Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Here is my point exactly! Even conservatives in Britain recognize the value of courting gay voters by recognizing and protecting marriage. Why is providing equal rights such a non-issue in Europe and so much red-meat backlash fodder here?
Britain to Give Legal Recognition to Gay Partnerships
Britain to Give Legal Recognition to Gay Partnerships
This morning in the gym, two older gentleman began a locker-room debate about Iraq.
Both were old enough to have had children or younger siblings in Viet Nam.
The discussion actually opened with the subject of Viet-Nam. The first (let's call him "Righty"), suggested that we would have "won that war, if it weren't for the politicians." The second (let's call him "Lefty") demurely suggested that it wasn't the politicians who were fighting and dying in the war.
This then led, naturally, to the current war. Lefty volunteered that it was a damned shame, and a bunch of nonsense just like Viet Nam that wasn't making the world a bit safer. "It's only created more terrorists!"
Righty suggested that *that* was nonsense - that the terrorists have always been there ready to kill us. That "at least we're doing something about it now."
Well, I saw that their positions were simplistic and intractable, and it was at this point that I left.
But it made me think that this simplistic view is pretty much how the country is beginning to look back at that war we started a year ago. As analogous to Viet Nam - either pushing back against the falling dominos of world-wide terrorism, or else a political boondoggle where we're just sending our boys to be killed for no real reason.
I think using the lens of Viet Nam to look at Iraq is a mistake. And for the left to focus all its energies against the war ITSELF (as opposed to the lies, manufactured intelligence, absurd foreign policy, and suspect motivations of the administration) is also a mistake. Just because there were never any WMD's and Bush's motivations are more Oedipal than intellectual, doesn't mean that removing Saddam from power wasn't necessarily a good thing for world politics.
Yes, Iraq is a new terrorist haven - Clarke is correct that we distracted ourselves from Al Queda - and yes, we are probably less safe from terrorism now than we would have been. But all that is more attributable to the Rumsfeld "less is more strategy" in fighting the war, the right-winger's belief in their own rhetoric of democratic salvation, and a complete lack on an exit strategy, than it is the result of removing Saddam.
The biggest problem is this administration's tendency to believe their own manufactured intelligence and silly rhetoric, and their complete ineptitude at foreign policy. I think there is no evidence that the Iraqi people (or Middle East stability) is *worse* without Saddam. However, did we lead the world community to do it in such a way that would be decisive, persuasive, and likely to foster democracy? No - we did it in a completely clodish stupid way that created more terrorists, drove away allies, and destabilize the region (e.g., the recently cancelled Arab League Summit).
Not to draw a poor parallel, but Bush's recent anti-gay marriage stance is, oddly, similar. Embedded in Bush's push for a constitutional amendment is also a recognition of civil unions (which, oddly, is precisely Kerry's position as well - that is, no to "marriage," yes to "civil union"). Yes, civil unions fall far short of marriage, but for 2004, civil union is still a significant step forward. Oddly, by throwing right-wing "constitutional amendment" meat to Xtian conservatives, Bush is able to turn the issue into a divisive, bone-headed discriminatory move that ratchets up the rhetoric and drives people farther apart.
In both cases (and many others), the administration's sin is not necessarily in the underlying sentiment - it's in its pandering justifications, underhanded, incompetent methods, and lack of results. If the Bushies had just never tried to manufacture a WMD argument - if they had just argued to remove Saddam for the good of the Iraqi people - it would have forced them to come up with a strategy that really *was* for the good of the Iraqi people, involving international contributions (and money), more sound policing, and less overall U.S. involvement. Because they couldn't be honest about the reasons, they couldn't create an honest war or an honest outcome.
Similarly, if Bush were to *forward* the idea of civil unions (but stop short of marriage, for now - without enshrining discrimination in the constitution) - he might even be *embraced* by the gay comminity as a courageous leader, bridge cultural differences in the country, and find other ways to sooth the sentiment of the rabid right. But instead, he's ruined his chance, and people like Gavin Newsom and Jason West get to be the visionary civil rights heroes.
So what is my point here? My point is, I would hate to see the Democrats and the left fall into the same intellectual trap - simplifying the truth and missing opportunities. By vilifying the war itself - and missing the real detestible aspects of the administrations actions - we risk being overtaken by the ever-evolving political situation. It is a lot harder to defend the anti-war position if there is another terrorist attack, or further destabilization of the middle-east situation. Yet these eventualities would only enhance the argument of the administration's inept handling of the situation. Similarly, let's be smart about how we advance civil rights, and not play into the hands of hate-mongers looking to escalate the rhetoric. Let's try to keep our eye on the ball of what's really going on.
Both were old enough to have had children or younger siblings in Viet Nam.
The discussion actually opened with the subject of Viet-Nam. The first (let's call him "Righty"), suggested that we would have "won that war, if it weren't for the politicians." The second (let's call him "Lefty") demurely suggested that it wasn't the politicians who were fighting and dying in the war.
This then led, naturally, to the current war. Lefty volunteered that it was a damned shame, and a bunch of nonsense just like Viet Nam that wasn't making the world a bit safer. "It's only created more terrorists!"
Righty suggested that *that* was nonsense - that the terrorists have always been there ready to kill us. That "at least we're doing something about it now."
Well, I saw that their positions were simplistic and intractable, and it was at this point that I left.
But it made me think that this simplistic view is pretty much how the country is beginning to look back at that war we started a year ago. As analogous to Viet Nam - either pushing back against the falling dominos of world-wide terrorism, or else a political boondoggle where we're just sending our boys to be killed for no real reason.
I think using the lens of Viet Nam to look at Iraq is a mistake. And for the left to focus all its energies against the war ITSELF (as opposed to the lies, manufactured intelligence, absurd foreign policy, and suspect motivations of the administration) is also a mistake. Just because there were never any WMD's and Bush's motivations are more Oedipal than intellectual, doesn't mean that removing Saddam from power wasn't necessarily a good thing for world politics.
Yes, Iraq is a new terrorist haven - Clarke is correct that we distracted ourselves from Al Queda - and yes, we are probably less safe from terrorism now than we would have been. But all that is more attributable to the Rumsfeld "less is more strategy" in fighting the war, the right-winger's belief in their own rhetoric of democratic salvation, and a complete lack on an exit strategy, than it is the result of removing Saddam.
The biggest problem is this administration's tendency to believe their own manufactured intelligence and silly rhetoric, and their complete ineptitude at foreign policy. I think there is no evidence that the Iraqi people (or Middle East stability) is *worse* without Saddam. However, did we lead the world community to do it in such a way that would be decisive, persuasive, and likely to foster democracy? No - we did it in a completely clodish stupid way that created more terrorists, drove away allies, and destabilize the region (e.g., the recently cancelled Arab League Summit).
Not to draw a poor parallel, but Bush's recent anti-gay marriage stance is, oddly, similar. Embedded in Bush's push for a constitutional amendment is also a recognition of civil unions (which, oddly, is precisely Kerry's position as well - that is, no to "marriage," yes to "civil union"). Yes, civil unions fall far short of marriage, but for 2004, civil union is still a significant step forward. Oddly, by throwing right-wing "constitutional amendment" meat to Xtian conservatives, Bush is able to turn the issue into a divisive, bone-headed discriminatory move that ratchets up the rhetoric and drives people farther apart.
In both cases (and many others), the administration's sin is not necessarily in the underlying sentiment - it's in its pandering justifications, underhanded, incompetent methods, and lack of results. If the Bushies had just never tried to manufacture a WMD argument - if they had just argued to remove Saddam for the good of the Iraqi people - it would have forced them to come up with a strategy that really *was* for the good of the Iraqi people, involving international contributions (and money), more sound policing, and less overall U.S. involvement. Because they couldn't be honest about the reasons, they couldn't create an honest war or an honest outcome.
Similarly, if Bush were to *forward* the idea of civil unions (but stop short of marriage, for now - without enshrining discrimination in the constitution) - he might even be *embraced* by the gay comminity as a courageous leader, bridge cultural differences in the country, and find other ways to sooth the sentiment of the rabid right. But instead, he's ruined his chance, and people like Gavin Newsom and Jason West get to be the visionary civil rights heroes.
So what is my point here? My point is, I would hate to see the Democrats and the left fall into the same intellectual trap - simplifying the truth and missing opportunities. By vilifying the war itself - and missing the real detestible aspects of the administrations actions - we risk being overtaken by the ever-evolving political situation. It is a lot harder to defend the anti-war position if there is another terrorist attack, or further destabilization of the middle-east situation. Yet these eventualities would only enhance the argument of the administration's inept handling of the situation. Similarly, let's be smart about how we advance civil rights, and not play into the hands of hate-mongers looking to escalate the rhetoric. Let's try to keep our eye on the ball of what's really going on.
A great editorial in the NYTimes about the lying Bush Administration's abuses of power.
Op-Ed: This Isn't America
Op-Ed: This Isn't America
Hi -
Welcome to Little Evil Bush. This is just getting started. This page will be a place collecting all those articles about right-wing America that make our blood boil. Read it all in one place!
Welcome to Little Evil Bush. This is just getting started. This page will be a place collecting all those articles about right-wing America that make our blood boil. Read it all in one place!
