Letters to the Editor
Martin Gifford
Published Letters: 148
-
David Brooks meet Dr Freud
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a deep Freudian basis to extreme right-wing politics.
Check out the sexual imagery of the David Brooks quote. Here's my translation:
"After Vietnam, Americans turned inward."
= America became like a vagina.
"...many Americans grew... hesitant about projecting American might..."
= Many American's became afraid to thrust their penises.
"many around the world predict that an exhausted America will turn inward again"
= Many think America's penis is flacid and Americans will become vaginas again.
"we are not having a strategic debate about retracting American power and influence."
= We are not retracting our penises.
"America must remain... the locomotive of the world."
= America's penis must enter vaginas (tunnels) around the world.
-
Constructive discussion, and creating an international police force
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Iraq pre-invasion debate was framed as:
“Should we:
a) Invade Iraq, or
b) Do nothing about a ruthless dictator with WMDs?”
No room for constructive discussion existed once the debate was framed in that simplistic, dualistic, and destructive fashion. People who were against the war were simply labelled as: “Those who believe in doing nothing.”
The real (but unstated) question about Iraq was:
“What should we do about Iraq?”
The correct answer was “Iraq is not a high priority, so we should deal with the Iraq issue later.”
The facts relating to war are:
1. War (i.e. killing people and destroying buildings and infrastructure) is essentially evil.
2. Dictatorship is essentially evil.
3. Terrorism is essentially evil.
So we should set up an international police force and political system for stopping wars, dictatorships, and terrorism. This requires that we establish a new constructive discussion, rather than submitting to the simplistic, dualistic paradigm of the old destructive discussion.
For more, click on my name below (http://www.worldwidehappiness.org)
-
A positive constructive focus is better than fear
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Panicking about an attack on Iran weakens the anti-war/anti-Bush team. It makes us look look like weak, frightened, exaggerating panic-merchants. It's equivalent to the rightwingers fearing annihilation from terrorists. We need to look calm and rational.
Attacking Iran is very unlikely. It would be an act of madness. Bush could get away with the madness of attacking Iraq after 9/11, but he can't get away with attacking Iran after the disaster of attacking Iraq.
It would be better for us to focus on positive constructive policies to counter the current negative policies of politicians on both sides. Personally, I like to focus on how we can create worldwide happiness. It's time to move from the competitive survival focus to the cooperative happiness focus. See: http://www.worldwidehappiness.org
In response to every suggestion politicians make, we can ask, "Will this policy contribute to a happier world?"
-
Pro-War Infrastructure vs Pro-War Sentiment
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dan Drezner asked: "c) Do you believe that the political and policy conditions that made the Iraq war possible in 2002 are still present today?"
Glenn, you didn't really answer this question. The political climate has changed dramatically since the invasion of Iraq. Reality has snuffed out many illusions. Sure the pro-war infrastructure is still in place, but the people are not buying it.
A key distinction needs to be made between the long-term pro-war infrastructure, and the current pro-war sentiment. The pro-war infrastructure is as strong as ever, but the pro-war sentiment is weaker than ever.
Perhaps in five or ten years we could be back to having a pro-war populace - by then the deaths and cost caused by the Iraq invasion may be forgotten. Even if there were another 9/11 kind of attack, there would be just as many questions about the failure of the policing as there would be calls for war.
Change is happening. People are increasingly using the net, so wider views are being heard. And did you see Olbermann is getting a tryout on NBC primetime?
-
Catch 22
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I agree with your analysis about why the Democratic Congress is so unpopular. However, what can they do? The people want the military out of Iraq, etc. but such actions could have drastic consequences. Then all the blame Bush is getting will suddenly be dumped on the Democrats. The Democrats are biding time until the election. As to the specifics you mention:
(1) a failure to stop or restrict the war in Iraq;
The Dems fear that restricting the war would mean a bigger civil war and the Dems will be blamed for the increase in Iraqi deaths and America's loss of face. They are letting Bush dig himself deeper into the pit.
(2) a general failure/unwillingness to stop Bush on much of anything else of significance...
The Dems fear a terrorist attack in America would be blamed on them for not backing Bush's excesses.
(3) numerous investigations, sometimes flashly but thus far inconsequential.
The Dems are keeping pressure on Bush as he digs himself deeper into the pit. The investigations look innocuous but they might expose a weakness for a full attack.
It's politics, and since the Dems do not have an alternative proactive constructive policy on international affairs, they are just waiting for their turn at power.
If the Democrats had a proactive constructive policy on international affairs, they could push that. But right from the beginning, they've been the "Do nothing" alternative.
-
Positive Constructive Alternative Policies
[Read the article: Carl Levin reveals the Democrats' Iraq "strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I think the fear that Bush will attack Iran hysteria. An attack holds huge risks and no benefits, and the political climate is against it.
We should be promoting positive constructive alternative policies. Being constantly against Bush, just gives ammunition to pro-war people who can call us "The do nothing, whining left."