Wretchard's post and thought about blogging it (it was on the list, honest!); I think that he's nibbling around an important issue, albeit - I believe - from the wrong direction. I don;t think it's the Left that has to be destroyed; I do think that there are belief structures that are parasitic to the Left (and far Right as well) that need to be challenged and that's what I mean when I talk about a "War on Bad Philosophy".
A.L.
> one of the intellectual underpinnings of the modern Left is opposition to America; as in: What are we for? Checking the heretofore unrestrained power of American hegemony.
This is a confusing statement. "Opposition to America" doesn't mean much to me. To me, America is a place where hundreds of opposing viewpoints struggle for dominance. You can't be opposed to America - you can be opposed to any particular idea. Clearly, you mean something by this, but I don't know what.
- Josh
I agree with AL on this one. There are certain behaviorisms and methodologies to philosophy that the Left has picked up that render it a threat to the safety of Western Civilization. I believe Wretchard is wrong in implying that only by destroying, or rather, neutralizing the left, can this issue be solved. I think that a careful surgery of the left is in order, with the rational elements fighting away at the disease that is spreading. However, I suspect that Wretchard is making another point here: That the disease may have spread too far, and that it is necessary to terminate the patient before others are infected as well. The point being that the rational parts of what constituted the Left will have to re-organize and re-form it after this is all done and over with, like what happened to the Democratic Party following the Civil War.
Far be it from me to stand up for the Chomsky/ANSWER wing of the left, but I feel confirmed in my belief that for many conservatives, liberals have always been the enemy. Anti-Communism and Anti-Islamoterrorism are merely means to that end.
You think Pres. Kerry is going to recite the shahade and impose Sharia? Wow.
AL said "there are belief structures", FH said "there are certain behaviorisms and methodologies." To me, this sounds so vague as to be meaningless. What the heck are we talking about? This all sounds like smoke and mirrors.
In reality, I think that you've internalized the idea that we hate America, and you're having trouble responding to me in concrete terms for a reason.
- Josh
Josh, rather than waste a lot of time, let me point you to two excellent bibliographies on the history of the New Left (which is what is fundamentally ascendent in Europe today and serves as the roots of the vanguard left here in the U.S.).
Hit a bookstore or library, check a few of them out and I think you'll understand what I mean.
A.L.
I glanced through the bibliography. Those are ordinary history books, not at all the Ann Coulter sort. As such, I suspect they won't tell me why I hate America so much. And I am not reading an Ann Coulter book.
I went to college. I bullshitted my way through plenty of papers. I know handwaving when I see it, and "there are certain behaviorisms and methodologies" is handwaving.
Josh, with all due respect (and limited patience), there's no Ann Coulter books on either of those lists. They are respected histories and contemporaneous accounts by participants in the creation of the New Left. One of the lists is from a significant leftist site (zmag.org).
The New Left was largely defined by opposition to the hegemony of the U.S.; sorry if you don't believe it, but I'd suggest that you crack and book and check before you accuse me of 'handwaving', and unless you've got historic data that trumps mine, you're the one making shit up.
I'll add this explanation to the list of blog topics I intend to get around to one of these days. Until then, I'd encourage you to actually crack a book or two if the subject interests you; it's fun and sometimes damn productive.
A.L.
Actually, while Josh is somewhat annoying, I think it would do us a lot of good to specifically define the "certain behaviorisms and methodologies" and then begin marshalling examples of them to more completely make the argument.
Josh, conservatives aren't the only ones who believe this is a problem. Read the Michael Walzer link... and I could point you to a number of other principled leftists writing similar things. Or, you could follow the multiple links provided in the post itself... there's stuff in there that should give you serious pause.
Like the British leftist antiwar activist who did a whole series on this problem, and is among the links in this post. I'll add that International ANSWER's influence, and the nonchalance by which it is greeted in liberal circles, certainly comes to mind as a similar demonstration in the USA of at least indifference to being led by a group that openly wishes to destroy their civilization.
This is real, it's a problem, and "opposition to American hegemony" is the most acceptable face (also the most common) but by no means the only one. A.L.'s parenting analogy remains the single best description of the more mainstream manifestation that I've seen.
Fortunately, the Left's share of population is nowhere near 50% (it is =/= "people who vote Democrat" by any means, and even that isn't 50%)... 10-15% is more like it, though its distribution in certain key areas does amplify both its voice and influence. These amplifiers are the likely conflict zones Wretchard refers to, and barring sudden victory in the war on Islamist terrorism (unlikely) the Right (and fragments of the Left) will get more and more serious about this as they continue to feel themselves directly and physically threatened by the Bad Philosophy conjunctions Wretchard begins to describe.
I'll add that in our recent past, struggles around similar issues within the left were a significant political phenomenon. This appears to be happening again, and you might consider articles like this a bit more carefully for that reason alone - we obviously were not suggesting anything like your comment.
Nor does "sensible" equate to "refusal to challenge belief structures and point out serious problems." Give the article and its links a second look, and perhaps some second thoughts...
I think you misread my statement about Coulter.
You really do think that liberals actually like islamic fascism. This, despite the fact that it goes against everything liberals have ever stood for: freedom of religion, giving women the vote, protection for human rights, and so forth.
Believe me: if I had enough troops to conquer every miserable dictatorship in the world, and if I had enough money to rebuild their economies afterward, and if I had enough troops to maintain stability while the cultural changes took place, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Iraq, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, and on, and on...
But it's just not realistic, we don't have the troops. So we have to be more creative than that. Some think Bush's strategy is creative, some think his strategy is hare-brained. That's the difference between us, not some "Hates America" crap. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can meaningfully debate the merits of the strategy.
Josh,
We don't seem to be discussing the same blog post - or the same comments. Recommend giving them a more careful read.
Liberal =/= leftist, we've cited a number of people within the Left itself who seem to share your views, and we've been pretty explicit re: our points but they don't seem to bear any resemblance to your caricature of them.
Our ideal is a situation wherein the key to disagreement really is Bush's strategy. A.L. has written a number of posts from that perspective. But that just isn't the limit of disagreement here, and following even a couple of the links or sources we've suggested will make that plain.
If you don't want to do that, then it's kind of hard to have a meaningful conversation about this post.
> Actually, while Josh is somewhat annoying...
I probably am right now, I'm angry. But in the space of one article, I was called an "islamofascist," I was proclaimed to be "the enemy," it was asserted that I "hate America," I was called "malign," and it was taken as "ludicrous" that my strategies in the war on terror could be effective.
I have been trying to find a few conservative blogs that present the conservative viewpoint in a down-to-earth, well-reasoned manner. I was very pleased when I found this blog: there are some articles that contain very careful analysis here.
But this article is merely a stream of insults. If there's some bigger point in the article, it's totally drowned out in the offensive way in which it's presented.
I'd like to talk briefly about the antiwar movement and why I think this article is wrong in its characterization of the left.
First, though, it's necessary to realize the left isn't homogeneous any more than the right is. Different people oppose the war for different reasons.
There's a group of people on the left who say "bring the troops home now." I believe that their logic is simply, "war is bad." Trust me, I've met plenty of these guys. They're getting their world-view from Bob Marley records. Ascribing any sort of "Gramscian extinction" motive or desire for "power above anything else" to these guys is reading way too much into it. Everybody knows these guys are basically decent people who have taken too much pot. When you call them islamofascists or America-Haters, you make yourselves look paranoid. Instead, you should simply call them naive and move on.
The other thing you need to remember is that these guys constitute a tiny proportion of the left. Remember - something like 90% supported the war in Afghanistan. Assuming that the 10% who didn't support the war were entirely on the left, that means 80% of the left supported the war. That really is a very small percentage of the left that opposes all military intervention. In short, the left is quite capable of supporting military action where justified.
So that leaves the left's current resistance to the war in Iraq. Most liberals feel the situation is too chaotic, too volatile to be able to predict. Will the Iraqi constitution be secular or Sharia? Will the elections be rigged? Will one faction try to eliminate another? Will this trigger a democratic revolution in a nearby nation? Will the democratic revolution be put down in a bloody slaughter? Will the US have to occupy another nation in order to get the bloody slaugher under control? Honestly, I don't feel confident that there won't be a disaster of some sort. This, I think, is why liberals oppose the war: it seems chaotic and uncontrolled. It seems like it wasn't planned out.
I honestly believe that if Kerry had been in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he would have spent more money on rebuilding Afghanistan and improving their infrastructure. I think this would have had had direct effect on Al-Qaeda, by depriving them of their home, and an indirect effect, by taking away a lot of their recruiting ability.
Saying that I "hate america" and that my ideas are "ludicrous" takes my rational concerns and minimizes them. That just makes me want to depart.
There are very strong anti-American and suicidal tendencies within the left. I see them all the time. The people who go out of their way to make excuses for Islamofascists as helpless victims, that the U.S. is responsible for all of the problems of Latin America or controls Latin America (or the Third World), those who need to imagine the U.S. occupation of Iraq as an extremely oppressive and rapacious sort of imperialism, those who always are searching for what "we" did to "them", etc. so they can "save the world" from U.S. imperialism, etc. This kind of thinking is not yet Chomsky-level, which is even more insane. Most people I know on the left reflect this sort of thinking to some degree. I call it the "post christian" left, since I think its main facets are structured in terms of christian themes (sin, repentance, good, evil, salvation, etc.) contrasting with modern liberalism. I don't think that it wants to understand and remedy the world as it is so much as re-interpret in the context of some personal spiritual drama. It's more malignant than malevolent.
The left has two problems
1. Self defence - local/international
2. Economics - socialism in all its forms is dead
It has one advantage
1. Champion of liberty
The Ds will have to die to get rid of their problems any time soon.
I predict the Ds will die and the Rs will split.
You will note that Bush's Iraqi initiative coupled with his Democracy initiative has Arab leaders shitting in their pants.
If those boys be going to shit, in their pants is the prefered spot.
Hell, Syria is supposedly talking to the boys and girls of Oz in order to avoid the American wrath. By joining with America the Brits (Libya) and the Ozzies (Syria) have become players.
'Course reforming the ME has nothing to do with terrorism. No siree. Nothing at all.
Israels attacks on Hamas have born fruit. Hamas is promising to put off attacking Israel for a very long time until they can get up a really big one. Uh, huh. My guess is that they are more than a foreskin short in the getting it up dept.
So here we are 2 1/2 years into the war and the intelectual tide of our enemies is receeding. That Bush. Destroying the old order.
Josh Yelon,
"decent people who have taken too much pot"
Uh, pot doesn't make people stupid. It only enhances inherent intelligence or stupidity.
Carl Sagan - no stupid - liked to write his science papers after a few spliffs. There may be others.
Six months to go until the election and the ME is already cracking.
Clarke's testimony has been destroyed by - Clarke.
And Bush just rolls on.
> You will note that Bush's Iraqi initiative coupled with his Democracy initiative has Arab leaders shitting in their pants.
I'm not so sure. Could we really occupy another nation right now? I think technically, we could. But it would cost $200 billion. To put the costs in perspective, we're talking about turning the war on terror into an ongoing program the size of medicare. Plus, we'd have to abandon Iraq to chaos. The public won't support either of those. In short, I don't forsee another war in the near term. I suspect that Arab leaders know that we're not going to launch another war in the near term.
Josh, the leaders might know no war now -- but if Bush is reelected he might, for instance, declare Iran ('s nukes) illegal, with "bombing to commence in 5 minutes". Perhaps that's why Iran wants nukes before Nov. 2004 (it looks to me).
Lileks has a great note about secular philosophy, in reviewing Life of Brian. "Life is full of shit, when you're stuck in it...". To extreme secularists: Life is shit.
The hopelessness/ hate-swamp of the Angry Left, the secular fundamentalists, is their spiritual emptiness. Nothing is sacred ...
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1080502169#246128
Modern, tolerant Christians must defeat secular fundamentalists; just as a modern Islam must, someday, defeat the Islamofascists.
America must help to create a World Without Dictators, the sooner the better.
so....the answer to the craziness of fringe elements on the left is...Eliminationist rhetoric!
Seriously, sometimes you guys get your associations a bit too loose. This is real crazy talk.
Modern, tolerant Christians must defeat secular fundamentalists
???? I don't see how you can justify this divide. Den Beste is an atheist (pretty close to a secularist if you ask me) as am I. A lot of the Christian churches have been downright post-modern in their condemnation of "U.S. imperialism" and "root causes" excuse-making for terrorists. Plus, not all secularists are atheists or even anti-Christian.
I see the split as modernist, tolerant, enlightenment-based, pragmatist, realist versus post-modernist, absolutist, idealist. The problem with the latter group - Christian or not - is precisely that they inject a "religious" worldview (filled with conspiracies, devils, struggles for souls, utopian futures, opportunities for salvation...) into their interpretations and prescriptions for reality. This tendency is far more prevalent on the left and indeed is what characterizes the very essence of far-left thinking.
Eliminationist rhetoric! ... Seriously, sometimes you guys get your associations a bit too loose. This is real crazy talk.
Praktike, I think you misunderstand here. What is being criticized here is more the thinking of useful idiots - including pacifists, post-modernist relativists, 'post-Christian' self-sacrificers (who would take the rest of us along), etc. - than active evil-doers.
Gabe-
There's a difference between identifying real problems and proposing solutions for those problems, and adopting the strident and absolutist language used by communist propagandists, islamic fundamentalists, fascists, environmental wackos, and rightist American militia members.
Criticism is a useful thing; eliminationist rhetoric is not.
Josh,
I think the problem AL and Joe are dealing with is what I have for years called the suicidal left: in 72, Nixon was beatable by a number of Dems, but the lunatic fringe won the day with unpleasant results for BOTH sides. Of course there is also a suicidal right: LBJ was a weak president, but we were stuck with him as an incumbent. Then the Reps picked Goldwater....
Josh,
It's getting clearer now. I think you read the article, saw it as directed at you when it was not, and have been kind of surfing that emotional wave ever since. But it's blinding you.
If we start from "I don't think this piece is about you" (based on your earlier comments), but "look around because it is about some of the folks trying to stand near you and cash in on your hard-won credibility, and that ought to concern you"... If we start from there, can we take a deep breath and look at these points more dispassionately?
Off into personal views on some of the tangential points raised in others' comments....
RE: Moderate, tolerant Christians defeating secular fundamentalists... well, secular fundamentalism DOES need to get whacked as a disastrous, empty, and historically bloody path (amazingly, even more so than religion - and that's quite some record!). There must be a Golden Mean here. Christians will be the majority whackers for demographic reasons, but there will be many others. Including not a few atheists like Den Beste, Jews like me, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Everyone is welcome to this little shindig, so grab a bat and join the party. Just be aware that if your intent is to replace it with a religious fundamentalism or some such, many of us around you will also be carrying bats...
As for eliminationist rhetoric, there are times when it is justified when talking about certain ideas. No more Nazis, or (more realistically) the destruction of Naziism as any kind of meaningful force with influence or strong bastions of support? Won't lose any sleep. Frankly, Marxism and its variants are in a similar category, including the Chomskyite neo-Marxist variant. As is Islamic totalitarianism. A.L. can no doubt produce other examples of 'Bad Philosophy' that deserve this treatment.
I personally believe these ideas should be wholly discredited, and thrown on the trash heap of history where they belong. That needs to be our commitment if we're serious about all this, and want to see our ideals win.
We've done this before, to our civilization's benefit (anyone around here still submit their scientific discoveries to the Catholic Church for approval?). We can - should - must - do it again. Being a Chomskyite, for example, should be like being a member of the Aryan Nations (it is, actually, but it should be widely SEEN that way too).
On the way to that goal, 'Bad Philosophy' needs to be challenged strongly and openly, and its sources of entrenched support and funding systematically exposed, discredited, and drained.
Liberals (and even some leftists) have been part of this process before, and will be again. The question for each person to ask is "what part will I choose to play?"
Good thread.
I agree with Josh Yelon about the limits and overarching and metaphorical speech when talking about domestic politics. "We" know what "we" mean...but what do we mean, exactly? E.g. "neutralizing or destroying the Left" might be a prescription for:
--convincing most apolitical swing voters that the left is unpatriotic;
--driving committed leftists to quit politics out of fear for their livelihood;
--exposing leftists to tit-for-tat scurrilous attacks so they exit the argument in disgust;
--using reasoned argument to persuade many leftists of the error of their ways;
--promoting heightened awareness of Gramsci's "Bad Philosophy" ideas, and countering them.
The point is not the varied practicality and morality of these five pulled-from-a-hat options. Instead, it's that "we" shouldn't be surprised that a self-described Leftist (Josh) gives his own interpretation to a vague phrase like "neutralizing or destroying the Left." Heck, I'm not on the Left (any more), and I, too, take offense at some of its possible meanings.
I think the way forward in this conversation is to forgo the eloquence of analogy and metaphor, and speak plainly and directly instead.
I dunno. I get the impression that when you say "the left," you mean Noam Chomsky. That's an unreasonable view. Chomsky was always marginal, is there really any sizeable group who shares his views anymore?
You can understand the left better by observing what media we choose to read. Calpundit is the most popular liberal blog - and Kevin Drum is hardly a chomskyite. You can call Josh Marshall a lot of things, partisan, angry, sure. But chomskyite? I don't think so.
Joe said, "look around because it is about some of the folks trying to stand near you and cash in on your hard-won credibility." There will always be fringe elements in my party. There's nothing I can do to make them go away, but I can ignore them, just like everyone else in my party does.
But there is something you can do: step one, realize that chomskyites have no influence on policy. The left in this nation is extremely moderate by world standards. If you're claiming that the chomskyite world view must be destroyed in order to prosecute the war on terror, it seems to indicate that you haven't really understood the opposition. When you attack such a straw man in such a vehement, almost flaming manner, it brings your sanity into question.
I think I can agree with Joe's last and AMac's comments...the point is that a narrow brush or a surgeon's knife is a much more effective metaphorical rhetorical tool than the broad brush being employed by Wretchard.
I agree that some ideas need to be discredited--communism for instance, already has been--but I think a restrained and focused approach is warranted, not an ideological "war." I see a disturbing historical pattern in language that, when it speaks in terms of elimination and stamping out and so forth, leads to the path of the rationalization of murder and genocide. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but I'm disturbed to hear talk like this.
Josh,
The more you confuse the terms "liberal" and "leftist", the easier it is for people to tar you with the same brush. We consistently use the word "Left" - you reply with "liberal"... why? First law of holes, boyo, is that when you're in one you stop digging. You seem determined to not only dig the hole yourself, but to then throw yourself in. Color me puzzled.
Second... you're not following the links, or the material. To argue that the Chomskyites and factions that do in fact have a problem with hating their socieites have no influence on the Left, and that this has not migrated to become a larger problem for Liberals who cannot see them as enemies (a category you're beginning to put yourself into) is willfully blind. If you won't listen to conservatives, you might at least listen to a number of your fellow leftists, cited here.
As for Calpundit, love the guy but Atrios and Kos are way above him. Can't even get that right...
Your assertion that there is no problem here is backed by nothing more than your assertion. Ours are backed by links that include writings from serious actors across the political spectrum.
Which you can't be bothered to peruse.
The more you close your eyes to this problem, the larger it's going to get - and the more you will be associated with it in people's minds. If David Duke was organizing major events attended by hundreds of thousands of Republicans, and many right-wing professors were neo-nazis or open sympathizers with same, I somehow doubt you'd accept a sanguine response from the Right of "just ignore them - we do."
Kudos to Josh and to Joe. This conversation is one that should be happening, and should be widespread.
Look at these broad descriptions: Leftist, Rightist, Liberal, Conservative, Pro-war, Anti-War. Few negative (or positive) characterizations are going to fit all or even most who place themselves under one of these "Big Tents".
So when Josh says that the rhetoric here against the Anti-War Left doesn't fit him as an Anti-War Leftist, I'm game for taking him at his word, and listening to his arguments.
To go back prior to the latest series of posts on this thread, Joe Katzman said that some on the Left were against the Iraqi intervention for tactical reasons--that it would not advance the fight for Civilization and against Islamist nihilist terror. Many other Leftists opposed the invasion on very different grounds--that the main threat to Civilization isn't militant Islam, but the hegemonistic behavior of the American hyperpower. International ANSWER and its fellow-travelers are part of this mainstream Left Anti-war view.
Josh, in your latest post, you seem to dispute this assertion, saying (5:14pm) that "Chomsky was always marginal, is there really any sizeable group who shares his views anymore?" This winter, a poll of Democratic primary campaign staff asked "whose political analysis do you read?" Chomsky was one of the highest scorers. (I've tried and failed to search for a link to this poll; perhaps another participant knows of one?) If my recollection is correct, it shows Chomsky to be a major influence on the Left side of the debate, among high-ranking Democratic activists.
So, Josh--the stinging critiques of Joe, A.L., and Wretchard may indeed be unjustified if applied to your wing of the Left. Are they worthwhile criticisms of Leftists such as NION, DU, Monbiot, Fisk, Pilger, Scheer, and Vidal? Are the (lonely) pro-intervention Leftists Christopher Hitchens and Norman Geras on to something? Why do "tactical-mistake" Liberals and Leftists seem so comfortable with the "anti-hegemonist" Left's leadership (hijacking?) of the anti-intervention Movement?
I'm not so sure. Could we really occupy another nation right now?
Josh,
If you followed the recent Arab summit you would be sure.
It appears these days that mere threat of action is enough.
Take Iran (soon I hope). It would not need an occupation force except in order to secure nuclear materials.
Syria need not become democratic. A five or ten year civil war there might suit our plans just as well.
We could take the attitude in some places that we will replace governments in some places until we get one we like. No occupation required.
The people in power want to stay in power. That is a powerful incentive not to mess with Sam. No need to threaten every country with a democratic revolution all at once. For the time being threats of loss of power may be enough for our purposes.
Big thanks to AMac for stepping in - I think he has the key issues and contentions in our debate nailed on all counts. Spot-on!
Josh,
The mere fact that you are reading this, and participating in the debate proves that you are not one of the "fringe" leftists that are the original topic.
The terms of debate WRT the political spectrum have become so muddy as to be almost meaningless. This doesn't mean the "anti-American" leftists do not exist, whatever you want to call them. In fact, it is safe to say that they've pretty much taken over liberal arts academia in the US, almost all of France, and the EU elite. This is so obvious as to be almost beyond discussion.
Many on the right are focused on these groups because of their, and I’ll agree, extreme moral relativism... with the US ALWAYS falling on the side of evil. Please don't automatically assume that you are in their crosshairs. We NEED more moderates to understand the issues AND the consequences. This isn't play time anymore. 9-11 took care of that. I happen to think that the US isn't ALL about blood for oil, or 'imperialism', or white privilege, or whatever. If you agree with me, that we've done more right that wrong, well, you are most definitely not part of the anti-American left.
And just so you'll know... I NEVER voted Republican in my life. This time I'm torn. I find almost all of Bush's domestic policies to be a disaster. But dang it! Can I trust Kerry to bull through domestic and EU opposition to pursue the War in Terror? Can I? It Seems if he is elected we’re back to the Terror as crime paradigm. And it don’t work.
It could come down to a judgement call as to which will be the worse personal threat to me for that next 4 years, the coal fired power plant right around the corner that STILL doesn't have up to date pollution controls or the War on Terror. Now, that's a pretty tough decision. It would be a lot easier if I thought Kerry was as serious about our safety as I am... or as Bush is.
Anyway, I’ve found this forum to be the one that most closely matches my position. Some contributors are a little far out toward the Libertarian side for economics and social policy, but that’s why there’s AL. Another bonus is that the discussions are almost always civil and broad. Just me 2 cents.....
hmmm...Josh is certainly confused, but I think Wretchard is confusing matters here, even if y'all are trying to be clear.
Josh, Chomsky is a leftist, while Ted Kennedy is a liberal...ELF is leftist, while the Sierra Club is liberal...see the difference?
Now, there are some who contend that the election of Kerry is somehow a victory for al Qaeda. That's what is offensive and wrong here, in my view.
I think people tend to get confused about coalition-building versus endorsement. Take the Nader situation, for instance.
Right now, Kerry's in a bind about what to do about Nader. He can ignore him, and risk that Nader will poll strongly enough in key states to elect Bush, or he can try to co-opt him somehow and convince him not to run. Does this imply that Kerry somehow would govern like Nader? Hardly. He might be forced to compromise in some areas. But that's what governing is all about. Compromise.
Now, for the "activist" problem--I think you'll find that the committed on either side of the aisle are more extreme in their views than the actual electorate. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense because the passionate are the ones most likely to commit themselves to a "cause." So it's an adverse selection problem, and I think you'd be wrong to view it as indicative of where the voters are.
By the way, while I admire y'all's willingness to speak out about racism on the right, a lot of more famous neoconservatives have been loth to do so. Witness the flap a few years ago over Michael Lind's denunciation of Pat Robertson's anti-Semitism, for instance...instead of condemning Robertson for what were clearly anti-Semitic views, the "fusionists" went after...Lind.
I dunno. I think Ted Kennedy's massiveness oozes over the demarcation between liberal and left at a number of points. ;)
The reason I keep bringing up liberals is because the article is, in the big picture, about liberals. Yes, many of its paragraphs are about the Chomskyite fringe. But remember, the thesis sentence of the article is about John Kerry, and the article keeps coming back to John Kerry.
In fact, I think the article's point is that democrats are limited in their options by their constituency, which includes the peacenik Chomskyites, and that they can't use force effectively as a result. That is an argument not just against the Chomskyites but against the democratic party as a whole.
If you were to soften that argument a lot, it might hold water. You could say that liberals have a history of using force only hesitantly. You could argue that this tendency can be traced back to the influence of the Chomskyite constituency. You could very reasonably argue that in the case of Al-Qaeda, the use of force was overly hesitant, that it compromised national security.
But to conclude that such hesitation represents a serious barrier now is nonsense. Before 9/11, only a few people took Al-Qaeda as an immediate threat. Now everyone does. Nobody would hesitate to go after these guys with gusto.
praktike (6:40pm):
while I admire y'all's willingness to speak out about racism on the right, a lot of more famous neoconservatives have been loth to do so...
Fair enough, but remember that some of the posters here (Lurker, myself) have never voted for a Republican pres. candidate, and are unlikely to self-identify as conservatives, even as less-famous neoconservatives. So I thought Trent Lott earned the criticism he got from righty bloggers last year, but it wasn't a fight in my family.
To quote myself:
> Nobody would hesitate to go after these guys with gusto.
I take that back. Some people would. But I think polls clearly show it's a small minority, too small to really make much difference.
Josh Yelon (7:08pm):
But to conclude that [the hesitation to use force] represents a serious barrier now is nonsense. Before 9/11, only a few people took Al-Qaeda as an immediate threat. Now everyone does. Nobody would hesitate to go after these guys with gusto.
Depends who "everyone" is, and what "go after these guys" actually means, I guess.
My earlier point is that very large parts of the Left, in Europe, the Third World, and in the U.S. quite forcefully disagree with your assertion of what "everyone" agrees. Or agree with a formulation that goes, "Yes Al-Qaeda is a threat, but..."
...but their grievances are just as legitimate as ours.
...but American neo-imperialism is worse than anything that AQ could manage.
...but Christian-Fascist Ashcroft is the real menace.
...but Why Do They Hate Us?
...and so on.
Similar strictures regarding "go after these guys."
Many of my ideological opponents--among them Islamofascists, nihilists, 'transnational-progressivists', and Chomskyites--have been admirably forthright in declaring their opposition to America and to western civilization in its current forms. They view 9/11, Iraq, and other events through this prism.
Josh, I'd suggest that you are ignoring the "anti-hegemonist Left", and listening instead for what you wish they would say, or think they should be saying. Check out the bibliographies that A.L. recommended to you earlier on this thread.
It strikes me as patronizing, dangerous, and commonplace to dismiss people's actual words in this way.
Josh, sorry I missed your 7:14pm addendum: "polls clearly show it's a small minority, too small to really make much difference."
Not at all. "It," the "anti-hegemony" (cf. "misguided-tactics") Left is the majority informed elite opinion in Europe, Canada, and most of the Third World, coupled with a sizable fraction of the American anti-war Left (e.g. ANSWER, NION, MoveOn, DU). You'd have to provide a lot of documentation with a lot of links to have your iconoclastic point of view taken seriously! You'd have to start by rebutting the many points that speak to this subject that have already been raised on this thread.
...I hope you're not blogging from work...
> but their grievances are just as legitimate as ours.
I think that's an interesting comment.
I think the vast majority of the hostility in the region comes directly from the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think you could eliminate every other source of hostility, but as long as the Israel-Palestine feud continues, terror will go on.
So are the grievances of the Palestinians just? Well, yes and no. They're a conquered people, and conquered people don't get their lands back unless they mount a successful counterassault. So what's the statute of limitations for a counterassault? I don't think there's a clear answer, but I think in the case of the Palestinians, it's too late. But I recognize that a statute-of-limitations argument is not a very strong argument, and that many Palestinians still feel that Israel is theirs. In other words, they perceive themselves as justified. I think the fact that they perceive themselves as justified, and the fact that that perception is not totally baseless, is relevant when forming policy toward them.
I did some time in Academia getting a PhD in English and doing the adjunct thing (a clear violation of the 13th amendment, but I digress). And believe me, there is a very large and influential nutcase left out there. They have politics somewhere to the left of Trotsky and make no distinction between liberal and conservative--everybody who disagrees with them is either "bourgeois" or "fascist" depending on their mood; they do hate America, capitalism, the family (for them the original site of "bourgeois" or "patriarchal" oppression), science and just about anything else sane. Case in point, one of my fellow PhD students spent his summer--or claimed he did--writing propaganda for the IRA. That shithead is probably now a tenure track professor somewhere precisely because working for a terrorist organization--or plausibly claiming to--establishes his loony left bona fides.
Josh, I can understand your irritation at being identified with those kinds of nutballs, but they not only exist, they teach our children. And their lunacy is trickling down to high school and elementary school courtesy of colleges of education (I also have an M. Ed in instructional design and technology, so I know what I'm talking about there too). You may not be one of them, but believe me, they are not just a tiny fringe.
M. Simon,
re:I don't see it that way at all. Rather, the left and right (in the US, at least) seem to be pushing liberty in different and fairly non-overlapping spheres.
Josh:
You're just not trying hard enough. Look what the Republicans did with Pat Buchanan if you need an example of how to proceed.Lurker,
You'd better pray that Kerry loses, then, because if he did get elected (fat chance, imo) and furthermore could just shut down that non-compliant plant by fiat, your whole area would be in for lots of short-term misery in its electric supply.
Josh Yelon wrote (8:17pm):
So are the grievances of the Palestinians just? Well, yes and no. They're a conquered people, and...
...Cue this thread abruptly shifting gears and moving to a passionate discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
...Which is interesting and important and the subject of a great many WoC posts, but not the subject here...
Perhaps the topic here will remain whether Joe Katzman and Wretchard are justified in criticizing the Left, and whether Liberals/the Left are usefully seen as one movement, or two ("anti-hegemony" cf. "misguided-tactics"), or more.
Josh, you wrote that the "anti-hegemony" Left was "too small to make a difference." I parroted Wretchard's contention that it is the main driver of Left thought in the West, and toxic, and hence important. Back to you...
Josh,
I was so busy responding to your earlier post, I neglected to look at your last one. I only have one thing to say about the Palestinians (or at least Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Palestinian Islamic Jihad et al): I don't care what kind of grievance they have, how legitimate it is or how grievous it is, anyone who would strap bombs on children and send them to blow up other children (and anyone who would support such a tactic) is a subhuman savage who has forfeited all claim to humanity. You cannot negotiate with those kinds of rabid animals. You can only kill them before they kill you.
Kirk,
Not to worry. That power plant is across the River in Indiana. None of it's power is used on our side. We just get to breath the emissions, and maybe endure the subsequent EPA community sanctions. If Bush has his way, we'll be the state that California will export it's power generation pollution too.
Yeah. You're probably right about Kerry. I'm not sure I can figure out his domestic policies well enough to either agree or disagree with them. He's trying to be the 'Rorschach Blot' candidate.
Lurker: Are you sure you don't use any of that power? Have you forgotten last year's power outage?
That said, I am on your side to curb pollution such as this.
> Josh, you wrote that the "anti-hegemony" Left was "too small to make a difference." ... Back to you...
OK, I'll continue.
I'll accept your arguments that the antiwar faction is bigger than I had envisioned. I suppose when you think about it, only 90% of the US supported the war in Afghanistan. That means 10% didn't. I'm assuming that half of them are people who don't even know what the word "hegemony" means. But even so, that leaves 5% of the population that's genuinely anti-hegemonistic. Although 5% is not a big obstacle when you're trying to get congressional approval for a war, it's still a pretty big number in an absolute sense. Plenty to make some big antiwar demonstrations, plenty to publish a metric crapton of books.
So 5% of the population isn't big enough to block legislation, but 5% can definitely tip an election. It's legitimate to fear that Democrats would "pander to the radical base" and hesitate to execute a needed war.
But conservatives have radicals within their midst as well - the fundamentalist christians. You know how you deal with them. You throw them a bone periodically. You try to give them symbolic concessions, without actually demanding that Americans give up sex. That's how extreme factions are treated by mainstream politicians.
So what does that mean for the chomskyites and the liberals? I think the chomskyites would have power in borderline cases. For example, in Afghanistan, a war was clearly needed. That case was not borderline, there's no way Chomsky could have stopped that war. But the Iraq war was, in my opinion, borderline. Reasonable people on both sides debated it, it was far from a foregone conclusion that the outcome would be favorable. I think that in such cases, the Chomsky influence could tip the balance.
I don't see that as a bad thing. What it comes down to is, in borderline cases, liberals are biased against force. Basically, the burden of proof for a war is higher for liberals than for conservatives. I think that's a good bias: I think the burden of proof for a war should be high.
Can I prove that the Chomskyites only affect policy in borderline cases? No. I can cite evidence: Clinton's war in Kosovo, Clinton's attacks in Sudan. But really, except for Clinton, Republicans have controlled government for a long time. So it's hard to give a lot of examples.
The working presumption of American democracy has been that most shades of the Left were legitimate voices. That presumption was fairly easy to grant even to the Left's most extreme elements because America lived with a wide margin of safety. Even if John Kerry wins, there can be no doubt that everyone, especially the armed forces, will not only grant him the presumption but recognize him as Commander in Chief.
But that doesn't really answer the question of whether Kerry or any policy regime dominated by Liberals or the Left can defeat Islamic extremism. It is not an idle question. The Clinton record and the current strategy being pursued by Chirac, Schroeder and Zapatero are empirical answers to this question. One can suspend judgement for the moment on the grounds that these things take time. But at some point the operational problem will re-emerge. Can Islamism be defeated without throwing the Left out of office?
If the answer is negative, then there must be something about the Left that makes it incapable of defeating Islamism. If so, then we can't have the Left without also accepting Islamism. The best ripose by the Left, it seems to me, is to demonstrate the falsity of this proposition by actually defeating or controlling Islamism. That would be utterly convincing.
Josh,
Until liberals start casting out the true lefties (using whatever definition you chose) from the Democratic Party, your side has little credibility in claiming the lefties are just a trivial minority on your general side of the fence.
Sometimes you have to draw a line. My father and his generation in the Americans For Democratic Action did in driving the Communists from the Democratic Party in the late 1940's.
I suggest you check out the thread above about the former Archbishop of Canterbury, at:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004778.php
Some European churches have also started going after European Islamic socieities to denounce suicide bombing.
There is some movement here. You'll either be a part of it, or you won't.
> But that doesn't really answer the question of whether Kerry or any policy regime dominated by Liberals or the Left can defeat Islamic extremism.
The overall strategy is to get rid of dictatorships and replace them with democracy. At that level, your plan makes sense. You question our ability to complete the "get rid of dictator" stage of the plan. We question your ability to complete the "create democracy" stage of the plan.
I would respectfully submit that the "get rid of dictator" part is the easy part, and that we have very good generals for that sort of thing. Where we need an inspired president is for stage two.
Let's see. Barbara Lee / Total number of Dem Congressmen ~ 0.5%, right? That shows the strength of the Give the Taliban a Break faction of the "Left".
The radical position of the Bush Administration on every front is that the American Executive, in charge of the most powerful state in history, need not (even should not) be fettered by any previous constraints of law or tradition.
The Geneva Conventions? Forget it. We can call anyone we capture an unlawful combatant.
Right to Counsel and a speedy trial for citizens? Ask Padilla, if you can.
Traditional notion of casus belli and self-defense? Why do you think Bush used every horrifying, threatening word except imminent (grave, gathering, urgent, immediate, etc.)? Because pre-emption of imminent threats is an established right under international law (albeit in this case, the threat was wildly exaggerated). The Bush Doctrine requires a lesser threat precisely to show that we are too big to be bound by the same rules as everyone else.
Perhaps this explains why Europe isn't so excited by our new philosophy. Be that as it may, I don't understand how Democrats have to cast foreign left-wingers out of the party, seeing that they don't belong in the first place. When Chomsky sits on the DNC, then we can talk.
Josh Yelon wrote (9:48pm):
I suppose only 90% of the US supported the war in Afghanistan.
Here are figures from a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll of US adults that, to my surprise, back up your supposition.
Question: Do you approve or disapprove of US military action in Afghanistan?
Date ------- Approve/Disapprove
Mar 8-9, 2002 --- 91 / 7
Sep 2-4, 2003 --- 83 / 13
Dec 5-7, 2003 --- 71 / 25
[I’d assume that half of the disapprovers] don't even know what the word "hegemony" means. But even so, that leaves 5% of the population that's genuinely anti-hegemonistic. Although 5% is not a big obstacle when you're trying to get congressional approval for a war, it's still a pretty big number in an absolute sense.
True enough, but have you gotten to the heart of the classic Liberals’ concerns about the Illiberal Left? Is the “Bad Philosophy” that A.L. and others decry an irrelevant couple of percentage points, or a Movement with well-defined objectives, and a vision of how to attain them?
And how does this relate to the Democracies’ varied positions towards the Islamofascist movement and secular fascist states?
Rather than present the argument, I’ll offer a few links from 2002. First, to John Fonte’s description of “Transnational Progressivism" as a leftist alternative to Liberalism (or see Steven den Beste’s review here.).
Lee Harris wrote an article about America-bashing that touches on the self-loathing of parts of the American left.
Can I prove that the Chomskyites only affect policy in borderline cases?
But “Chomskyite” (or transnational progressivist) ideologies are not borderline in their influence on parts of our society. They are commonplace in certain areas, notably in the social science and humanities educational Establishment (e.g. Columbia’s DeGenova), journalism (e.g. Robert Scheer), and NGOs (e.g. Tides Foundation).
I'd ask your question in a different way: is the hard Left disproportionately influential in framing the terms of our national debates? I think it is, and that its adherents work to frame them in ways that are inimical to the well-being of a classically Liberal society. This is nothing more than taking the Leninist concept of the Vanguard of the Proletariat, and applying it to the circumstances of our own times.
Josh Yelon, thanks for the repeated thoughtful posts. I hope you get a chance to check out the linked articles. (Though your 11:13pm post and some earlier ones make me wonder if you are as hard-Left as your earlier entries suggested!) My day now moves into the realm of diapers and stories, so signing off...
Josh,
The "get rid of the dictator" is the crucial part, the necessary condition for the second part. Here is where we await proof by construction. There is nothing to prevent the EU, which is collectively the size and power potential of the USA from doing the two-step you very reasonably suggest. There's nothing to prevent Kerry from laying out a similar program and drumming up support for it. But what one actually hears from them, as an empirical matter, is the notion that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem.
One can prove the existence of an object by constructing it, as you probably know from your basic math. I am sure that if the Liberal/Left actually demonstrated that they could roll back Islamic terrorism from places where they hold office it would be a perfectly convincing proof.
I have to say, I've really enjoyed this debate. Thank you too, AMac. I feel guilty about having wasted an entire day blogging, I'm supposed to be programming. I'm afraid I can't continue. Nonetheless, thanks for the tolerant reception. :)
- Josh
"The Geneva Conventions? Forget it. We can call anyone we capture an unlawful combatant."
I thought that, according to the sections of the Geneva Convention the US has agreed to, what we've done is perfectly legal.
Here's an example
of an anti-American leftest, though Canadian (sorry Joe). Actually, idiotarian may be the better classification. Read the whole thing. It's fasinating in a twisted sorta way. Strangely, I ran across this site via a link in today's Robin's Winds of War post.
BTW...
The USA has abided by the applicable Geneva conventions with respect to illegal combatants. One must follow certain guidelines to enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention, one of which is to be a clearly identified combatant, e.g. with uniforms, etc. That's why it is still permissible (as far as I know) to hang spys. Naturally terrorists are not following this requirement, and in fact strive to blend in with the civilian population.
I'm a LOT less confident with respect to the handling of US citizens. It would seem that the rights of citizenship should still apply, regarless of status under the Geneva convention. Bush could be dropping the ball on this one.
Thank you to Josh, AMac, and all the other participants here. This has been a very good debate, about a topic that matters, and a fine example of what we're trying to create here on Winds of Change.NET.
Get back to programming Josh, but y'all come back now, hear?
Speaking of programming, we've got to figure out how to make comments into permalinked items within MT so they can each be referenced with an URL. The quality and volume of discussion here on the blog is quickly making that an imperative....
lurker,
The pertinent precedents here are from our Civil War. That something is legally permissible doesn't mean it will happen. Unlawful combatants may be shot on capture. Few are.
Hell, lawful combatants may be shot or hung at discretion. Union forces did that to normal Confederate POW's in retaliation for the Confederates murdering captured Union black soldiers. Which definitely curbed such Confederate misbehavior.
It is a standard anti-whatever technique to exaggerate what is permissible but rare into a general rule. Don't fall for this.
I am sure that if the Liberal/Left actually demonstrated that they could roll back Islamic terrorism from places where they hold office it would be a perfectly convincing proof.
With Hamas now in charge of the Gaza Strip, I'm just now sure the right has been so successful, either...
Tom,
I think we are on the same side of the 'illegal combatant' argument, e.g. they don't fall under the Geneva Convention. You make a good point, the US could have just shot them dead, instead they were only detained. Gosh... mercy from the Great Satan.
Interesting comments on the Civil War... pre Geneva Convention I beieve. Was there a rules-of-war type convention applicable then? Or was it more along the lines of 'Gentlemen's Agreements'?
Also, under US law, how can a US citizen forfiet his rights as a US citizen and the protections of the Constitution by becoming an enemy combatant, illegal or legal? It seems he would still enjoy all these protections of citizenship. Certainly a traitor, but you MUST be a citizen before you can be a traitor.
Joe,
The first step would be to find out if each comment is stored seperately in your database, or in seperate files. Otherwise, there's going to be some parsing that needs to be done to sperate them out.
Once you have them seperated, it would be a pretty simple matter to write a query to supply each individual comment. Individual being the key would, in that they have to be.
lurker,
The whole point of the Union war effort was that everyone in the Confederacy were U.S. citizens, even the guys in gray. That did not stop Union forces from hanging and shooting otherwise innocent Confederate POW's when that was in American interests. Like when Nathan Bedford Forrest had captured Union black soldiers murdered.
My point is that war is war, and war is hell. Hamdi and Chicago hood whats-his-name are U.S. citizens, yet we can do with them what we want if need be. So what? That is unlikely to the point of the subject being inane.
Which most lefties are. War is so - so - so ICKY!
'cuz 9/11 never happened. And they're idiots.
tom,
I undestand what you are saying, that sometimes things must be done in war that aren't normally done.
Couldn't it be argured that the conferates give up the protection of the Constitution when that seceeded? My concern is that the Constitution be rspected. If the bar is lowered enough, could I be declared an enemy combatent if I donated money to an Iraqi relief effort, only to have it be a front for a terrorist group?
Where's the line? What must a citizen do, to give up his rights as a citizen? Even traitors get a civilial trial, right? Of course, one enlisted in the military would be bound to those courts.
So, someone show me the big RED line. And answer this, is bush trying to move it to close to liberty?
Praktika,
Its just possible Sharon wants to ditch Gaza and wants to build the security wall. But be that as it may, Chirac's loss to the French Left will be interesting to watch. If it results in Raffarin's removal or a general election, we can watch how France fares as the Left rolls back Raffarin's very modest entitlement cuts. Presumably they also will deal with terrorism in a more Leftist "way" than was possible with Chirac.
As I observed elsewhere, the Left is manacling itself to certain economic, social and security policies. They are drinking from this doubtful chalice with both eyes open. In my opinion, they are chaining themselves to an anvil and throwing it over the cliff. But that is just an opinion. In France we can actually watch to see if it occurs. The problem is: what if I'm right?
Wretchard,
Well, Sharon is ditching Gaza. But guess who's filling the void? So now we have the prospect of a terrorist government running matters...what happens when Hamas takes over the West Bank as well? Is Israel going to hide behind its wall forever? Are they going to wipe out all of the Palestinians? Where's the light at the end of the tunnel? What's the endgame?
And as a matter of fact, Europe has become less and not more socialist over the last ten years. And guess what? The majority of French citizens--not the "Left" wasn't happy with the way that was going.
Now, take Spain. Actually, Spain's economy was humming quite nicely under Azner, and dissatisfaction with his economic policies was not why he got the boot...
So I think your generalizations about Europe start to fall apart when you look at what's really been happening.
Praktika,
Steven den Beste has developed this scenario in some detail and the Washington Post is quoted as saying that Sharon has been in negotiation with the US to create a unilateral solution. I don't know if I buy Steven's scenario totally, but he seems to think it will be doomsday for the Hamas.
Actually, there are several possibilities for Gaza. One is that Egypt will roll in and take it over. The other is that Hamas and Fatah will struggle over it and whoever is left standing will have the problem of governnance. The actual short term problem is that the Gazans will starve once the Israelis pull out. Anyhow, a Gaza left to whoever would in many respects resemble Lebanon, which Israel has on its northern border. Actually, Israel is bordered by Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria (via the Golan), all of whom have infinitely more combat power than the Hamas in Gaza.
I'm sure Den Beste has developed this in excrutiating detail, but who has the patience to read it? Not me.
OK, so the endgame looks like...walls everywhere, a hostile Lebanon to the north, a hostile Syria to the northeast, a somewhat cooperative Egypt to the South and in Gaza, and a West Bank that nobody wants...I guess if the Israeli people are comfortable with that, more power to 'em, but what about the demographic imperative of the Arab Israelis? Do they get shipped out?
Hey all you lefty freaks out there, Osama & Co. want to kill you. Period. No idealism. No great mission. Just kill you, infidel! And you agonize about Amerika!!! God damned fools!
Sorry to come late to the thread.
>The overall strategy is to get rid of dictatorships and replace them with democracy. At that level, your plan makes sense. You question our ability to complete the "get rid of dictator" stage of the plan. We question your ability to complete the "create democracy" stage of the plan.
Actually, what I question is the willingness to get rid of the dictators, not the ability to implement. There's always a reason not to act, not yet, and it always seems to be dominant. The continuing emphasis on "quagmire" and "distraction" sound suspiciously like exactly those reasons repeated, after the fact.
Maybe the Left's problem is that it wants so badly to be the good cop - who gets all the confessions and co-operation, who never risks sanctions for excessive force - that it's persuaded itself that only the theoretical possibility of a bad cop is necessary.
The pro-DemoLib "great unwashed" middle and lower classes are probably the only ones amongst the Left we should genuinely feel sorry for - the ACTIVISTS and LEFTPERTS know the real score! IFF for the Clintons and Clinton Left the Bush and the GOP are alleged FASCISTS, eg the ULTRA-RIGHT SOCIALIST, whom then are the per se non-"FASCIST", non-SOCIALIST, RIGHTISTS, LET ALONE THOSE LEFT-OF-CENTER AND THE ULTRALEFT??? Are ordinary American citizens and dedicated TRADITIONAL"Republicans" or "Rightists"
now supposed to believe that being "TRADITIONAL" CENTER-RIGHT/RIGHT-OF-CENTER and NON-FASCIST RIGHTIST now means to believe in an anti-materialist or anti-wealth individualism or utopianism that STILL REQUIRES THE DESPOTIC/AUTHORITARIAN PARTICIPATION OF THE STATE TO REGULATORILY ENFORCE INDIVIDUALIST-BASED UTOPIAN OR "LAISSEZ FAIRE" PERSONAL AND SOCIETAL BEHAVIORS!? Or that RIGHTISM within the context of common or unifying national-societal-ethnic majority VALUES now stands for wilful anti-sovereignty, anti-materialsm/-property, anti-personalty, and the wilful "BALKANIZATION/CANTON-IZATION" of culture, society, and defined nationhood or territoriality, despotic elitism/meritocracy... etc.!? The Left does not understand or comprehend that laissez faire libertarianism and state-ism /secularism are two directly antithetical, ZERO-SUM concepts/paradynms. like matter versus anti-matter, light versus dark, etc. The Left rationally cannot without hypocrisy be both individual-based/centric laissez faire AND state-centric or state-based subsidist/welfarist/
Socialist, just as it can NOT rationally stand for both REALISTIC FREE MARKETS and the UNREALISTIC, INFLATIONARY MARKET CONDITIONS WROUGHT BY PROTRACTIVE STATE-SUBSIDISM! Accordingly, the Clintons can NOT proclaim that Republican Bush's attempts to privatize government services is CONTRARY to the "normal" relationship [read, GOVT-DRIVEN SUBSIDIST-SOCIALIST] bewteen the Fed and its private-sector customers, laud in acclamation of pro-war, pro-Invasion, anti-laissez faire, and anti-UN BUshism and Bush-style Republicanism-Unilateralism, and simul laud the United Nations as an org for resisting Republican and American "extremism",
"Rightist extremism", AND "imperialism"!? READ THE WHOLE OF THE CLINTONS' COMMENTS, ESPEC BETWEEN THE LINES, AND ONE CAN EASILY FIND RECOGNIZABLE PRECEPTS OF [DISGUISED] COMMUNISM! ALSO REMEBER - IN ALL THE HISTORY OF THE ISLAMIC NATIONS AND THE ME/ASIA MINOR, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR MUSLIMS TO WORK AS MERCENARIES FOR BOTH MUSLIM AND NON-MUSLIM PERSONAGES -IF MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT NO MUSLIM WILL WAR ON ANOTHER MUSLIM, THEN BY EXTENSION NO FAITH-BASED COMMAND-SOCIALIST, WHICH IS WHAT A DEDICATED MUSLIM AND RADICAL MUSLIM GENERICALLY OR AESTHETICALLY IS, WILL WAR ON ANOTHER FAITH-BASED COMMAND-SOCIALIST, BUT CAN WAGE WAR ON A NON-MUSLIM, NON-THEOSOCIALIST OR NON-COMMAND SOCIALIST! As per the rationale for any "STUPID SADDAM" scenario, it is possible to argue that within the context of geopolitics and inter-ideological competition/warfare, Radical Islam as a class will NOT willingly engage in [near]self-destruction against the world's No.1 the USA, AND its No. 2 Great Britain, UNLESS IT KNOWS IT STANDS TO SINGULARLY BENEFIT OR BETTER FROM SOMETHING THAT WILL OCCUR OR DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, read America under Socialism and [anti-sovereign]International Socialist control via UN-based OWG/GloboGovt! IFF Great Britain = West and pro-Capitalism Euro/Democratic Socialism, to include pro-Western democratic Asia, then an argument can also be made that 9-11 was also an attack by [faith-based?] COMMAND SOCIALISTS UPON NON-COMMAND SOCIALISTS AND [WESTERN] CAPITALISM; BESIDES AN ATTACK BY ASIA MINOR, AND BY EXTENSION "ASIA" PROPER, AS PER THE GRECO-ROMAN DEFINITION, ON THE WEST, WESTERN POWER, AND THE WHOLE OF WESTERN IDEALS-BELIEFS!
Right now, I am planning to vote for Kerry. I find it hard to believe that Kerry would not respond to an attack on the United States with force and vigor -- this is a guy who voted against GWI and for GWII. He is opposing a President who learned about the first hit several minutes after CNN did and sent 20 minutes reading to second-graders.
Myself, I think the Bush Administration did a very bad job on 9/11 itself. It was probably difficult enough to prevent the first hit at 8:46 am, but what about the second hit at 9:02 am, or the attack against the Pentagon at 9:38 am?
The Geneva Conventions provide that a detainee has one shot at refuting the "unlawful combatant" designation. That's why two years on we are finally beginning military tribunals in Gitmo, but the delay is unconscionable. (At the very least, we had to provide the detainees with the privileges of lawful combatants until the tribunals met.) So yes, we can hang spies, but only after a trial.
(To Praktike on Gaza: Once Israel recognizes rights in real property for non-Jews, to which they have heretofore paid mere lip service, I don't think Israeli Arab citizens are any problem. Like American Indians (or blacks), almost all are loyal in the face of second- or worse-class treatment. Radicalization comes from the perhaps-waning reluctance of the majority to enforce existing anti-discrimination laws, and from an identification with Palestinians not as Arabs per se, but over the way in which they are at risk for losing their lands just as the Israeli Arabs have to a considerable extent. I am also going to repeat a claim that most here dispute: the settlements are the central issue between the Europeans and complete acceptance of Israel. The policy in the West Bank and Gaza reminds Europe too much of their own past colonialist practices. If Sharon aligns his wall closer to the 1967 border, Israel will get the security benefits that come from the Arabs' loss of sympathy, and money, in EU capitals.)
As one such "anti-hegemonist", I watch with bemusement this discussion. My goal is to minimize the power that some people have over others. So-called "Islamofascism" (a ridiculous misnomer, but whatever) is not something I care for, or care to be accused of being in some kind of "alliance" with, if by that you mean subjugation of women, etc. But whence emerges these movements? I know that in this forum, I will be vastly outnumbered by those who disagree with me, so I won't try to justify my view of history; but I believe that the power of the "West" was a necessary condition for this situation (and other equally dangerous, but mostly ignored situations) to arise. I believe that the crisis might abate (if it isn't too late) by reducing the influence of things that generate this imbalance of power.
We will likely not see the abatement in the near future. We will possibly not see any abatement at all. All I know is that we have at least a choice between making things worse more quickly or less quickly, and I believe that the perspective that seems to be espoused by the majority of participants on this blog will make things worse.
So remember that we all have the welfare of humanity in mind.
Okay. I'll bite, AGAIN - how can a Leftist or Left-based ideology or movement, one that proclaims eveything violent it does is broadly and specifically and WHOLLY because of the Right, justifies armed struggle and violence for self-defense, justifies andor reserves UNILATERAL armed struggle and UNILATERAL violence to achieve its agendas, and dogmatically justifies permament armed struggle as a matter of course against Rightism and capitalism to achieve its ultimate evolutionary form, NOT BELIEVE THE GWOT IS [SINGULARLY]"AGAINST THEM" IRREGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OR FACTS!? The Left is for the thesis and antithesis ERGO THE LEFT CANNOT RATIONALLY DOGMATICALLY ARGUE THEIR "WAR" OR IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE HAS EVEN "ENDED" - what better proof than SECULAR COMMUNIST WORKING TOGETHER WITH SECULAR FASCIST SUPPORTED BY FAIH-BASED, THEOCRATIC, RADICAL ISLAM!? Not sufficient - howsabout actor CUBA GOODING, JR. scene in the Left's propaganda and call-to-war film "PEARL HARBOR", where he stands over his mortally wounded, dying battleship captain, ie DYING LEFTISM-DYING OLD GUARD, tearfully but optimistically telling his captain, "You taught us well", and that the fight will carry on to the end -in "PH", NOT ONLY DID THE USS OKLAHOMA CAPSIZE THE WRONG WAY, BUT CUBA'S HEROIC BLACK CHARACTER, read PRO-WELFARIST INNER CITY, ISN'T EVEN ON THE RIGHT BATTLESHIP!? Despite the majority of the evidence, it could or might or may or can be true in the MINORITY of same, ergo it ABSOLUTELY PER SE IS "TRUE" - if DemLeftLibs criticize the Right as being "MASTERS OF THE OBVIOUS AND MUNDANE", the Left are pro-Intellectualist/Scientifist MASTERS OF THE TRIVIAL, THE IRRELEVANT, AND PARALLEL/SIMULTANEOUS CONTRADICTION", aka PRO-STATUS QUO REVOLUTIONARIES, PRO-PROGRESSIVE ANTI-PROGRESSIVES................etc.!? IFF the Left's struggle against the Right and Capitalism is neverending, until such time it wins its "final struggle", then by definition the final 1evolution of Leftism hasn't occurred yet, which by extension again means the struggle of Communism and Socialism to evolutionary peacefuly or forcibly take over from Rightism-Capitalism is also incomplete, ergo again IS ONGOING DESPITE THE IMPLOSION OF THE FORMER USSR AND THE SEVERE TO CATASTROPHIC PROBLEMS OF FAILED LEFTISM! If American Liberals wish to give themselves a good name, its for them to get rid of the Communist CLintons or differentiate themselves from all things anti-capitalist and anti-American/Western, as well as correct their NUMEROUS, OVERWHELMING, INTERNAL HYPOCRISIES, NOT TO IMPERSONATE THE SUCCESSFUL RIGHT IN ORDER TO KILL-DESTROY THE RIGHT AND ULTIMATELY AMERICA ITSELF! ONCE THE RIGHT IS GONE, ANY AND ALL PRO-AMERICA LEFTIES AND AMERICA ITSELF ARE DEAD MEAT!
Yemaneko wrote:
He is opposing a President who learned about the first hit several minutes after CNN did and sent 20 minutes reading to second-graders.
Myself, I think the Bush Administration did a very bad job on 9/11 itself. It was probably difficult enough to prevent the first hit at 8:46 am, but what about the second hit at 9:02 am, or the attack against the Pentagon at 9:38 am?
This is some pretty poor historical fiction you are spouting. Everyone thought the first plane to hit the world trade center was an accident. So of course the president continued in the normal course of his schedule that day. The realization we were under attack didn't come until the second plane hit. It was at this point that Bush left the school and went into crisis response mode.
In another second I was jurisdictional in the due mansion, shivering and gibbering. The targo cultivated Chapman house had inexplicably burned to an disarmed heap of prilosec