...albeit stripped of much of the partisan vitriol i succumbed to the past several months, which makes it all the more true. how 'bout it libs, is there a playa on the left who takes the threat seriously? i'd say lieberman, but i know many of you can't stand him... don't have access to the full article by peter beinart... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304 -- By 1949, three years after Winston Churchill warned that an "iron curtain" had descended across Europe, Schlesinger could write in The Vital Center: "Mid-twentieth century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped ... by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism." Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom. When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world.
I get what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree with the framing. Terrorism is the new government-sanctioned boogeyman, to be trotted out everytime a scapegoat or distraction is needed. Which is a bigger threat to you and me -- a drunk driver or Al Queda? "Terrorists" are certainly a real threat, don't get me wrong. But how many attacks have we had on American soil in our entire history? Three? Four? And how many of those attacks could have been stopped if the procedures *already* in place had been followed properly? We've been duped into believing Osama bin Laden is hiding under our bed. But is he a threat, or an excuse? People have hated our country for centuries -- what makes this ******* more threatening than any other enemy in American history? Yes, he allegedly masterminded Sept. 11, but it wouldn't have occurred *at all* if our government had done its job. The f*cker got lucky, and now we have to drastically rearrange our national priorities and resources because our government was too stupid to prevent what should have easily been stopped? I'm not buying it. But you're right: the "liberal movement" is stuck in the 1990s -- they're playing by rules that no longer apply in Bush's America. But the issues are just as crucial as before -- health care, poverty, equal rights, etc. Just because some chart says we should be orange-scared doesn't mean tens of millions of American children aren't going hungry every night. It just means we don't hear about it. "Terrorism" means we have a physical enemy -- Muslims with machine guns in some faraway land who "hate our freedom" -- and that lends itself to good television more than explaining why tens of millions of *our* kids won't eat dinner tonight. But which issue deserves more of our attention?
Well this person is living in a different reality than I am. He acts like being against the war in Iraq means not willing to do anything against terrorism. That isn't true at all. Most liberals fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and whish we had devoted MORE to finishing the job there. Wanting more commitment, and resources to finishing the job in Afghanistan and attempting to set up a model democracy there is hardly changing little in the post 9/11 world. I mentioned this specific example and will list ideas by specific liberal leaning politicians that certainly are big changes in a bit. It sounds close to this author wanting to surrender our ideals, civil liberties, principles and values for this war. That is losing the war right there. If as Bush says they hate our freedom, the last thing we would want to do is give it up. If we want to spread democracy and our great principles, or be a shining beacon of what is right in the world, then the last thing we want to do is invade a nation and use war as something other than a last resort, try and justify torture, and abuse, etc. It is because of terrorists who want to change these things, that we should hold them all the dearer. There is something more important that defeating the enemy or terrorists, and that is that we don't defeat ourselves and abandon our principles. This country is worth fighting for, and we shouldn't abandon what this country stands for because of an enemy who would love us to do just that. As for making changes in the post 9/11 world John Kerry certainly had some great ideas, from increasing intel funding, troop levels, more aggressive use of special forces and targeted strikes, as well as uniting with other nations in the world in a more unified effort to stomp out terrorism. Even prior to 9/11 Clinton did more in his term than any other president to put an end to terrorism. He doubled terrorism funding in the FBI, put out an assassination order against Bin Laden, and a long list of other programs. Almost everything that Bush is doing now, such as freezing financial assessts, going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, tightening immigration checks, was thought up during the Clinton administration and proposed before 9/11 to the Bush administration. The supposed liberal leaning ones have been leading the innovations needed to fight terror. As another plus they are also the ones leading the movement to uphold our nations principles and values. It was Gary Heart who prior to 9/11 warned that the U.S. would be hit by a major attack, and brought forth a list of many changes and things that should be done to Bush. He was largely ignored.
the point is, it's not "this" issue or "that" issue, but that most americans, or at least 51% of them, will refuse to take democrats seriously on domestic issues until democrats demonstrate seriousness on very real threats to our security. and yes, pearl harbor and 9/11 were just two of a few attacks on US soil. that makes them insignificant how, exactly? this is exactly the type of thinking i'm referring to.
You've gotta protect your country, period. But protection and aggression are two completely different concepts, easily confused in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.
aggression is protection btw - I thought Moore's comments were classy the other night. Coming from me that is an amazing statement.
I remember a Republican congress fighting tooth and nail to curb spending on terrorism during the Clinton years. I don't believe that liberals don't take terrorism seriously and I don't believe that the election was lost because of terrorism or Iraq.
really?? why not? best i can tell, the polling information indicates that people who voted for Bush were most concerned with foreign policy concerns, and terrorism in particular.
Insignificant? Dude, there's no way Pearl Harbor or Sept. 11 were insignificant, and it pisses me off that you'd imply that I thought they were. If I hadn't overslept, I would have been at the World Trade Center that morning, so don't tell me what I think is insignificant. What bothers me is that we're pouring trillions of dollars worth of resources, human lives and national discourse into a "war" that cannot be won. Ever. And it's not even making us safer. Protection is not the same as aggression. But we've been duped into believing they are the same when, in fact, aggression is making protection more and more difficult. And yet Americans seem to trust the idea that the more we flail in the water and splash around, the safer we'll be from sharks.
Who has said the attacks were insignificant? The fact that they aren't taken seriously on those issues, has more to do with PR than it has to do with taking the threats seriously. I've pointed out that prior to 9/11 the Democrats were taking those threats far more seriously. Meanwhile it was the Republicans who were more focused on missle defense. I've also talked about several post 9/11 issues tha Democrats have championed showing a serious dedication to our national security. But not over stating the threat doesn't mean we aren't taking it seriously. Greenvegan is correct, we our in greater danger from drunk drivers, heart disease, and cancer than we are from terrorists. That doesn't mean we don't take terrorism seriously. Not overstating and not taking seriously are two different issues.
sorry if i misunderstood what you were saying, but the implication seemed pretty clear to me: they're insignificant in number, hence not worthy of the focus we've given them.
In a rationale world taking the threat of terrorism seriously would translate into pursuing those who actually attacked us with all available resources. And anyone who is serious about terrorism better be seriously concerned about the United States' worsening reputation around the world. If you want to read some serious ideas about terrorism check out the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication- http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf A few of the salient points from the report- American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. • Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. • Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved. • Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination. • Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support. • What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam. • Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves. Strangely enough I first came across discussion of this report on a web site called American Leftist. There is currently an article about it on Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/12/02/pentagon/index.html
So the consensus seems to be that the left does take the threat seriously. if that's true, why have they failed at convincing most americans that's the case? is it the messenger, or the message?
You are going to have to show me those polls. Also, isn't it conceivable to poll the people who voted for Kerry and get the same results?
sorry..i don't have a link. it's from the exit polling and other post-election polls. when asked why people voted for Bush, an overwhelming majority said because of foreign policy and terrorism issues....those who voted for Kerry were more likely to cite domestic policy issues. if true, does that surprise you?
I think it's the messenger. You have two sides. One side is saying not only talking about the threat to Americans, but saying that their political opponents will make that threat worse, or leave us vulnerable. The administration has been full of action. They can point to that action and say, "Look, we are doing something about the problem. What have those guys every done? They don't even like the fact that we are taking action. They must not love our country enough to protect it. " Meanwhile the action they are taking may not be the right action. But it is easy to grasp the concept of the action.
Its not black and white. Voters appear to believe that the Republicans take the threat more seriously than the Democrats. Now the fact that GWB actively ignored the terrorist threat leading into 911 appears to be ingored by the unwashed masses. Go figure. The bottom line may be that the Republicans are better at marketing their image than the Democrats.
how do they change that? to me, it seems the democrats fervent embrace of people like michael moore obscures whatever serious points the dems might be trying to make.
It shouldn't we've heard about the GOP and their big tent. Moore isn't a Democrat, but they did cozy up to him. Yet it wasn't Moore who was running for office. We should look at the candidates supporters more than a non-democrats. But again the demonization of Moore is part of the Gop's good marketing. Moore is dishonest at least in the spirit of the word at times. Like I've said before Moore is on the level with Rush Limbaugh and that ilk. The GOP isn't hurt by Rush's support. I'm not sure why the Dems should be hurt by Moore's. The main reason is the marketing against Michael Moore is so heavy, and he's been demonized.
It seems to me that the Reps "fervent embrace" of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly SHOULD obscure their "serious points," but that doesn't seem to be the case.
