Letters to the Editor
-
Podhoretz and the "debate"
I didn’t watch the debate last night and I’m just now trying to get caught up, but reading Josh Marshall’s take on it, it seems that for the most part, the Democrats (and the media, of course) are letting neo-cons like Podhoretz set the parameters for this debate.
Once you accept the notion that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon it’s the end of the world, then your options remain almost entirely about when to attack them, not whether to attack them, and talking about a “Middle East Strategy” that involves more than Iran is impossible, because stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon is all that matters.
Our political discourse, in short, starts from the notion that Iran = Hitler and anyone who doesn’t accept that premise finds themselves at a disadvantage. They are immediately in hole that they need to dig out of, and suggesting that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon in a few years, it still won’t be the end of the world, is regarded as “surrender” at best, and insane at the very least.
Josh Marshall makes a very important point here:
”But another point -- diplomacy is a tactic, not a strategy. Our whole strategy is wrong in the region. Leaving more time for the diplomatic phase of the policy just delays getting to where the policy is taking us: full-scale war with Iran.”
The problem facing us is how to inject a bit of reality into this debate. The rest of the world watches in amazement as the U.S. cowers in fear from the possibility that some day Iran just might acquire the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon. It makes absolutely no sense.
Josh Marshall again (my emphasis):
“The key point, though they've all been afraid to say it, is that allowing Iran to get one or two penny-ante nukes is not the worst thing that can happen for us. It doesn't threaten us. It's not great. It would be a really bad development. But it doesn't justify doing something positively insane that won't really prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon and if we could have this debate honestly isn't even about the Iranian nuclear program. Say it again, fundamentally this is not even about an Iranian bomb.”
How do we get to the point where our political candidates are no longer afraid to say this? When will they look Tim Russert in the eye and tell him that the whole premise of his question is absurd and without foundation in the real world?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057452.php
-
On American Progressivism
Although this thread derailed long ago, and I doubt it can be put back on track, there have been some peculiar posts regarding Nazi-ism and Progressivism c. 1933 or whenever.
Eventually, the so-called Lefty or Progressive Blogosphere is going to have to deal with the Meaning of Terms. Whatever "Progressive" means in contemporary BlogSpeak, it seems to have little or nothing to do with American Progressivism as it was instituted around the turn of the Twentieth Century and how it evolved as it became the nearly universal governing system throughout the country till it was overthrown by Reaganism c. 1981 and in the years following.
Despite the fact that "Liberal," "Progressive," and "Leftist" are considered nearly synonymous these days, Progressivism in the United States is not historically a "Leftist" political ideology at all. It wasn't exactly "Rightist", either, but it was a product of Republican Reform movements and it was deliberately set up to counter the growing, mostly Democratic, Populist movements of the era.
For some reason, Modern Progressives (so-called) either never knew it, forgot it if they ever did know it, or actively deny it and mock those who point it out (somewhat along the lines of Bushevik ideologues.)
The Republican origins of American Progressivism must be taken into account. Certain aspects of American Progressivism as it was instituted by Republican reformers are still current among Republicans: it was fundamentally authoritarian, it was racist, it was sexist, it was deeply anti-democratic, it was exclusionary. There was a strong belief in eugenics, in Darwinist "fitness." A kind of severe Puritanism underlay nearly every aspect of American Progressivism. And it was also hopelessly idealistic.
There is plenty of overlap between Progressivism as it originated in this country and the various Fascist and National Socialist movements in Europe post WWI. In a material sense, the Fascist/Nazi movements were devoted to Progress, to Better Lives and a Better Future for their Peoples, or at least so they said, and at the time they came to the fore (in the 1920's and 30's) the Fascist/Nazi movements were widely hailed as the most likely way forward for Europeans. By the time WWII broke out, most of Europe was already under some form of Fascist or Nazi government. Democracy had a very bad reputation at the time. Progressives were no more fond of Democracy than any other elite of the period.
Yet today's rabid right wing equates Progressivism with Communism, which is simply and grossly wrong. And those who claim the Progressive mantle in the Blogosphere are all deemed to be Leftists, which is ludicrous. (As has been pointed out, today's definition of "leftist" is anyone who opposes Bush.) Today's Progressivism as exemplified in the Haute Blogmonde is essentially a form of Libertarianism. It's only tangentally related to the Progressivism that was for generations the nearly universal governing system in this country -- politics aside. Governance by a meritocracy and technocracy, divorced from everyday partisan politics, was the ideal of American Progressive policy.
But other than that, Progressive Blogtopia and Historical American Progressivism have little in common.
[/diversionary interlude]
-
Montague gets props for honesty. It's a nice change of pace.
People like shooter come here with nothing but contempt for our ideas and do their best to confound our discussions. I'm constantly amazed that with a list this long, the shooters of the world aren't parading in front of the White House in droves demanding that their president and his government clean up their acts. They come here instead, with no other intention but to cause us to stumble and divert our attention to their caustic tirades.
Only when you folks are suffering from a feedback loop. As I've said before, the world needs liberals and their vision of the ideal. Every once in a while though, a chunk of reality needs to be tossed in to set the trolley back on track. An imperfect world needs coping mechanisms not delusions of grandeur.
In the end they have nothing and serve no other capacity except to do everything they can to destroy our message. In their pathetic little mindset, its more important to destroy the opposition than to care about the country.
The reality is that this entire blog and comments sections fits that description. What positive messages are written here? None. It is a long, loud, lament that life is not what you want it to be. Oh and that you hate Bush.
Is there anything past that hatred? Apparently not for Glenn at least. It's BDS 24/7/365. I'm going to be interested to see what happens here after Bush leaves office and all the air gets let out of the ballon..