Today's Worst Partisan Political Columnist Blindness, Today!

Let's read Charles P. Pierce--writing on politics since 1976, author of Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free--telling us what's what in his article in the May issue of Esquire, shall we? (Issues that gripe his gut in that book? Creationism and the Terri Schiavo matter, both far more signs of contempt for "those sorts of people" than well-honed intelligence.)

The article is uninterestingly titled "Into the Wilderness," and its point is that the Republican Party has become so insane and dangerous it is the duty of the American people to do everything they can to defeat them politically on every level. This is a thesis I have some sympathy with, minus considering the likely alternatives.

But how does this veteran tough-minded political thinker make his case, that the GOP is so dangerous that 100 percent Democratic Party control of America is a moral and political necessity?  

He starts off with some sort-of high-middlebrow mockery of those shit-for-brains Republicans, in the person of Rick Santorum, speaking, one is lead to believe, for the Party whose presidential nomination he failed to win and for which he holds no office:

At one point, while debating Christ's death and resurrection with one of the prominent heretics of the day, Tertullian rather famously stated, "Certum est quia impossibile est."

"It is certain because it is impossible."

Not long before, I'd heard Rick Santorum tell a gathering of supporters in New Hampshire of his dread of the possibility of Iran's gaining a nuclear-weapons capability. He touched upon the destabilization of the region that he believed this would cause. He spoke briefly of how it might ignite a general arms race in the area of the world that least needs a general arms race. He mentioned his stalwart support of the state of Israel. Then he claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.

There seemed to be a hole in this part of his argument. Any attempt by Iran to use a nuclear weapon against the United States would result in Iran's future as a glass parking lot. Santorum thereupon made a case that the Iranian government — the entire Iranian government — was open to the idea of national suicide because it would bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, a messianic figure of Shiite Islam whose arrival will presage the Day of Judgment. I looked around the room, and heads were bobbing up and down in agreement.

They were certain, because it was impossible.

I don't want to adopt mock outrage, or pretend that Pierce is somehow so dumb or forgetful (dare I suggest, an idiot?) that he doesn't know what I'm about to write, or that his editor at Esquire didn't know it, and which pretty much every American who even knows there is a country called Iran knows: that President Obama (Democrat) and his administration believe the exact same thing, or at least he claims to and acts like he does. (What beliefs truly reside in these people's heads is something I'll never know and probably don't want to.) Really, Mr. Pierce. I believe it because it's true!

President Obama, in March:

During his address to pro-Israel lobby AIPAC on Sunday, President Obama told the audience that in regards to Iran, he did “not have a policy of containment.” He had “a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

“As I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests,” Obama exclaimed.

Leon Panetta, Obama's secretary of defense, in January:

"We see the threats coming from Iran and a nuclear-capable Iran represents a threat to us and to the world," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon news conference...

Now, Pierce nowhere says that the Democrats do not believe this absurdity--which I agree is absurd. But the entire framing of his piece is that the Democrats remain the sensible, noble opposition to whom we must turn, because, as he writes, the GOP "has become completely demented." So far his only proof of this dementedness is that they agree with the Democratic President Obama on Iran. What else has he got though? Maybe he's saving the best for later.

OK, he's got global warming, birth control, voter ID, all issues in which there is a genuine difference, generally, between most Republicans and most Democrats, but not ones that actually are energizing much real political action on the part of either party, whether or not you agree there should be such action.

To show that he's an establishmentarian at heart, Pierce has to hat-tip to Mitt Romney for being, well, normal and respectable (although he believes the exact same thing that Pierce led with at length to prove the insanity of Republicans):

That's how Mitt Romney came to tie himself in a bowline trying to run for president, even though he was the only real candidate in a field of crackpot poseurs, and even though he was running the only real campaign as opposed to tent revivals, exercises in brand maintenance, and extended book tours. Too late did Romney realize that the path to the nomination led through an alternate reality.

Who is the one GOP candidate--hell, the one national political figure of any sort--who shares Pierce's good sense on Iran and its (lack of) threat? Ron Paul (I wrote a book about him), who I guess doesn't even deserve to have his name mentioned. Is he a "crackpot poseur" or doing "brand maintenance"? The reader has to guess, because Pierce won't say his name.

He has some negative words for the Democrats too, though not the true ones that they believe in what his portentous long lead marked as a unique insanity of the GOP:

As conservatism was developing its powerful infrastructure, the Democratic party was still sucking its thumb over what happened to George McGovern in 1972. While conservative millionaires were pouring money into the construction of the network of institutions on the right, the Democrats were throwing themselves, through the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council, in the general direction of the same money. Nothing arose on the left, or around the Democratic party, that remotely resembled the formidable arsenal of opinion that developed on the right, and of which the Republicans took full advantage, not realizing at the time that all of that success was hollowing out their party's essential intellect until all that is left today is raw, overwhelming id.

The Democrats were powerless against this, and they did not seek to be anything else. They became gifted at defense, surrendering bits of what was once fundamental to their party's identity as a bulwark against losing it all.

Not sure what part of the Democratic soul he thinks is lost--he gives no specifics. It isn't that they aren't still spending as much as they can and more, creating or being complicit in the creation of new entitlements, taking over the health care market, or generally in no way shrinking the modern liberal megastate.

Perhaps it's a failure to keep taxes higher? That might be a legitimate point to make--it is, I think, the one somewhat unambiguous area where partisans could point to a Republican "victory" of sorts lately--but Pierce remains maddeningly unable to discuss actual politics or policy, as opposed to the rhetoric or attitude of people like Sarah Palin who scare him:

This is what keeps the Democrats from being able to make the Republicans pay full price for their party's departure from reality on so many issues. In 2006, the Republicans were handed a defeat in the midterms every bit as resounding as the one suffered by the Democrats four years later. The difference is that there were so many institutions enabling and validating the Republicans' outré ideas that they didn't see any need to moderate them as a result of the 2006 debacle. They simply rode out the 2008 presidential election and retooled those ideas for the age of Obama. Suddenly, we started hearing about "czars," and more talk about socialism than you would have heard at Eugene V. Debs's bachelor party. What were once moderate Republican ideas were now the thin edge of the collectivist wedge. The transformation was complete. And it was remarkable.

The Democratic party has an obligation to beat the Republican party so badly, over and over again, that rationality once again becomes a quality to be desired. It must be done by persuading the country of this simple fact. It cannot be done by reasoning with the Republicans, because the next two generations of them are too far gone.

I wish some editor had asked Pierce: what exactly are you talking about? What have these Republicans actually done, that the Democrats would have done differently? What should Democrats be doing to prove how sensible they are, or to "make the Republicans pay full price" which alas in a democracy means convincing enough voters they are right and the GOP are wrong? What exactly are the Democrats right about? What should they be right about? Not a hint of an adumbration of an example or argument in this longish column.

As I said, it is so impossible even Tertullian wouldn't believe it that Pierce and his editors didn't know that he professes to be appalled at Republicans for believing exactly what the president and his party believe. Thus, it is merely gross disrespect for their readers' intelligence in the name of idiot partisanship that could lead Pierce to write this, and a reputable and often quite good (except when writing about politics) magazine like Esquire to let that utterly nuts lead (for Pierce's own rhetorical purposes of explaining why Democrats are so much better than Republicans) stand, and for letting the rest of this vague article whose only base of intellectual support seems to be the unspoken, or unspeakable, assumption that: we all know Democrats are better even though we don't know exactly how or why, or we assume the answer to how or why is so obvious we don't need to say anything specific.

Is it because they are supposed to be better on civil liberties, the drug war, not turning government into a tool of the plutocracy? Because they aren't better on any of that. If it's because they don't generally say things publicly about being against birth control or wanting voter I.D. laws? If so, I guess you got me.

But that seems like a thin reed on which to lean the weight of the future of this Republic--being gutted and ruined by profligate and anti-liberty policies from both major parties. But Pierce is the kind of guy who doesn't seem to care that much about policy--just knows that the type of people at a Santorum rally or who worry about the fate of Terri Schiavo aren't for him. I'm with you there, Mr. Pierce, mostly. But think through your options for opposition to one party's nuttiness a little more clearly, please, for yourself and your readers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Reason has been getting feisty lately. Keep it up.

  • ||

    I've noticed that, too. That article about Feinstein earlier was classic.

  • Graphite||

    Agreed. Doherty buried this sentence a little but it's a good one:

    Thus, it is merely gross disrespect for their readers' intelligence in the name of idiot partisanship that could lead Pierce to write this, and a reputable and often quite good (except when writing about politics) magazine like Esquire to let that utterly nuts lead (for Pierce's own rhetorical purposes of explaining why Democrats are so much better than Republicans) stand...

  • Hugh Akston||

    So far his only proof of this dementedness is that they agree with the Democratic President Obama on Iran.

    It's good enough for me.

  • Sevo||

    Hey! You're easy to please.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Donks and Drips both shovel the same shit - but when one has the shovel the other doesn't like it. And that's about the only difference on a genuine thinking basis the partisans have left.

    Where they see differences are not in real ideology but their slavish consumption of culture and things defining them.

    Whole Foods vs. Wal Mart. Overpriced BMW vs. overpriced jacked-up truck. PC vs. Mac. Getting your dose of Doomsday from either the Bible or the Carbon Cult.

    Even the avenues to suckle on Uncle Sugar-tits: Blackwater bad, ACORN good - or the other way around if you like - figures into it.

    Mr. Pierce is a manifestation of such foolery distilled.

  • ||

    You can say that again!!!

  • ||

    The Donks and the Drips, I like that. Much better (and more descriptive) than Team Red and Team Blue. Which is the Donks and which is the Drips? Does it matter?

  • Robert||

    Anybody have any evidence as to how that situation compares to 50 or 100 yrs. ago?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Donks and Drips both shovel the same shit - but when one has the shovel the other doesn't like it. And that's about the only difference on a genuine thinking basis the partisans have left.

    Where they see differences are not in real ideology but their slavish consumption of culture and things defining them.

    Whole Foods vs. Wal Mart. Overpriced BMW vs. overpriced jacked-up truck. PC vs. Mac. Getting your dose of Doomsday from either the Bible or the Carbon Cult.

    Even the avenues to suckle on Uncle Sugar-tits: Blackwater bad, ACORN good - or the other way around if you like - figures into it.

    Mr. Pierce is a manifestation of such foolery distilled.

  • Brandon||

    Apparently the squirrels agree with this.

  • John||

    Pierce might actually be the dumbest person writing today. I honestly think he believes this shit. Pro Liberate once asked the entirely reasonable question on here once that if the Democrats claim to love Obama, just what exactly did they hate about Bush?

  • Brutus||

    Uh, James Wolcott? Dahlia Lithwick? Maureen Dowd? Tom Friedman?

    Fucking target-rich environment.

  • John||

    True. But Pierce is a whole other level of retard. He doesn't even try to pretend to be reasonable.

  • MOFO.||

    Disagree. Maureen Dowd is so totally insipid that you cant even derive pleasure in deconstructing her.

  • Sevo||

    As opposed to?

  • Ted S.||

    Fucking target-rich environment.

    I don't think I'd want to fuck any of those targets.

  • ||

    Pierce might actually be the dumbest person writing today.

    I'm too lazy to google it, but I seem to recall you saying this about other Team Blue shills before.

    Are you saying there are hordes of people of exactly the same levels of tardness writing in major publications?

  • ||

    Are you saying there are hordes of people of exactly the same levels of tardness writing in major publications?

    Not quite exactly, but certainly interchangeable without distinction of difference. John is given to hyperbole at times(!), but he is essentially correct.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Donks and Drips both shovel the same shit - but when one has the shovel the other doesn't like it. And that's about the only difference on a genuine thinking basis the partisans have left.

    Where they see differences are not in real ideology but their slavish consumption of culture and things defining them.

    Whole Foods vs. Wal Mart. Overpriced BMW vs. overpriced jacked-up truck. PC vs. Mac. Getting your dose of Doomsday from either the Bible or the Carbon Cult.

    Even the avenues to suckle on Uncle Sugar-tits: Blackwater bad, ACORN good - or the other way around if you like - figures into it.

    Mr. Pierce is a manifestation of such foolery distilled.

  • jester||

    nice distillation. not unheard.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Goddamnit Reason. I just posted the same thing three times because I hit F5? If you need to start a funding drive to upgrade the Pentium Pro in a closet you have running your comment threads I will gladly pitch in. Damn baby.

  • ||

    I like the spirit.

  • ||

    Don't feel so bad, that just means you can get THREE TIMES the replies!

  • Ted S.||

  • ||

    All I need to know about Charlie Pierce is that he's the moron who wrote the article about how Mary Jo Kopechne would have thanked Teddy Kennedy for getting Medicare passed if only she had lived long enough to collect it.

  • Brutus||

    Ah...what John said above, then.

  • Sevo||

    Isaac Bartram|5.1.12 @ 11:08PM|#
    "All I need to know about Charlie Pierce is that he's the moron who wrote the article about how Mary Jo Kopechne would have thanked Teddy Kennedy for getting Medicare passed if only she had lived long enough to collect it."

    REALLY?!
    Never saw the article; if I had I'd be dead from laughter.

  • ||

    Read it and weep or laugh out loud, as the spirit moves you.

    If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.


    Seriously the clueless fuck wrote that. And some clueless editor actually let bullshit like that appear in print.

  • ||

    I mean, seriously, what kind of editor would not have said "WTF, Charlie, are you fucking serious?"

  • jester||

    An honest one with a sense of history. Hence, your point.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    So "Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old now if Edward Kennedy hadn't fucking murdered her."

    What a guy.

  • Sevo||

    Holy potato!
    "If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
    Yeah, if he hadn't killed her first!
    "Mrs. Lincoln, do you have any comments regarding the play?"

  • jester||

    Yes, I rather despised John Wilkes. He was about freedom. This Edwin, he's a swell actor but...

  • jester||

    Thanks for the link. Yes, that was one pathetic piece of iconography that wears to the point that I gave up on it. It was boring. I couldn't even get to THE offensive part. The whole thing was offensive. Like considering Orrin Hatch the opposition. I'm a little bit country, I'm a little bit rock'n'roll. Gag!

  • Bill||

    That is pretty idiotic. Too bad Kennedy killed her.

  • jester||

    Not sure why you wouldn't ignore such an unimportant piece. Do you know something that we don't?

  • Sevo||

    jester|5.1.12 @ 11:17PM|#
    "Not sure why you wouldn't ignore such an unimportant piece. Do you know something that we don't?"

    "We"?

  • jester||

    Yeah, yeah.

    Kinda like We the people. My bad. My egoism unfortunately calls out the we all to often. Never do it again, I promise. Thanks for the admonishment.

  • Brandon||

    I thought the Royal "We" was common practice among the top hat and monocle set?

  • JW||

    I wish some editor had asked Pierce: what exactly are you talking about?

    That presumes his editors are any more knowledgeable about, well, anything and that they aren't comfortable with a hit piece that ass-shanks those mean, dirty, miserable Republicans, who only want to steal Aunt Stella's Social security check (wrong, assholes, that's us).

    The cognitive dissonance that has enveloped the Democratic party is really something to behold. This isn't any kind of endorsement of the fuckwits in the Stupider Party, they have their own special brand of partisan hackery, but the sheer magnitude and numbers on the left defies imagination. It's like some kind of Red State Menace mass hysteria has gripped them and shaken every bit of rational thought out of their squishy heads. All that's left are garish sneers and Orwellian double-speak.

    They man the ramparts babbling about democracy as if some holy relic, all the while planning and truly wishing for autocratic, thuggish rule under their banner. They truly are earning their stripes as the Eviler Party.

  • Sevo||

    "They man the ramparts babbling about democracy as if some holy relic..."

    Nice turn of phrase; I'd steal it if I could use it as well as you. I can't.

  • ||

    Excellent rant. And all completely spot on.

  • ||

    He seems to to be working himself up to a nominating speech at a political convention.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ... who only want to steal Aunt Stella's Social security check (wrong, assholes, that's us).

    Awesome, Jay-Dub.

  • John||

    Take Pierce at his work for a moment. If you honestly believed that one party was so right and the other party so wrong that the wrong party deserved to lose every single election in America for two generations, what measure would you not support in oppressing that party?

    People like Pierce are not partisans. They are not even being dishonest. They are dangerous fanatics. It is only a matter of time before they start advocating violence against their political opponents. This is really ugly stuff.

  • Brutus||

    In a related item, five Occupy morons arrested for conspiring to blow up a bridge in Ohio.

  • John||

    I think it is only going to get worse. A good portion of the country has gone barking mad.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Will someone kindly explain what that cartoon donkey's expression is? Something tells me it's the key to truly grokking the Left's relationship to Obama.

  • Sevo||

    Hugh,
    You really don't want to know that, nor do you want to know what Obama's doing to the animal.
    You like to get a good night's sleep, right? Promise; you don't want to know.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's not rape if they don't report it.

  • JW||

    The Big Zero said he would wreck that ass.

  • R C Dean||

    JW is on a roll, folks.

  • Randian||

    "It's buggerin' time!"

  • PapayaSF||

    "Starry-eyed from an intoxicating sense of true-believing self-righteousness."

  • Brandon||

    I thought it was dead.

  • NL_||

    Trying to suggest that the Democrats should have mimicked the Republicans by setting up think tanks is weird. Most of the real intellectual heat from those think tanks came from libertarians in the form of modified soft libertarianism (welfare reform, vouchers, etc.).

    Where were the Democrats supposed to turn for ideas in the 1970s? They'd already had smashing political successes in the New Deal, then a rather aggressive expansion under LBJ, and managed to pair the civil rights successes with a horrendous foreign policy that basically shattered the Cold War Consensus. I'd say that's enough to make anybody retrench. The center right is also hungrier because the center left had so many victories.

    They aren't out and out socialists, so the center left doesn't really have an ideology to go back to the well for. Republicans aren't libertarians, but libertarianism can be packaged here and there in a way that Republicans support.

    Left-wing think tanks don't draw from socialism or any other purified ideology, so there's little else to guide them other than rank political advantage. Their think tanks are bland fronts for lukewarm and rudderless center-left policy mush. It's not like the right side think tanks are all so great, but a heavy dose of true believerism in some of them has made sure that often some nugget of libertarianism finds its way into issue studies and policy proposals.

  • John||

    Liberals don't need think tanks. They own academia and have made it nearly impossible for conservative or libertarian academics to get hired.

  • jester||

    Good luck with that. Left and Right is a false analogy.

  • BarryD||

    This post false English.

  • grylliade||

    The Democrats were powerless against this, and they did not seek to be anything else.

    This is one of the most annoying memes I've seen out there. "The Republicans stoop to dirty tactics to win, as evidenced by the fact that they sometimes win elections. If only we Democrats could learn to fight dirty, we might get somewhere. But alas! we cannot, for we are too pure."

  • Randian||

    See also: The Ides of March.

    Or, you know, don't.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Is that what that movie is about? Sounds hilarious.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I was just about to mention that insipid movie which, along with Drive, has confirmed Ryan Gosling as the Keanu Reeves of our generation.

    The way leftists whine about Team Red ruthlessness, it makes you wonder how they ever won any elections at all.

    "Look at our guy's credentials! The Republicans don't stand a chance!"
    "The Republicans are going to pull out all the stops with no remorse! We won't stand a chance unless we do the same!"

  • Randian||

    Woah, dude, Drive was great.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah you just lost all credibility by hating on Drive. Sorry.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Whatever. Drive was crap. When you have to rely on Gosling's several scenes of emotionless "acting" to carry the film, you're already starting behind the 8-ball.

    Drive's plot: Ryan Gosling drives cars, stares, kills Jews. There's really nothing particularly special there.

  • SIV||

    What..no spoiler alert?

  • ||

    What?!?

    I'm watching you now, RRR. I've got my eye on you. Nobody slags Drive like that.

  • Brandon||

    I agree. "Drive" sucked.

  • Anacreon||

    I'm with you. I could not for a moment figure out why anyone liked that movie, it seemed straight out of the "two for $5" cardboard DVD rack at the 7-11. And for a movie called "Drive", there could have been a bit more driving or chase scenes (what were there, two total?) and a few less of Gosling looking stupefied and forlorn.

    And no, Albert Brooks (whose comedies I always liked) was NOT a revelation as the crime boss. He was an embarrassment. I kept wanting him to start talking about "losing the nest egg." Perhaps that would have saved this dog of a film.

  • ||

    Agreed, Drive was incredibly overrated. Gosling did an adequate impersonation of Clint Eastwood and Steve McQueen, but that's just what it was, an impersonation, nothing special.

  • John||

    it is a sign of deep intellectual insecurity on their part. They can't stand even thinking that maybe someone else might have a point or even a reasonable difference.

  • ||

    Well, no. It's that they can't understand, much less articulate, the POV of those they hate.

  • jcp370||

    Well done. Won't do any good but well done nonetheless.

  • Darwin||

    Could someone please explain to me - very slowly - why it's crazy to believe that Iran is trying to get a nuke, that they could at some point in the future (within my lifetime) get said nuke, and that they could use it to cause massive damage to Israel or the US?

    Which of those three possibilities is crazy? And why?

  • John||

    There is nothing crazy about it. The problem is that the staff of Reason can't fully cope with the possibility. So they choose to pretend it can't possibly happen.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's not crazy to think Iran would want a nuke and be developing one. Hell, if I were Ah-mah-dinner-jacket and I watched the US invading every country in my neighborhood I would want one too.

    But it is crazy to think that Iran would preemptively use it on either the US or Israel for the reason stated above. Such a launch would literally be suicide, because Iran would be wiped from the face of the earth before its missile acquired a target.

    If Iran wants a nuke, it is as a bulwark against US invasion. And in that case I'm all for them having one.

  • Sevo||

    OK, how is it going to get delivered?
    Now stop and think how small a not-too-sophisticated nuke can be and how big it has to be.
    Remember that it was true for a long period of time that the Soviets couldn't deliver a suit-case nuke since they hadn't perfected suit-case technology.
    It ain't gonna fit in the waist-band of a suicide bomber.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So the Supreme Soviet was worried about the Samsonite gap?

  • SIV||

    Surface mail

  • BarryD||

    It might fit in an oil tanker pretty easily, by which means it could be delivered to nearly any port in the world with no suspicion.

    Seriously, that's a pretty silly reason to not be concerned about it.

  • ||

    They are trying to get a nuke, they could get one, and they would be fucking crazy to use it on the U.S. Plus, it's not enough to have a nuke, as N. Korea has shown -- you have to be able to deliver it to the target you want with at least rough precision. It's waaaaay easier to nuke Israel from Iran -- a few hundred miles or so away, than to nuke the U.S., halfway around the world.

    Dropping it on Israel would be really bad for them, but not "all our major cities just got nuked" bad, unless Israel has way more nukes than I thought, or whoever is the U.S. President is willing to sacrifice millions of U.S. lives to take sides in a religious war halfway around the world.

  • SIV||

    Israel has well over a hundred nukes.

  • John||

    But Iran is a huge country. It would take 1000s of nukes to do the damage four or five could do to Israel.

  • Tonio||

    It depends whether you're going for population or infrastructure. Israel has 80-200 devices, so it's likely that some of these are high-yield (big). If you're struggling to make your first nuke, you generally go for a starter-size.

  • Brandon||

    Iran is a huge desert. They have like 20 population centers.

  • R C Dean||

    I am confident that the Israeli counterstrike would leave nothing of note in the former Islamic Republic of Iran.

    One hopes the Iranians are on the same page.

  • RyanXXX||

    Explain to me why it's so hard to understand that saber-rattling and aggressive, militarist foreign policy actually ENCOURAGES Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry.

    With a nuke, Iran is safe from everyone except its own population. Without it, well, look at their history over the last 30 years.

    Darwin, do you really believe in the possibility that guys like Ahmadinejad, who runs for election and wears a western-style suit, would be batshit enough launch a first nuclear strike against another nation?

    Or even a more religious individual like Khameini would stoop to such madness? If they were that irrational, they would have done something to show it already. Instead, they make business deals with China and Russia and Brazil.

  • Darwin||

    I don't think Ahmadinejad would strike first. But thinking something is unlikely and thinking that believing it is insane are two different things. I wouldn't have thought that Argentina would have tried to take the Falkland Islands, but they did! I wouldn't have thought that Saddam would be dumb enough to swallow Kuwait and think he could get away with it, but he did.

  • jester||

    That is small potatoes compared to a nuclear war initiative and you know it. STFU!

  • JeremyR||

    I'm sure they are trying to get one.

    But use one? Remember Pakistan, the country that supports the Taliban and hid Bin Laden, the 9/11 guy? They have nukes, and this seems to worry no one but myself - everyone is focused on Iran.

  • Truculent Resistor||

    They have nukes, and this seems to worry no one but myself

    ...and India

  • BarryD||

    ...especially since India, for the first time in centuries, would actually look different after a nuclear attack than before it. Pockeeston, a bit less so.

  • BarryD||

    You mean Pockeeston, that country next to Af-gann-istan?

  • Tonio||

    Lot's of unpleasant regimes (ie, North Korea, Pakistan) have nukes. More countries are going to acquire them. How realistic is it for us to attempt to stop or delay them all?

    Also, big difference between having a nuke and being able to deliver it quickly and accurately anywhere in the world.

    There's a big difference between having a nuke and using one. If you only have one, and you use it, you're SOL when retaliation time comes.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Not long enough!

  • ||

    That's what he, she or it said, Anal.

  • Brian from Texas||

    "Republican Party has become so insane and dangerous it is the duty of the American people to do everything they can to defeat them politically on every level."

    That statement is only half right. It should start with "Republican Party AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY".

  • jester||

    Who cares? Vote third party and enough of the histrionics.

  • Graphite||

    Kind of an antidote to Pierce's ramblings, here's a lefty saying Mitt Romney might be better than Obama:

    http://current.com/shows/viewp.....big-banks/

  • ||

    ?

  • Old Mexican||

    But that seems like a thin reed on wich to lean the weight of the future of this Republic.


    Should be "which"... If not manwich.

    My manwich!

  • Californio||

    Take the Pepsi Challenge! Remember that? Well the hyper-partisans are eager to argue over which soda is best: Democrat Cola or Republican Dew. Meanwhile the country suffers from malnutrition and the Demo-Repubs want to convince us all that the path to health is....more of their sugar water.

  • Brandon||

    Does it have electrolytes?

  • J_B||

    Charles P. Pierce = retarded fetus.

    And you know what should be done with retarded fetuses, right?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Bring them to full term, raise them, elect them to represent Pennsylvania in the legislature, and then watch as they fail not once, but twice to win the GOP presidential nomination?

  • ||

    You mean mean man. You're going to make Ricky's daughter cry again.

  • SugarFree||

    Whatevs. It's nothing compared to how hard they are going to cry when Ricky is found face-down dead in some twink's asshole after a week-long meth and rimming binge.

  • BarryD||

    Or bring them to full term, raise them in Pennsylvania, move them to Delaware, and watch as they fail upward all the way to becoming Vice President!

  • Skip||

    The difference on Iran is that lefties never bring up the 12th imam thing because it is allegedly racist, even though they can't shut up about Christians wanting Jews to get raptured.

  • TingoZing||

    Now there is a dude that clearly knows what he is talking about. WOw.

    www.Privacy-Guys.tk

  • califernian||

    Number of countries with a nuke that the US has bombed: 0

    I'd want one too.

  • BarryD||

    There was that kamikaze thing, though...

  • johnl||

    Tertullian is mistreated. He had a good point, that they could have come up with a lie that sounded better than the story they were sticking with.

  • Jennifer||

    I remember when Bush was president, the Republicans controlled Congress, and the Democrats kept promising to fix the country if only they could get the majority back... I said something like "Democrats are better than Republicans in the same way being gang-raped by five biker scumbags is better than being gang-raped by ten; either way you're horribly screwed."

    Then the Dems took Congress, and Obama got elected two years after that, and they assiduously screwed the country to the point where the Democratic Party now has a Scumbag Biker Rapist rating of 9.7. But the Republican Party turned its SBR rating up to 11.

    I'll probably sit the next election out. The libertarian party didn't make it onto my state ballots in the 2008 election, I doubt they'll have their shit any more together by this November, and choosing between 9.7 scumbag biker rapists and 11 of them is no real choice at all.

  • triclops||

    You do know that Saddam implicitly asked us what we would do if he invaded Kuwait and the US basically said that it was none of our business., right?
    We changed our minds afterwards, but he was not crazy.
    Evil, yes. As evil as they come. But quite rational. And I am ashamed that I fell for the fear mongering about his being crazy leading up the the Iraq invasion.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement