« previous post | Main | next post »
December 10, 2004
Is Terrorism Important?
Gerald Dworkin: December 10, 2004
A commentator on my post Domestic Security says: “I don't think scant attention to civil defense sunk the Democrats. Kerry addressed domestic security over and over again. He talked about the absurdity of x-raying airline passengers and not cargo holds. He promised to do something about the huge number of cargo containers that enter our ports without being inspected. He promised to double the number of special forces operatives...”
This is true, but it seems to me that this did not convince enough voters who were concerned about domestic security issues so the question is why not. Well, if I were an undecided voter I would be concerned about things like the following. The New York Times asked delegates at the Democratic and Republican convention about which issues they thought were most important. 2% of Democratic delegates said terrorism; 15% of Republican delegates mentioned terrorism. Only 1% said homeland security was important. Michael Moore went around the country proclaiming there was no terrorist threat. Those who attacked the Patriot Act rarely proposed changes which would be more effective in protecting us against domestic attack, as opposed to changes which would protect us against increased governmental surveillance. It wasn’t clear that the Democratic activists or Kerry saw domestic security as a central issue comparable, say, to preserving Social Security or to doing something about the health care mess.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1522019
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Terrorism Important?:
» Now We're Cookin' With Gas from Liberals Against Terrorism
Gerald Dworkin at the brand new blog Left2Right deserves to have his post replicated in full, because he makes an important point:
A commentator on my pos [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 10, 2004 12:05:16 PM
Comments
Posted by: Will
Your last sentence is one I agree with strongly. In many discussions I have with conservatives over foreign policy there is the misconception that my criticism of the administrations decisions and actions implies that I support an isolationist or "do nothing" approach.
Eventually we have to have two discussions. The first is over which foreign policy decisions I disagree with and why, and the second over what course of action I would rather pursue.
Posted by: Will | Dec 10, 2004 11:13:09 AM
Posted by: Tike
Can liberals be tough on terror?
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200412100857.asp
Posted by: Tike | Dec 10, 2004 11:16:34 AM
Posted by: S. Weasel
I apologize in advance if this is completely off the mark, but statements like:
But if that view is incorrect, and if the threat of terrorism is a long-range and serious one, then we would be making very different arguments. We would attack the tax cuts for depriving us of funds that ought to be going to the military, or homeland security, or intelligence gathering....sounds to my ears like...
We need to attack tax cuts, but the arguments we use don't seem to be resonating with the public. Is there another way we can justify higher taxes that will have more appeal to Joe and Suzy Voter?Again, if I'm misreading, I'm sorry, but this looks less like a statement about terrorist threat, and more a statement about how you should spin terrorist threat. An awful lot of political strategy on both sides seems as transparent as, "here's what we want to do. What story would you buy for why we should do it?"
Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 11:18:06 AM
Posted by: Steve
I sense that this is really a post for Democrats-what do we believe and how do we express it? Rather than an invitation for discussion between Democrats and Republicans (or if you prefer, liberals and conservatives).
But I can tell you from the conservative perspective that it is a pretty good description of the issue. I think conservatives assume that critiques of the War or the Administration are in fact critiques of the goals, and not just of the process. We assume when your critiques of Abu Graib (as one random example) aren't designed to improve the execution of the war, but rather to knock the Americans down a notch in their own views, the views of the world, and even of their own standing in the world. In harsh, frank terms, we assume you want what's worse for the country, not what's better.
Or to put it another way: if, deep down, the Democratic Party is still the party of Harry Truman, even I could conceivably vote for a Democrat (and I am pretty conservative). But is it, deep down, the party of Harry Truman? Or even JFK? If so, then your problem is one of image: don't let the Party be defined by the anti-war protest of Kerry, or the Bush=Hitler posters at most liberal rallies nowadays (not unusual, by the way: I came of political age during Reagan, and remember the Reagan=Hitler crap back then), or the wit and wisdom of Michael Moore.
If not, though, and Michael Moore, anti-Vietnam protest, and anti-globalization riots ARE the heart of the Party, I would say you've got a more serious long-term problem. To be honest with you, I'm skeptical. I bet there are modern day Harry Trumans out there somewhere. But they are trapped in state legislatures or city governments (or are named Liebermann or Miller). They didn't sit with the elder statesmen at the Democratic Convention last summer: Michael did.Steve
Posted by: Steve | Dec 10, 2004 11:30:27 AM
Posted by: Mattmli
S. Weasel,
Now, maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it almost sounds like you think there are people, or a significant group of people, that want to raise taxes for its own sake. Maybe there are such, but that would be really weird, wouldn't it? I thought Dworkin's point was quite clearly that realistically fighting terrorism is going to be expensive if we want to do it well, and given that, tax cuts, especially since we've already got a pretty big deficite, are probably not a part of a realistic plan to fight terrorism. Now, that may be wrong, but it's not crazy or devious. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying Dworkin's position sounds like?
Posted by: Mattmli | Dec 10, 2004 11:33:26 AM
Posted by: Henry Woodbury
Did Joe Lieberman speak at the Democratic Convention? I think there are a lot of moderate to liberal hawks who saw Lieberman go down in the primaries and began to doubt what the Democrats were thinking.
Following up on S. Weasel's comment, when I heard Kerry rail about port security, while tiptoeing around the Patriot Act, it was hard not to wonder if Kerry thought he the right way to fight terrorism was with a regulatory agency.
Posted by: Henry Woodbury | Dec 10, 2004 11:41:34 AM
Posted by: S. Weasel
Now, maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it almost sounds like you think there are people, or a significant group of people, that want to raise taxes for its own sake.
Not quite. I mean that they want to raise taxes for the usual reasons they want to raise taxes, to support the usual programs they want to support. After all, all tax monies go into the same big pot, regardless of the rationale for collecting them.
Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 11:42:43 AM
Posted by: mw
Well, I have the strong sense that, like Michael Moore, a lot of Democrats think that the risk of terrorism is overblown and that it's more a 'wedge issue' that Bush uses to his advantage rather than a genuine threat.
Mixed in with that, but distinct from the threat of terror attacks on US soil, is the global struggle with islamofascism. Many on the left (including those in the US) are mystifyingly accomodating toward Islamist fundamentalists--excusing or overlooking not just the tactics of terror but the oppression of women, the intolerance toward gays, the hostility to open and pluralistic societies, etc.
A lot of Americans don't trust Democrats on these issues (this what what Peter Beinart's piece in the New Republic was addressing).
Using the war on terror as a way of re-casting opposition to tax cuts isn't going to fool many people if they sense that the opposition to tax cuts is the primary issue and terror is secondary.
Posted by: mw | Dec 10, 2004 12:11:34 PM
Posted by: Ted
Weasel hits on the head.
I see nothing wrong with financing a war (as what happened in the Civil War, WW2, etc) - after all, wars are fought for the safety of the children of tommorow. So why shouldn't they pay for it?
However, I suspect the whines from the Left about the "deficit" have more to do with the object of the spending (i.e. the military vs. "social" programs) than with the financing.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 12:15:27 PM
Posted by: Terrier
S. Weasel - was he was really saying: the threat of terrorism is so serious that we must respond to it with all our resources? Nah, he just wanted your money.
Read this article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-08-terror-database_x.htm
and tell me the current administration is serious about terrorism.It should be clear to anyone with eyes, that to the current administration, terrorism is only an excuse to invade Iraq and fill voters with fear.
Posted by: Terrier | Dec 10, 2004 12:16:36 PM
Posted by: mw
Here's a link I should have included in my last message:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&s=trb122004
Beinart's follow-up to his original articles is actually focused on the question at hand -- namely why the WOT and struggle against Islamist Totalitarians should be central concern of liberals.
Posted by: mw | Dec 10, 2004 12:18:05 PM
Posted by: Mike
I think this is an interesting post. We need to discuss how big the terrorist threat really is. This is something that seem somewhat taboo. John Kerry didn't addess it, but he seems to be trying to straddle the antiwar/prowar line, and is all too comfortable with the PATRIOT Act. Michael Moore didn't really seem to address why we shouldn't be concerned so much about terrorism, but I think the left should really question how much they trust the man and his accuracy. However, the fact of the matter about terrorism may be unpopular if explained.
However, CATO did address this issue. Or at least one author from CATO did. And he concluded that the terrorist problem isn't the threat it is made out to be. 9/11 was big, but it didn't raise the death rate of people in the US due to terrorism above many other factors that we take as insignificant.
The points can be sumarized (not by me, I believe by Will Wilkinson) as:
* Assessed in broad but reasonable context,
terrorism generally does not do much damage.
* The costs of terrorism very often are the
result of hasty, ill-considered, and
overwrought reactions.The article can be found here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf
Posted by: Mike | Dec 10, 2004 12:18:19 PM
Posted by: Daniel M.
I think the outcome was based on the person, not the political ideology. Kerry as paternalistic president was never going to happen. As a Bostonian, I never had a doubt that our junior senator would lose.
Posted by: Daniel M. | Dec 10, 2004 12:18:44 PM
Posted by: Deb Frisch
"It is one thing to attack the Administration for incompetence, ignorance and arrogance in fighting terrorism. It is another thing to think that the goal itself is mistaken."
Yup. Some people think dubya's a moron because of how he mangled the war in iraq. Others think he's a moron because the whole "war on terrorism" is an oxymoronic, self-defeating waste of money and Marines.
Is this really news to anyone?
Posted by: Deb Frisch | Dec 10, 2004 12:37:32 PM
Posted by: Terrier
"Well, I have the strong sense that, like Michael Moore, a lot of Democrats think that the risk of terrorism is overblown and that it's more a 'wedge issue' that Bush uses to his advantage rather than a genuine threat."
It is really useless for me to read posts like this. Most of the posts by so-called conservatives I have read on this site are of the same ilk. "Rush told me Liberals want to eat my children and I think they are bad!" It should open some Liberal eyes to note that not only are these people ill-informed about the actions of the current administration, they also know almost nothing about what Liberals actually believe. They live in an echo-chamber and insulate themselves from any information that might upset the delicate balance they have achieved between what they want and what they believe is right. The most vehemently anti-war person I know right now is my best friend, who until this last year was a Conservative Republican. We never discussed politics at all until this year because we knew we were on opposite ends and didn't want that to affect our friendship. He just spontaneously told me one day that he was disgusted with Bush and the whole administration for the lies, incompetence and murder that they represented. He is actually very concerned about terrorism but does not believe the current administration is.
Posted by: Terrier | Dec 10, 2004 12:39:43 PM
Posted by: S. Weasel
Yup. Some people think dubya's a moron because of how he mangled the war in iraq. Others think he's a moron because the whole "war on terrorism" is an oxymoronic, self-defeating waste of money and Marines.
And some people think the left is incapable of dilineating a position on this issue that isn't simply a list of all the ways George Bush got it wrong. You have to do better than this if you ever want to sit in the big leather chair again.
Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 12:45:07 PM
Posted by: Terrier
OK, I would not waste my time compiling a list of terror-threatened sites. I would protect what was clearly vulnerable first. For example: government buildings, office towers, chemical plats, power plants, ports, airports and hospitals. So why aren't we doing this?
Posted by: Terrier | Dec 10, 2004 12:57:10 PM
Posted by: Ted
Let me sum up Terrier's post: Everyone here who disagrees with him is stupid, uninformed or just repeating what Rush told them to say.
Did I get it right? Or is Terrier just a troll doing satire?
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 12:57:26 PM
Posted by: Ted
Terrier also has a crystal ball. Please tell me who to bet on for the next World Series, oh annointed psychic one!
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 12:58:28 PM
Posted by: Mona
As a libertarian who supports Bush's WOT policies, I long ago tuned out any voices of the far left, including those who oppose the war in Iraq. But I do carefully consider anti-war arguments from sources such as Cato. The latter, I am certain, are not driven by anti-American animus and they do not see the U.S. as the Source of All Evil. In sum, they are the loyal opposition.
The far left is the disloyal opposition. David Horowitz explains that well here: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16259 and he quotes Beinart's New Republic piece.
The academic left does little to nothing to discourage campus rallies where signs announcing Bush=Hitler or some such deranged nonsense are on prominent display. It does little if anything to repudiate their own who, as Horowitz demonstrates, openly are rooting for our enemies and our defeat in the war. This is seen, and many of us object to the tolerance for such noxious politics.
The sheer anti-Americanism that is unexceptional on many campuses is now is the spotlight, courtesy of blogs. In the insular academy, overtly anti-American politics are a ho-hum, quotidian thing, but one that has not heretofor been subjected to instant and widespread lampooning and repudiation. The blog community denominates adherents of Bush=Hitler & such as "barking moonbats." We do not take those of you who advocate extreme left views seriously. We mock you. This pours over into contempt for academics at large.
So, I think a blog such as this one is a fine idea. I for one do not expect left-wing academics to change their minds, but I would hope those who hold their positions in good faith, and who are loyal opponents of Bush's policies, would be willing to undertake some housecleaning in their academic community, and become more vocal in denouncing the all-too-acceptable extremists in your midst.
Posted by: Mona | Dec 10, 2004 1:07:05 PM
Posted by: votermom
At the risk of sounding terribly idealistic:
Somthing about the idea of the "war on terror" bothers me and it's hard to articulate, and maybe someone else can say it better. It has something to do with international justice, or maybe international injustice.
9/11 was a great tragedy, and a great injustice against the victims.
But where do terrorists recruit from -- from people who feel they have nothing left to lose. From extremely angry people. Why hasn't 9/11 prompted any national discussion on working toward peace and justice, instead of focusing entirely on increasingly violent reprisals on perceived terrorist threats?
Posted by: votermom | Dec 10, 2004 1:09:03 PM
Posted by: Terrier
No my post is this: no matter what I say, as a Liberal, I am by definition wrong and trying to steal your money. Because that's all you ever listen to then it must be right. It also must be all you ever listen to because that is all I ever hear from you. Communication is a two-way street. If you're too busy defining me to actually listen to what I am saying then why the hell are you here?
Posted by: Terrier | Dec 10, 2004 1:10:43 PM
Posted by: Ted
"Why hasn't 9/11 prompted any national discussion on working toward peace and justice, instead of focusing entirely on increasingly violent reprisals on perceived terrorist threats?"
This makes no sense since Bush has articulated that some of the strategy with Iraq is to bring democracy and stability to the Middle-East.
I also find it sad you assume if someone is angry they must be just or in the right. Rapists are angry toward women, yet nobody tries to discuss peace and justice with them while they are raping a woman.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:19:00 PM
Posted by: Ted
Terrier: Are you purposely trying to be ironic? or a bad parody of a liberal? (seriously, at least write a good troll to make me laugh!)
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:20:09 PM
Posted by: Steve
Votermom-
As you may well be aware, most of the people who 'did' 9/11 were upper middle class (Saudi Arabians and I think Egyptians). I am wondering why you think the United States is responsible for the phsychological state of the Saudi Arabian middle class.Steve
Posted by: Steve | Dec 10, 2004 1:20:18 PM
Posted by: Hal
Gerald, perhaps what's needed by those who think terrorism is such an overarching threat is some analysis that shows this is indeed the case. Check out the FBI statistics on terrorism - particularly domestic terrorism (over at MIPT, for example. Several things about these statistics stand out like sore thumbs. First, the greatest terrorism threat we face is from domestic terrorism from our own people - not from foreigners. Second, over 2 decades, the number of deaths and injuries isn't even in the same order of magnitude of deaths caused by - say - traffic accidents (40,000 deaths a year). From a pure cost/benefit perspective (not something I'm advocating, mind you) it's clear that tackling smoking (440,000 deaths per year) would have a far greater benefit than dealing with the 3,200 deaths over two decades.
It's pretty clear what's happening. It's not a rational response to an impending danger. I wouldn't say that it's an overblown threat - things change, and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are a real threat. But it's completely clear that the magnitude of the response we're having is out of whack with the reality of the situation. It's a response of irrational fear which is being expertly manipulated.
I completely understand that the reality of the situation has little to do with the political realities. But those on the "we need to get tougher on terror" side of the fence have a huge burden of proof to overcome - the facts simply belie your case. Again, there is a difference between the perception and the reality of the situation. And saying that we're not tough enough on terror is like saying we're not tough enough on the butt itching rays that are emanating from the soviet union.
I know I'm speaking heresy, and I certainly don't mean to diminish the real pain and suffering by those who are victims and survivors of such horrific acts. And I certainly don't mean to suggest that terrorist threats don't exist (as they say in the financial field, past performance is not a guarantor of future events).
But clearly, there's a cognitive dissonance here that is simply not being addressed.
Perhaps it's time we just stop assuming there's an impending threat of unimaginable proportions and start analyzing what we're dealing with in a reality-based fashion? Let's talk about why it is that terrorism is perceived to be such a tremendous threat and what it is that we can do to address that perception. If terrorism really isn't a threat as the statistics show it isn't, then it won't matter one whit about how liberals are perceived in this policy area because it's all about illusion and peddling illusion is what the current right excels at.
Flame away, those on the right (and left)
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 1:23:48 PM
Posted by: enzo rossi
Mona,
Do you think that, back in 1942, it would have been right for a German to wish for her country's victory in WW2?
This is not to say that I think Bush is even remotely as bad as Hitler. I am not even saying that we should wish for the US to lose the 'war on terror'. Rather, I'm trying to argue that, at least in principle, there are situations in which supporting one's country is the morally wrong thing to do. In other words, there seems to be nothing intrinsically immoral with not supporting one's country, even in war.
If I'm right about this, then you shouldn't say that some people ought to be isolated (silenced?) just because they wish the US to lose the 'war on terror', or because their actions will make it more likely that the US will lose this 'war'.
Posted by: enzo rossi | Dec 10, 2004 1:33:16 PM
Posted by: Ted
Hal: Need we bother? You are not concerned with the MURDER ATTEMPT of 30,000 of our citizens in broad daylight in our largest city, which resulted in the actual murder and injury of thousands and the associated pain and suffering of their friends, family and our nation as a whole. And you poo-poo a WMD attack, which could potentially murder millions. But at least we don't need to take YOU seriously in any argument about the War, as you obviously don't give two shits about it (thats for being honest). Yeah, let's talk about the statistics of failed "progressive" social programs over the last 40 years - oops, you don't want to do that!
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:34:11 PM
Posted by: frankly0
Look, the question ACTUALLY asked in the NY Times survey of the Democratic and Republican delegates was, "What do you think will be the most important campaign issue in your state?"
Don't you think that this question, an assessment of the politics of the issue, is a million miles away from your construal of it, which pretty obviously assumes that the delegates are expressing their PERSONAL views?
Isn't it also pretty obvious that delegates will see their answers as having a political effect, and will, at least very often, try to stress the issues most favorable to their candidates? And isn't it pretty obvious too that terrorism was NOT an issue that favored Democrats, in today's political milieu, fairly or not, and DID favor Bush?
As for Michael Moore, could someone explain to me why his opinions are considered in any way core to the Democratic Party? If you're going to make your point, don't you think that it might do you well to stick either to Democratic national politicians, or functionaries in the Democratic apparatus who actually have some clout? If you can't find a SINGLE quote from such a person supporting the view that Democrats are actually relatively unconcerned with terrorism, doesn't that give you a little clue that the criticism might be wholly misguided?
No one will dispute that the Republicans enjoy, in the public's eye, the PERCEPTION of greater concern about terrorism. Yet is it based in any reality, or is it almost purely posturing and swaggering?
The irony of the accusation of indifference to terrorism is that, before 9/11, it was almost ONLY Democrats who took it seriously -- consider Clinton, Gore, and Sandy Berger. A fair analysis of our current political situation would try to explain how it is that, after 9/11, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who were able to convince the public that it was THEY who took terrorism with appropriate gravity, despite the history.
Posted by: frankly0 | Dec 10, 2004 1:34:18 PM
Posted by: Ted
"This is not to say that I think Bush is even remotely as bad as Hitler."
Thanks for the disclaimer. Nice bait and switch in your argument. This is like watching community college social studies teachers "argue."
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:36:46 PM
Posted by: Nekretaal
I'm not sure that "Terrorism" really is all that important as a political issue.
George W. Bush's 2004 position on Terrorism differed almost entirely from his 2000 position on nation building. John Kerry's smart separation of Iraq from terrorism as a political issue and his clumsy "terroism as a nusiance" statements offered voters a real choice.
But, if terrorism was really so important, why didn't anybody's votes change? Why did John Kerry's militarist pose as the Democratic National Convention "reporting for duty," result in no post convention poll bounce?
The issues and solutions were completely different and new from what was offered to voters in 2000, but almost the red states (and precincts!) remained red, and the blue states remained blue.
I'm just not sure that terrorism really is as important to the outcome of votes as everybody seems to think that it is.
I think that the terrorism issue forced an awakened public to "rally around" the positions taken by their leaders. If I'm correct, then terrorism has not matured as a philosphical issue with the American public, and the "moral values" issue is even more important to voting outcomes than polls observe.
Posted by: Nekretaal | Dec 10, 2004 1:40:59 PM
Posted by: Ted
"As for Michael Moore, could someone explain to me why his opinions are considered in any way core to the Democratic Party?"
Because he was shown in a room with Jimmy Carter. Seriously, you are on to something with the perception thing.
The Dems should do themselves a favor and throw Mr. Moore on his bum. Even this sometimes Republican would cheer, even if it cost the GOP votes. The question is why they haven't done this (unless many do agree with him?)
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:43:02 PM
Posted by: Ted
"But, if terrorism was really so important, why didn't anybody's votes change?"
But votes DID change...the GOP won by a wider margin.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:46:23 PM
Posted by: Hal
"The question is why they haven't done this"
Gee, I don't know. The question is why haven't you thrown out Ann Coulter on her bum or Limbaugh, or O'Reilly (unless many on the right actually agree with them)?
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 1:49:36 PM
Posted by: Ted
Were Ann Coulter, Rush or O'Reilly sitting in Gerry Ford's box at the GOP convention? Refresh my memory. Comparing a guy who compare Iraqi insurgents to "American minutemen" to Rush and O'Reilly - HILARITY. Is this satire? As a sometimes voter of the GOP, I hope it isn't (eight more years!!!!).
PS: Coulter was thrown on her skinny bum when she was fired by National Review. Oh the humanity!
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 1:57:16 PM
Posted by: Henry Woodbury
Frankly0 -- If Clinton and Sandy Berger are examples of Democrats taking terrorism seriously, I think you've answered the question of why Republicans get the benefit of perceptions.
Bush certainly didn't talk about terrorism much when he ran for president in 2000 (McCain was much more hawkish), but his administration did attempt to sieze and hold the initiative in the war on terror after the September 11th attacks.
The outcome may be near term success (Afghanistan)and a long term disaster. Or it may be middle term disaster (Iraq) and long term success. Or disaster all the way.
In contrast, the rope-a-dope approach of securing domestic entry points, pursuing international terrorism through crime-fighting mechanisms, and counterpunching after the occasional terrorist success (e.g. Clinton's mid-90s cruise missile attacks) may well be the better long term strategy, and it is probably the one the US will revert to as the Iraq war plays itself out.
But the Bush Administration is seen rightly as adopting a bold strategy, whatever its merits, and the Democrats as shying away from it.
Posted by: Henry Woodbury | Dec 10, 2004 2:03:04 PM
Posted by: mw
"As for Michael Moore, could someone explain to me why his opinions are considered in any way core to the Democratic Party?"
Because a raft of prominent Democrats turned out for a special Washington screening of Fahrenheit 9/11? Because of the words of praise they had for the film after seeing it (Terry McAuliffe, in particular)? Because of Moore's prominent, seat-of-honor location at the convention?
If leading Democrats were trying to hold Moore at arms length, they certainly made a very poor job of it.
Posted by: mw | Dec 10, 2004 2:10:06 PM
Posted by: Hal
Wow, I didn't know the National Review was the seat of power in the Republican party. Who knew?
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 2:10:35 PM
Posted by: Nekretaal
"But votes DID change...the GOP won by a wider margin."
Actually, the GOP increased its popular vote margin by about 3%. This happened across the board, and wasn't particularly concentrated in any particular group or region of "swing" voters.
Even if all 3% of the popular vote change could be attributed to George Bush's prosecution of terror policy (and not to to factors such as moral values or having the advantage of incumbancy this time), Terrorism's relevance as an issue turned out to be pathetically small.
C'mon. Three entire wars were entered into by George Bush (Afghanistan, Iraq, and "terror"), the American pubic wasn't ignorant of these changes, and only three states changed their votes?
Posted by: Nekretaal | Dec 10, 2004 2:12:30 PM
Posted by: Ted
Pathetically small? Looking at the margins involved, and the increase across the board, I would say it was large enough for four more years of Bush's anti-terror policies.
It could be terrorism was simply not a relevent issue among most who voted Kerry...but this will not win elections for the Democrats.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:19:00 PM
Posted by: slarrow
Actually, Hal, I'll leave it to Gerald to flame away. This is a conflict between the two of you. For what it's worth, most of us on the Right think terrorism is important and that relying on statistics is a flawed way to evaluate the threat. Kevin Drum made much the same kind of reply to Beinart; the problem just isn't that big. To which those of us on the right reply: oh, would you like to wait until it becomes big?
You know what the Right thinks of the goal; good luck to you and Gerald in working through what the Left ought to think of it.
Posted by: slarrow | Dec 10, 2004 2:21:34 PM
Posted by: Hal
Hmmm. I seem to remember the same argument lines regarding Global Warming, the environment and just about any of the other issues the right likes to denegrate and deride with cost/benefit analysis. It seems your line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that we should be drastically cutting back on oil usage to prevent "The Day After" from becoming a reality, shouldn't we? Or we should be dumping trillions into asteroid defences because "would you like to wait until it becomes a big problem?".
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 2:32:22 PM
Posted by: Mike DePaul
If the goal of this blog is to promote a higher level of poltical dialog and if this thread -- the first I have read -- is any indication, then the chances of attaining the goal are grim.
The first thing one notices is that very few of the comments are actually on point. If commentors could exercise some self control by sticking to the point, I think the quality of this discussion would improve a fair amount.
A second thing that would, in my opinion, improve the quality of the discussion would be responding to what other contributors to the blog have actually written. Whether a person considers him or her self liberal, conservative or moderate, my guess is that he or she only feels responsible for his or her own views, not the views of everyone else who self identifies in the same way.
A last suggestion: Why not suppose that at least those who contribute to this blog tell the truth. When someone writes one thing, why suppose that what that person means is something different -- and inevitably grossly false. Operating on the basis of such an anti-charitable principle is no way to conduct a mature discussion.
Posted by: Mike DePaul | Dec 10, 2004 2:36:08 PM
Posted by: Ted
Hal thinks the attemped murder of 30,000, the actual murder of thousands and continue threats to murder more is just a "theory" like Global Warming or maybe just a movie like the "The Day After."
I applaud his honesty.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:37:07 PM
Posted by: Nekretaal
"Pathetically small? Looking at the margins involved, and the increase across the board, I would say it was large enough for four more years of Bush's anti-terror policies.
It could be terrorism was simply not a relevent issue among most who voted Kerry...but this will not win elections for the Democrats."
Extremely Pathetically small.
In fact, this election represented the smallest shift of state electoral voting in my lifetime. The three tiny states that did change their voting patterns might even have only done so on the basis of freak weather (Snowstorms in NM in 2000, Iowa in 2004).
The issue didn't do much for Democratic outcomes that can be oserved with results, but it didn't do much for Republican outcomes either.
Posted by: Nekretaal | Dec 10, 2004 2:37:41 PM
Posted by: Ted
Nekretaal: Blaming the weather -- yeah that will get you places.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:39:25 PM
Posted by: Hal
The threats of global warming are very real. So is the threat of total global anihilation by an asteroid. I never said the threats of terrorism aren't real. Just that when compared to the very real deaths of over 400,000 a year in the US due to smoking, the threats seem quite small in comparison. Or are you saying that having 400,000 people die every year is something that we should just cast aside to focus on the 3,200 over two decades?
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 2:41:20 PM
Posted by: votermom
Thanks for the response to my questions.
Me: "Why hasn't 9/11 prompted any national discussion on working toward peace and justice, instead of focusing entirely on increasingly violent reprisals on perceived terrorist threats?"
Ted: This makes no sense since Bush has articulated that some of the strategy with Iraq is to bring democracy and stability to the Middle-East.
And that's working ... how? If that is his true intention, heads in his cabinet should have rolled by now, for sheer incompetency. If, on the other hand, his goal is to install a client state in Iraq, I can see that he's still got a chance of succeeding.
I also find it sad you assume if someone is angry they must be just or in the right. Rapists are angry toward women, yet nobody tries to discuss peace and justice with them while they are raping a woman.
First, I condemn their actions. Murder is murder. Second, I don't assume they have justification for their anger, but neither do I assume they do not. What I do wonder at is the fairly wide support of their actions in their geographic areas of origins. What is going on there that they are not universally condemned? When OBL issued a "press release" saying "we do not hate your freedom, we hate your policies", and the National Science Defense Board has a report echoing this "they hate our policies" -- why is there no discussion in the media of this policies? What kind of society does Saudi Arabia have anyway? Peachy keen, from what I can tell from tv coverage.
Steve:As you may well be aware, most of the people who 'did' 9/11 were upper middle class (Saudi Arabians and I think Egyptians). I am wondering why you think the United States is responsible for the phsychological state of the Saudi Arabian middle class.
I think, historically, it's always been the middle class taking the leadership for social change, whether violent or non-violent. The poor are too busy struggling to survive, and they cannot afford the personal risk. The middle class has access to resources and education.
I am not saying the US is responsible for their psychological state. I think that there is great injustice in the world, and we ignore it at our peril. The more the US is seen as looking the other way, or worse, profiting from injustice, the more attractive a target it becomes. In some cases we may be nothing more than a scapegoat.
I did say I have trouble articulating it. Maybe the parable of the Good Samaritan. If someone is being beaten up, and you cross to the other side of the road to avoid trouble, it doesn't mean you're responsible for the person who got beat up. That is true. However, can you see how the person who got beat up may not be very fond of you after that? What makes it one step worse is if the person who did the beating up is your friend.
I'm truly not saying that if we get attacked it's all our fault. I'm saying I feel we're being sucked into a vicious cycle of violence here that is going to just keep escalating.
Posted by: votermom | Dec 10, 2004 2:45:05 PM
Posted by: Ted
1. Global warming and asteroids are beyond our contral, and probably will occur with or without human internvention sometime beyond our lifetimes.
2. Smoking is a chosen behavior. Murder is not. I reason one of the purposes of government is to prevent and punish murder. If you do not, there is no need to continue this discussion.
3. Why have you not addressed my point that 30,000 were victims of attempted murder on 9-11?
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:46:48 PM
Posted by: Nekretaal
But, normally you would expect that states would chnge their votes, because the candidates and issues are always different. This year, the candidates and issues were different, and nobody changed their votes. In fact, for the few changes that did happen in some of the smallest states, weather might have even been the most proximate cause? Not that the overall election result would have swung on weather, but why didn't anybody's vote change in a year when terrorism was the main political issue?
Other posters have mentioned the environment. I think that's a great analogy. The government has a legitimate role in regulating the environment and prosecuting terror. However, absent a no major disaster, the amount of people who can be "swung" by political appeals on these issues is insignificant.
Posted by: Nekretaal | Dec 10, 2004 2:52:28 PM
Posted by: Ted
votermom:
On Iraq -- why do you assume a democratic liberal state in Iraq will be instaneous? Have you read the histories of post-WW2 Japan and Germany?Which geographic areas of origins do you mean? The Netherlands, where a liberal filmaker was shot down in cold blood? Russia, where school children were machine-gunned? Bali, where a dance-club was bombed?
On the "vicious cycle of violence" -- do you feel the best way then is to lay down on the sidewalk and be beaten to a pulp because your enemy is angry at you for possibly no good reason? In other words, should the US be smacked around like some women are in cases of domestic violence, because the wifebeater (terrorists) are mad about their jobs or losing sports team?
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:55:21 PM
Posted by: Hal
Global warming is under our control - read the literature. And we can do an excellent job of preventing asteroids hitting the earth if we dump enough money into it.
I must be under the mistaken impression that murder is not a federal issue, but a state issue, and that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare and the defense of our nation.
As to the 30,000 attempted murders, fine. Still doesn't even reach the same order of magnitude of smoking deaths each year. Annualized over the 3 years since 9/11, that's 10,000 attempted murders a year.
Hey, I'm just following the right's script here. It's not the script I think we should follow, but I've had it stuffed down my throat for the past two decades and it's about time that the same be applied to your line of reasoning.
It's pretty clear that if your serious about preventing terrorism of tremendous proportions, then fighting wars which increase the number of terrorists and provide propaganda tools they could never dream of isn't the way to do it. Clearly, the war in Iraq has had the opposite effect it was intended to have.
Hey, wasn't it George Soros and other democrats who started their own private fund to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials when the Republicans refused to fund it?
Perhaps if the right was more on the ball in preventing such things from happening in the first place - say, like arming Saddam and providing him with the means and materials for chemical and biological weapons production - we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
From my point of view, you guys aren't serious about terrorism at all. You're only serious about "getting tough" and proving you can't be pushed around. Something that Iraq has shown as the laughable strategy that such mind sets always result in.
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 2:57:19 PM
Posted by: Ted
"why didn't anybody's vote change in a year when terrorism was the main political issue?"
Perhaps because one's position on terror is linked to where one stands on certain moral issues.
But since I know personnally many Democrats who voted Bush because of the terror issue, and I see no evidence that weather was a factor, it is more reasonble that the increase for Bush was based on terrorism.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 2:58:00 PM
Posted by: S. Weasel
Or are you saying that having 400,000 people die every year is something that we should just cast aside to focus on the 3,200 over two decades?
We have to choose?
Cities were paralyzed by the Son of Sam and the Boston Strangler, neither of whom had a particularly impressive body count (compared to one really good traffic accident). Fear isn't a numbers game. Fear of the random murderer is more acute and out of all proportion to the risk; it grows from the uncertainty, the horror of the death itself and the intentional malice of the actor. Fear of the terrorist is fear of the serial killer writ large. The whole exercise is designed to frighten us.
Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 3:00:54 PM
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw
"“I don't think scant attention to civil defense sunk the Democrats. Kerry addressed domestic security over and over again. He talked about the absurdity of x-raying airline passengers and not cargo holds. He promised to do something about the huge number of cargo containers that enter our ports without being inspected. He promised to double the number of special forces operatives...”"
I think one of the problems is that many Democrats think of talking about defensive civil security issues as the same as paying attention to national security.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Dec 10, 2004 3:03:07 PM
Posted by: ca
Hal,
I looked at some of the research a while back, and I'm not sure I believe that the threat of "global warming" is real, unless you mean "global climate change," or even better, "We could have unforeseen and potentially profoundly negative impact on the world/environment around us," which I can definitely support.
But anyway, there are two answers to your question, I think. One (addressing your smoking example) has to do with the fact that we focus a lot more on airplane deaths than car deaths, even though more people die/are involved in car accidents. I know people who are afraid of flying, and no one who is afraid of getting in a car. Why? I think it's because people *hate* the idea of something happening to them over which they don't have *control.* Same thing with terrorists vs. smoking. People have a large amount of control over starting to smoke, and a lesser amount (but still nonzero) over quitting smoking and reducing the associated health risks. They have much, much less control over whether they die in a terrorist attack. This may or may not be a good reason, but I think it is certainly the reasoning of many.
The other answer (addressing your global climate example) is that many (including me) see the probability of a whole lot of US citizens being violently killed as quite large if nothing is done, as terrorists are actively working towards this goal, have already tried, etc. These people see the probability of annihilation by an asteroid or annihilation/slow death by global warming as much smaller/more avoidable, given that people haven't really established what's actually happening, climate-wise. (Now, if there was a general scientific consensus that the earth would fry everyone upon it by 2020, or a large asteroid's course was plotted to with 99% probability intercept the earth in two years, i am SURE that it would be more important than terrorism. I mean, just look at all the (successful) work put into the Millenium bug, and that wasn't even life-threatening.) Again, we can argue over whether this is a good reason, and we can definitely argue about the probabilities involved, which are heuristic at best. I'm just saying that this *is* the reasoning.
Posted by: ca | Dec 10, 2004 3:05:02 PM
Posted by: Ted
1. Global warming is far from an uncontroversial scientific fact. The asteroid "threat" is stupid, since the statistical probablitiy is over thousands of years.
2. Murder is a federal issue, especially if is done by foreign nationals supported by another nation-state (or states).
3. You still have addressed how smoking is a choice, but you it is clear you don't consider 10,000 murder attempts a problem. Thanks for being honest.
4. Actually fighting wars reduces threats by A) killing them B) removing their support and C) threatening others from attempting similar violent acts. In Iraq, the long term play is to remove the main cause of the threats (dictator-states and theocracies).
5) Given how he has spent most of his money lately, Soros has made it clear he doesn't care about terrorism.
6) Actually Saddam was mostly armed with weapons purchased from Russia and France from the "oil-for-food" program that enriched thousands of UN and other bureaucrats.
7) It is very very clear you don't consider the attempted murder of 10,000 Americans as a threat. This doesn't make me consider YOU very seriously.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 3:07:42 PM
Posted by: Bob Flynn
Let's look at this backward from EFFECT to CAUSE, shall we?
1. Effect: Kerry and Dems lost
2. Cause: Soft on defense? Gay marriages? Crazy bible-thumpers swelling the ranks of red-states with excessive births?Maybe 1, maybe all, but Why does it Matter?
And, Why would people argue over the Cause, when it's likely to be diffuse, joint and multiple.
It's like arguing which Boston Red Sox player was the cause of the World Series triumph -- instead we tend to give credit to the whole enterprise, not a portion of the enterprise. (But I would have given the MVP to Schilling if I had to.)
Posted by: Bob Flynn | Dec 10, 2004 3:09:11 PM
Posted by: slarrow
Hal, you misunderstand. I did not say your statistics were flawed; I said that relying on statistics was a flawed way to evaluate the threat. To put it another way: statistics merely purport to report what is; whether or not that is acceptable or what we ought to do about it is outside the world of statistics. (Which causes the global warming analogy to break down, at least in part; conservatives don't trust the numbers nor the scientists because of the dangers of overreliance on old possibly unreliable data, open partisanship, and groupthink.)
By the numbers you cite, you clearly think the death toll does not measure up to the level of threat it's obtained. But for that death toll to reach whatever threshold you have in mind, I would surmise, some pretty rotten but preventable things must happen. I would rather focus on preventing those things than waiting for the death toll to trigger a serious response.
And yes, if it were to come to a choice (which it really doesn't), I think we should focus on the continuing attempts to murder Americans instead of trying to "save" people from the consequences of their own freely chosen actions. If you disagree with that, take it up with Gerald; I don't really have anything further to say to you.
Posted by: slarrow | Dec 10, 2004 3:09:55 PM
Posted by: Ted
ca: I think most people hate being murdered, while they understand that accidents happen and that smoking will probably give them cancer. Some involve other people acting in a deliberate way, others do not. I'll let you see if you can figure out which is which.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 3:11:35 PM
Posted by: ca
Ted:
Sure, that's right. I like the serial killer example above. I should have emphasized the "choice" option more, as that is my personal (libertarian?) opinion: smoking is a choice, so don't act all surprised when you get emphysema.
I figured that if I said that, though, someone would just bring up the old "but the tobacco companies made me do it!" canard and criticize me for being too harsh on undereducated smokers. Sorry for the underestimation, guys.
Posted by: ca | Dec 10, 2004 3:20:26 PM
Posted by: Hal
Slarrow, I agree. But this is all about uncertainty and the accurate estimate of such. I just want the discussion opened up to the facts we know, not the one's we fear. Like conservatives with global warming, perhaps the liberals don't trust the numbers nor the administration because of the dangers of over reliance on emotional and irrational fears, open partisanship and group think.
If the issue really is how to prevent terrorism, then there's a lot of things that are obvious we should be doing, and yet we are not. Take Pakistan. It's pretty clear they are going to settle with nothing less than a Pashtun dominated, Islamic Afghanistan. They're pushing nuclear weapons around the world and are clearly a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. Why coddle them when they aren't even serious about getting Ussama who appears to be enjoying the beautiful Pakistani border?
Or nuclear proliferation? It was Republicans who have consistently killed all efforts at rounding up the loose nukes and weapons grade material floating around after the break up of the Soviet Union. As I mentioned, it was the arch liberal George Soros who dumped his own money into private efforts to pick up where the right has refused to go.
Cost/benefit. It's a fruitful way of analyzing this issue and I think will lead to far better strategies than invading countries and creating exponentially more terrorists (and giving them battle training, I might add).
Posted by: Hal | Dec 10, 2004 3:22:32 PM
Posted by: votermom
In response to ted:
On Iraq -- why do you assume a democratic liberal state in Iraq will be instaneous? Have you read the histories of post-WW2 Japan and Germany?
What I read about Japan was that they had their election less than a year after they surrendered. Why didn't the US govt have Iraq's election in Jan 2004? In Japan the US was careful to treat the Emperor with respect while curtailing his power so as to prevent civil chaos. Why did the US govt disband the Iraq military, fail to secure weapons stockpiles, then express surprise when these same ex-military turned into "insurgents"?Which geographic areas of origins do you mean? I thought I was clear - their areas of origin. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. The middle-east, in general.
On the "vicious cycle of violence" -- do you feel the best way then is to lay down on the sidewalk and be beaten to a pulp because your enemy is angry at you for possibly no good reason? In other words, should the US be smacked around like some women are in cases of domestic violence, because the wifebeater (terrorists) are mad about their jobs or losing sports team?
Can you see how the terrorists are using this same argument when they recruit from the middle eastern moderates? (Except, of course, substitute their country where you have US)
I will answer your question in spite of the emotionally loaded examples. No, I don't believe in being a victim. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and I thank Powell for that. Pulling out before we had OBL, then invading Iraq, for reasons I cannot understand, was negligent and irresponsible, and in fact, borders on criminal.
Posted by: votermom | Dec 10, 2004 3:30:06 PM
Posted by: Ted
FACT: 30,000 people were victims of attempted murder and about 3,000 were murdered. The perpetrators threaten to do worse. Do you need any other numbers Hal? Are these numbers based on emotional and irrational fears, open partisanship and group think?
On Pakistan - who says we are coddling them? Where is your evidence of this claim? Is this evidence as strong that the world will be destroyed by global warming or an asteroid within my lifetime? Do you have evidence that the GOP wants terrorists to have nuclear weapons? If so, please post it here.
Cost/benefit - responding to Hal's insane posts. I think it is becomming too costly. He is probably trolling.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 3:33:20 PM
Posted by: Bob Flynn
VoterMoM,
What I read about Japan was that they had their election less than a year after they surrendered.
Misleading. The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952 -- 7 years. We destroyed their warlike society, and imposed a western Consitution on them. Our buddy, General MacArthur was the Supreme Commander ie, King of Japan.
Posted by: Bob Flynn | Dec 10, 2004 3:39:17 PM
Posted by: Ted
On Japan - You are getting desperate if you can only respond by nitpicking on which exact month the election will take place. Also, the Emperor was seen as legitimate authority, Saddam is not by most Iraqis. Lastly, the US did dismantle the Japanese military, mostly by threats of B-29 raids into Japan's cites (backed by atomic weapons). Are you seriously suggesting we should threaten Iraq in the same manner?
On the "the middle-east" as orgin: Then why are there terrorist threats all over the world (from Muslims whose orgin is NOT the Middle-East) if this is limited to Saudi Arabia and/or the Middle East?
On terrorists are using this same argument: The same argument would be for the beaten wife to beat her children. Would it be right for the kids to just take it?
Stopping Saddam and his followers from murdering Iraqi citizens is immoral, negligent, irresponsible and borderline criminal? At least you are honest enough to admit that threats to American (and Iraqi) citizens are not an emotional issue for you (i.e. you don't give a shi/t about their safety).
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 3:43:50 PM
Posted by: scott
Hmm...out of 64 comments, one person here has made 20 of them.
I'd call that a troll.
Posted by: scott | Dec 10, 2004 3:48:01 PM
Posted by: Ted
Trolling = volume of comments? News to me.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 3:54:50 PM
Posted by: Kane
Scott,
A “Troll” is normally considered a person who comes and states something, like "Repubs/Dems are immoral wife beating pimps!!” to get a rise out of people. Ted at least has one or two :)good points, though he does seem to state them in a combative manner.
Posted by: Kane | Dec 10, 2004 4:02:45 PM
Posted by: votermom
The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952 -- 7 years.
Thank you for the correction. I am not an expert on the subject. It's highly likely that even if there is an election in Iraq this January, the US will maintain a significant military presence there. (I'll bet $5 on it).
At any rate, I think I should go back and say I don't think Iraq compares to Japan or Germany. The US did not initiate the war on Japan or Germany.
To go back to the original assertion:
Bush has articulated that some of the strategy with Iraq is to bring democracy and stability to the Middle-EastWhat Bush said the reason to attack Iraq was that Saddam Hussein (a)possessed weapons of mass destruction and (b)was prepared to use them against the US, and hence posed an imminent threat to US national security.
After the US invaded Iraq, no evidence of WMDs were found. But since Iraq was now in shambles, Bush then said that imposing democracy seemed the right thing to do. Or words to that effect. Something about a shining example, iirc.
Back to Japan and Germany vs Iraq. In Japan and Germany, Japan and Germany knew they started the war, they lost, and so were in some ways motivated to change. There was a sense of national -- well -- karma -- in the "we brought this loss on ourselves". In Iraq the weight of public opinion is that while Saddam may have been an evil dictator, the Iraqi people (civilians) are being terribly punished for something they didn't have control over.
If Iraq is allowed to have truly free elections, they will likely elect a religious government that will be, at the least, highly suspicious of the US. It remains to be seen if the US govt will actually allow this to happen.
Posted by: votermom | Dec 10, 2004 4:06:46 PM
Posted by: scott
Perhaps my point is:
Ted,
Calm down. Breathe a little. The fate of the world doesn't depend upon you scoring points with your arguments.
And Kane:
Repubs/Dems ARE immoral wife beating pimps!!
Sheesh, don't you know _anything_?
heh
Posted by: scott | Dec 10, 2004 4:09:32 PM
Posted by: Kane
Votermom,
Just to clarify, the US didn’t pull out of Afghanistan; in fact we are still there along with our NATO allies. There is a huge argument to be made about the US’s choice to trust the Warlords to help catch OBL (allegedly they willingly let OBL slip through their lines).
I just wanted to ask if in your mind there ever would have been a reason for the US to invade Iraq short of direct evidence of Saddam assisting terrorists to attach the US? Would you have agreed if the UN had given the go ahead? I just want to clarify no snarkyness intended.
Posted by: Kane | Dec 10, 2004 4:13:29 PM
Posted by: Ted
On the initiation of force: Iraq indeed was indeed guilty of the initiation of force, mostly against its own people. It was also in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement, a de facto declaration of war.
On Bush asserting WMDs as "only" reason for war: You are incorrect that this was the only reason stated. Bush gave muliple reasons both prior and after, including spreading democracy as well as his "Axis of Evil" statement. I should note that it is reasable to assert mulitiple reasons are even more validation or action than a single one. I should also note that WMD argument was also accepted by a majority of Democrats.
Your assertion that Iraqis are "blaming the US" for the insurgents is highly suspect. You also fail to understand elections are not the end. A liberal democracy is the end and it is clear that is what we are trying to create.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 4:14:44 PM
Posted by: Ted
scott: Please don't worry about me. I have time to burn today and am enjoying this discussion. Hopefully others will post and my proportion of comments will be reduced.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 4:16:28 PM
Posted by: Kane
Scott,
lol! Well my way Dem wife (I like to call her WAY left wing) has definitely called me worse than that over the course of the last elections lol.
Posted by: Kane | Dec 10, 2004 4:19:44 PM
Posted by: votermom
In response to Ted:
Am I desperate?What month the election will take place is not nitpicking. If the election in Iraq had taken place in Jan 2004, it would have been before the upsurge of insurgency and presumably saved many American and Iraqi lives.
Then why are there terrorist threats all over the world
Ask Timothy McVeigh. I don't know. There are violent people everywhere. What I am asking is why is there widespread support for terrorists in certain areas. It tells me something is wrong there. It doesn't mean the terrorists are right.
Stopping Saddam and his followers from murdering Iraqi citizens is immoral, negligent, irresponsible and borderline criminal?
By the same logic, in the 1980s, when Ferdinand Marcos was dictator of the Philippines, should the US have invaded the Philippines (again) and bombed Manila? Would you then expect Filipinos to welcome US soldiers with open arms?
Fortunately, the Philippines has no oil and the US already had bases there. So the US was content allow public pressure to work it's gradual course, and eventually Filipinos were able to PEACEFULLY oust Marcos. Could the US have done more to help remove Marcos -- yes, better policies sooner would have been the moral course.
At least you are honest enough to admit that threats to American (and Iraqi) citizens are not an emotional issue for you (i.e. you don't give a shi/t about their safety).
Actually, it's because I care about lives that I oppose the war in Iraq.
Oblink: http://fallujahpictures.blogspot.comPosted by: votermom | Dec 10, 2004 4:25:24 PM
Posted by: S. Weasel
Actually, it's because I care about lives that I oppose the war in Iraq. Oblink: http://fallujahpictures.blogspot.com
Dead link. But I can guess. It's not, however, what I would consider a persuasive form of argument.
Any more than, for example, showing photographs of gorey fetuses is a persuasive argument against abortion. If either is effective, it's for purely emotional reasons.
Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 4:34:03 PM
Posted by: Ted
On Jan. 2004 elections stopping the insurgency: How do you know that? If anything they are at their weakest position now, as we have killed many of them. Nor were the Iraqi people ready in Jan. 04 for a general election, they still did not have parties or candidates or other prerequisite institutions or agreements in place.
On violent people everywhere: But more of them are Islamist or Baathist. Could it be they simply think killing civilians is OK? Should we let them do it?
On using force to overthrow Ferdinand Marcos: I have no moral problem overthrowing dicatators and spreading liberal democracy. Do you? Also comparing Marcos to Saddam is comparing Apples to Oranges. One was more of an authoritarian and was not threatening its neighbors, trying to (unsuccesfully) build WMDs, in violation of a cease fire agreement, building terrorist camps, buying weapons with dirty UN money or using genocide or totalitarian oppression on its people - I'll let you guess which is which.
"Actually, it's because I care about lives that I oppose the war in Iraq."
BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 4:41:36 PM
Posted by: frankly0
People have argued that Michael Moore really is an important figure in the Democratic Party because he sat down next to Carter at the Democratic Convention, and because a bunch of prominent Democrats went to see a movie premiere of his.
I mean, are you people serious? To begin with, my understanding is that Moore was at the convention more or less as a member of the media (and NOT in any official capacity in any case), and that his sitting down next to Carter was pretty much an accident. On the other point, we have the mere fact that a number of Democrats went to a premiere of a movie of Moore's, and this somehow makes him an important influence on Democratic policy? Seriously? Is it possible they just liked a good portion of the movie, and thought it presented some good points?
Here's what's obviously true: Michael Moore is, at base, an ENTERTAINER. He makes MOVIES. He has no inherent constituency, and the Democratic party can hardly be tarred with any of the positions he more generally holds just because they happen to like a particular movie. Maybe it was dumb politics for Dems to have him anywhere near them, but in terms of substantive connection, there's just nothing there.
Contrast Moore to, say, Pat Robertson -- remember, the guy who said that we got 9/11 visited on us because we deserved it, having done way too many gay and feminist things for God to stomach anymore? Pat Robertson has a huge constituency, a constituency that has played an absolutely basic role in both elections of George Bush. George Bush himself met with Robertson to discuss Iraq in the runup to the war. Now maybe that meeting happened behind closed doors and in windowless rooms so that nobody could record it, but THAT meeting (and the constituency that lies behind Robertson), you see, is what I take as more substantive evidence of actual influence over Republican policy.
Now here's what I'd like to see: some evidence that someone in the Democratic Party, who "doesn't take terrorism seriously", has anything like the influence over Democratic policy that Robertson, nutcase that he is, has over Republican policy.
Otherwise, you guys have got nothing but a few bad visuals for the Dems.
Posted by: frankly0 | Dec 10, 2004 4:43:13 PM
Posted by: asonofman
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believe in a Christian theocracy for America, and they have more sway over the Republican Party than M.Moore has over the Democratic Party.
Posted by: asonofman | Dec 10, 2004 4:48:40 PM
Posted by: Ted
1) Pat Robertson pubically appologized for making those comments. Where is Moore's appology?
2) Pat Robertson does not have much influence, and this is understood by most of the people who voted for Bush. Hence why people like me voted for Bush. His constituency is very minor and not even liked my more mainstream Christians (the fact you don't know this is telling), and certainly does not have the MoveOn.com type of influcence (which is as equally damaging as Moore's).
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 4:51:51 PM
Posted by: Ted
asonofman = troll
Posted by: Ted | Dec 10, 2004 4:52:55 PM
Posted by: Mona
enzo rossi says: "If I'm right about this, then you shouldn't say that some people ought to be isolated (silenced?) just because they wish the US to lose the 'war on terror', or because their actions will make it more likely that the US will lose this 'war'.""
Look, if you think a dissident German in 1942 is similarly situated to campus leftists who: root for the insurgent/terrorists to win in Iraq; who do not support bringing democracy to Afghanatian, Iraq and the Middle East; and who claim Bush is Hitler, and on and absurdly on ad barfinitum, then we have no basis for communication. You are, in fact, part of the "barking moonbat" phenomenon that causes so much online derision of students and academics, if you think such a comparison holds any validity.
The gentleman whose post is the subject of these comments asked the good question: is a belief that Bush is incompetently waging a war on terror necessarily the same as rejecting the goal? Those who root for us to lose are answering "yes," the goal is wrong. Pursuing terrorists and freeing Muslim people from various kind of tyrants, doing what we can to lay the groundwork for them to live in a democratic nation -- one may disagree as to how to go about that, or whether the time is even ripe. But no true liberal (in the classical sense) would object to the *goal* of the spread of democracy, under the rule of law that respects individual liberties.
Posted by: Mona | Dec 10, 2004 4:59:56 PM
Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti
Let's get back to the original question:
Kerry addressed domestic security over and over again. He talked about the absurdity of x-raying airline passengers and not cargo holds. He promised to do something about the huge number of cargo containers that enter our ports without being inspected. He promised to double the number of special forces operatives...”This is true, but it seems to me that this did not convince enough voters who were concerned about domestic security issues so the question is why not.
I think there are two sorts of reasons a lot of voters didn't take Kerry and the Democratic Party seriously in their assertions they'd do a better job with national security (in the broadest sense which includes anti-terrorism at home and abroad, the war in Iraq, and the threat of states or groups obtaining and using WMD against the West, specifically against the United States and its allies.
The first reason has been suggested by many commentators: regardless of what Kerry said, his support base was primarily composed of those who opposed the war in Iraq to some degree or another, barking moonbats such as Michael Moore were featured prominently (and smirking smugly one might add) with a former Democratic President of the United States at the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic-affiliated 527's (Moveon.org just basically admitted it was tied to the Democratic Party in violation of the law) were way to the left of the American center on the issues of the war.
The second reason, which has been less discussed here, but I think provides the background for voters' skepticism, is the historical record of the Democratic Party and many of the figures who are now prominent. Not since Hubert Humphrey ran in 1968 has a Democratic candidate for the Presidency been strong on defense. McGovern was explicitly anti-war and anti-military and Carter's record on national security is remembered for his abandonent of the Panama Canal, reductions in force in the services and reduced spending on armaments, the rise of the Islamic theocracy and the hostage crises in Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I don't know anyone who would say Carter has even a mediocre record on national security with a straight face. And he was a Naval Academy graduate! Even the party's ex-military officers are weak on defense! Then you have the Church Committees taking a chainsaw to the intelligence agencies. Many Democrats opposed the Reagan defense build up and his ultimately successful approach to the Cold War, Kerry himself had a history of not supporting major weapons systems. Mondale and Dukakis, both very decent men, seemed very, very weak on all matters concerning security, whether national security or even domestic crime. Clinton was distrusted by the military as a draft dodger, and hated for his promotion of homosexuals in the military. Clinton presided of significant reductions in the size of our standing army, air force and navy. The military interventions he did undertake, Somalia, the Balkans, the Aspirin Factory seemed botched as a result of political factors. [As an aside, one of the reasons the not-unreasonable-on-their-face Democratic criticisms of the Bush war plan as failing to provide enough troops on the ground failed to be taken seriously, is that people who follow military affairs at all know that one of the major reasons we don't have more troops on the ground is that they're just not available --- because Clinton cut the size of the forces! Hence, many on the right view the entire line of argument (correctly in my view) as a stalking horse for opposition to the war altogether: we need 500,000 men to do the job --- oh, we don't have that many available? Guess we'd better not go to war then.]
I'm sure some can and will quibble with parts of what I've said, but to deny that this is the widely held perception of the Democratic Party as not capable of being serious on national security is simply self-delusion.
I think Kerry also significantly hurt himself by moving the Vietnam War so prominently into focus: he knew there was significant opposition to him personally from veterans, and he had to know that the historical view of the role of the anti-war movement was significantly affected by the revelations of Gen. Giap that Tet was a major defeat and it was only the strength of the anti-war movement in the United States that enabled the North Vietnamese to win. Even if one posits all the opposition was sincere (and many on the right don't), it should give one pause to think the United States lost a war because of domestic opposition. The depth of feeling on this issue cannot be understood by those who did not serve in the military, especially during or immediately after the Vietnam era. It is an American variant of the Dolchstoss theory in Germany in the 1920s, one that has the virtue of being at least partially confirmed by the enemy's chief of general staff.
Well, this is getting long. I have participated in several threads and had both fruitful and fruitless discussions. I've doubtless frustrated others along the way. But, it this blog is going to seriously posit whether there is a serious threat to the United States, nay to the West, you are going to lose almost all hope of keeing those of us not on the left here at all, let alone in dialogue.
I note that most of the professors here are philosophers, political scientists and law professors, I don't see many historians. I think you'll find many of us trying to take this blog seriously are more widely read historically (and some of us formally trained) than in the current literature in political science or philosophy. That historical perspective, of course, is consistent with what for many of us may be a Burkean suspicion of revolutionary change, but it something one needs to understand. In fact some of us may represent the 'lost generation' of graduate students trained before the job market collapsed in the early 1970s and who ended up moving into the law or other fields.
Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti | Dec 10, 2004 5:05:06 PM
Posted by: scott
Ted,
Could you point us to some evidence that Pat Robertson (or let's just say the far Christian right in general) doesn't have much influence in the Republican party? (I realize you mentioned Robertson specifically, but I think the person who mentioned his name in the first place was using him as a representative example for the ideologies of the far right.)
Because it hasn't been my impression that that's the case. In fact, I was under the impression that Karl Rove's strategy to win the election (his successful strategy) was to bring out the evangelical vote. Bush then made the claim that he had a lot of political capital to pay and he intended to pay it. In what way are we to conclude that he's not talking about the far Christian right?
I'd like to believe that the Republican party is made up of people who are philosophically conservative (or even Christian) without being extreme ideologues, but I'd also like to see evidence (or listen to an argument) suggesting that to be the case.
Thanks.
Posted by: scott | Dec 10, 2004 5:07:50 PM
Posted by: Ted
scott:
My specific point was over Pat Robertson having much clout (he doesn't). I agree with you that evangelicals have influence over the GOP, but Robertson doesn't have that much pull with the evangelicals.But don't forget the GOP (like the Dems) is a coaltion, and there are many like myself who vote Republican but are more class