Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 15:45:48

dajafi wrote:Maybe where we disagree is how we'd define "mainstream opposition," except that I'm honestly not sure how I'd do that myself at this point. On substance rather than style, I don't hear much difference between what William Kristol and Newt Gingrich ("mainstream," or at least respectable enough to go on talk shows) say and what irate Tea Party-goers ("fringe" types who supposedly take Glenn Beck at face value and enjoy him unironically) are saying--other than maybe the second group is more likely to mindlessly throw about terms like "socialism."

We agree - I think my example was poor. Mainstream types aren't running around claiming that Obama is a closet muslim, for example. I disagree that tea-party types are "fringe", however, based on the dozen or so people I know who attended different ones. I suppose they could all be lying about their experiences at these things or secret maniacs, but this seems unlikely to me.

I actually don't think that the word "socialism" should be off the table, and I don't think bringing the word into discourse automatically de-legitimizes your opinion (though it may). I say get it out there, talk about what it means, back your definition up, and own or disown it and explain why. I think there's a fantastic debate that could happen out there on socialism that no one is taking up in any meaningful way. Which goes to TV's point above.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 17:33:27

VO, I think you're confusing race with racism

Use health care as an example. You won't find it mentioned that one reason health care policymaking has devolved to squabble about health insurance, rather than health reform, is that the former is disproportionately a critical concern for white America. It just is,and it affects what drives big #s of voters; no one needs to say it.

The tragedy is that focusing on health reform would go some distance toward fixing health insurance misalignment

by **dajafi** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:03:12

VoxOrion wrote:I actually don't think that the word "socialism" should be off the table, and I don't think bringing the word into discourse automatically de-legitimizes your opinion (though it may). I say get it out there, talk about what it means, back your definition up, and own or disown it and explain why. I think there's a fantastic debate that could happen out there on socialism that no one is taking up in any meaningful way. Which goes to TV's point above.

If nothing else, coming to a more universal definition for "socialism" would be nice. That would be the first step toward decontaminating the word, which would be a necessary step before the debate--which I agree would be helpful if done semi-amicably.

Never gonna happen, though, and we both know it.

by **Bakestar** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:08:39

VoxOrion wrote:(what's the equivalent of moon-bat on the right, sun-bat?)

The correct nomenclature is "Wingnut."

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:13:38

dajafi wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:I actually don't think that the word "socialism" should be off the table, and I don't think bringing the word into discourse automatically de-legitimizes your opinion (though it may). I say get it out there, talk about what it means, back your definition up, and own or disown it and explain why. I think there's a fantastic debate that could happen out there on socialism that no one is taking up in any meaningful way. Which goes to TV's point above.

If nothing else, coming to a more universal definition for "socialism" would be nice. That would be the first step toward decontaminating the word, which would be a necessary step before the debate--which I agree would be helpful if done semi-amicably.

Never gonna happen, though, and we both know it.

Time to fire up the Capitalism Socialism & Democracy reading group thread (the honorable T. Enured Vulture, Chairman)

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:14:02

Yeah I should really read that huh

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:16:27

jerseyhoya wrote:Yeah I should really read that huh

If you do you'll go to the head of the class

in fact you'll be named headmaster

by **dajafi** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:22:10

I found a book last night that I wanted to buy, both for enjoyment and for a writing project, called "Cubs on the Brain." (Google it, think about what was going on yesterday, and you'll get some idea why it was on my mind.) Added it to my Amazon.com wish list, where it now sits at #1, having displaced the aforementioned CS&D.

So yeah, it's gonna happen. Maybe not till Xmas, but it's gonna happen.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 18:33:23

drsmooth wrote:
dajafi wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:I actually don't think that the word "socialism" should be off the table, and I don't think bringing the word into discourse automatically de-legitimizes your opinion (though it may). I say get it out there, talk about what it means, back your definition up, and own or disown it and explain why. I think there's a fantastic debate that could happen out there on socialism that no one is taking up in any meaningful way. Which goes to TV's point above.

If nothing else, coming to a more universal definition for "socialism" would be nice. That would be the first step toward decontaminating the word, which would be a necessary step before the debate--which I agree would be helpful if done semi-amicably.

Never gonna happen, though, and we both know it.

Time to fire up the Capitalism Socialism & Democracy reading group thread (the honorable T. Enured Vulture, Chairman)

I had my copy out a week ago. Needed a footnote.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 19:53:48

Thanks, Don!
Your Kindle Edition order has been placed.
Your item will be auto-delivered wirelessly to your Kindle via Amazon Whispernet. You can go to your Kindle to start reading.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Oct 17, 2009 21:03:06

VoxOrion wrote:
Thanks, Don!
Your Kindle Edition order has been placed.
Your item will be auto-delivered wirelessly to your Kindle via Amazon Whispernet. You can go to your Kindle to start reading.

you're kiddin' me

will the gadget read the book to you? In a refined Austrian accent?

by **dajafi** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 14:08:31

I think Greenwald is convincing me that we should quit Afghanistan. His latest post includes this particularly (IMO) strong point from a recent Boston Globe article:

Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Taliban’s harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.

“Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,’’ said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.’’

US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States because it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.

In the Vietnam war, we mistook a nationalist resistance to be the tool of an international force that meant us harm. Maybe we're making the same mistake now, in failing to understand how those opposing us today aren't the same people who were against us eight years ago. If the implication is that the same people fighting us today would resist an effort by the Taliban to reestablish control in our absence, there's even less reason to stay in full force.

by **kruker** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 14:11:33

So do you trust the Taliban to sever ties with Al-Qaeda, as they claim to have done, and reduce the opium trade or hope that the opium funded local chieftains take control? Terrorism is the scarier threat, but the opium trade almost certainly causes more harm.

by **dajafi** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 16:32:30

kruker wrote:So do you trust the Taliban to sever ties with Al-Qaeda, as they claim to have done, and reduce the opium trade or hope that the opium funded local chieftains take control? Terrorism is the scarier threat, but the opium trade almost certainly causes more harm.

I trust that if there's a true differentiation between "the Taliban," religious fanatics who are driven by ideology, and the majority of Afghanis who are currently trying to kill American soldiers, we can identify and exploit those differences through more cost-effective and probably more effective period than fighting a war in which the commitment we're willing to make falls far, far short of what "victory" will require.

Think about how crazy and arrogant this is: we are trying to both win a military struggle and perform the Triple Lindy of nation-building halfway around the world, without a draft or general societal mobilization of any kind or even a tax increase. It won't work because it can't work. Which isn't to say that what we want to see happen there isn't important, or even that it was a bad idea in the first place--just that the world has changed, so our approach should change.

More broadly, we need to get out of the habit of thinking we can and somehow should solve every foreign policy problem with force. It goes against our best traditions, it's horribly unfair to the military community which bears all the pain, and it's doing more than anything else to bankrupt us. I'm no pacifist, but this isn't rational.

by **jeff2sf** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 17:18:33

Sorry dajafi, but that's quitter talk (a cross between Kucinich and Buchanan).

3 things:

1. Barack talked all through the campaign that Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting. Ok, he got elected, now fight it. There is nothing, short of a nuclear bomb, that could have changed things so quickly in the last 8 months.

2. The guy Obama installed to fight this war wants more troops to fight it properly. Dems skewered Bush for ignoring his commanders. Listen to the man, give him the troops and re-assess in a year. This isn't Vietnam, not even close. We can prevent it from being so.

3. Political calculus. Dems wonder why people think they're soft. This is a prime example. Point B, if you stress bi-partisanship at every turn, why not listen to some sane GOP'ers who think this needs to be fought.

This isn't a suicide pact, I'm not saying we can't re-assess in a year. But 8 months? Give me a friggin break.

by **Werthless** » Sun Oct 18, 2009 23:34:48

I'm a huge Greenwald fan, and I'm not surprised by the shifting tides. Just like 4 years ago it was considered "weak" to want to pull out of Iraq, it's now weak to support leaving Afghanistan. I expect that to change quickly in the next 2 years. The 2010 elections can strongly influence that timetable.

And Jeff, in 8 months, it's become clear that the terrorists that caused us to go into Afghanistan are now largely in Pakistan. That's, uh, a pretty big change. Staying the course in the face of a changing reality isn't smart, wise, or strong. It's stubborn and dumb.

But, alas, Obama isn't anti-war, no matter how much lefties project that onto him. So I don't see us making any large changes anytime soon.

by **dajafi** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 00:00:39

Werthless wrote:I'm a huge Greenwald fan, and I'm not surprised by the shifting tides. Just like 4 years ago it was considered "weak" to want to pull out of Iraq, it's now weak to support leaving Afghanistan. I expect that to change quickly in the next 2 years. The 2010 elections can strongly influence that timetable.

And Jeff, in 8 months, it's become clear that the terrorists that caused us to go into Afghanistan are now largely in Pakistan. That's, uh, a pretty big change. Staying the course in the face of a changing reality isn't smart, wise, or strong. It's stubborn and dumb.

But, alas, Obama isn't anti-war, no matter how much lefties project that onto him. So I don't see us making any large changes anytime soon.

I agree with most/all of this. (And I started to write something similar a few hours ago, but felt it might be bad mojo to hang out in this thread during the game...)

The "last eight months" thing is kind of a red herring too: President Obama presumably has much better information than Candidate Obama did. Similarly, it's less than a shock that a military commander believes in the feasibility of a military solution. (And if you listen closely to what McChrystal is saying, I think even his faith is something less than absolute. Westmoreland thought he could win Vietnam too.) Similarly, there are few Republicans left outside of Ron Paul's crowd who acknowledge any limitations on what the military can do.

I worry that Obama shares the perspective jeff notes--"Dems wonder why people think they're soft. This is a prime example." This was also why both Johnson and Nixon continued to fight a war they pretty much knew couldn't be won--no president wants to lose a war. Meanwhile, Americans die and we hemorrhage billions.

The Vietnam analogy isn't perfect, but if the Boston Globe info Greenwald cites is correct, it's fairly compelling in the similarities:

1) corrupt local government that doesn't have popular legitimacy

2) difficult, distant terrain that entails fairly serious logistical problems

3) we're not really fighting who we think/thought we're fighting (what's the point of killing Pashtun tribesmen if they're not even affiliated with the Taliban or al Qaeda?)

4) the huge majority of the American public has no skin in the game

Maybe this last one is what bothers me the most. It's just so easy for politicians to favor the use of force: most of the press slobbers on them for it, they can put the costs on The Card, and very, very few constituents ever get killed. Do others perceive anything wrong with this?

by **jeff2sf** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 00:20:02

Alright, let's put a quick stop to the "candidate Obama" vs. "Pres Obama" facts thing... because if that's the case, we all have the same perspective as candidate Obama, which is to say, an ill-informed one..

Werthless, it may very well be the right move to want out of Afghanistan in 12 or 24 months, but it's not right at this point. The mistake of Iraq wasn't deciding to stay in 4 years ago (I think we're probably better off now, all hail Bush's surge) - the mistake was fighting it in the first place. Now, we're all pretty sure Afghanistan was the "right" war. Let's give the generals a year to do it right and then assess. And much like comparing any unpopular leader to Hitler, we can't go and compare every war to Vietnam, because they all could be compared to Vietnam at some point or another (Civil War, WWII, etc._

All of the four facts you cite were known to some extent 8 months ago (fact 3 was the least known, admittedly). More has to change for quitting to be the right call.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 00:30:18

You know...this may be an unpopular view but lets just abandon Afghanistan totally. Al-Qaeda? Screw it. Even if they were to to pull off another major attack on the US how many people dead are you really talking about? A few thousand again if they can pull off a best case scenario (from their point of view). There are are too many living people right now in this country who need help with unemployment/healthcare where that money can be better spent.

by **Bucky** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:43:53

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3J0RFgkUlg[/youtube]

Archived

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD