16 Comments

1. Terrye:

Well just one more reason for my brother to think it is all part of some Republican conspiracy.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:51 am 2. TedM:

This critique business about the speech is tiring. No matter what this man said, there would be the clack of negative nonsense spewing from the mouths of the usual suspects. If he didn’t say what he did, then he would have been criticized for not saying it.

The time and quantity of ink and key strokes wasted on this is a memorial to the decay of discourse in our time. Alas

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:59 am 3. Samuel:

Terrye

That was my sort of my take and I had hoped it was a Democrat, at least for rhetorical purposes. One interesting point though is Rudy Giuliani was a Democrat back then. I am almost becoming embarrassed at how far behind the curve I was on this. The deficit on security between the parties was definitely recognizable at that point in 1972. Now one could argue that perhaps utopianistic idealism is to blame for that yet once the wall came down in 1991 and the Cold War ended I should have seen it then… but no, instead I followed the learn nothing from history crowd that refused to see the parallels to post WWI, something I remember reading at the time, and proceeded to advocate squandering the peace dividend in the “Party like it’s 1999″ decade of the 90’s.

–

I never took as serious as I should the attacks during the 90’s on us by Islamo-fascist Terrorists and of course the only part of budget that was cut in the 90’s was the military, yet predictably the Dems and MSM now blame Bush for the effects this has today (such as troop shortage). Since 9/11 all this makes today even less excusable and explains why the arguments from the left have become downright hostile and borders on evil. Now why would I say this? Because only hard deceit and lies of a Michael Moorian level and/or rooting for failure of our country can be employed effective because too much has become obvious when weighed against history. Michael Moore denies the risks and declares Bush the demagogue even as he truly fills that very role and many are buying this. THEY ARE CHOOSING DECEPTION AND ACCEPTING THIS FLATTERY! These very people will further claim Bush=Hitler when the people in the leadership of the ranks that would declare such things are Hitler’s true heirs… I am bothered and sickened but somewhat heartened a slim majority has rejected this. But the willful deciept by so many I find disturbing.

Jan 23, 2005 - 11:32 am 4. chuck:

Samuel,

Mezzrow posted a link to an interesting article that I think explains much about the current Democratic party. Well worth a read IMHO.

Jan 23, 2005 - 1:29 pm 5. Terrye:

Samuel:

Yes I know when my brother talks about the terror war he always put “bogus” in front of it. And of course he talks about how he talked to a couple of soldiers that hate it over there. Who wouldn’t?

Well hell, I doubt our Uncle Herb who had malaria until he died cared much for the south Pacific..but he came from the generation that was told, not ask if they would serve.

I think that the only thing that will convince people like my brother is if high ranking Dems like Clinton make a point of telling them this is not a game, it is not about partisan politics, it is war. I don’t think that the terrorists can destroy America, some people do believe that, I do not. But I think they can kill a lot of people trying.

I also think that Moore might have served his purpose for a time, but he will not wear well. In time the truth will out. I hope.

I ask Mick if he thought that these people had been killing Westerners and Israelis for decades in anticipation of a Bush victory or if maybe just maybe they thought they were at war. He had no answer.

Jan 23, 2005 - 1:52 pm 6. Katherine:

Chuck,

This article is an excerpt from ìCivilization and its Enemiesî by Lee Harris. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743257499/qid=1106517213/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/104-9497765-2731938?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It is a book well worth reading. And yes, the concept of “fantasy ideology” explains nicely why our “liberal” reactionaries care so little about real human suffering.

Jan 23, 2005 - 2:01 pm 7. Ben:

Terrye -

I fear that the lesson the Dems learned from Clinton is that one can achieve success by playing politics all of the time. That was less of an issue during our holiday from history in the 1990’s, but history has a way of reminding you that it is being ignored. The only antidote now is for the Dems to learn a new paradigm: which is most likely to come either in the form of more electoral defeats or a big attack that wakes their constituants from the 90s slumber (or perhaps both). Let us hope it is the former instead of the latter.

Jan 23, 2005 - 2:31 pm 8. Yehudit:

“I think that the only thing that will convince people like my brother is if high ranking Dems like Clinton make a point of telling them this is not a game, it is not about partisan politics, it is war.”

Clinton has said as much – he has supported the war and been open about his plans to invade, whihc Bush had the political capital to do and Clinton didn’t. It doesn’t matter. They’ll rationalize it somehow.

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:03 pm 9. Terrye:

Yehudit:

Well my brother did not hear it, he saw Moore’s film and when I try to point out that there are Democrats out there that feel differently he just goes off on right wingers.

No… I mean they have to kick Moore out of the DNC… they have to shun him. It is pointless for Clinton to go to some dinners and meetings and say the terrorists are bad guys, if they don’t banish the likes of Moore.

I am afraid if we have another attack the base of the Democratic party will blame the Republicans rather than face reality.

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:38 pm 10. Jim Rockford:

Unfortunately Nixon was as bad as Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and early Bush 43. During his tenure Palestinian terrorists killed US diplomats without retaliation.

Machiavelli was right; States need neither “love” nor irrational fear; but respect for the consequences when attacks are launched.

Unfortunately, Nixon IMHO started the calculus that the attacks were too “minor” to respond to (because the retaliation would be too expensive politcally and fiscally). Not realizing of course that the attacks were a constant direct challenge to the US and only escalated in nature as they became cost free.

So yeah, Nixon’s the One.

Jan 23, 2005 - 3:59 pm 11. Charlie (Colorado):

Jim, were you actually around during the Last Years of Nixon? I’ve got to say, he would have had difficulty mustering the political capital to change from blue suits to brown. Ford did, at least, respond with some force to the Mayaguez (that mayy be spelled wrong, the ship taken by the Cambodians) but in any case got nothing but hell about it at the time and didn’t have any more political leverage with the Democrat-dominated Senate than Nixon.

I’ll grant you in a second that I think Nixon should have responded more forcefully, and Kissenger’s notion of being the reincarnation of Metternich and playing realpolitik with the Soviets was, in hindsight, just flat-out wrong.

But, realistically, did Nixon have any hole cards to play?

Jan 23, 2005 - 5:16 pm 12. WichitaBoy:

Terrye,

We’re all subject to competing narratives, none of which ever completely explains all of the facts available at the time. That’s fact one.

Fact two is the universal human tendency to believe what we want to believe, i.e., to select out that narrative which–all else being equal–is most pleasant among the alternatives.

Unfortunately, all else is never equal. It’s at this point that both the degree of ones honesty and the degree on ones tenacity enters the picture. A more honest or less tenacious person will reject a narrative contradicted by a minimal set of facts, a less honest or more tenacious person will maintain the pleasant fiction.

There is another issue, which is what might be called the depth of the narrative. I may not, for example, place too much currency on a theory concocted just today to explain something I had never seen nor thought about before. Who cares if I change my mind? On the other hand, some narratives are so deeply embedded within the fabric of the psyche that to toss them overboard in the face of a few inconvenient facts would be tantamount to tearing the entire persona to pieces. If there is no VRWC, then literally half a lifetime of thoughts, beliefs, actions, and interpretations will have to be reconsidered, perhaps bringing one to the entirely unacceptable belief that ones life has been largely misappropriated.

I’m not sure how best to change the deep narratives but I’m pretty sure that it won’t happen in a short time or by an easy path. I guess we should all strive to bring our personal narratives in line with the facts as much as we can. I’m still not convinced that the final narrative on Iraq has been written.

Jan 23, 2005 - 5:30 pm 13. Terrye:

Wichita Boy:

Yes, I see what you mean.

We all have our knee jerk reactions. The things that just make sense in light of everything we have believed.

I know I had to change a lot of preconceptions, or maybe not as many as I thought. Maybe I was just playing at being a hippie, deep down inside I was a female John Wayne all along.

What surprises me about my brother is that he lives in Oklahoma, he knows a lot of guys voting for Bush and they are not in anyway stereotypes.

But I think that he wanted to be cool so bad for so long that this is the club he thinks he wants to be in.

But common sense will prevail, I hope. It is hard to keep up that fantasy forever.

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:35 pm 14. chuck:

Terrye:

Maybe I was just playing at being a hippie, deep down inside I was a female John Wayne all along.

There have been a couple of times that I’m sure as hell glad you’re on our side. Gives me shivers just thinking of being on the other side

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:02 pm 15. WichitaBoy:

chuck,

I just finished the Harris article. That’s really dynamite. Thanks for the link. I hope everybody else reads it. It’s of narrative-transformative quality. I know I’ll be rethinking the whole al Qaida mess for the next few days, but my prelimintary thought is that he’s got it right and the rest of us have completely missed the boat.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:30 pm 16. chuck:

WichitaBoy,

Mezzrow posted the link in an earlier thread. I thought it needed more advertising. I’ve got to go get the book.

Jan 23, 2005 - 11:07 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: