Letters to the Editor
Martin Gifford
Published Letters: 159
-
To Kovie and Che Pasa re: A Progressive Version of PNAC
[Read the article: Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kovie,
Yes, a 30-year timeframe is a little long to wait.
I think the core agenda is happiness. Everybody, including the neocons want happiness. If we start with that common agenda, we can come up with inclusive approaches. Of course, instead of the PNAC model of force, we would have a progressive model of intelligent cooperation.
The key is that the neocons emphasise the method rather than the goal – their method is the old caveman one of force. We should emphasise the goal rather than the method. The common goal is happiness, and the “multitude of counter-ideas” would be the various methods for achieving widespread happiness.
Che Pasa,
Being Australian, I am quite ignorant about American history. But I think most of the world sees America as an example of progress. America is seen as dynamic in business, technology, and the arts. But it is also seen as stuck, especially in the South, in areas such as the warfare mentality, religion, and racism.
When I think of “progressive”, I see it as the opposite of “conservative”. In other words I see it as evolutionary. Presumably, conservatives what to conserve the best of the past and avoid the danger of degradation coming from ill-conceived “progress”, and progressives want to improve the worst of the past and to innovate.
However, the core goal of both conservatives and progressives is happiness, and this common ground is where a dialogue can take place. Progressives need to appreciate the best of conservatives, and conservatives need to appreciate the best of progressives.
But it is true that “progressive”, has no meaning or an unclear meaning at the moment. That is partly because they are busy fighting neocons! In other words, neocons are setting the debate parameters like “Should we a) Invade Iraq or b) Do Nothing?”
What debate parameters would those who call themselves “progressive” set? I think progressives and democrats should firstly affirm capitalism but with a stronger safety net. It could propose constructive alternatives to war such as an international police force – that should please the arms manufacturers just as much.
To every political proposal, we should ask the question, “Is this proposal the best way to spread happiness?”
If we don’t set the agenda, then we look like do-nothing complainers and “whiney lefties”. Of course, the benefit that neocons have is that they are simple-thinking folk. Simple thinking makes decisions and marketing easy. Progressives are usually smarter and think more complexly, which makes their suggestions harder to sell. Kerry vs Bush was a classic demonstration of that. Kerry was called a flip-flopper, and Kerry even said something like, “I can’t believe this imbecile is beating me!” Hilarious! And it also showed the lack of a practical progressive strategy.
This gives us even more reason for a progressive think-tank. We can come up with complex understandings, and then use our superior intelligence to articulate them in accessible ways, and to establish simple goals and methods.
Is this on the right track? The alternative to cooperation and setting the agenda is conflict with the neocons; and conflict is the caveman method, so it keeps things unchanged in principle.
Is it a case of divide and rule vs include and rule?
-
Evil, Corrupt, Pragmatic, or Deluded?
[Read the article: Reid and company target the true enemy: "Dodd and his allies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Vote now!
Question:
Are those who support telco immunity:
1) EVIL (Wanting power over the citizens)
2) CORRUPT (Wanting money from telcos)
3) PRAGMATIC (They rightly choose to give telcos immunity so as to help protect America)
4) DELUDED (They mistakenly choose to give telcos immunity so as to help protect America)
Vote now!
-
@Retired Military Patriot, Arne Langsetmo, ondelette
[Read the article: Reid and company target the true enemy: "Dodd and his allies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I’ll add your theories. So here’s the updated question:
Are those who support telco immunity doing it on the basis of…
1) EVIL (Wanting power over the citizens)?
2) CORRUPTION (Wanting money from telcos)?
3) SECURITY (They rightly choose to give telcos immunity so as to help protect America)?
4) DELUSION (They mistakenly choose to give telcos immunity so as to help protect America)?
5) POLITICS (They stupidly choose to give telcos immunity so as to bargain a deal on other bills and cover their asses)?
6) SELF PROTECTION (They're in it up to their own eyeballs)
7) ECONOMICS (They want to protect other big secrets that would cost the telecoms and other industries even more)?
Gee, looking at all those reasons, it seems that all of them could be swirling around in the backs of their minds.
Telco immunity makes sense!
-
Democrats: Winning the power they will never use.
[Read the article: Championing mainstream political thought while pretending to oppose it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn wrote: "...the mainstream Democratic candidates are unwilling (or perhaps unable) to challenge so many destructive orthodoxies..."
Why "unwilling"?
Why "unable"?
Because they are "orthodoxies"?
I think think they are unwilling or unable to change things because they lack charisma and wisdom.
They want the power, but don't know what to do when they get it. What kind of power is that? It is the power to not rock the boat!
Why even bother running for power if you aren't going to use it or don't know how to use it? Is it just to please mum and dad?
"Hey, look at me ma! I'm at the top of pile! I'm unwilling or unable to make changes but I sure am high up!"
Where are the smart charismatic people?
Why is Clinton even an option for the Democrats? She is so compromised. The Democrats deserve all they get if she gets the presidency.
-
Strength vs Wisdom; Illusion vs Reality
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's pursuit of tyrannical power, literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Romney: "The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11."
Except for 3800 killed and 20,000 injured soldiers.
It's not about safety; it's about pride.
America's excessively patriotic self-image of wonderfulness was blasted on 9/11.
Increasing the power of the leader is a futile attempt to prop that deluded self-image back up again.
It's better to learn new lessons than to prop up old illusions.