MaxedOutMama

I am not going to sit here and defend the 42%, but I can relate it to how many of Clinton's foes were giddy as school children when we pulled out of Somalia after several disasters.

I must admit, I have a certain amount of Schadenfreude when it comes to the Bush administration, but in this situation, my pleasure would come at an untenable price - mainly more lives of American soldiers. I would love to give the Neo-cons a big fat "I told you so," but not if it means anyone has to be there a second longer than need be.

I hope the elections go off and the whole mess clears up... I don't think it will, but I hope.
 

Dingo,

I never encountered anything but very sober faces at Somalia or the Iranian hostage-rescue failure, and I would have been as shocked by rejoicing then as this. It's still 48% hoping the elections in Iraq fail. Some say they think it's for the Iraqis' own good, but....

Anyway, it's a long road. No political system is perfect - it's always a process of continual readjustment. Has been in this country, will be there.
 

Now we know the fallicy of the left stating "I'm against the war, but for the troops." The left hates the troops, because they are jealous that the troops have done things they can't.

Kev
 

Kevin,

After reading some of the comments about the conflicts in Iraq on various "left" websites and forums, I have to concede that you are correct about some people. But you are by no means describing the entire "left", as the DU thread itself shows.

Clinton, for instance, both very actively pushed intervention in Bosnia to stop the ethnic war there and has been notably supportive of actions against Saddam. There are no good answers or entirely positive solutions when dealing with mass-murdering dictators like Saddam, and people who demand them force themselves into rationally indefensive positions.

To me it does seem that a military man or woman's willingness to risk their life is felt as some sort of personal reproach by some people. I'm thinking about the famous editorial against Tillman and a host of other comments.

IMO, the events of the last few years in Afghanistan and Iraq have amply demonstrated the professionalism, bravery, intelligence and humanity of our military force. Sad to say, I don't think they are getting the credit they deserve for what they have accomplished, and I think it is because the bulk of our media doesn't feel inclined to tell the story.
 

I find Kevin's comment not only repugnant, but blatantly untrue.

First, the troops have my full support *and* I think this is a stupid war. I am against the war because I think it is a political, strategic and economic blunder of enormous proportions. I believe our actions there are counter productive in so many ways.

Second, you are disrespecting a good number of our service men and women fighting who are "left." Do you honestly believe that there are no soldiers there who are liberals. Well, I happen to know some. Additionally, there are many vets who are liberals also. My father was in the army. He is liberal. My grandfather was in the army, he was liberal. I am a proud liberal who applied for and received an AFROTC scholarship but could not use it because the college I eventually decided on did not offer the program. I would also like to point out that there are more Democrats in congress that have served in the military than Republicans.

I find the comment to be in extremely poor taste and the type that serves no constructive good. The vast majority of Americans, right and left, respect and support our troops.
 

Dingo,

You seem to be taking Kevin's use of the word "left" as a synonym for Democrats, but that is not how most people I know use the word. If you're correct and he is using the word that way, then your offense is understandable. When most Americans I know say "left", they don't mean Democrats. Around here the people using that word ARE Democrats for the most part.

What most Americans mean by "left" is a very small group of people who tend toward socialist beliefs and extreme anti-corporatism. This group often wants the legal recognition of corporations as persons under the law to be prohibited,for instance. As far as I can tell, Kevin is being accurate about some of those people.

Btw, on the extreme "right" there is a group of people who don't feel any nation has the right to invade any other nation on libertarian grounds, and would agree with the extremely anti-military stance of this group on the "left". I think that group of people would agree with some on the left that ipso facto, the military is an unethical organization, and that if you joined willingly you are either a fool or a conscienceless drone. Politics isn't all that simple.

From looking at some of Pew's numbers, it seems as if the voting population of the US is roughly split into thirds under the headings, Democrat, Republican and Independent. Taking the 3 groups as a whole, I would say 80% of voters have very similar opinions on at least 70% of the issues. Extreme groups on the left and the right represent a small minority of the population.

Btw, I also have to point out that many on the "left" do exactly what you are objecting to in Kevin's comment - they attribute extreme beliefs to a large group of people on the "right". If you object to the Kyoto Treaty, you want to rape the earth. If you object to partial-birth abortion, you want to reduce all women to helpless breeders subject to random rape. So forth and so on ad nauseam.

I am not accusing you of the above, because you don't do that. IMO, such factionalism only serves to frustrate the interests of a large group of voters who are interested in results rather than talking points. Fairly speaking, if you object to one set of characterizations it is wise to object to the other.

But Dingo, I do want to point out that to the degree extreme rhetoric is adopted by public leaders of the Democratic party, it does inflict a dire wound upon the more moderate wing of the Democratic party. Much has been made of Zell Miller's anger, but very few commentators on the Democratic wing have looked honestly at the reason for it.

To their credit, I think both Bush and Kerry consciously tried to fight against these rhetorical extremes in the last election, but largely failed due to an electorate polarized by a few issues, one of them being the war.
 

Well, I am sorry if I sound over enthusiastic, but for a point of parliamentary procedure then... all of us Democrats (at least the ones I know - and I live in NY, so I know a lot) call ourselves "left" as well as Democrats. So when someone says "the left hates the troops," that person is going to really offend a lot of people. Ya'll might want to change your terminology just a tad. When we on the left talk about far righties, we say "neo-cons," "theo-cons," "wingnuts," etc.

And about the earlier rebuttal on Somalia. I saw a lot of "restrained" jubilation for any of Clintons military failures (I know some very-very right wing people - Dartmouth Review). I could never understand their absolute visceral hatred of Clinton, but now it comes from the far left against Bush. No matter how much you hate the president (democrat or republican) it is no excuse to feel some sort of joy in their failure when our soldiers are the ones paying the price.

Sorry... I guess I am a bit touchy on this one.
 

Dingo,

I really like your use of the phrase "parliamentary procedure", because you're referring to a formal set of rules for debate and decision designed to make the process of politics as productive as possible. Roberts Rules of Order is the classic example.

And you've hit the nail on the head - the process of respectful political dialogue designed to produce consensus has broken down in the media and a lot of public forums.

In this spirit, I have to confess that to me "wingnut" and "theo-cons" are much more offensive terms than "right" or "left". NY-style politics tend toward a brand of intensity that is perceived as an attempt to start a riot in a lot of other parts of the country. I know. I used to live in the Tri-State area. It's purely a cultural thing. Friendly political debates in NYC are the equivalent of barroom brawls in much of the Midwest and the South. Acrimonious political debates in NYC fall under the heading of "fighting words" in Georgia.

I guess you think "far left" would be a better way to describe this political subgroup, but I can think of quite a few people I consider to be way out on the left wing of the American political spectrum who aren't guilty of the type of hypocrisy both you and Kevin are rejecting or any hypocrisy, so I don't like the use of that term either.

At the top of my blog I have a link to a post at Let's Try Freedom (Robert Hayes). It's there for a reason. Please read it. Here's a brief excerpt:
"Our country is predicated on the idea that we don't need to have civil wars and hyper-partisan destructive political conflict, because we provide a mechanism for the people to select our leadership. If the people vote for you according to the pre-existing rules, then hey, you're the leader.

"This arrangement is in danger. It was in danger in the 1980s from the right, and it is in danger today from the left. If Kerry wins, then it will be the right's turn to be the ones tearing down the fragile network of customs and beliefs that holds our nation together. I don't think we should do that. I don't want to be a part of doing that again. I did it in the 1980s and it was stupid and destructive and wrong of me. I'm sorry about it, but the only thing I can do about it now is to resolve not to do it again."

The only rules I can think of that would help political discourse to be more effective would be to debate individual issues on their merits and stop characterizing other people's positions. Also, I think the media has done a terrible job of reporting on political currents, and that individuals had better take over. There is far more scope for agreement than fanaticism in the electorate as a whole.