Friday, September 10, 2004
In regards to the theory of Foreign Policy Neo-Hippie idealism...
The intentions of the Neo-Conservative movement of the past quarter century have crystallized into an ideal of democratic expansionism. The Neo-Cons at the Project for a New American Century along with the newly formed Cold War era conceived Committee on the Present Danger have created or at least broadened the struggle known as the War on Terror into a mammoth plot to endow the Earth's Third-World governments with the ideals of democratic liberalism (small d; small l). By this they hope to destroy once and for the tyranny of dictatorships and make way for the freedom and prosperity of modern capitalism. These are worthy goals, and it is difficult to argue away that these ideals if successfully spread to the desperate nations of the middle east and other conflicted areas would benefit our world greatly. However, a simple look back at the recent past of United States history can help shed light on why these plans are unattainable by the means conceived (i.e. Economic and Social Revolution/War of Liberation). Look back to the pre-Vietnam war Johnson era for startling revelation of the consequences of misplaced intentions. President Lyndon Johnson brought about what he refered to as the "Great Society", a Macroeconomic attempt to destroy the social ills of society with a well-intentioned "war on poverty". It was basically centralized democratic and economic social transformation shoved down the collective throats of the American Public. What has it wrought? Have we ended poverty? Is such a thing possible with such bold steps? Or, can we all not agree that there will always be a level of poverty, but that to gradually raise the collective economic and social well being through steady and predictable progress is the most beneficial collective action? The war on poverty was a terrific gamble and it has caused great consequence. The Democratic party has been losing constituents in a steady stream ever since. Tax dollars that could have been used to further economic activity have been put to inefficient use. Poverty cannot be cured by government spending alone. The people realize this and have made the Democrats less relevant ever since. Put more boldly, the ideals of the 60's democratic movement (for the sake of a better word the hippie movement) were pie in the sky ideas about curing racism, sexism and poverty with fell swoops of a federally regulated hand. We can now hopefully all realize that although occasionally necessary, social and economic revolution are often times more trouble than they're worth, at least when they are meant to be enacted in historically unprecidented time tables. The 60's Democratic/Hippie movement has come to the realization (look to the Clinton years) that gradual progress through an effective combination of efficient goverment intervention and private sector captialism is the best way to combat economic and social evils. Accordingly, steady, incremental progress in bringing the World around to liberal democracy should be our aim; by social, diplomatic and economic means. The world cannot be warred into this paradigm. The Neo-Cons will continue to find that out in the Iraq debacle.
The intentions of the Neo-Conservative movement of the past quarter century have crystallized into an ideal of democratic expansionism. The Neo-Cons at the Project for a New American Century along with the newly formed Cold War era conceived Committee on the Present Danger have created or at least broadened the struggle known as the War on Terror into a mammoth plot to endow the Earth's Third-World governments with the ideals of democratic liberalism (small d; small l). By this they hope to destroy once and for the tyranny of dictatorships and make way for the freedom and prosperity of modern capitalism. These are worthy goals, and it is difficult to argue away that these ideals if successfully spread to the desperate nations of the middle east and other conflicted areas would benefit our world greatly. However, a simple look back at the recent past of United States history can help shed light on why these plans are unattainable by the means conceived (i.e. Economic and Social Revolution/War of Liberation). Look back to the pre-Vietnam war Johnson era for startling revelation of the consequences of misplaced intentions. President Lyndon Johnson brought about what he refered to as the "Great Society", a Macroeconomic attempt to destroy the social ills of society with a well-intentioned "war on poverty". It was basically centralized democratic and economic social transformation shoved down the collective throats of the American Public. What has it wrought? Have we ended poverty? Is such a thing possible with such bold steps? Or, can we all not agree that there will always be a level of poverty, but that to gradually raise the collective economic and social well being through steady and predictable progress is the most beneficial collective action? The war on poverty was a terrific gamble and it has caused great consequence. The Democratic party has been losing constituents in a steady stream ever since. Tax dollars that could have been used to further economic activity have been put to inefficient use. Poverty cannot be cured by government spending alone. The people realize this and have made the Democrats less relevant ever since. Put more boldly, the ideals of the 60's democratic movement (for the sake of a better word the hippie movement) were pie in the sky ideas about curing racism, sexism and poverty with fell swoops of a federally regulated hand. We can now hopefully all realize that although occasionally necessary, social and economic revolution are often times more trouble than they're worth, at least when they are meant to be enacted in historically unprecidented time tables. The 60's Democratic/Hippie movement has come to the realization (look to the Clinton years) that gradual progress through an effective combination of efficient goverment intervention and private sector captialism is the best way to combat economic and social evils. Accordingly, steady, incremental progress in bringing the World around to liberal democracy should be our aim; by social, diplomatic and economic means. The world cannot be warred into this paradigm. The Neo-Cons will continue to find that out in the Iraq debacle.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
In response to Darren Bernard's article All the fairytale that's fit to print in the MN Daily... Sometimes egregious distortions such as these demand retort. Bernard begins by plainly stating the mind-bending falsehood that Kerry inflicted his own wounds in Vietnam. No evidence is offered to justify the contention, other than the opposite opinion was put forth by the Times. Bernard's logic here seems to be that because the Times writers and editors believe such an assertion to be slander and necessitate response that therefore it is correct. No further mention of the self-inflicted wounds theory is to be found in Bernard's piece. It simply lies there to be puzzled over by the reader. Bernard further describes the approximately 250 members of the group swift boat veterans for truth to be "witnesses". However, he fails to mention that not one of these people actually served with Kerry. The definition of witness would seem to belie Bernard's assertion here. Bernard does not mention the finding that almost all respectable news establishments have found the great majority of statements by the swift boat vets to be contradicted by not only the documentary evidence but the previous testimony of the vets themselves, as seen in the graphic that the NY Times published shortly after the ads were shown. Bernard shows that the evidence does not support Kerry's assertion that he was in Cambodia. Fair enough. But how exactly does the NY Times coming down generally on the side of Kerry in this contentious debate constitute an adherance to telling "fairy tales"? The fact that they have defended Kerry against people saying he purposely wounded himself? Bernard continues to pummell the Times for lying in different territory by equating the number of news stories they have published about Abu Graib to "unequivocal dedication" to demorializing the Iraqi war effort. Since when is printing the truth about senseless torture the same as lying? What possible difference could the number of articles play in determining the course of the war? We suppose Bernard believes that one too many articles about torture and the readers will say "Oh! Now I realize it was all wrong and I no longer care if we succeed or fail". Besides, how can a paper that was so gung ho about the war fromt the very beginning (simply nexis-lexis/google "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "New York Times" for the period prior to invasion to see an example) now be determined to undermine the Iraqi conflict? Bernard states that the Times uses the phrase Big Business more than some of its competitors. Huh? What is that supposed to prove? Why is the term so frightening and biased anyway? He gives no explanation. Bernard also denigrates the Times for mentioning the Air America network in more artilces than the Chicago Sun-Times. This is supposedly an indication of bias, or it could simply reflect the fact that Air America has done quite well in the New York area, with its shows often outpacing Right wing counterparts (Franken has beaten Limbaugh handily in NY before; If you were an average 18- to 34-year-old in New York in April 2004, you were 7 times more likely to be listening to Al Franken than Rush Limbaugh according to Arbitron ratings). What's Bernard's point when mentioning all these numbers? That the times are liars? Fairytale producers? Against the Iraqi war? He's insiduously equating a perceived bias with the notion of out and out lying. But to pull away from Bernard's obfuscation, one need only realize that he is asserting that the NY Times as an entirety are liars because they have defended John Kerry against slander in the same way as most publications, written articles about a liberal radio station, written articles about our troops commiting torture, and delved into the Bush Administration's attempt to fuse more of the functions of the state with the church. But, John Kerry served with distinction; Torture did happen in Iraq; Air America does exist and prosper; Big Business does effect our society sometimes with ill consequence; and Bush loves the Church and would like to see it have more influence in our lives. Are any of these facts even reasonably in dispute? Bernard equates the Times with the story of "Alice in Wonderland". Meanwhile, his article is a woven fairytale of its own with pointless statistics and quaint ancedotes. The only wonder here is why we should care about anything in it.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
In response to William Saletan's article in Slate magazine Judgement Day...
William Saletan's critique of yesterday's Arnold Schwarzenegger speech was well done, as has all his reporting from the Republican convention. Saletan grasps what is good or even superior in the idea of being a Republican while succinctly dismissing the Bush Administrations attempts over the last four years to live up to those ideals . As Saletan asserts, Arnold's speech reached great heights when espousing the connection between the great ideals of this country and what it means to be a true Republican. We all wish to live in a country that espouses Arnold's standards of individual freedom from government and tyranny. Saletan states correctly that when the speech moved into the defense of the Administration that a compare and contrasting of the earlier mentioned ideals leaves our current Administration wanting. Schwarzenegger reveers the values of individual responsibilty and accountability but it these values that the Bush Administration has so completely abandoned. Not a single member of the Bush Administration's economic and foreign policy team has been fired despite a series of failures in both regards. Saletan makes the point that "Accountability means that a president who gets his economic program and delivers results this bad gets fired". Stated further, in order to espouse the ideal of accountability it is our responsibility to vote out a team beset by failures. Democracy cannot succeed without this basic principle of accountability. The California governer also tries to make the case that Republicans can and will hold educators accountable. But for the Republican controlled legislature and executive branch to create a mandate like the No Child Left Behind Act and then simply underfund and ignore its needs doesn't uphold any standard of accountability. How can children be held accountable if the government dictates what they should achieve then denies the resources to accomplish those goals? How does this unfunded mandate conincide with the government that Arnold wants and claims Bush represents, which doesn't unnecessarily interferes with its citizens? Arnold wants government off our backs; how does this accomplish that objective? Trying Times' problem with Mr. Schwarzenegger's speech is not the content or message of hope and individuality, its the disingenuous attempt to paint the Bush Administration as a beacon of those ideals. By exposing this truth Saletan shows that while we may all wish to become more like the America Arnold describes, we may have to fire Bush in order to find it.
William Saletan's critique of yesterday's Arnold Schwarzenegger speech was well done, as has all his reporting from the Republican convention. Saletan grasps what is good or even superior in the idea of being a Republican while succinctly dismissing the Bush Administrations attempts over the last four years to live up to those ideals . As Saletan asserts, Arnold's speech reached great heights when espousing the connection between the great ideals of this country and what it means to be a true Republican. We all wish to live in a country that espouses Arnold's standards of individual freedom from government and tyranny. Saletan states correctly that when the speech moved into the defense of the Administration that a compare and contrasting of the earlier mentioned ideals leaves our current Administration wanting. Schwarzenegger reveers the values of individual responsibilty and accountability but it these values that the Bush Administration has so completely abandoned. Not a single member of the Bush Administration's economic and foreign policy team has been fired despite a series of failures in both regards. Saletan makes the point that "Accountability means that a president who gets his economic program and delivers results this bad gets fired". Stated further, in order to espouse the ideal of accountability it is our responsibility to vote out a team beset by failures. Democracy cannot succeed without this basic principle of accountability. The California governer also tries to make the case that Republicans can and will hold educators accountable. But for the Republican controlled legislature and executive branch to create a mandate like the No Child Left Behind Act and then simply underfund and ignore its needs doesn't uphold any standard of accountability. How can children be held accountable if the government dictates what they should achieve then denies the resources to accomplish those goals? How does this unfunded mandate conincide with the government that Arnold wants and claims Bush represents, which doesn't unnecessarily interferes with its citizens? Arnold wants government off our backs; how does this accomplish that objective? Trying Times' problem with Mr. Schwarzenegger's speech is not the content or message of hope and individuality, its the disingenuous attempt to paint the Bush Administration as a beacon of those ideals. By exposing this truth Saletan shows that while we may all wish to become more like the America Arnold describes, we may have to fire Bush in order to find it.
It appears as though George Bush could very well win the coming election, so Trying Times would like to take a moment to delineate his Administration's record of the past four years. The purpose of this exercise will be to show that factors other than the usual reasons a president is chosen or discarded will be what propel Bush to victory.
George W. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a four year period in which the economy will have lost a net amount of jobs. No Democrat has come close to this record of job loss since the New Deal, including Jimmy "Stagflation" Carter. Most polls show that Americans trust Democrats to handle the economy better than Republicans. So if Bush wins, it will fly in the face of the past election paradigm of a bad economy adding up to a presidential loss.
Bush will also have presided over the most confusing and ineffectual congress sessions in recent memory. Despite the unprecedented advantage of a Repulican majority in both the House and Senate, many of the major initiatives advocated by the Administration have not been inacted. So, If Bush wins, it will not be because his party have been effective legislators, which usually dooms a group with so much control.
Bush will also have presided over the 9/11 attacks, one of the worst intelligence and defense failures in the country's history. In addition, he has fought an appearantly unnecessary, unending, and tremendously costly war. The Democrats (Adlai Stevenson) lost in 1952 because of Korea, Lyndon Johnson quit because of Vietnam, and Carter lost because of the Iranian revolution and Desert One. So, if Bush wins, it will be the first time in memory a series of military catastropies has not cost the president his job.
These three substantial factors, a failed economy, an ineffective legislating majority, and a series of military failures in any and all combinations for any previous president would have ended the incumbent Administration's tenor with a vengence. So, if Bush wins, what different factors are compelling this time? Trying Times will discuss these reasons in a future posting.
George W. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a four year period in which the economy will have lost a net amount of jobs. No Democrat has come close to this record of job loss since the New Deal, including Jimmy "Stagflation" Carter. Most polls show that Americans trust Democrats to handle the economy better than Republicans. So if Bush wins, it will fly in the face of the past election paradigm of a bad economy adding up to a presidential loss.
Bush will also have presided over the most confusing and ineffectual congress sessions in recent memory. Despite the unprecedented advantage of a Repulican majority in both the House and Senate, many of the major initiatives advocated by the Administration have not been inacted. So, If Bush wins, it will not be because his party have been effective legislators, which usually dooms a group with so much control.
Bush will also have presided over the 9/11 attacks, one of the worst intelligence and defense failures in the country's history. In addition, he has fought an appearantly unnecessary, unending, and tremendously costly war. The Democrats (Adlai Stevenson) lost in 1952 because of Korea, Lyndon Johnson quit because of Vietnam, and Carter lost because of the Iranian revolution and Desert One. So, if Bush wins, it will be the first time in memory a series of military catastropies has not cost the president his job.
These three substantial factors, a failed economy, an ineffective legislating majority, and a series of military failures in any and all combinations for any previous president would have ended the incumbent Administration's tenor with a vengence. So, if Bush wins, what different factors are compelling this time? Trying Times will discuss these reasons in a future posting.
