State of the Union Address

Remove all ads!

@ Ragusa

What drawer would you put me in? Cause I never know what to tell people when they ask me...

I believe politicians should be economists first and foremost. I believe free trade is the path to worldwide betterment. I think we should drastically shrink our military. I think the government should be TOTALLY secular, and I won't vote for a candidate who relies upon a religious base for power. I think welfare should only be for those whom are literally starving. I think we should take the money we waste on stealth bombers and tanks, and invest it in building NEW schools (with computers that are actually managed by a IT guy).

So what does that make me?

 

Hard pick. The welfare aversion is right-ish. Focus on the economy is more 'liberal' in the sense we use the word in Germany. The idea that the gvt should invest in public infrastructure is 'liberal' in the American reading, as the 'conservatives' would probably like to see it privatised altogether. For Grover Norquist you'd be a socialist Focus on secularism is 'liberal' in the American and German senses of the word, I presume. A person that can be reasoned with. Center? Moderate?

Basically I only see myself really disagreeing with you on the free market. A free market only is truly free where there is equality. This, however, is IMO an illusion.
The market settles everything? So does death. But this is leading me and us

 

Sorry, Ragusa, I cannot agree. While I believe that some here would not consider themselves as neocons, (and I will certainly admit that it is difficult to label such things), the notion that "Democrats, progressives and liberals" have a certain view of the military and its uses are a large part of the "neocon movement" in the first place, and that view is illustrated in the rhetoric used on this thread. It is of course built on falsehoods:

1.That view is that the Democrats despise the military - and that comment was implied on this thread - "we all know what they think of the military."

2. And that Democrats are aiding the enemy by oppossing the war in Iraq - we certainly saw that rhetoric here as well. I demostrated that that rhetoric is in wide use by the "Weekly Standard" and Fox news, certainly the biggest mainstream defenders of the neocon position in the American media. Iirc, William Kristol is the son of neocon, Irving Kristol, who is probably the embodiment of the neocon movement. Fred Barnes is a regular Fox News pundit, who shares much the same views as Kristal.

You also commented, Ragusa, that we both believe that "Bush should go." Sorry, but I did not vote for Bush in the first place, (that he should not be there at all) and those who did, knew what they were getting, and it is absolutely stunning to me that those who knew that it would be only more of the same, ARE STILL attacking those who have been opposed to this policy - which is essentialy the neocon policy towards the Middle East.

3. And the biggest falsehood of all - drumroll please - that the Democrats have "no alternative." Yes, why yes they do. Kenndey made a fantastic point in the sequence I used in the MtP interview - Why not let Bush "come to Congress?" Perhaps the Congress and the Bush adminstration can work together to craft a workable policy towards Iraq - one based on diplomacy and preparing Iraq to govern itself - No troops, no guns, no killing, only people sitting down together and working out their problems. But is that the neocon dream of American policy? While it may not suit the neocons, it is certainly the view of some Republicans. Check out this stunning and well-timed comment by Republican, Chuck Hagel, last week, speaking on Bush's latest strategy:

The Democrats are not the problem with the War in Iraq; they never were the problem. Those who voted for the president and his policies on Iraq knew what they were getting - and giving those of us who did not agree more of same. It's really high-time that those who did, stop blaming the "hypocrite" Democrats for this disaster, and started saving their ire for those who really crafted this policy - IF they really disagree with the neocon polciy with which we are all living.

Edit:

We are a nation before we are a market, and we are citizens before we are consumers....

[ January 30, 2007, 05:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

What do you mean by that? Is what you said an observation, or normative analysis?

 

Chandos,
you shouldn't use the term 'neo-con' easily. There are those who adopt arguments and tag lines brought out by neo-cons, which are designed to appeal after all, but think and argue much different. Neo-conservatism is a school of thougth foremost, and then a worldview. You're mis-using the label to describe people who embrace or pick up specific policies or arguments promoted by neo-conservatives.

Doing so, you open yourself to critique. There is no benefit in that. You don't need that label to argue with Darwkolf.

I repeat that I have not *ever* met a neo-conservative on Sorcerers. A couple of sympathisers, which for a brief period included me, but not the real breed.

[ January 30, 2007, 10:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Y'know, I just read in one of David Brin's essays (incidentally, the man has some wonderfully insightful piecies on his website; everyone should read them, especially the one comparing neoconservatives and Islamic fundamentalists) that "Science now calls indignation a distinct physiological state - one that triggers secretion of active chemicals in the brain, delivering a "high" with addictive traits, very similar to opium. "

That's frightening, though I've yet to confirm his assertion by checking other sources.

 

Calm down Chandos, you are frothing at the mouth, and interpreting everything from the worst case view. This was not what I intended in any way...and your words don't taste so good so please stop putting them in my mouth. Liberals have traditionally had little use for a strong standing military...it goes against the general view of cooperation a understanding that are hallmarks of the liberal movement. As such they have a distrust of the military and want it limited in size, scope, and power. This has always existed. Even before Pearl Harbor there was a large progressive movement that wanted to negotiate peace with Japan rather than fight.

I saw this topic discussed on ABC News the other day, and even they presented the side that there was too much party partisanship on the topic and that the transmission of such divisive rhetoric that had no basis in actual debate provided positive re-enforcement to the insurgency, without ridiculing it. There is a limit on free speech, you can't yell fire in a theater, and you can't give encouragement to the enemy, especially with such transparently political ends in mind.

The majority of Americans voted for Bush...something that few modern Presidents have received. Additionally the vast majority of the politicians I am criticizing voted for the War before it became politically expedient for them to turn against it...coincidence? Possibly, but given the way modern politicians make every decision based upon the last poll I doubt it.

I am criticizing them for their lack of action and failure to follow through with their promised "new direction", not for their opposition to the war. I supported the war when it started because I honestly believed that given a chance at freedom the people of Iraq would step up and take it...apparently a pretty naive belief, but at the time I thought the risk was worth trying. Now it is time to get out of there...all that is left to decide is whether it is going to be a sudden pull out or a staged withdrawal. However plans like setting deadlines for withdrawal are just stupid...the insurgents will just harass us enough to make sure we don't change our minds and then sweep in and take over as soon as we leave. The argument that the Iraqi government will move faster to secure the nation if they know we will leave just doesn't work for me because I believe that they are already doing all they can...it isn't enough and I don't think it ever will be.

Finally, quit taking the personally, no one is attacking you personally.

Again, another "no solution". Presidents don't "come to Congress", this is as pie in the sky as my expectations that politicians should stop hyping and looking for the good of the people rather than their continued position in Washington and their power base. The President coming to Congress, especially a Congress in the control of the party opposite his own would be an extraordinary display of weakness. It normally only happens when the Congress has the President over a barrel and he has no choice. Of course Congress could accomplish this if they had the guts to tell the President that they were going to cut the funding for the war if he didn't...but then they expose themselves to criticism for an issue that they can just let go without any negative impact to themselves, just a few more dead Iraqis and American soldiers half way around the world.

The majority of them voted for the war...lets not say never were.

Welcome to democracy. Again, the majority of the people of the US voted for Bush. Sorry, but this is the lamest cop out ever. I hated it when I saw bumper stickers during Clinton's term that said "Not My President...I Never Voted For Him", and I hate that attitude now as it accomplishes nothing but to create more division. Bush was voted in by the same rules that every other modern President was, and every person who disagrees with an elected official can use this excuse to pass all the blame without any progress being made. When you make statements like this it seems to demonstrate a hatred of Bush, and it colors your otherwise extraordinary understanding and insight into the democratic process.

Sorry, but that just isn't reality...as long as the majority people are left alone and can afford to buy a few luxuries they have no interest in the government or its actions. In reality the majority of us are much more concerned with how much we can consume than what Uncle Sam is doing.

 

Oh, no, nothing "personal" intended here. I'm quite calm, (but I'm sure you already knew that, depite your posturing).

My wife hates it when that happens to me....


But, hey, you can save any "personal" comments and other asides, as that is not really the topic before us. If you say that you are opposed to the neocon policies adpoted by the Bush adminstration, then that's good enough for me. We can all agree, in that instance, that the Bush administration, at this point at least, has mostly failed in Iraq, and that it is a good thing that he, and the neocon policies of the past several years, have been rebuked by the Amercian people in the last congressional election - yes, your comment "welcome to democracy," DW is timely - I agree with you that it does work after all - and thusly we can move on with the topic at hand, which is the "state of the union" and the newly elected Democratic Congress.

I too share your feelings that the Democrats should cut off funding for the war, which has been one of your major points on this thread. Nevertheless, it would be a difficult decision for them politically, as they would now be shouldering much of what the consquences of the failed policy in Iraq and what they would become in the region, as you correctly point out. In the SotUA, Bush managed to embrace the War in Iraq even more closely to the fate of the GOP, leaving the Democrats with a little more room to back off the Bush policy and thereby allowing him to continue with the escalation he seeks at the GOP's "political" risk.

However, some Republicans, as I illustrated in a previous post, are just a little nervous about the escalation of the war and implementing Bush's latest "strategy" regarding Iraq (the troop surge). With any luck at all the Dems will wind this war down, and soon we can all go back to arguing over Social Security again. Democracy - gotta love it....

LNT - Well, it's certainly not an observation....

[ January 31, 2007, 04:44: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]