Full Version: Question for the LEFT
Centerfued is a centrist left leaning moderate. One of his posts asked a question of his fellow Democrats and Liberals, When will liberals decide to defend liberalism?
ht
In the post he says
He then asks
Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
ht
In the post he says
QUOTE
Unfortunately, the American Left is preoccupied with Scooter Libby, Joe Wilson, and endlessly revisiting pre-war WMD debates, even as arson and violence spreads across Europe. and wedding parties are blown to smithereens in hotels in Amman, Jordan. Because no matter what happens, it's all Bush's fault. If only we realized that US foreign policy is the cause of the world's problems, we would issue a worldwide apology for our unjust overthrow of Saddam Hussein (justified by lies, all lies), leave Iraq immediately, sign the Kyoto Accord (which will stop global warming in its tracks) and let the United Nations take its rightful lead in managing global affairs, so we can join the rest of the world in fixing blame where it belongs - Israel.
He then asks
QUOTE
To my fellow liberals: do you feel I just caricatured your position? Are you sure? Why is it that the Left is currently so fixated on Plamegate and pre-war intelligence that it can't take five minutes out from partisan politics to issue Tony Blair-like statements opposing the spread of a totalitarianism as virulent as any we saw in the 1930s?
Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Well, I think this is a grotesque distortion of the position of the modern American liberal. "It's all Bush's fault?" Nonsense. Only a fool would claim that. "US foreign policy is the cause of the world's problems?" Also nonsense.
This doesn't mean that there are good reasons to criticize some aspects of the Bush administration and its foreign policies.
"Unjust overthrow of Saddam Hussein?" That's a little closer to the truth. This does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that anybody thinks Saddam was a Good Guy. It just means that some of us believe that removing him from power, as nice as that might be, did not justify the use of force.
And by the way -- Saddam's Iraq was, on the whole, a secular dictatorship -- what does that have to do with militant Islam?
"Lies, all lies?" This remains to be seen. Right now, it seems to have either been lies or a huge error -- choose one.
"Leave Iraq immediately?" Most liberals know that this is impossible, because the US invasion made such a mess of things. It will take a lot of work -- a lot of blood -- before it will be reasonably safe for the US to leave a place it might have been wiser never to go.
And what the heck does the Kyoto Accord have to do with anything?
Very few people want the United Nations to "manage global affairs" -- and maybe the United States shouldn't be doing it, either.
As one last point, criticizing some aspects of Israeli policy doesn't mean that we are "fixing blame" on Israel. The peacemakers in Israel and other nations should have our wholehearted support.
2. I get the feeling here that the message is "Join up with the current administration in its fight with militant Islam." The problem is that many of us think that the invasion of Iraq is likely to have the exact opposite of the desired effect; that the War on Terror doesn't justify holding people for an undetermined amount of time without formal charges; that the PATRIOT Act is an insult to its name.
3. Speaking only for myself, let the record show that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the brutal repression of human beings in the name of any faith or political belief. I would be the last to deny that there is a cancer in the heart of modern Islam, which must be treated aggressively, without killing the patient. The plain truth is that the majority of the healing must come from inside.
4. There is no magic answer. Some factors to think about are education and the use of mass media to expose people in areas of the world dominated by repressive governments (many of whom are, indeed, dominated by Islam) to the simple fact that more freedom is better for everybody, and that violence is bad for everybody.
This doesn't mean that there are good reasons to criticize some aspects of the Bush administration and its foreign policies.
"Unjust overthrow of Saddam Hussein?" That's a little closer to the truth. This does not mean, in any way, shape or form, that anybody thinks Saddam was a Good Guy. It just means that some of us believe that removing him from power, as nice as that might be, did not justify the use of force.
And by the way -- Saddam's Iraq was, on the whole, a secular dictatorship -- what does that have to do with militant Islam?
"Lies, all lies?" This remains to be seen. Right now, it seems to have either been lies or a huge error -- choose one.
"Leave Iraq immediately?" Most liberals know that this is impossible, because the US invasion made such a mess of things. It will take a lot of work -- a lot of blood -- before it will be reasonably safe for the US to leave a place it might have been wiser never to go.
And what the heck does the Kyoto Accord have to do with anything?
Very few people want the United Nations to "manage global affairs" -- and maybe the United States shouldn't be doing it, either.
As one last point, criticizing some aspects of Israeli policy doesn't mean that we are "fixing blame" on Israel. The peacemakers in Israel and other nations should have our wholehearted support.
2. I get the feeling here that the message is "Join up with the current administration in its fight with militant Islam." The problem is that many of us think that the invasion of Iraq is likely to have the exact opposite of the desired effect; that the War on Terror doesn't justify holding people for an undetermined amount of time without formal charges; that the PATRIOT Act is an insult to its name.
3. Speaking only for myself, let the record show that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the brutal repression of human beings in the name of any faith or political belief. I would be the last to deny that there is a cancer in the heart of modern Islam, which must be treated aggressively, without killing the patient. The plain truth is that the majority of the healing must come from inside.
4. There is no magic answer. Some factors to think about are education and the use of mass media to expose people in areas of the world dominated by repressive governments (many of whom are, indeed, dominated by Islam) to the simple fact that more freedom is better for everybody, and that violence is bad for everybody.
1. Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
Of course not; this is a caricature.
2. Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Let me restate the question: Is the Left currently shut out of positions of power in this government to deal with and correct the flawed positions and sketchy strategies of Bush and (some, not all) conservatives, making them unable to really deal with the danger of militant Islam? Who is in power to make the decisions right now--is there any doubt?
What would neo-Conservative Republicans do (not Jesus, but close, right?
) about these problems if they were unhappy about the war on militant Islam but did not currently hold the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress? Probably gripe, moan, and demand investigations of the incumbents, right?
3. Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
It depends on how you define liberalism.
4. Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Treating Osama bin Laden and his cohorts like the international criminals they are, rather than using invading armies to take on people who fight, run and hide might have been the better approach. Human intelligence was the key, and there appeared to be a deficit of human intelligence before the 9/11 attacks. Either that, or Osama bin Laden was such an asset to the CIA that he has been protected and warned away from danger at every juncture. Why did George W. Bush de-emphasize the hunt for his capture?
Keeping an occupation in Iraq will continue to encourage an insurgency. Having the people vote in their election and then leaving to let them face internal issues themselves might not be the easy way, but the continuing presence of U.S. troops suggests that it is the will of the United States and not the Iraqi people that is being exercised on that country. The Iraqis would have had a hard time of it had they managed to oust Saddam Hussein on their own--there are going to be difficulties if the U.S. forces stay or not, but Iraqis will look and feel more autonomous without them.
Of course not; this is a caricature.
2. Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Let me restate the question: Is the Left currently shut out of positions of power in this government to deal with and correct the flawed positions and sketchy strategies of Bush and (some, not all) conservatives, making them unable to really deal with the danger of militant Islam? Who is in power to make the decisions right now--is there any doubt?
What would neo-Conservative Republicans do (not Jesus, but close, right?
) about these problems if they were unhappy about the war on militant Islam but did not currently hold the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress? Probably gripe, moan, and demand investigations of the incumbents, right?3. Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
It depends on how you define liberalism.
4. Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Treating Osama bin Laden and his cohorts like the international criminals they are, rather than using invading armies to take on people who fight, run and hide might have been the better approach. Human intelligence was the key, and there appeared to be a deficit of human intelligence before the 9/11 attacks. Either that, or Osama bin Laden was such an asset to the CIA that he has been protected and warned away from danger at every juncture. Why did George W. Bush de-emphasize the hunt for his capture?
Keeping an occupation in Iraq will continue to encourage an insurgency. Having the people vote in their election and then leaving to let them face internal issues themselves might not be the easy way, but the continuing presence of U.S. troops suggests that it is the will of the United States and not the Iraqi people that is being exercised on that country. The Iraqis would have had a hard time of it had they managed to oust Saddam Hussein on their own--there are going to be difficulties if the U.S. forces stay or not, but Iraqis will look and feel more autonomous without them.
Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
He's certainly caricatured (this side of the pond we speak English
, and caricature is a verb already as well as a noun) real opinions that exist on the Left, albeit mostly the extremes - I have seen all of these views expressed from time to time.
But that's no different, not typical, and no more accurate than me saying that the right are a bunch of fundie Christians who are trying to send the Middle East up in flames for no other reason than to hasten the Rapture, who oppose sexual deviancy in all forms but turn a blind eye to any kind of financial immorality, etc.
There are people that think like that, but they tend to be at the extreme fringes and therefore are non-representative.
That too is a caricature. It has to have some grain of truth, or else it wouldn't be recognisable, but it's not a full picture.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Yes and no - some on the left are out to get the Bush conservatives as an end in itself - just as many conservatives were out to get Clinton.
But many liberals think Bush's stance on militant Islam - that there is a military solution to terrorism; that only ideological militants resort to terrorism; that active support for some absolutist Islamic regimes and active condemnation and threats against others in some grand real-world game of Risk - is not only ineffective, but dangerously counter-productive, and is helping to make more Muslims become militant in their views.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Only if defending liberalism is dependent on winning electoral power, which in large part it is - yes.
You can't stop a majority government opposed to many tenets of liberalism from removing or limiting some of them if you don't have enough electoral representation to mount effective opposition.
No sane political movement would try to filibuster EVERYTHING that doesn't go their own way.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
How about wondering why militant Islam finds it so easy to win support, then taking steps to remove the threat by helping to provide positive alternatives, rather than merely threatening dire consequences for those that choose militancy? Carrot AND stick, rather than just stick?
Maybe it's about poverty, lack of opportunity, and lack of representation?
So maybe a left-leaning US government wouldn't be so opposed to international debt relief, removal of inward trade barriers to the Third World, and removal of support from non-democratic governments because of political convenience - most notably in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan, whose supply of the world's most virulent and active Militant Muslims is not perhaps entirely coincidental with strong US support for unelected and oppressive regimes with deeply suspect records on human rights.
In large part, conservatives don't believe that such things would work in principle, so they haven't even tried them.
He's certainly caricatured (this side of the pond we speak English
, and caricature is a verb already as well as a noun) real opinions that exist on the Left, albeit mostly the extremes - I have seen all of these views expressed from time to time. But that's no different, not typical, and no more accurate than me saying that the right are a bunch of fundie Christians who are trying to send the Middle East up in flames for no other reason than to hasten the Rapture, who oppose sexual deviancy in all forms but turn a blind eye to any kind of financial immorality, etc.
There are people that think like that, but they tend to be at the extreme fringes and therefore are non-representative.
That too is a caricature. It has to have some grain of truth, or else it wouldn't be recognisable, but it's not a full picture.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Yes and no - some on the left are out to get the Bush conservatives as an end in itself - just as many conservatives were out to get Clinton.
But many liberals think Bush's stance on militant Islam - that there is a military solution to terrorism; that only ideological militants resort to terrorism; that active support for some absolutist Islamic regimes and active condemnation and threats against others in some grand real-world game of Risk - is not only ineffective, but dangerously counter-productive, and is helping to make more Muslims become militant in their views.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Only if defending liberalism is dependent on winning electoral power, which in large part it is - yes.
You can't stop a majority government opposed to many tenets of liberalism from removing or limiting some of them if you don't have enough electoral representation to mount effective opposition.
No sane political movement would try to filibuster EVERYTHING that doesn't go their own way.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
How about wondering why militant Islam finds it so easy to win support, then taking steps to remove the threat by helping to provide positive alternatives, rather than merely threatening dire consequences for those that choose militancy? Carrot AND stick, rather than just stick?
Maybe it's about poverty, lack of opportunity, and lack of representation?
So maybe a left-leaning US government wouldn't be so opposed to international debt relief, removal of inward trade barriers to the Third World, and removal of support from non-democratic governments because of political convenience - most notably in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan, whose supply of the world's most virulent and active Militant Muslims is not perhaps entirely coincidental with strong US support for unelected and oppressive regimes with deeply suspect records on human rights.
In large part, conservatives don't believe that such things would work in principle, so they haven't even tried them.
Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
Yes, its a caricature, but as with all caricatures there is a hard kernal of truth at the core. Bite too deeply and it will break your teeth.
I've leant towards the left for several years now but in the last year I've come to realise that there is a profound lack of understanding on how the left perceives the world. I can't speak about the American left, but I don't suppose their differences with the European left are so different as to defy comparison.
What I've seen here is an agenda from the left that ignores the reality of Islamic violence and aggression and substitutes it with its own rose tinted idea of nirvana.
This was most in evidence for me in the recent riots in Århus where the socialists actually defended the rioters and sought their alliance in the elections against the conservatives.
Today, I can see it here, where a socialist party refuses to distance itself from Islamic and socialist terrorist groups and the police have to step in.
What sort of protection will my family get from these people as the trouble with Islamic violence progresses?
I've actually voted for the Red Greens in the past because of their green policies.
I will never again do so.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Yes.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Yes.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
The left is offering nothing but a Star Trek like vision of a utopian future that fails, utterly, to take into account any perspective beyond its own.
The notion that the rest of the world is going to blossom into peace, democracy and freedom just because we lift trade barriers or open our borders to ever more immigrants is so naive that its dangerous.
Yes, its a caricature, but as with all caricatures there is a hard kernal of truth at the core. Bite too deeply and it will break your teeth.
I've leant towards the left for several years now but in the last year I've come to realise that there is a profound lack of understanding on how the left perceives the world. I can't speak about the American left, but I don't suppose their differences with the European left are so different as to defy comparison.
What I've seen here is an agenda from the left that ignores the reality of Islamic violence and aggression and substitutes it with its own rose tinted idea of nirvana.
This was most in evidence for me in the recent riots in Århus where the socialists actually defended the rioters and sought their alliance in the elections against the conservatives.
Today, I can see it here, where a socialist party refuses to distance itself from Islamic and socialist terrorist groups and the police have to step in.
What sort of protection will my family get from these people as the trouble with Islamic violence progresses?
I've actually voted for the Red Greens in the past because of their green policies.
I will never again do so.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
Yes.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
Yes.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
The left is offering nothing but a Star Trek like vision of a utopian future that fails, utterly, to take into account any perspective beyond its own.
The notion that the rest of the world is going to blossom into peace, democracy and freedom just because we lift trade barriers or open our borders to ever more immigrants is so naive that its dangerous.
QUOTE(moif @ Dec 13 2005, 03:19 PM)
I've leant towards the left for several years now but in the last year I've come to realise that there is a profound lack of understanding on how the left perceives the world. I can't speak about the American left, but I don't suppose their differences with the European left are so different as to defy comparison. 
I do not agree with you. Maybe the basic principles are the same but there are BIG differences between the American Left and the European Left. Maybe the "extreme" left-wing minority parties in the U.S have some overlapping characteristics and ideals with the European Left, but one cannot possibly compare the U.S. Democratic Party with the average social-democratic or socialistic party in Europe. The Cold War has made sure real socialistic ideas are almost extinct in the U.S. (Better dead, then Red, I heard somebody say
) Although in general I understand and agree with your views on the problems regarding the Islamic intergration process, but I think you are a bit too pessimistic about "Left-wing" political parties in general. I have to admit that I hardly know anything about the Danish liberal, social-democratic, socialistic or greenparties, but to say that all the left-wing political parties in the western world only offer "a Star Trek like vision of a utopian future" and do not " take into account any perspective beyond its (their) own" is a little rash don't you agree?
I know you are worried about the failing intergration of Islamic citizens/1st generation immigrants, but it shouldn't clouth your mind into making caracterizations yourself.
I admit that the Left is in a state of confusion about what to do, but so are all the right-wing political parties at the moment. The difference is that they think that stressing harsh, short-term measures that sound really nice will solve the problem, but at the end they are failing as miserably as the Left to get a grip on the whole situation.
The biggest difference in my opinion between the two sides is the fact that the Right tend to focus on individuals, rather than groups, and the Left is characterized by their focus on the group rather then the individuals*. From this perspective they are both trying to solve this complex social problem and it is logical they will have different conclusions. Problem is both ways are not getting the results they, and everybody else, wished.
* I have no idea if this also applies to U.S. or British politics with their two party system.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
I think the Democratic Party is indeed to much fixated on Bush and his gang instead of doing their job properly. But I have to add that this fixation on political opponents (party-bashing etc. etc.) is characteristic for U.S. politics in general. In my opinion, it distracts the parties too much and has a negative influence on the politcial decission making process.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
The Democratic Party has indeed failed to become the Shining Beacon of Liberalism, that is obvious by the domination of Republicans in Congress and the Senate.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Tighter international cooperation, to track and hunt down known terrorists? If they propose better relationships with their allies in the world then they would have my humble support. Slow reduction of troops, replacement by the Iraqi troops with support a small but efficient groups of U.S. commando's to strike quick and hard against specific threats? Seems like a solid plan to me.
This thread is a tricky one, but then again those are the sorts of discussions I love.
I know they weren't put in this order, but I feel the need to answer your third question first. You ask us if the left is still defending liberalism; to which I am inclined to give an emphatic "no." The left as it exists today has almost nothing to do with liberalism unfortunately. Instead the left is simply a great compromise (in most countries) between social democrats and traditional conservatives who are disenchanted with the direction of their own movement.
This is not to say that everyone who identifies themselves as leftist participates in that compromise, but "liberalism" seems to have no place in "Western" politics anymore, which is a shame because it is responsible for some of the greatest intellectual works of human history.
Bringing this all back to the discussion: the left has essentially 'sold its soul' to survive in the era of conservatism and as a result finding truely liberal answers to these tough questions are hard. Are there answers that can be offered from a liberal perspective? Of course. Unfortunately leftist political bodies are not the place to find them. To get these sorts of answers you have to turn to the last bastions of liberal creativity, which are usually derided or dismissed out-of-hand: academia and the independent media. Granted, not every idea you manage to find will be a winner, but this is true for any discipline. Just about every issue of Millenium will yield any number of intriguing ideas about the roots of "militant islam" and ways to combat it. Even a non-scholarly (not peer reviewed or published by an academic institution) journal like Foreign Policy which actively recruits discussions from "left" and "right" is chock full of insight.
I guess the point of this sidebar is that if you're looking for truly liberal ideas, politicians and their venues are the wrong place to be looking right now. The "left" was born and nurtured in the minds of men like John Locke, Thomas Paine and the great french philosophes, and in reality it is only in their "descendants" does it survive.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Sure it does. It can be said that all western political theories share the idea that all humanity yearns to be free, either subconsciously or not. The "left" makes an important distinction that the "right" seems to have overlooked: not everyone understands freedom the same way. For the sorts of muslim men (and women) who become radical, freedom does not necessarily mean free elections or a specific form of government. Oppression (the restriction of freedom) can be political, social, economic or even philosophical and completely esoteric... and just as someone who feels politically oppressed is going to rail against the political system that chaffes him/her; someone who feels oppressed by the economic and cultural reality of their lives is going to lash out at the perceived sources of that oppression.
Unfortunately all too many people who feel this oppression (perceived or real) are having their rage channeled towards terrorism(a term that decreases in value seemingly every day) or militant islam. This process suggests three basic ways to respond. Fight the terrorists where they lash out, fight those responsible for turning anger and despair into violence, or fight the conditions that lead to despair and eventually violence. Just about every "new" or different idea that the "left" has proposed originates from the third option, whereas none of the strategies from "the right" do, despite a few misguided attempts.
I know they weren't put in this order, but I feel the need to answer your third question first. You ask us if the left is still defending liberalism; to which I am inclined to give an emphatic "no." The left as it exists today has almost nothing to do with liberalism unfortunately. Instead the left is simply a great compromise (in most countries) between social democrats and traditional conservatives who are disenchanted with the direction of their own movement.
This is not to say that everyone who identifies themselves as leftist participates in that compromise, but "liberalism" seems to have no place in "Western" politics anymore, which is a shame because it is responsible for some of the greatest intellectual works of human history.
Bringing this all back to the discussion: the left has essentially 'sold its soul' to survive in the era of conservatism and as a result finding truely liberal answers to these tough questions are hard. Are there answers that can be offered from a liberal perspective? Of course. Unfortunately leftist political bodies are not the place to find them. To get these sorts of answers you have to turn to the last bastions of liberal creativity, which are usually derided or dismissed out-of-hand: academia and the independent media. Granted, not every idea you manage to find will be a winner, but this is true for any discipline. Just about every issue of Millenium will yield any number of intriguing ideas about the roots of "militant islam" and ways to combat it. Even a non-scholarly (not peer reviewed or published by an academic institution) journal like Foreign Policy which actively recruits discussions from "left" and "right" is chock full of insight.
I guess the point of this sidebar is that if you're looking for truly liberal ideas, politicians and their venues are the wrong place to be looking right now. The "left" was born and nurtured in the minds of men like John Locke, Thomas Paine and the great french philosophes, and in reality it is only in their "descendants" does it survive.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Sure it does. It can be said that all western political theories share the idea that all humanity yearns to be free, either subconsciously or not. The "left" makes an important distinction that the "right" seems to have overlooked: not everyone understands freedom the same way. For the sorts of muslim men (and women) who become radical, freedom does not necessarily mean free elections or a specific form of government. Oppression (the restriction of freedom) can be political, social, economic or even philosophical and completely esoteric... and just as someone who feels politically oppressed is going to rail against the political system that chaffes him/her; someone who feels oppressed by the economic and cultural reality of their lives is going to lash out at the perceived sources of that oppression.
Unfortunately all too many people who feel this oppression (perceived or real) are having their rage channeled towards terrorism(a term that decreases in value seemingly every day) or militant islam. This process suggests three basic ways to respond. Fight the terrorists where they lash out, fight those responsible for turning anger and despair into violence, or fight the conditions that lead to despair and eventually violence. Just about every "new" or different idea that the "left" has proposed originates from the third option, whereas none of the strategies from "the right" do, despite a few misguided attempts.
I'm sorry, but I am enjoying the thoughts on this thread. I truly do empathize with the choleric left today. You see, I was there. I lived through Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton, when the Democrats controlled the congress for what seems like a thousand years. I guess that makes me a Geria-Conservative
It is refreshing to see people put "Liberal" in their bio, so often I "see" "moderate", "mainstream", and the like, but "hear" Liberal.
I actually am anxious to get the power split again. It would serve.s me well. If the government is paralyzed, they can't screw anything up any worse. First though, liberals need to win elections. I just don't see it happening until the Democrats abandon the Kerry/Dean/Pelosi/Kennedy/Michael Moore school of policy.
One observation for Pal though:
Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Janet Reno convinced Clinton we could handle it that way, and we all saw the result. It seems Osama is somewhat reluctant to turn himself in, and I don't think Dawg Bounty Hunter is up to the challenge. If you could get him and a few of his cohorts to march into their local federal marshalls we could probably put this thing to bed quickly...
It is refreshing to see people put "Liberal" in their bio, so often I "see" "moderate", "mainstream", and the like, but "hear" Liberal.
I actually am anxious to get the power split again. It would serve.s me well. If the government is paralyzed, they can't screw anything up any worse. First though, liberals need to win elections. I just don't see it happening until the Democrats abandon the Kerry/Dean/Pelosi/Kennedy/Michael Moore school of policy.
One observation for Pal though:
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Dec 13 2005, 08:41 AM)
Treating Osama bin Laden and his cohorts like the international criminals they are, rather than using invading armies to take on people who fight, run and hide might have been the better approach.
Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Janet Reno convinced Clinton we could handle it that way, and we all saw the result. It seems Osama is somewhat reluctant to turn himself in, and I don't think Dawg Bounty Hunter is up to the challenge. If you could get him and a few of his cohorts to march into their local federal marshalls we could probably put this thing to bed quickly...
Do you agree with Centerfeud? Or has he caricaturized the Left's position?
No, he's using too big of a brush to paint with.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
No. I think their are serious issues that need to be addressed. Obviously Bush would rather sweep them under the rug so it's up to the left to make sure they're addressed.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
I would agree with the "depends how you define liberalism" one.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Heck yea man. Of course when Clinton offered up his solutions, he was criticized by the Republicans focusing too much on OBL.
Let's ask an expert what he think:
Now how does that compare to the left's strategy?
I think the left would have looked at the big picture, looked at history (meaning, the Soviet Afghan war, demographics of Iraq, etc.), and took into account the blowback possibilties. This of course would've taken more time but we would've done things right. Bush just saw everything as a nail and the hammer was his military. That kind of policy just doesn't work outside of the neocon fantasy world.
No, he's using too big of a brush to paint with.
Is the Left too fixated on Bush and Conservatives to really deal with the danger of Militant Islam?
No. I think their are serious issues that need to be addressed. Obviously Bush would rather sweep them under the rug so it's up to the left to make sure they're addressed.
Is the Left failing to truly defend Liberalism?
I would agree with the "depends how you define liberalism" one.
Does the Left offer any good ideas for fighting Militant Islam? What is the vision of the Left and why would it work where Bush has failed?
Heck yea man. Of course when Clinton offered up his solutions, he was criticized by the Republicans focusing too much on OBL.
Let's ask an expert what he think:
QUOTE
The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
--Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
--Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Now how does that compare to the left's strategy?
QUOTE
"I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort,"
--John Kerry
--John Kerry
I think the left would have looked at the big picture, looked at history (meaning, the Soviet Afghan war, demographics of Iraq, etc.), and took into account the blowback possibilties. This of course would've taken more time but we would've done things right. Bush just saw everything as a nail and the hammer was his military. That kind of policy just doesn't work outside of the neocon fantasy world.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.