Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
So I Thought, Hey, I Haven't Visited InstaPundit For a While. Wonder What I'll Find There?
InstaPundit guestblogger Michael Totten offers some odd political advice to the Democrats:
As far as I'm concerned, social liberalism is the best thing the Democratic Party has going for it. They should keep that and drop the pacifism and isolationism instead. They'll get a lot more votes next time around if they do. Plenty of socially liberal people voted for George W. Bush on national security grounds.
The strange thing here isn't the suggestion that the way to attract a majority of voters is to attract the vote of Michael Totten. Plenty of pundits project their preferences onto the electorate. The strange thing here isn't the idea that John Kerry is a pacifist. He obviously isn't -- the man wouldn't even call for a withdrawal from Iraq, which you'd think would be point one on the pacifist agenda -- but it's no surprise to hear a hawk like Totten implying otherwise.
The strange thing is the use of the word "isolationism." Just last year the warbloggers were warning that Kerry would submit America's foreign policy to a nefarious "global test." The man and his party were damned for their excessive faith in the United Nations, multilateralism, and the power of the well-crafted treaty. And now they're supposed to be isolationists? Even in the alternate universe of the GOPintern loyalist, where the Democratic Party platform is indistinguishable from the films of Michael Moore, this would make no sense: Moore's first response to 9/11 somehow found room to complain that the U.S. had withdrawn from the Durban conference on racism and had rejected the Kyoto accords.
Last year it was obvious to anyone with eyes that the Democratic establishment was run by globalist hawks. The antiwar Dems were insurgents, and their insurgency collapsed in Iowa. The doves didn't have enough pull with Kerry to turn him against the war -- just enough to make his stance an incoherent muddle. If this is "pacifism and isolationism," then those words have no meaning.
|8.8.05 @ 6:49PM|#
This is a clear example of typing without thinking about what
the words actually mean. If the Dems, those same dems who to this
day excuse Billy for all his nation-building misadventures in
Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., if THEY are "pacifists" and "isolationists",
then, what does that make the GOP warmongors?
Though, that's precisely what the neocon-right has done: they've
subconsciously shifted the median, so that anyone who
doesn't wholeheartedly hop on the warwagon, is thus a pacifist and
an isolationist. In addition, people like Totten do the GOP an
extra service by transcribing the extreme positions of a handful of
"no war, no matter what, even in self-defense, NO WAR EVER!"
hippies, onto the dems as a whole, even though, for the most part,
it couldn't be further from the truth.
Even if they were what he calls them, I think Totten
strikes me as the kinda guy who purposely refuses to acknowledge
that there is a difference between "isolationism" and
"non-interventionism". "Isolationist", instead of being defined in
its traditional sense (cut off from the rest of the world), now
means "anyone who disagrees with whatever foreign intervention I'm
supporting". Totten knows damned well they aren't what he calls
them, but that doesn't matter.
Tim Cavanaugh|8.8.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Now here's a multilateralist-vs.-unilateralist riddle that I'd doubt anybody can answer: During one of the debates (the second one, I think), Kerry and Bush mixed it up over North Korea. Bush was sticking up for the multilateral talks with God's Ronery Man that he claimed were bringing great progress. Kerry was slamming Bush for those same multilateral talks, and saying that the U.S. had to go mano-a-mano with the Kimster to get him to knuckle under. As usual, Bush appeared to get the better of the argument, and made the Kerry position look like some creepy form of appeasement. But I couldn't understand what their arguments were. Kerry, Mr. broad coalition, was casting himself as the unilateralist, while Bush was making with the Gary Cooper impression on the basis of multilateral talks-and making it seem like anything else was for pussies. What's the idea? I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.
Jesse Walker|8.8.05 @ 6:52PM|#
I think Kerry actually said we should have both bilateral and multilateral talks with North Korea -- which, needless to say, confuses people even more.
|8.8.05 @ 6:56PM|#
Tim- I've heard something like this in a presidential debate
before:
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man.
But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too
far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go
too far enough."
|8.8.05 @ 6:57PM|#
Jesse,
I think you're right about Kerry's comments, but I also recall that
Bush's argument seemed that by pursing individual talks we would
somehow make _the Chinese_ feel snubbed, and we oughtn't do that. I
guess I missed the swagger Tim recalls. I recall thinking it
strange that Bush was so concerned about China's
feelings.
ANon
|8.8.05 @ 7:00PM|#
Jesse's totally right that Kerry's campaign wasn't isolationist on the whole, but he did make that statemement along the lines of "why are we opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in the U.S.?" Agree or not with the substance, it sounds kinda Lou Dobbs-y.
|8.8.05 @ 7:02PM|#
John Kerry is not an issolationist....but to say that he didn't
court the isolationist crowd durring the last election is a
stretch...what the hell does "opening fire houses in bagdad but
closing them here" supposed to mean if not a direct oveture to the
isolationist vote?
That said there are elements of the left who are dirrectly
appealing to the isolationists...most notably would be Michale
Moore.
|8.8.05 @ 7:15PM|#
what the hell does "opening fire houses in bagdad but
closing them here" supposed to mean if not a direct oveture to the
isolationist vote?
It means that nation-building in Iraq is a less worthwhile way to
spend national security money than shoring up things on the
domestic side. One doesn't have to be an isolationist to appreciate
that point.
|8.8.05 @ 7:18PM|#
Josh,
There's a rather gargantuan divide between:
1) The democrats are X
and
2) John Kerry courted supporters of X by paying minimal lipservice
to X during the last election
|8.8.05 @ 7:19PM|#
"Last year it was obvious to anyone with eyes that the
Democratic establishment was run by globalist hawks."
No. It is obvious to anyone with eyes that the Dems were afraid to
run on their own platform. The collapse of message and candidate
was directly attributable to an obsessive targeting of
'electability' over consistency.
|8.8.05 @ 7:21PM|#
Responding to Tim Cavanaugh, here's the short version:
The U.S. has some interest in preventing North Korea from
manufacturing nuclear weapons (for use against South Korea or
resale to nogoodniks).
When they got into office, the Bush administration made a big deal
of abandoning bilateral talks with North Korea about nuclear issues
on the theory that negotiating with North Korea was for liberal
wusses like the Clintons.
At some point it dawned on the Bushies that unless they were
willing to start a war on the Korean peninsula, they had
essentially no leverage over the North Koreans other than what
might be obtained in negotiation. (Note that North Korea has no
functioning economy to speak of, and the leadership doesn't care if
the people starve anyway, so sanctions won't work.)
Having shat mightily all over the notion of bilateral talks, they
couldn't very well go back to that. Some clever person came up with
the idea that what we really needed were multilateral negotiations.
That has been better than nothing although the other nations at the
table aren't really sure why they are there. The Chinese are having
some fun with it, I expect.
|8.8.05 @ 7:23PM|#
Perhaps I missed it but I thought that Howard Dean was the chairman of the DNC, Michael Moore was a honored guest at the Democratic National Convention, MoveOn.org was the most powerful and well funded Democratic PAC and Atrios and Kos were the most influential Democratic Blogs. Those damn NEOCONS, they can twist anything!!
Jesse Walker|8.8.05 @ 7:31PM|#
Dean was not chairman of the DNC during the campaign last year, which is the period we're addressing -- and while he's opposed to the Iraq war, he certainly isn't an isolationist or a pacifist. (He supported the Balkans war.) Moore has zero influence within the Democratic National Committee, and anyway, as I pointed out in my post, he isn't an isolationist either. I very much doubt that MoveOn is "the most powerful and well-funded Democratic PAC" -- I'm not sure what is, but it's probably hooked up with the unions -- and while Atrios and Kos are among the most prominent Democratic blogs, (a) they aren't the only prominent Democratic blogs, (b) while they're opposed to the Iraq war, they aren't pacifist or isolationist, and (c) they have about as much influence with the DNC as InstaPundit does with the RNC.
|8.8.05 @ 7:33PM|#
alkali has it right.
"pacifism and isolationism," then those words have no
meaning
I think they mean traitor.
Matt Welch|8.8.05 @ 7:37PM|#
John -- Jerry "gays caused 9/11" Falwell was an "honored guest"
at the RNC, and I'm pretty sure Rick "the CMA is the highest form
of national security" Santorum is an actual *elected official* of
some sort ... yet somehow the Republican Party muddled through the
ignomy. Also, Michael Moore campaigned heavily for Nader in 2000.
And Dean supported the previous four American wars.
Which is not to say the inner-party tension between
anti-interventionists & leadership hawks isn't real, or
anything.
|8.8.05 @ 7:39PM|#
Jesse,
Perception is reality. I don't think most people know what the
nuances of Howard Dean's beliefs, whatever they are. Most people
however do know that he is the crazy old aunt in the atic of
American politics who professes the Osma Bin Laden is innocent
until proven guilty, yet most Republican voters haven't worked an
honest day in their lives and Tom Delay needs to report to prison
in Texas. I would love to know one Democratic PAC that more than a
few thousand people could name other than Moveon. If its not the
most important one, its certainly the most well known. As for
Micheal Moore, he is just the gift that keeps on giving. If the
Democrats are such tough internationalists, then they have a
serious image problem.
Matt Welch|8.8.05 @ 7:41PM|#
John -- Do you think you have any personal responsibility to determine whether your own perceptions, or the ones championed by the politicians you support, have any factual *basis* in reality?
|8.8.05 @ 7:45PM|#
John,
No, perception is perception. Confusing it with reality is foolish
at best and can be downright dangerous.
|8.8.05 @ 7:45PM|#
I don't think most people know what the nuances of Howard
Dean's beliefs, whatever they are.
And the reason for that misperception has nothing at all to do with
neocons twisting things, right?
|8.8.05 @ 7:47PM|#
Matt,
A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the first Gulf
War. The day after September 11th, Moveon had a conference call to
start planning an antiwar movement before the United States ever
did anything because they figured that the United States was likely
to act somewhere as a result of 9-11 and they were going to be
there to protest it. This is not to say that there are not serious
people in the Democratic Party. Whoever the serious people are,
they don't seem to get their voices heard very often. More
importantly, what exactly is the Democratic position beyond the
intense desire to have left Saddam Huisan in power and the desire
to both go to war with North Korea when they feel like talking
about Iraq as a distraction and paying off the North Koreans
protection money, ala Clinton, on the other days.
|8.8.05 @ 7:49PM|#
I can only judge by what I see Howard Dean say in public and frankly he is a dangerous nutjob. Why anyone would want to make him the face of a major political party is beyond me, except to say a lot of people in the Democratic Party agree with what he says and really believe in those things.
|8.8.05 @ 7:53PM|#
If your party is so stupid as to elect a chairman who stands up on a major news network and says in 2004 that we don't know that Osam Bin Laden is guilty and that he is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial, the party is too stupid trusted with power regardless of how many tough internationalists are in it. Regardless of whether you really beleive that crap, its difficult to imagine how a statement like that isn't going to tag your party with the image of being pacifist and soft on terrorism.
|8.8.05 @ 7:59PM|#
I can only judge by what I see Howard Dean say in
public
I think you meant to say, "I can only judge Howard Dean by what I
see Rush Limbaugh say in public."
If your party is so stupid as to elect a chairman who stands up
on a major news network and says in 2004 that we don't know that
Osam Bin Laden is guilty
If you are so stupid as to think Dean actually said that, then
you're too stupid to be trusted with the right to vote.
|8.8.05 @ 8:00PM|#
Though, to ignore the partisan swipes, what sane person wants the other big-government party, the one with the serious bureaucratic fetish and no pretensions of limited government, to also be socially conservative?
Matt Welch|8.8.05 @ 8:02PM|#
For punishment-gluttons, here are four things I wrote about the
DNC & foreign-policy:
1,
2,
3,
4.
John -- Whoever the serious people are, they don't seem to get
their voices heard very often. If by "serious" you mean
"willing to use American military force abroad," then the second
Clinton administration was fairly serious. As I mentioned in
this May
2004 essay, Madeleine Albright (who thinks we should have tried
harder to win Vietnam) thinks America should have used much *more*
force during the 1990s, and that the main problem was Republican
isolationism. Kerry was surrounding himself with
use-the-damned-powerists like Jamie Rubin and Richard Holbrooke;
doesn't mean he automatically would have, but it suggests that his
foreign policy team was squarely interventionist.
|8.8.05 @ 8:04PM|#
John,
So you probably don't support the trial of Saddam Hussein either,
eh?
The day after September 11th, Moveon had a conference call to
start planning an antiwar movement before the United States ever
did anything because they figured that the United States was likely
to act somewhere as a result of 9-11 and they were going to be
there to protest it.
Right after 9/11 many in the Bush administration started an effort
to try to tie the attack's to Hussein's regime in Iraq.
But as you've already stated, reality means nothing to you; its
"perception" and spin that are more important apparently.
Michael J. Totten|8.8.05 @ 8:05PM|#
Jesse,
You're quite right that Kerry wasn�t an isolationist. Although I
should add that Kerry did get an enthusiastic response when he
complained that we are closing down firehouses in the United States
while opening them up in Baghdad. That sounded to me like something
Pat Buchanan would say and something Rush Limbaugh would have said
had a Democrat been president. Still, I wasn�t thinking of Kerry
when I wrote that, and I should have taken him into account. He did
win the Democratic primary, after all.
I wrote �isolationism� instead of �excessive multilateralism�
because I�ve been hearing more complaints of that variety lately --
especially since the London attacks on 7/7. Bush and Blair are
supposedly making the problem of terrorism against Westerners worse
because we have boots on the ground in Iraq, not because the U.N.
didn�t come with us. The multilateralist argument seems to have
receded into the background.
|8.8.05 @ 8:07PM|#
Tim,
"As usual, Bush appeared to get the better of the argument."
Uh, yeah, that's how I remember the debates, too. Not.
To answer your question, the five other parties in the six party
talks wanted the US and North Korea to have direct talks, while the
US was insisting on no direct talks. Agreeing to the framework that
had broad international support was the multilateralist position,
and insisting on the format we wanted, screw everyone else, was the
unilateralist position.
|8.8.05 @ 8:10PM|#
Biff,
That is exactly what Dean said I watched him say it. I don't listen
Rush Limbaugh or talk radio. Perhaps you might want to listen to
Dean in person instead of what Air America tells you about him. I
will ask again, what exactly are these tough internationalists
position the Democrats are advocating? What exactly would the
Democrats do to protect the United States from terrorism beyond
saying that they are sorry we removed Saddam and turning the FBI
loose to investigate it? What are they going to do about Iran and
North Korea? A lot of Democrats voted for th war in Iraq until it
was hard once we got there and now they want to go home. What
exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond just trying to get back
to power? If that is all they stand for, how can you blame their
critics for pegging them with the worst views of their fringes?
|8.8.05 @ 8:12PM|#
joe,
Remember, in the Alice in Wonderland world of Bushites that
anything the "dear leader" says must be right. That's the cult of
Bush for you though.
|8.8.05 @ 8:14PM|#
I am still waiting for all of you tough guys to give your plans and tell the world how George Sorros is weenie and how the U.S. needs play hardball in the world.
|8.8.05 @ 8:15PM|#
"Still, I wasn�t thinking of Kerry when I wrote that, and I
should have taken him into account. He did win the Democratic
primary, after all."
Yes, Mr. Totten, after taking over the lead from isolationist NAFTA
enthusiast Howard Dean.
"I wrote �isolationism� instead of �excessive multilateralism�
because I�ve been hearing more complaints of that variety lately --
especially since the London attacks on 7/7." And if the definition
of "isolationism" was "opposition to the invasion of Iraq," this
would make perfect sense.
|8.8.05 @ 8:15PM|#
Is there a program available with this thread for under five
bucks?... doesn't even have to have color pix.
Or is this thread just AntiWar.com-lite?
|8.8.05 @ 8:17PM|#
Joe,
Its more like opposition to anything that might be hard or involve
anyone getting killed. Everytone loves Afghanistan now and claims
it was totally justified. That is only because it was fairly easy.
Had it been hard, the Dems would be saying that it was immoral and
mistaken. Again, the Dems stand for one thing, getting back into
power.
|8.8.05 @ 8:18PM|#
John,
What are they going to do about Iran and North
Korea?
The same thing Bush will do: nothing. We're headed toward two
mini-Cold Wars with both countries.
The Bush administration has, despite all its swaggering talk, no
leverage in either country.
What exactly would the Democrats do to protect the United
States from terrorism beyond saying that they are sorry we removed
Saddam and turning the FBI loose to investigate it?
Well, it would have been helpful for us not to waste our time,
money and lives in Iraq. Hawks just can't bend their mind around
issues of efficacy, etc. when it comes to the war in Iraq.
Of course, I'm not writing as a Democrat, but as a small "l"
libertarian.
|8.8.05 @ 8:20PM|#
Yes Hakluyt,
Abadon Iraq and tell every Jihadist in the world that all you have
to do is kill enough Americans and we will go home. That is a hell
of a start and exactly what Totten is talking about. I still
looking for the tough internationalists to come out give me their
plans for world domination.
|8.8.05 @ 8:21PM|#
It became readily obvious over a year ago that the Bush administration shot its load in Iraq and has really no other idea, plan, etc. (much less the resources) to replace what they did there. Honestly, if the Democrats have failed to be imaginative, so have the Republicans.
|8.8.05 @ 8:22PM|#
"what exactly are these tough internationalists position the
Democrats are advocating? What exactly would the Democrats do to
protect the United States from terrorism...? What are they going to
do about Iran and North Korea?"
Full funding of Nunn-Lugar to secure loose nukes, doubling the size
of the Special Forces to allow for more tactical interventions
against terrorists, increasing the overall size of the armed forces
by 40,000 people, invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the
Taliban, cooperative action among the global powers to compel new
nuclear powers to cease nuke production, maintaining relations with
allied powers to allow for better coordinated intelligence and
antiterror programs, support for indigeneous liberalization,
economic development, and democratization initiatives in the
developing world. If any of this sounds familiar, that's because
John Kerry mentioned them every time he got near a camera for the
past two years.
"What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond just trying to get
back to power?"
www.dnc.org can answer that question
|8.8.05 @ 8:23PM|#
John,
Abadon Iraq and tell every Jihadist in the world that all you
have to do is kill enough Americans and we will go home.
That's what is going to happen sooner or later barring a
twenty-thirty year occupation by the U.S. Before the naive such as
yourself start wars that are likely to lead to insurgencies you
probably should understand the historical nature or dyanmic of
insurgencies.
|8.8.05 @ 8:23PM|#
Hakluyt,
I agree. These are tough issues and you may be right abot the
Republicans running out of steam and creativity. I just wish the
Chimpler crowd here on Reason would atmit how difficult these
things are once in a while.
|8.8.05 @ 8:24PM|#
Oh, I forgot one:
Avoiding the temptation to squander our forces, resources, and
attention on ideological and personal hobby horses unrelated to the
hard-headed advancement of our security.
|8.8.05 @ 8:27PM|#
"I still looking for the tough internationalists to come out
give me their plans for world domination."
That's because, being a neanderthal, you have no capacity to grasp
methods of relating to others that don't involve dominating
them.
|8.8.05 @ 8:29PM|#
John,
To be more blunt, the truly tough-minded wouldn't be concerned
about "transformation" in the middle east; they'd be more
interested in cracking some fucking heads and teaching folks some
lessons. It doesn't matter what form of government that Iraq has
from that perspective, as long as its friendly to the U.S. and
imprisons or executes individuals who might harm American
interests. We could have gotten such a government at much cheaper
price than what we are paying right now.
|8.8.05 @ 8:30PM|#
When did we decide isolationism was no longer popular with the
American people? I think it's still there, very deep, right under
the surface.
The fact that the war in Iraq had to be sold as something that had
to be done immediately before the mushroom clouds hit is a sign to
me that they knew they had to find a line to push the war that
could overcome the isolationist inertia. They most certainly did
not sell it as some Wilsonian nation building exercise, bringing
democracy to a place that hasn't had it in all of recorded history.
Because even republicans would have laughed that out the
room.
Americans still don't have much taste for Empire. It's a hard sell
and patience gets thin quickly, as demonstrated by Bush's approval
rating getting ready to break through 40% on the way to 30%.
|8.8.05 @ 8:31PM|#
"I just wish the Chimpler crowd here on Reason would atmit how
difficult these things are once in a while."
You mean like when we said the invasion of Iraq was probably going
to turn into a bloody, humiliating quagmire, and you people called
us cowardly Saddam lovers?
I wish people like you would realize that "it's hard work" BEFORE
you kill 100,000 people and set our nation up to be humiliated.
|8.8.05 @ 8:33PM|#
Anyone who picked the over/under of 46 for joe's first ad hominem attack please collect your prize at the door.
Phil|8.8.05 @ 8:35PM|#
Everytone loves Afghanistan now and claims it was totally
justified. That is only because it was fairly easy. Had it been
hard, the Dems would be saying that it was immoral and
mistaken.
You might want to look up the votes relating to using force in
Afghanistan. You might also want to look up whether it's actually,
you know, done. Or not.
|8.8.05 @ 8:40PM|#
Phil,
See, for the intellectually lazy, its all about how they can spin
the perception of things. :)
|8.8.05 @ 8:42PM|#
"To be more blunt, the truly tough-minded wouldn't be concerned
about "transformation" in the middle east; they'd be more
interested in cracking some fucking heads and teaching folks some
lessons."
While those truly committed to democratic transformation would have
worked with Iraqi resistance, religious, and civil society groups
to creat a genuine, viable liberal resistance that we could have
supported as they struggled to liberate their country. As opposed
to assuming that the obedient tools that are Middle East Muslims
would simply obey Ahmed Chalabi because he had American
backing.
|8.8.05 @ 8:44PM|#
Nathan: I might be being picky here, but that seemed more like a straw man argument to me. That's an entirely different bet.
|8.8.05 @ 8:50PM|#
Joe,
The Irqi resistence is made predominantly of foreigners, mostly
Saudis. The last thing they want is a liberal society. If you think
working with the resisitence is the way to build a liberal society
in Iraq, you are sadly mistaken. The best thing that can be said
about the Iraq war, beyond the obvious point of ending Saddam's
reign is that 1000s of radical Islamists who would otherwise be
plotting attacks in Europe and the U.S. have met their end in the
Iraqi resistence. But the idea that we need to work with the
resistence rather than help the Iraqis kill them further
illustrates Totten's point.
|8.8.05 @ 8:51PM|#
Hey, man, he asked for the internationalist plan for world domination. I didn't make that up.
Matt|8.8.05 @ 8:52PM|#
Have eyes, but didn't see the hawks in charge of things among
the Democrats last year. Joe Lieberman is no Chuckles the Clown but
has as much personality as any of the other non-Dean candidates
did, the reason he finished back in Moseley-Braun territory was his
hawkishness. The Dem platform in five words was "Iraq War Bad;
Remember Florida!"
You can certainly be in favor of a muscular foreign policy
generally and oppose the Iraq war, but I'd hardly call running on
how immoral, mismanaged and ill conceived the war that was going on
during the campaign was being a "hawk."
And am I reading this correctly to say that the hawks had enough
influence in the Kerry campaign to... make his position an
incoherent muddle? That's how hawkish the campaign was? Hardly a
Teddy Roosevelt hawkishness you're talking about, there.
Anyway, the "isolationist" thing, that was silly.
|8.8.05 @ 8:54PM|#
John,
"The Irqi resistence is made predominantly of foreigners, mostly
Saudis." It is now. It wasn't it 1992, it wasn't in 2001, and it
didn't have to be in 2004. You're describing the status quo post
bellum, while I was talking about the status quo ante bellum.
Which changes things somewhat. It's amusing that, in a part of the
world overrun with dictators, the word "resistance" immediately
calls to your mind international jihadists, rather than the people
filling the squares of Beirut, Kiev, and (until the Iraq War
started) Tehran.
|8.8.05 @ 8:55PM|#
John-For starters, we could have actually done the work to go
find terrorists where they were rather than setting out trillion
dollar flypaper in Iraq. We also could have made an honest attempt
to figure out an alternate energy source while cutting back on our
use of oil so that we could take the fight to the government who is
more our enemy in the war on terror than anyone else; that is,
Saudi Arabia. Not to say that Kerry would have done the second, but
I kinda figure that he would have done a better job with the first,
mostly because it's simply not possible for anyone, anywhere to do
worse than the Bush administration has done. And this is coming
from someone who voted for Badnarik because the prospect of voting
Kerry made my eyes bleed.
And, newsflash, everybody liked Afghanistan because Afghanistan
*gasp* actually harbored terrorists. Real, bomb the US-type
terrorists, not Baathist thugs more interested in ruling their own
little corner of hell.
You also mischaracterize terribly what Dean said in 2004. He wasn�t
saying that Osama Bin-Laden was guilty, just that when we catch him
(assuming that he doesn�t die of old age in the interim) he
deserves a trial just as much as anyone else. I must say that I'm
troubled by your belief that the ideals of due process; ideals upon
which our nation was founded, are quite dispensable when it's
someone we find to be �bad� enough. The world's freedom survived
Nuremberg and the trials of Nazis who murdered millions in camps
with cold-blooded efficiency. Why exactly does the trial of a punk
who doesn't even have the guts to own up to his work pose so much
more of a threat?
Matt Welch|8.8.05 @ 8:57PM|#
I've been trying to get these links posted, but with no
success.... here are URLs to stuff I reported last year about the
DNC & foreign policy:
http://www.reason.com/conventions/2004/07/foreign_policy.shtml#006168
http://www.reason.com/conventions/2004/07/the_deaniacs_de.shtml#006212
http://www.reason.com/conventions/2004/07/have_you_really.shtml#006305
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=7457
Also, this sum-up of the Dems' "Temporary Doves" may be
relevant:
http://www.reason.com/0405/cr.mw.temporary.shtml
Greg|8.8.05 @ 9:21PM|#
Isolationists of the liberal variety favor words over action. They prefer a document signed by the dictators of Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia over a war to remove a brutal dictator in any part of the world. Fortunately, Bill Clinton was not one of them. So of course it's logical that Kerry would be an isolationist - by stalling US action through endless "dialogue" with countries that have no interest in acting either on military threats or humanitarian tragedies. The point of isolation is to do nothing. Kerry's foreign policy would have done precisely that, unless he grew in office. I hope he and the party would become more Clintonian.
|8.8.05 @ 9:59PM|#
John wrote: "Abandon Iraq and tell every Jihadist in the world
that all you have to do is kill enough Americans and we will go
home."
Apparently John is channeling Field Marshal Haig.
Jason Sonenshein|8.8.05 @ 10:32PM|#
I think Mr. Totten is right about social liberalism and the Democratic Party. In last week's special congressional election in Ohio, Democrat Paul Hackett received 48% of the vote in a district that normally goes at least 2 to 1 Republican. During the campaign, Major Hackett emphasized personal freedom, opposing gun control and the "Patriot" Act, and supporting abortion rights. Major Hackett didn't win, but he established himself as a viable candidate for office in Hamilton County or perhaps even statewide. Other Democrats who have been able to win in conservative areas while embracing social liberalism are Governors Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.
|8.8.05 @ 11:23PM|#
There was very little space in the 2004 campaign to come out like a "hawk", unless the candidate agreed that the Iraq War was justified AND was being prosecuted in an effective manner. Had a Democrat done that, however, he would have handed the great issue of the election over to Bush and would have had nothing to set himself up against. After all, if the Dem candidate is going to praise Bush's leadership on Iraq are people supposed to turn around and say, "Well, I suppose Bush is doing just great on Iraq...Umm, why should I vote him out?" There wasn't an easy position for any Democrat to take unless that person had always been against the war. But, the other problem is that opposition to the war hadn't reached the depth it has now. There were moments in 2004 where opposition really soared - like the Abu Ghraib scandal - but by November 2, support for the war and Bush's handling of it had topped 50% again. More importantly, polls consistently showed much greater trust in Bush to handle Iraq than Kerry. I'm not sure if the same would be true now. Many people's patience is running out.
Adam|8.9.05 @ 1:26AM|#
Jason - Hackett also repeated that tripe about George Bush being
a bigger threat than bin Laden, and launched into some vulgarity to
make his point. Kerry couldn't hide his radical leftism behind a
uniform, and neither could Hackett. "Thanks for your service,
gentleman, but back to your respective positions." I don't think
I'm the only one who finds it disconcerting when a candidate
resorts to name-calling in place of making arguments. "That
sonofabitch in the White House" and "chickenhawk" are not solid
policy proposals.
As far as Kerry's concerned, he wasn't a pacifist. That's the
problem: he wasn't a goddamn thing. He was a weathervane, blowing
in the wind. He voted against Gulf I, yakked about a global test
that (given his Gulf I vote) was impossible to pass, blubbered
about diplomacy, voted for the war but voted not to pay for it when
things were looking good for the anti-war Howard Dean, etc. etc.
etc.
Yeah, Totten was wrong about calling them isolationists. That's a
slip of the keyboard. The Dems know they can win being more
credible on national security and by running candidates that are at
least consistent and reasonable. I certainly haven't written them
off for 2008, but something's got to change. They should welcome
constructive criticism, and if some of it comes with some points
that are simply wrong, point it out, take what they can get, and
MoveOn.
|8.9.05 @ 1:40AM|#
Adam-The particulars of Hackett's platform are less important than what the election says about the condition of that district. Hackett won 48% of the vote in an area which went overwhelmingly for Bush in '04 and whose incumbent gained 72% of the vote in his last election. And he did it against a candidate who more or less pledged to support the President's agenda however she could if elected. Which is more likely; those 48% didn't suppose that the President needed any help, or they didn't think his agenda was worth voting for again? Whether or not this has any meaning outside of that one district is something that we won't know until the midterm elections next year, but if a stronghold could sour that much, that quickly, it ought to be at least somewhat troubling for the GOP leadership.
|8.9.05 @ 1:48AM|#
...He voted against Gulf I, yakked about a global test that
(given his Gulf I vote) was impossible to pass...
Comment by: Adam at August 9, 2005 01:26 AM
not sure what you mean here, since there was a real coalition in
Gulf War I
Adam|8.9.05 @ 2:15AM|#
biologist - I mean there was a real coalition, and it was
approved by the U.N.
What "global test" could any action pass (to Kerry's satisfaction)
if getting U.N. approval and the support of a real coalition didn't
make the grade in '91? That's my point: no action could
pass a Kerry Global Test. And he said so much other bullshit that
he didn't stick to that I'm really, truly, honestly not convinced
he would have bothered to rout the Taliban after 9/11, and that's
not the kind of thing, or the kind of candidate, that I'm willing
to roll the dice on. Bush may have an itchy trigger finger, but
that's better than a paralyzed trigger finger, in my book.
Adam|8.9.05 @ 2:18AM|#
And Shem - yep the numbers are interesting, and I'm sure they're scratching their heads at GOP hq. He was a unique candidate, though, with a libertarian streak (that the Dem leadership might also want to consider for their heartland races). I just see too many particulars in this race to extrapolate, but I'm sure the GOP is going through a helluva debriefing.
|8.9.05 @ 3:01AM|#
Adam - your critique makes sense if Kerry had voted against Gulf War I on those grounds. since, as you point agree, there was a true coalition for Gulf I, that couldn't possibly have been his rationale. what was his reason? in the absence of that knowledge, this seems like setting up a straw man argument. (unlike an earlier post, not joking about the straw man)
|8.9.05 @ 8:42AM|#
John:
That is exactly what Dean said I watched him say it.
May be you should provide Biff with link so you can convince Biff
and the rest of us.
John:
The Irqi resistence is made predominantly of foreigners, mostly
Saudis.
Got a link? Abizaid begs to differ (see below).
Joe:
"The Irqi resistence is made predominantly of foreigners,
mostly Saudis." It is now.
No it isn't.
Link:
Speaking to CNN�s Wolf Blitzer in Mosul, Iraq, Army Gen. John
Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said most of
the insurgents in the country are Iraqis, but �the
percentage of foreign fighters over the past several months seems
to have increased.�
|8.9.05 @ 8:46AM|#
Steve:
"why are we opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in
the U.S.?"
joshua corning:
what the hell does "opening fire houses in bagdad but closing
them here" supposed to mean if not a direct oveture to the
isolationist vote?
Michael J. Totten:
Kerry did get an enthusiastic response when he complained that
we are closing down firehouses in the United States while opening
them up in Baghdad.
Are you guys on the same mailing list?
|8.9.05 @ 9:34AM|#
i never wonder what i'll find here. it's always joe trolling dnc talking points. some libertarian.
|8.9.05 @ 9:37AM|#
a, good catch - I did a little mental shorthand there, reading
"Saudis" and "foreigners" as "anti-democratic would-be dictators."
The point I was agreeing with was that the existing Iraqi
resistance is not a liberalizing opposition to tyranny.
biologist, Kerry voted against the authorization of force bill for
Gulf War I because he didn't think an invasion was timely at that
moment. He wanted to give other pressures time to work. He also
identified the coalition George HW Bush put together for that war
as the model of how the US should operate, and contrasted it with
how W went into Iraq this time.
Also, paralyzed trigger-finger Kerry voted in favor of the Kosovo
War and the invasion of Afghanistan.
"Radical leftist" Kerry. Heh. I guess we can put that into the No
Meaning pile along with "isolationist" and "pacifist."
|8.9.05 @ 9:39AM|#
That darn radical leftist pacifist is just a weathervane with no
real principles. And he was only nominated because he was so
electable. That's why he lost!
Come on, fellas, get it together.
Adam|8.9.05 @ 9:55AM|#
biologist - here
you have it. He supported Bush 41's deployment of troops but did
not support his being able to use them. He accused Bush 41 of a
"unilateral" rush to war, and apparently he has a history of
failing to comprehend the definition of "unilateral."
joe - he's not a weathervane? I'm sure you have a ready defense for
this, from the above link:
After the successful launch of Operation Desert Storm, Kerry�s
position became so nuanced that his office at one point mistakenly
mailed letters to constituents that positioned him on both sides of
the debate. On January 22, 1991, Kerry�s office sent a letter to
one man, tanking him for expressing opposition to the deployment of
additional U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. �I
share your concerns,� Kerry wrote, noting that on January 11, he
had voted against a resolution giving the president immediate
authority to go to war.
On January 31, the same constituent received a letter stating,
�From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally
supported President Bush�s response to the crisis and the policy
goals he has established with our military deployment in the
Persian Gulf.� Kerry blamed the mix-up on a computer error and
subsequently wrote in defense of his position on the Gulf War: �The
debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should not
have used force, but when force should be used.�
And this, too:
Three months after hostilities ceased, John Kerry attended a
meeting of local Democrats in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and
conceded. �I�m not convinced,� he said, �given the nature of Saddam
Hussein,� that a peaceful resolution to the Kuwait invasion had
been possible. Then he attacked Bush for leaving Hussein in power:
�This administration, having likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler,
having committed troops in the war against him, actually sided with
Hussein in the aftermath of the war. That is a disgraceful
chapter.�
|8.9.05 @ 10:00AM|#
I guess it is time for me to enter this fray.
The only reason that Hakluyt opposes Bush is that Bush exposed the
weasly, cowardly, untrustable, surrender monkey French for what
they are.
And I guess that Hakluyt despises Bush for the same reason that all
the Europeans seem to dislike and mock rebublicans, for their
seemingly (though weak IMO) dislike of social welfare, and their
also seemingly opposition to gun control. This is my major reason
for liking republicans.
|8.9.05 @ 10:16AM|#
Also let me add to this whole thing the often quoted sarcastic
joke Thoreau likes to say
"It would be worse under Kerry"
For all his many, many flaws, and all the reasons that a
libertarian has to dislike Bush, the above quote remains
true.
As afraid as Jennifer may be that Bush's Gestapo may force her to
go to church and that Homeland Security may discover her drug
supply the true statist threat is from the Democratic side. Bush's
failure likes in him not having the spine (or knowing that it is a
political loser) to stand up enough to the social welfare agenda of
Kerry's democrats.
I fear that Totten may be right the winning issue of the Democrats
may indeed be; welfare, social security, affirmative action,
disarmament of all who do not have a badge, tobacco regulation, and
all other regulation known to man.
|8.9.05 @ 10:18AM|#
kwais-
To be fair, the point of my "Kerry would be worse" line isn't that
he wouldn't be worse. In many ways he would be. The point is that
some people (not you, but some people) think "Kerry would be
worse!" justifies any bad behavior on Bush's part.
|8.9.05 @ 10:27AM|#
More, I have more to say;
Yes there have been many mistakes in the war. Most of them being
from the odious State Department, and there have also been many
mistakes as a result of the Army and the Marine Corps having been
somewhat neutered by the Feminazis, and the mothers of
America.
But over all, I can think of things that I would have done
differently to make the war effort more efficient, but they would
be less humane.
I can�t think of any decision that I can say for sure that was made
at the presidential level that should have been different on the
war in Iraq.
Iraq had to be done. France was on Saddam�s side (just ask an
Iraqi), so we couldn�t wait for their assistance. Going about it
this way was really the only sensible thing to do IMO (of course
Ruthless�s idea of nuking Baghdad on 9/12 would probably have been
an easier more efficient way, and unlike this success would be more
guaranteed).
All of the newspapers and Kerry talking about what is done wrong,
has always been about getting the antiwar vote, and to cause a rift
in the pro-war vote. Kerry never had a better way of doing
anything.
His idea on North Korea is to continue to bribe and subsidize the
creation of nukes in North Korea. We bring the Chinese into the
equation, because they have pull, and they aren�t going to stand
for being hoodwinked like Clinton and Madeline Notsobright. We tell
the Chinese, if North Korea builds nukes, Japan has no choice to
get their own. Do they want that?
|8.9.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Adam, did you even read the quote you clipped?
"The debate in the Senate was not about whether we should or should
not have used force, but when force should be used."
If this sounds familiar, it's because that is what Kerry said at
the time; it is what he said when asked about his vote
subsequently; it's what he said when asked the question during the
presidential debates; and it's what I told you he said in my 9:37
comment.
|8.9.05 @ 11:00AM|#
"The only reason that Hakluyt opposes Bush is that Bush exposed
the weasly, cowardly, untrustable, surrender monkey French for what
they are."
Allies who guarded our skies and helped us topple the Taliban and
rout Al Qaeda's bases of operation in the weeks after 9/11?
People with an accurate perception of the threat Iraqi WMDs posed
to us?
I'm not sure what you're going for here, kwais.
|8.9.05 @ 11:04AM|#
"Most of them being from the odious State Department..."
That would be the State Department that advised agains turning the
entire Iraqi armed forces into disgruntled, unemployed gus with
automatic rifles; that was shut out of the stabilization,
governing, and reconstruction efforts after the fall of Baghdad,
and that voiced the loudest dissents from the administration's
assertion that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda and had ongoing WMD
programs?
That State Department? Those mistakes?
gaius marius|8.9.05 @ 11:05AM|#
I'm not sure what you're going for here, kwais.
mr kwais doesn't respect anyone who doesn't drink the blood of
children out of a chalice fashioned of his dead enemy's skull, you
know, mr joe. i'm surprised that you lack clarity on this point,
given the reams of commentary mr kwais has devoted to the
insinuation of that point, as a good american militarist
zealot.
|8.9.05 @ 11:07AM|#
"there have also been many mistakes as a result of the Army and
the Marine Corps having been somewhat neutered by the Feminazis,
and the mothers of America"
Actually, the performance of the armed forces in theater has been
pretty much the only aspect of the whole operation that's gone
well.
gaius marius|8.9.05 @ 11:08AM|#
Abizaid begs to differ (see below).
lol -- why would facts, mr a, get in the way of a good lie that
makes american militarist moral desolation look better?
drf|8.9.05 @ 11:28AM|#
"...drink the blood of children out of a chalice fashioned of
his dead enemy's skull"
oooh. graphic image. and we can use their shin bones for pencil
boxes :)
and why haven't you RSVP'd for the reason get together (including
not responding when i emailed?)
i tell you what - it's the decline of civilization when an
invitation gets ignored :)
(see you there)
cheers,
drf
|8.9.05 @ 11:33AM|#
"That darn radical leftist pacifist is just a weathervane with
no real principles. And he was only nominated because he was so
electable. That's why he lost!"
To be fair, joe, these are arguments from different people. This
would be like me lumping joe-isms and gaius marius-isms together
and looking for a coherent story simply because you both didn't
like the war.
I don't know if Kerry was a pacifist or not. I do know that his
absurd foreign policy message was the result of him trying to
appeal to base and to moderate Republicans at the same time with
contradictory positions. He did not lay out a position and stick to
it; he took this approach because he thought it would make him more
electable; and he was wrong.
|8.9.05 @ 11:43AM|#
Jason, those arguments are not together by intellectually
honest, intelligent people.
There have been considerable numbers of Kerry-detractors who have
made them together, though.
His foreign policy position was based around knowing what the hell
he was talking about and putting out solutions that might work in
the real world, which made them perfect fodder for the bumper
sticker mentality of his opponents.
"he took this approach because he thought it would make him more
electable; and he was wrong" Actually, by the end of the campaign,
Kerry was beating Bush on foreign policy in general, and Iraq
policy in particular, by several percentage points in most
polls.
Kerry lost because he ran against an incumbant, and because he's
not particularly likable.
gaius marius|8.9.05 @ 12:29PM|#
(including not responding when i emailed?)
you emailed me, mr drf? not that it's an excuse -- i caught your
note on my blog. :)
truth is, my lovely and suffering wife is about two weeks from
delivering our first baby girl (the true continuance of
civilization :) ) and so i have my hands full. i declined tickets
to wrigley recently, so you know i'm being honest. my apologies, of
course.
wellfellow|8.9.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Gaius,
Are you sure you're not going because of a nasty case of techne?
;)
gaius marius|8.9.05 @ 12:41PM|#
a nasty case of techne
lol -- if i didn't have one of those already, mr wellfellow, i have
now after spending last night assembling a baby carriage that looks
for all the world to me like an suv, with as many component
parts.
|8.9.05 @ 1:10PM|#
"His foreign policy position was based around knowing what the
hell he was talking about and putting out solutions that might work
in the real world, which made them perfect fodder for the bumper
sticker mentality of his opponents."
If the DNC still thinks this way, I forecast a grim future for Team
Donkey. Kerry's message was not so nuanced and true to reality that
fools in red states couldn't put it on a bumpersticker. It was
incoherent and at times absurd. In particular, the whole bit about
getting a coalition together to include those countries currently
hostile to committing troops was a bit much to ask people to
accept. Especially since it was premised on the charm of John
Kerry.
From the outside, and as completely without bias as I can manage, I
think the DNC needs to get a few things straight before the next
election:
1) More people voting does not ensure a Dem victory.
2) It is unclear that the Dems 'own' pocketbook issues in the way
they assume they do. Why is a good question.
3) When going against a guy who sticks to message, it is
insufficient to call yourself the realist and move on. It is not
the case that having a message implies narrow views, and it is not
the case that lacking a message implies realistic complexity. Dean
would have been better along these lines.
4) Reflexive appeals to organized labor are beginning to hurt more
than help. If you have to stretch as far as Kerry did to sell the
"I'll protect American Jobs" angle, maybe you shouldn't go down
that path. Instead, focus on retraining or regional economic
development to create new jobs.
|8.9.05 @ 1:14PM|#
After the recent election Move on declared that the DNC was
theirs. Bought and paid for.
It doesn't take a genius to do the math.
Move on = pacifist.
Move on = DNC
DNC = pacifist.
It doesn't matter that Kerry was a War hero, he was hamstrung by
his party. He couldn't offend his base and funding.
And please, do you really think that being involved in UN
committees assigned to form committees to investigate Human Rights,
Darfur, Bosnia, WMD, Terrorism, etc., etc. makes one a
multi-lateralist? The finest way to be an isolationist is to commit
to a process where you never need to commit to anything.
There are plenty of people out there, like me I think, who put up
with the RNC's bible belt so that we have some grown ups in charge
of a realistic muscular foriegn pollicy, and hope for lazie fare
economic and regulatory policy.
drf|8.9.05 @ 1:17PM|#
ALL THE BEST TO YOU AND YOUR EXPANDED FAMILY, GAIUS!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAAAAAA. That is wonderful news! Please let us all know how Mommy
and Baby turn out! yeaaaaaa.
Catch you at the next one, then?
Congratulations again,
drf
|8.9.05 @ 1:18PM|#
Jason,
I think you've got a lot on the ball with Numbers 1, 3, and 4, but
look at the Social Security debate. Look at polling from the
campaign - by the end, Kerry was beating Bush on every economic
category, INCLUDING TAXES fer chrissake.
Jason Sonenshein|8.9.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Hackett also repeated that tripe about George Bush being a
bigger threat than bin Laden, and launched into some vulgarity to
make his point.
He was right. As dangerous as Bin Laden is, he can't destroy
American freedom without our government's help. By pushing for
further expansions of government powers and holding suspects,
including American citizens, without charge, President Bush seems
to be doing all he can to provide that help.
Kerry couldn't hide his radical leftism behind a uniform, and
neither could Hackett.
Intemperate rhetoric aside, Major Hackett is quite moderate.
Support for gun rights and opposition to setting a fixed timetable
for withdrawal from Iraq don't seem like "radical leftism" to
me.
He was a unique candidate, though, with a libertarian streak
(that the Dem leadership might also want to consider for their
heartland races).
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. It's good to see
that we agree on something.
|8.9.05 @ 5:46PM|#
"mr kwais doesn't respect anyone who doesn't drink the blood of
children out of a chalice fashioned of his dead enemy's
skull,"
Come now Gauis,
When joe comes over to sip out of the old chalice, and he only
wants to drink the blood of 18 and overs, I still respect him. So
that statement is blatently false.
|8.9.05 @ 5:53PM|#
"Actually, the performance of the armed forces in theater has
been pretty much the only aspect of the whole operation that's gone
well."
Of course Joe, "the most moraltastic force to ever walk the face of
the planet" or something like that right?
But still, there are times they have failed. The leadership has
failed. There have been shootings that shouldn't have happened and
did, and there have been non shootings where there should have been
shootings.
The technology and the bravery of individual Americans has
surpassed my expectations many times. But there are a few times
where I thought the leadership was lacking. Very lacking.
Criminally lacking.
|8.9.05 @ 6:14PM|#
When exactly did the percentage of posters who were caricatures
of themselves get so high? Was it always like this?
Congratulations to Gaius Marius! It can't be that bad if the
prophet of civilization's decline is still having children, can
it?;)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245