Shouldn't you have phrased that:

"The zombie corpse of the real JFK rises from grave, throttles little brother Ted and his shriveled helper John Kerry."

Whoops, wrong blog.

The political left offers nothing these days...they are morally bankrupt.

They are disgusting...they prefer a world with Saddam in power than the liberation of Iraq now.

Not all of them say that, but when the Presidential candidate says "The sanctions were working," and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," the message is rather explicit, I agree.

Anti-war activists can claim several arguments against the war, but the moral high ground is not one of them. No way, no how.

The problem is that they claim the liberation was wrong. I can see someone saying it was imprudent (not in U.S. interest). Such a view could admit that the liberation was morally permissible. But to say it was wrong to liberate 25 million is far-fetched.

The assignment I have had since February 2001 has been to train Army reserve and Army National Guard Soldiers who have been mobilized. I have friends who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also have friends who have been killed in Iraq. To hear it so eloquently put by a recipient of their sacrifices how much it is appreciated lets me know it was not a wasted effort. I still mourn for my friend who died and pray for the safe return of those still there. What I WILL NOT stand for is the denigration of their service or sacrifice. There are many, like me, currently serving in the armed forces forces who are getting a better understanding how those returning from Vietnam felt when we hear "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". At least they aren't spitting on us or throwing feces at us yet. If this rhetoric continues to escalate, could that be next?

"the profoundly mistaken, of the profoundly hating"

There's no better description of opposition in print anywhere.

Jim,
Good point. However, don't forget to subtract the 15K casualties from that 25 million number.

I hope the administration continues on it's path to rectify wrongs across the globe. Next they should definitely handle the situation in the Sudan (no natural resource to exploit there, but the government is Arab, so they probably have terrorist connections). They also need to handle Iran and North Korea for obvious reasons. Authoritarian regimes abusing human rights? China, Uzbekistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bahrain, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Israel (for violating more UN resolutions than any other country). And while we're at it, we may want to round back to Afghanistan, where women are still being subjected to inhumane treatment to keep them from voting and going to school, and where honor killings are commonplace. Let's roll!

Antigona, are you arguing that women are not vastly freer in Afghanistan, that without our invasion the Husseins wouldn't have killed hundreds of thousands over the next 30 years (dwarfing the few thousand casualties we caused), and that it matters whether some tinpot dictators' club says that Israel is evil?

Antigona -

The flaw in your argument is

A. Your demand for perfection and obsession with negativity for political purposes.

B. Your prioritization of moral consistency in all cases vs. progress on one. We can't right all of the wrongs in the world, but when amoral goals intersect with moral ends, any human being with a consistently moral compass should embrace the action, not ridicule it.

It's very rare that political views make me dislike someone, but your nasty delivery and cynical trimphalism, expressed for political effect turns my stomach.

The liberation of Iraq is not some game for you to deride, it's a noble endeavor that you should support if morality is your primary goal. If it's not, that's a valid opinion, but you should come out and say it.

This isn't about this administration, and it's not about righting ALL of the wrongs in the world - your singling out of Isreal in a thread about Iraq displays a particularly warped way of prioritizing the litany of things that are wrong with this world.

Your comments about Afghanistan are ludicrous and/or show little real knowledge of the large character of what's taking place in that country, as if the US has failed in registering 10 million people to vote and removing the Taliban regime, even though some hardline elements grasp at the old madness. This is intellectually dishonest.

For you to snidely malign an effort because it fails to meet an unreachable standard of philosophical consistency or moral perfection reveals YOU for the graspingly, petty little harpie that you are. It reveals YOU for a cynical political hack, a utilitarian that cares more about winning an argument or an election than making a positive difference in this world.

Your attitude is peurile and callow, and I'd like to see you haughtily spit in that Iraqi author's face while you make it, instead of commenting anonymously on a blog. Something tells me that you wouldn't have the guts.

Jim,
Don't get me wrong. I think the people of Afghanistan are better off, and the Iraqi people will be as soon as the election takes place and they get their own government going. Of course. I just think why stop there? We can do so much better. Enough with that nuanced, isolationist way of thinking! If we'd stayed isolationist after WWII Vietnam would've never happened. I say, we press on and take on all people who are opressing people. It' our moral duty. It's our divine destiny as God's light unto the world.
As far as the UN being a tinpot dictators' club, well I might have to check how President Bush feels about that tonight before getting back to you. Sometimes he says we should ignore them, sometimes he says that we went into Iraq because Saddam ignored them. Let me check on the talking points and get back to you. Promise!

It’s not the idea of liberating Iraq that people have a problem with. It’s a beautiful and wonderful thought, the problem is that it hasn’t and won’t work. That in fact the invasion has not liberated Iraq, it’s just transformed its problem of a psychopathic bloodthirsty dictator making Iraq miserable to a wide variety of psychopathic bloodthirsty wannabee dictators making Iraq miserable. It’s hubris that America’s vast resources and ambitions (mostly noble and worthy) could transform lead into gold or Iraq into a democracy.

Not to mention it was a grotesque misappropriation of resources, bin Laden and Al Qeada were and are the grave and gathering danger and as yesterday’s outrage in Egypt attests.

Just because something is the right thing to do it doesn’t mean it’s right to do it. Good leadership can spot the important and sometimes subtle difference and make the correct decision. Bush did not and that’s why next month he’s going to lose the election.

Next they should definitely handle the situation in the Sudan (no natural resource to exploit there,
***************************************
Tell that to the Canadian and Chinese Oil Comapanys that funded the Southern Genocide of 3 million Sudanese Pagans and Chrisitians (I have been wondering why all the sudden fuss about Dafour?)

They will be surprised to find they were not pumping Oil out of the ground after all. ;-)

Note publicity prompted the Canadians to withdraw from Sudan.

Don't get me wrong. I think the people of Afghanistan are better off, and the Iraqi people will be as soon as the election takes place and they get their own government going. Of course. I just think why stop there?
**************************************
Who says we will stop there? This will be a generational Clash of Cultures, it is not to quote a British Military officer during a Gulf War Press conference "90 minutes of cinemaphotography"

Going to take some time and cannot be done everywhere at the same time.

" It’s hubris that America’s vast resources and ambitions (mostly noble and worthy) could transform lead into gold or Iraq into a democracy."

Who said America is trying to this?

Actually we are helping the Iraqis do this themselves.

Is there some reason why you believe Iraqis are inherently incapable of creating a democratic society? Was not Germany and Japan worse 50 years ago? How do you explain Turkey?

Does anyone else get a whiff of racism from this type of anti-war arguments or it is just me?

salvage,
WE WILL WIN. Defeatist pinko.

The left are desperate to maintain power. They are the establishment, the reactionaries, and they are vicious when the gates of the palace are breached.
The right are the outsiders, they see themselves as the wave of the future and are eager to change the ancien regime.

The left are still in their dreamworld, formed of their youth, that the people need to be led and that they are those leaders. The right are looking at reality, and only liberty and democracy is going to make us secure.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Kerry clearly has a not-too-secret plan to lose the war in Iraq.

A) He's been suggesting that Iraq will be "Lebanon" when he gets in office. Well, what did our armed forces do in Lebanon? They PULLED OUT.

B) He's been calling the war in a Iraq a diversion. Well, to paraphrase the young Kerry, who wants to be the last man killed in a "DIVERSION". Kerry will have NO credibility for continuing the war in Iraq if he's elected. HE WILL HAVE TO PULL OUT. The sacrifice of the 1100 servicemen killed in Iraq and the 10,000 injured will go for nothing. Not to mention the Iraqi lives lost. Iran will be a greater power, Syria will be even less willing to change its ways, and Iraq the safehouse for ever terrorist and criminal in the world.

One could argue that Kerry is merely trying to be Richard Nixon and Abbey Hoffman at the same time. He is. But I don't think he is stupid enough not to realized the implications of what he's doing. The President and Vice-President and Zell Miller don't question Sen. Kerry's patriotism? I do.

salvage -

I disagree with your assessment because I think that it is premature, and dismissive of middle east culture, and I think that the prematurity is counterproductive. That being said, your position is a morally consistent and realistic one that has more credence than the gross sniping by selective partisans.

Regarding the meat of your assertion, I fail to see how anyone can declare that success is impossible, or on the other end of the spectrum, even likely. The situation is in flux, with grave factors working against success, and some notable factors in our favor.

But declaring it over before it's over, makes it over, if you catch my meaning.

Setting an unreasonable standard for success is also a bit of circular logic that guarantees failure. Antigona's Afghanistan example is perfect - how can anyone read perennial pessimeist Hitchens' report from Afghanistan and declare Afghanistan worse than or as bad as it was under the Taliban? Such an argument is the product of mortally diseased thinking.

And with Iraq, there is a greater than 50% chance that the country will wind up as a better society when US troops leave than it was before they came.

Any triumphal decisive assertions that trumpet success or failure at this point are naive, dishonest or politically motivated. But giving up on these people is a shameful course of action.

TBear,
I agree wholeheartedly. Just because you have a tribal culture that relies on authoritarian figures for leadership, a society incresingly divided between secularists and religious extremists (who are gaining popularity among the people of the land), and a historical distrust of Western-style politics, shouldn't mean you can turn around 180 by January! I'll say what you won't. RACIST!

Does anyone else get a whiff of racism from this type of anti-war arguments or it is just me?

Yes.

We've got romantics and egalitarians vs. cynics and amoral utiltarians, except guess who is on the "left" and "right" this time.

Just because you have a tribal culture that relies on authoritarian figures for leadership, a society incresingly divided between secularists and religious extremists

Aside from the "distaste for Western style politics," you just described the settlers and founders of the United States.

The only remaining argument is racist or culturally dismissive, which is nearly indistinguishable from racism.

Mikey,
You are right. The left has been hiding behind the fact that Congress has been Republican-dominated for the last decade, the Supreme Court hangs by a thread in the Republican's favor, and now we have President Bush in the White House to hide the fact that THEY are the ones that run the country, pass all the laws, and make all the decisions. And on top of that they dominate the media!
They need to stop whining when they are obviously running the show.

Anitogna you racist slut.

January is just the beginning of the process, dummy. But thanks to asshats like you, it will probably not even happen.

You racist pig.

Congress has been Republican-dominated for the last decade, the Supreme Court hangs by a thread in the Republican's favor, and now we have President Bush in the White House to hide the fact that THEY are the ones that run the country, pass all the laws, and make all the decisions. And on top of that they dominate the media!

And it doesn't take too long to surface - the real source of Anitogna's breathless dismissal of any noble effort or possible positive effect in Iraq and Afghanistan - selective application of negative argumentation in order to reinforce a more fundamental political worldview.

Anitogna's dim view of women's rights progress in Afghanistan is cynically centered around Republican politics about abortion, affirmative action, health care, and perhaps a smattering of her personal distaste for the religious overtones of fundamentalist Christians in this country.

These domestic liberal priorities have reordered her from a critical thinker to an apparatchik - a negative automaton - that selectively gnaws at anything her binary worldview has put into the "evil" column.

This binary thinking is true bigotry, my dear, and it has made your political discourse part of the problem in this country.

Congratulations.

Actually Bill, what you are seeing is the ultimate failure of romanticism (Leftism).

As Nietzsche described long ago, the end product of romanticism is nihilism.

What we have here is liberals vs. nihilists.

"Aside from the "distaste for Western style politics," you just described the settlers and founders of the United States."

Yes. But the advantage is the Iraqis don't have a mess of "natives" to deal with and get out of the way on their walk to freedom. They are far better off.

Hitchens, the editorial page staff of the WaPo and staff of the New Republic are the vanguard of the remains of the honorable liberal movement in this country. As a center-right guy taht embraces much liberal ideology, I don't celebrate the diminishment of objective and critical anlysis in liberal thought - I mourn the Hell out of it.

To fully appreciate the tremendous task ahead. I reccomend reading

Our need for "A Culture of Compromise"
by
Tarek Heggy
http://www.mideastweb.org/compromise.htm

Just the intro is daunting.

A few years ago, I discovered that there is no equivalent in the Arabic ‎language, classical or colloquial, for the English word "compromise", which ‎is most commonly translated into Arabic in the form of two words, literally ‎meaning ‘halfway solution’. I went through all the old and new ‎dictionaries and lexicons I could lay my hands on in a futile search for an ‎Arabic word corresponding to this common English word, which exists, ‎with minor variations in spelling, in all European languages, whether of the ‎Latin, Germanic, Hellenic or Slavic families. The same is true of several ‎other words, such as ‘integrity’, which has come to be widely used in the ‎discourse of Europe and North America in the last few decades and for ‎which no single word exists in the Arabic language. As language is not ‎merely a tool of communication but the depositary of a society’s cultural ‎heritage, reflecting its way of thinking and the spirit in which it deals with ‎things and with others, as well as the cultural trends which have shaped it, I ‎realized that we were here before a phenomenon with cultural (and, ‎consequently, political, economic and social) implications.

But the advantage is the Iraqis don't have a mess of "natives" to deal with and get out of the way on their walk to freedom.

Selective negative argumentation. You are a child. Your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of a toddler screaming "nononononononono" in the grocery aisle, as a thoroughly annoyed parent tries to explain why candy isn't good for their teeth.

If I were you, I'd scamper off to greener pastures, because you don't have the caliber to survive in these waters, and it isn't your broad ideological affiliation that's holding you back. It's the limitation of your mind.

Bill, it isn't "romantic" to hope for good societies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scratch a nasty, bitter troll like Antogna and you get the romantic underneath. The right-of-center liberal is not so unbalanced. He can remain clear-eyed about the long, hard road ahead: very guardedly optimistic, unsurprised when terrible setbacks occur, etc.

When I say "romantic," I don't mean it in the classical sense - starry-eyed foolish dreamer. Anyone that isn't infected with chronic or politically selective pessimissm is a "romantic" in today's environment ...

Okay, I'll sign on, but just as long as it doesn't commit me to accepting that human nature is good and all that rot. It's good and evil.

A romantic doesn't believe in one vs. the other - otherwise, there would be nothing "evil" to romantically swashbuckle against.

Dear folks,
I was actually having a great time winding you all up. And as a liberal it was heartening to engage people who are willing to go to battle for morally worthy causes (even if those are not the same causes our leaders took us to war under). It's obvious the romantics are the people all the time, never the governements, and that's how it should be. Obviously most of you are good, smart people.
TBear - the slur was uncalled for. I never uttered a single insult here. Your lack of maturity is astounding, and reflects your limited intellect (to say nothing of your puny imagination). Does it always come to that? I guess so.
Jazaki Allah kheir

Bil, i agree that its nice to see the Iraqi bloggers--actually, its just nice to see Iraqi bloggers period---support our effort, and vastly more eloquently than I could.

That said, I have real beefs with vast number s of things that we have done in Iraq. The whole troop level issue seems an exercise in studied unseriousness, for starters.

the second beef--and this is the nub of the problem--is that Iraq seems like almost a secondary issue at this point. Iran seems like it is calling for open battle at this point.

with regards to Antigona and her ilk, do not condemn them! Their utter bankruptcy morally, coupled with the fact that Kerry is a 1979 liberal, are the sole reasons Bush will win.

Bil, i agree that its nice to see the Iraqi bloggers--actually, its just nice to see Iraqi bloggers period---support our effort, and vastly more eloquently than I could.

the second beef--and this is the nub of the problem--is that Iraq seems like almost a secondary issue at this point. Iran seems like it is calling for open battle at this point.
Posted by rod at October 8, 2004 04:01 PM
***************************************
Rod there is a great stirring in Iran today, I do believe it might have been influenced by seeing the end of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, You won't find new of it on the MSM but the internet has changed things look through the Free Iran website sometime.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/cat_index_30.shtml

To quote Cordwainer Smith
"Isn't technology wonderful?" ;-)

Salvage:
You are "one of those poor, timid souls who will never know victory nor defeat". If we ultimately fail in Iraq, which I seriously doubt will happen, I would rather it be a failure of effort than a failure to act. At least we can look ourselves in the mirror and say we tried. Remember, the only true way we can fail there is if the Iraqi people themselves decide they want Saddam back and reinstall him as dictator. But even that would not be a failure since the Iraqi people would have freely chosen that path. As clearly expressed by Salaam in the original thread, a majority of the Iraqi people are exceedingly appreciative of our efforts and support us. Why would you want to turn your back on them? Is Al Qaida an important target? Yes, it is. Are our efforts in Iraq distractors on our efforts against Al Qaida? No, they are not. The key to getting Al Qaida is getting good intelligence on where they are. The vast majority of our military are NOT used in intelligence gathering. We have numerous national assets for gathering, analizing, and acting on intelligence. An infantry division normally does NOT fall into the 1st two, and only on occasion in the last. The most common military assets used against an Al Qaida type target are Special Operations Forces and smart bombs or cruise missiles. Those assets are definitely available and standing by.

Antigona, the mere fact you hold brown Iraqis in such contempt is insulting. The fact you call yourself a "liberal" only makes me want to vomit. I would rhetorically smack you again, but Bill already did rather nicely.

Is Al Qaida an important target? Yes, it is. Are our efforts in Iraq distractors on our efforts against Al Qaida? No, they are not.
**************************************
The 4th ID is not much good against Al Quedar in a military operation, but it sure works well to deny them secure and peaceful sanctuary in Iraq. ;-)

Please visit his excellent blog and scroll around to obtain a vital Iraqi perspective that you can't find in the Washington Post.
**************************************
Healing Iraq is even better his list of Iraqi and MidEast Blog links is extensive.

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

I will admit the fact that Zayed has not posted in over a month concerns me.

In a bizare twist of fate some time back in a post he asked for URLs of other MidEast Blogs and I sent him the address of The Religous Policeman in Saudi and it turned out that man and Zayed were distant relatives!

Boy the world sure is getting small! ;-)

Dan Kauffman:
My point exactly. Also, my fellow infantry soldiers are shooting the rats as fast as they show up over there. It is much better to fight them over there instead of over here. Too bad the Dems can't grasp this fact.

John F. Kennedy, a JFK for whom I could vote.

Pro military intervention-- check
Anti Commie-- check
Wife wasn't Turr-eeza-- check
Cut taxes-- check

4 for 4 on the important issues

Thanks for the Input Pete I give more credence to the views of the folks on the "Sharp end" of things than to talking heads. ;-)

For intance Army Times latest poll of 31,000 sevice men and women is very enlightening!
The Troops Have Spoken"
by Robin Burk at October 7, 2004 01:40 AM
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005663.php

and for those who REALLY want to know about Iran?

http://www.blogsbyiranians.com/

BOY is there a LOT of them go see what they have to say, be warned some will like us and some will hate us, but you can get a better view than CNN will ever give you!

Don't forget he tried to get us off central-banking fiat money too!

Kennedy would be considered a far-right kook today. How the world has changed!

OT: Dan, you wanna talk small world, (RE: Trotsky thread): My cousin was one of Trotsky's right-hand men in Mexico. He even died for Trotsky, shot by Stalinists. Poor commie bastard from NYC: Sheldon Harte. So, there you go, degrees of separation and all that.

Jim: According to David Horowiz's autobio, his parents were involved in transporting the order from CP to the assassins in Mexico. So there you go, another connection.

Wow.

Read all of Alaa's blog, if you have the time. He's been writing about a year and is the heart and soul of the liberated.

The Democratic party of today is nothing like the party of JFKennedy, Truman, or FDR.

The Dem party of today is more like a European socialist party.

AT-

Absolutely not the party of JFK, Truman or FDR. That's why people like my grandmother (a Southern Democrat who hasn't caught onto the changes of her party) are not being replaced by young voters when they (sadly) pass on.

What's odd is young people today are split nearly 50-50 and will only become more conservative as they age. The Dems are going to lose a lot of support (assuming latinos don't vote as a block) over the next 5-10 years as the greatest generation shuffles off this mortal coil. Then, the Republicans will have their chance to really foul things up like LBJ in the 60s.

/sigh

Dan:
I wonder why he says,"The sample group is a bit older than the military at large and contains a higher percentage of officers, and therefore may under-represent Democrats as a result."? I am a NCO as are most people I deal with from day to day at work. The vast majority of the ones I know are far from being Democrats. In 20 years of service, I can only remember 2 NCOs who were Democrats that I personally knew. We have Democrats in the military, but the majority of all ranks tend to be conservative.

Pete maybe he thinks the young guys might prefer partying and chasing chicks to responding to polls in the Army Times? ;-)
But it was a good statement to stave off rebuttals that the poll being self selected out of an older pool of Service men and women was biased.

In any event it really quashes the argument that Kerry has much following among Vets.

Rasmussen Reports drove the final nails in that coffin a while back as well.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm

Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%

48% Have Family or Friends in Iraq or Afghanistan
Friday October 08, 2004--A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

LET ME REPEAT THAT LAST STATEMENT

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

To continue with the report-----------

Overall, 47% of voters believe that Bush would make a better Commander-in-Chief than John Kerry. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say Kerry would do a better job. This closely reflects the overall voter preference in the race for the White House (on the nights of this survey, Kerry attracted 48% of the total vote to 45% for Bush).

Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.

According to moebius, YOU are the terrorists.

(http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1110)

If you own a gun, you are a terrorist.

If vote republican, you are a terrorist.

If you vote libertarian, you are a terrorists.

Do you start to understand? We shouldn't be in Iraq because, according to moebius, the REAL terrorists are American Republicans, Libertarians and the GOP.

Our police should not be arresting Islamic terrorists, they should be arresting YOU!

Our miltary should not be helping the Iraqi government fight terrorists, it should be helping the future Kerry government fight YOU!

OK moebius is a dumbshit nobody. But do you think this viewpoint is common on the Left?

Let me quote moebius:

"And then look for the "Interview with Tim McVeigh" from 1996. It's not all politics in there, but his grievances with the government are pretty standard Libertarian faire.

As for the connections, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist. McVeigh and Nichols attempted to join the Michigan Militia (attended meetings, but couldn't get a membership), and Terry's brother James was a member. The Oklahoma bombers allegedly provided weapons to Militia leader Mark Koernke, according to the federal government.

The rest, the Michigan Militia-->NRA-->Republican elite isn't hard to figure out. Friends in low places.

What a lot of people forget is that this isn't the first "War on Terror" we've fought; America quite successfully prosecuted a war on the domestic terrorism"

So according to moebius, if you don't agree with him, you are an enemy. How very . . . Stalinesque. (And that's not meant as a compliment.)

One thing about the armed forces being generally more conservative than the population as a whole, is that liberals tend to self-select themselves out of military service, as well as it being hard for military recruiters to get onto college campuses.

And so it goes. It is interesting to note, Nixon and JFK ,were in the end, not all that far apart at least on their foreign policy, and just by a matter of degrees on a number of social issues. Perhaps that is why there was more of a bipartisan effort in both the house and senate when the need arose, back then, then there is now.

I think we had better hope Bush and Co. win by a substantial margin. Or (IMHO) I fear there will be blood in the streets sooner than later. And it won't be spilt by foreign agents.

Bill, if I ever start to make you angry, let me know before you eat me, please?

According to Russell Kirk, it's the conservatives who are heirs to the romantic tradition, in the strict philosophical sense -- where romanticism meant a rebellion against the Enlightenment and the alleged "coldness" of its ideal of a world ruled by reason. (I don't have my copy of Kirk's "The Conservative Mind" here for an exact quote.)

As for the "topsy turvy" world, well, IMO it isn't topsy-turvy at all if you ignore the surface details (like "isolationism") and study the philosophical plate tectonics underneath.

The Left has been co-opting liberalism into its opposite -- socialism -- for over a century. As a result, the movement we still call "liberal" has been jettisoning the original Enlightenment ideals which once defined it -- limited government, individual liberty, and free markets. That process was completed in the late 1960's. There still remains a faction of "old-guard" liberals among the left, but they are dying off, and their voices are fading.

Conservatives, largely self-defined politically as merely anti-liberal, has accordingly been adopting these ideals and their orphaned supporters. The trouble here is that this is a philosophically unstable situation; Enlightenment ideals cannot rest on an anti-Enlightenment basis.

So the same process that is Europeanizing the American left, rendering them monolithically socialist and anti-capitalist, has also introduced a deep division on the right, between the original religious conservatives and the new, who carry the orphaned remnants of old liberalism.

The battle for the heart and soul of liberalism is over, and the socialists won. Now it is the conservatives who must resolve a fatal, internal contradiction. Let's hope the Enlightenment wins again.

Jimmay: Inner contradiction to resolve? On the contrary, what you have there is the makings of a healthy, two-party body politic: the old-liberalism conservatives and the hard traditionalists. Let the Democratic Party wither and fade away, to be replaced by the Liberty Party, or what have you, composed of the liberal refugees. If our only extremists were hardline libertarians and Pat Robertsonites, and if they didn't form the lion's share of their respective parties, we'd be better off than we are now. How lucky I would count myself to have to make the agonizing choice between registering Liberty or registering Republican!

Interesting take on romanticism from Kirk. I accept romanticism in that sense. But you just have to steer clear of the romanticism that denies realities of human nature and foresakes traditional values.

Bill, if I ever start to make you angry, let me know before you eat me, please?

I don't eat people. Just moonbats. Tastes like chicken.

By all means Jim, I'd like that situation much better than what we have now! But that was my point: the two sides are ultimately irreconciliable. I just hope the Left can be sufficiently marginalized for that to happen.

What kind of topsy-turvey world do we live in when conservatives are romantics and leftists are cynical isolationists that sanction the continued rape of a country because our treasure could have been put to "better use" on domestic programs?

I think Matt Yglesias answers your question, at least partly. I know, I know, he's a shrill Bush-hating eastcoastliberalelitist etc., but at one time, he was a nice center-left hawk on the Iraq war.

As for the "better use of our money" argument, it's nothing but Democrat political opportunism, and has absolutely zero to do with ideological liberalism. In fact, it's the precise opposite of liberalism. It really is an utter bullshit argument that they need to stop making. Right now. Unequivocally.

It's one of those things that actually makes me consider voting for Nader, because it goes so far beyond run-of-the-mill politicking- as far as I'm concerned, it's essentially selling out a fundamental principle (altruism) to appeal to the depressingly large number of Americans who actually think that way because they don't view other countries as anything but potential tourist destinations or cheap labor sources. Well, I say fuck them. I'd rather lose the election than win it because the supposedly liberal party sees nothing wrong with exchanging humanitarian idealism for parochial selfishness in such a blatant way. Compromising on idealism in favor of pragmatic real-world considerations is one thing, but this is not "compromise" in the sense of "an equitable agreement between parties"; it's "compromise" in the sense of "Hull integrity is compromised! All hands abandon ship!".

Really, though, I suppose the thought process behind it is more or less that no matter how much we have to sell out to win the election, it's still better than four more years of Bush. Not that I agree with the sentiment, as I said, but maybe that's just my idealism speaking.

Great comment.

it's essentially selling out a fundamental principle (altruism) to appeal to the depressingly large number of Americans who actually think that way because they don't view other countries as anything but potential tourist destinations or cheap labor sources.

The true test of a morally consistent humanist is the ability to recognize that occasionally, perhaps regularly, altruistic goals and ends line up with actions of forces that primarily act in their self-interest.

America is a constant source of contrarian sniping in far leftist quarters, and so many intellectuals have become unable to distinguish when America's actions actually serve a greater good - they just reflexively attack. Part of this stems from a romanticism that embraces the set piece struggle of the weak vs. the POWERFUL.

There is a greater argument (that I embrace), that says that many of the actions that you might find overly selfish are indeed good for the planet (free trade being a potential example), but even applying a much lesser, selective interpretation - sometimes America changes things for the better. Even a Green should be able to recognize that.

For every Pinochet and Bay of Pigs, there's a Berlin air-lift, Marshall Plan, WWII, Korea, reconstruction of Japan, fall of the iron curtain, etc.

And auto-contrarians that unendingly snipe and selectively trumpet the negative to the exclusion of the positive get on my fucking nerves.

Walter, I can't say this with certainty, and I know that you'll scoff at this statemnt, but one day, Bush's drive for Democratization might work. I'm not saying that I know that it will (an assertion like that is ridiculous), but it might. it could. And I think that you know that a cynic like John Kerry could never make such a long pass towards the endzone.

And one day, you may look back and think, "Maybe that bullheaded stupid-ass guy with an IQ 40 points lower than mine was the right bull-headed, stupid ass guy to push such a hare-brained idea with such deaf, retarded vigor and annoying confidence."

Maybe.

Thanks for this blog

Great Blog

8605 http://harley-parts.owns1.com harley parts
harley davidson parts
motorcycle parts

3939 You can take Generic Viagra to cure ed. We also offer name brand Viagra

2100 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem

160 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps