Asymmetrical Information

Oh gag.

That may have been the most torturous post I have ever read on this website.

Interestingly, I read the entire thing thinking that it was Megan talking. I missed the fact that Mindles had posted it and I thought that it was Megan explaining hers and "Jane's" behavior.

Please stop apologizing for what you believe. That is the sure sign of your being a liberal. You may not think that you are a liberal. You may not feel like a liberal. You may not even LOOK like a liberal, but if you feel the need to justify your postition to others you can be assured that you MUST be a liberal.

That is why CONSERVATIVES HATE liberals. Not for what they believe, but because they don't believe what they believe strongly enough that it doesn't matter what YOU believe. Should you stand for something clearly, and confidently without the approval of the authorized group of approved leaders you must be a CONFUSED and MESSED UP person.

Find the place in which you can lose the angst. You and Megan, both.

We love you,

Inquisit

I completely agree and sympathize with Mindless' post. In contrast to Inquisit’s comment, it’s not a question of not having conviction in your beliefs, but the problem that your actual beliefs generate this entire set of assumptions by others that are not at all accurate (for example, that supporting the war means you support Bush). Also that those who disagree with you on one issue (Iraq war) have an emotional and irrational reaction to those beliefs that is not at all productive or interesting to argue about. Nice post Mindless.

I admit, the first time I saw Jane in years, at a neighborhood holiday party, I naturally assumed she was a liberal democrat...being on the Upper West Side and all (you know, the home of the uppity socialist). It was years ago, and as my circle of friends has expanded, both dogmatically and politically, since then. I sympathize with your plight Mindles.

But I identify with Tim's plight too. I'm glad your so optomistic, but I don't understand how you can be. I see things on the news that continue to frighten me, more than the cold war ever did. I hear reports from independant journalists which indicate things aren't so hunky-dory in Iraq, that the citizens, who were never much of islamic fanatics before, are joining the Jihad against this country. And while I know they're wrong, I can't blame them.

I was never for the war in Iraq. Do you remember what that was like, a year and a half ago, when those of us who were not in favor of the war were called unpatriotic? Do you remember the looks we got and the way we were treated and the names we were called? I guess you know what it feels like Mindles, to be chastized for your beliefs.

But I don't understand how you can be blind to what Tim and I see. I don't understand how a lower tax rate or the, in my opinion, misguided belief that the conservative movement will be better for the economy or your wallet is in any way worth the drop in creability that this country has faced in the international comunity. How a marginal tax rate be worth the over 800 dead in Iraq.

I'm not "anti-war". I still support the war in Afganistan. That one was the right, the only, move we could have made. But Iraq damages our credibility, and moved the majority of our resources, elsewhere.

And I just don't get why you don't see it. And it worries me. I ask people I know who are voting for Bush why they will and I keep hearing these very wishy-washy answers. And mostly it boils down to "I'm a Republican/conservative and in theory the Republican/conservative party reflects my interests better than those liberal pansies." But that's not true any more, and it's as if, out of habit, people will continue to vote for a party that says one thing, and does the exact opposite.

If a Democrat was pulling this crap, there's no way in hell you'd even consider voting for them.

Most people would term me fairly conservative. But I live in Utah. So, many here probably consider me Lefty. I doubt I'll ever vote for a Democrat for president, but that's not for disliking Republican options. I'd never call myself an Independent (they're the most partisan, anyway). But the fact that I have sympathies for some Democrat positions angers friends. Try explaining to a friend who thought that Clinton should have been impeached because he was the worst president ever and a corrupter of the people that you thought he should have been impeached but on fairly intricate grounds and that overall he did some good things as president. A professor of mine was shocked to discover that, though I totally agreed with her when she called Dean a demagogue, I happen to think that immigration needs to be opened wider and that an amnesty for illegals already here isn't the worst idea.

Ditto to KoolKeith's comments. To Inquisit, if one doesn't offer justifications for one's positions, well, one is an ass. Disagree with me, and do it lively, but do it intelligently, with decorum, and with a dash of wisdom, or you'll just be another Ann Coulter/Al Franken/Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore partisan. And we don't need any more of their drivel.

Things aren't that bad in Iraq? I believe that the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. out NOW is 90%. The neocons who pushed the war waxed rhapsodic about how we would be welcomed as liberators. They then promptly proceeded to completely screw up the post-war process so badly that Iraq has now become what what they were claiming it was (and the 9/11 commission has pointed out that it wasn't), a hotbed of terrorist activity in which we can't even arrange for basic services to be delivered reliably to the average Iraqi. In spite of the hyperspin that Cheney and Bush have tried to put on it, the commission referring to contacts between Bin Laden and Iraq wherein Bin Laden's requests were either ignored or refused does not constitute a "relationship" that threatened the U.S. If Iraq had been done in anything approaching a competent manner I might agree with you but I can't see where this Administration has done anything right until today where a jump was gotten on the terrorists who have poured into Iraq.

In terms of Kerry having to prove that changing leaders in the U.S. will help with our foreign relations, I wonder if you really begin to understand how much he is despised in the rest of the world. I recently was chatting with a moderately well travelled South African who is currently living in the U.S. with his British wife. He is a quite personable and reasonable young man who is well read and follows the news from multiple sources, including those outside the U.S. His contempt for Bush was palpable and he was quite capable of ticking off data points to show how badly Bush and his policies are regarded in MOST of the world. While Bush persuaded some governments to go along with him many of them will be weakened if not voted out of office because of it.

I used to be able to vote for moderate Republicans but no longer. First, I can't find any in my part of the country to vote for any longer. The only candidates they put forth are too far to the right for me to consider since I believe in the separation of Church and State among other things that the modern conservative movement has abandoned. Secondly, voting for a moderate Republican gives more power to Tom DeLay and George Bush and I will not contribute to that.

The need for humans to form coalitions, and to firmly identify themselves as members of a particular group, is evidently a very strong instinctive influence on our behavior. I've been ruminating on this for some time, but Inquisit's viscerally anti-intellectual response to Mindles's post caught me completely by surprise. That anyone could so spectacularly miss the point is truly fascinating. My big question, at this point, is this: Why is this Us vs. Them attitude getting so strong and vicious lately? (Or is it just something I become more aware of as I get older?)

Reply to Josh:

Spot on, sir. Mindles' post was thoughtful on several issues; and everybody jumps in with their own personal version of Us vs. Them.

I think a big reason why is - the lefty major media organs are creating the Us vs. Them frenzy. It's their ax to grind, you know. The righties have mostly responded in kind. It then feeds on itself and has to be *actively* resisted. But it takes a willingness to think dispassionately for it to work.

I agree with Mindles that Bush has made a geopolitical bet in Iraq - and who knows yet whether he made the right bet? But there's no doubt that the ME swamp needs draining - and fast! Is he doing a good job of it? Not sure - but I sure want it done ASAP!
And I want the fighting to happen *over there*; not here.

You want to see some liberals scream for Muslim blood? Just wait till a suitcase nuke explodes in downtown San Francisco
and takes out a hundred thousand people! They'll change their tune so fast it'll make your head swim. The pressure to nuke Rihyad and Tehran etc. etc. would be unimaginable!

I agree with Mindles doubts on Bush domestic 'policy' also. Why the heck is the Congressional money spigot wide open?? Does he even know what a veto is? Does he have any coherent thought about immigration? What insane man dreamed up Federal mental screening for all? The man seems to have no imagination or insight how dangerous this Homeland security BS can be. Farm subsidies? Don't make me cry. Energy policy? don't make me laugh. Etc. etc.

But he does seem to understand that the external threat to us from fanatic terrorists *must* be eliminated - right now, at the source. Kerry merely seems clueless on everything. It's embarrassing that the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate with a voice and a backbone. The country needs leadership. badly. Bush's version is damned bumpy; but I shudder to think how disastrously ineffective Kerry would be. There's a reason that Senators don't often make it to the White House - it doesn't suit their temperament or skill set.

Dear Kate and Jim,

Since you regret the war in Iraq, please tell us which course you think would have been preferrable, 1)continued containment, or 2)detente with Saddam, or 3)total withdrawal from the Gulf and/or the Middle East? Explain why your preferred course would leave us in a better situation than where we are now. Can you persuade some of us non-skeptics?

I suppose that if you opposed invading Iraq, you certainly have the right to complain about the fact that it is still a bloody mess and outraged about the WMD mystery. But I believe you are mistaken to despair. No matter who is in the White House, I think that in the near future, Iraq will be a secular democracy with a growing economy. Then it will be time to focus more on the other wretched, terrorist factory countries with their awful kleptocrat regimes.

I'm sure it was a horror to meet a well-traveled, well-read S. African guy with a pommie wife and hear their low opinions of Bush. But that doesn't mean that I should vote for Kerry. I'm an expat and I know very well how Bush is viewed from outside. I also know that most people who hold those views are less informed and rational than they realize, despite the fact that they consider themselves (and apparently you do too) cosmopolitan bien-pensants. Like the Pershing Missiles in Europe in the '80's, we must forge ahead despite the international outcry and hand-wringing.

"Do you remember what that was like, a year and a half ago, when those of us who were not in favor of the war were called unpatriotic?"

I don't, actually. I remember an ill-advised and poorly worded comment about 'watch what they say'. "Unpatriotic" is something I hear mostly from people who say they stand accused of it. Maybe I'm not listening to the 'right' sources.

The comments thus far have borne out the main points of the post - fortunately, they also show cases where reasoned discussion is not dead.

I have noticed one effect of the polarization described is that, from both sides, different standards are applied to those supported and to those opposed.

People we like can be forgiven anything, so long as their ideas are the right ones. People we don't like must be perfect, at a minimum, to get even grudging respect.

People we like get to have their assertions accepted without question. People we don't like must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and even then their motivation makes them wrong, if not actually evil.

It strikes me that the left is somewhat more guilty of this than the right - but perhaps I'm just another polarized quasi-pundit...

Being partisan means forgiving your side's bullshit while holding the other side to an exacting standard.

I'm a two issue voter: War on Terror and legalizing gay marriage. I'm for both, but winning the war is more urgent right now. Kerry isn't going to make any moves towards legalizing gay marriage, and Bush can't make the FMA happen, so now I'm looking at who will win the war for us.

Right now, neither one looks great.

" I don't understand how a lower tax rate or the, in my opinion, misguided belief that the conservative movement will be better for the economy or your wallet is in any way worth the drop in creability that this country has faced in the international comunity. "

I don't understand why the opinion of "the international community" matters one bean's worth in my calculation of what's good for my nation's or my own personal economy. I should support the 34.66 hour work week in the United States in order to gain the approval of France? I should work to restrict retail operating hours from 0900--1800 to gain the approval of Germany? I should vote to impose a Federal Value Added Tax in order to impress chicks in England? And all that assumes we agree to discuss actual economic policies... If the same leader who proposes a tax plan upon which "the international community", whoever they actually are -- what, the "Elders of Zion"? -- smiles, also proposes a military effort upon which the Community of Elders -- or whoever -- frowns, are we then constrained to oppose the tax policy as well? I mean, that claim would seem to buy into the conspiratorial notion that international opinion, the Gnomes of Zurich, the Trilateral Commission, etc etc etc should dictate our own choices. Is that really what is being suggested?

"How a marginal tax rate be worth the over 800 dead in Iraq?"

How can the two be connected to even begin to calculate whether the first is "worth" the latter? One right-wing criticism of Shrub that has some fairness to it is that he should have called for an INCREASE in taxes -- perhaps in gasoline taxes -- in order to pay for the military effort. Is it the liberal claim that, had Shrub increased the marginal income tax rate to 50% upon annual-earned-incomes exceeding $340K, -- or whatever --, then the war WOULD be justified? Or, perhaps, that 620 deaths (but not 800) would be justified? (To justify 800 deaths, Shrub should have -- what, indexed the AMT to inflation and lifted caps on FICA?)

I don't understand how the left assumes that support for the war translates into support for particular tax or other economic policy.

I don't understand the left at all.

Excellent and thoughtful message, Dreck. The increasing polarity of the "Us v Them" paradigm is getting rather tiresome - particularly if one likes to maintain logical consistency of thought: The support of free trade = freedom of personal choice on a social level (Gay marriage, drug laws, etc). It's rather insulting on a personal level to automatically be stereotyped basis one's beliefs on any one issue - especially when the accuser simply does not ask.

OTOH, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Xenophobia is one of man's most deep-seated instincts - and this Us v Them mentality is nothing more than a social Balkinization along those lines.

A challenge to all: Just ask. You might be surprised to find that the person you are making assumptions about basis one particular issue, just happens to agree with you on others.

I'm a one issue voter, what message will we send to our enemy if we elect Kerry President? I think the rest of the world will interpret it as a loss of our nerve and that we are vulnerable, thus the will see it as an opportunity to attack us again.

I'm a Bush supporter, Kate, and I'll tell you why and you will refuse to hear it. But, why not try?

1. I'm a white man and my wife is Asian. We're at the bottom of the Democrat's quota ladder. Republicans aren't much better here, but they are better by a bit.

2. Democratic social policy has been an instrument of social devastation in black communities, and my wife and I have broad and intimate ties to that community. Convincing that community to ditch its allegiance to the Democratic party is the most important domestic political priority.

3. I don't care whether our foreign policy is moral. I expect the president to represent the self-interest of the U.S. in international relationships. He is supposed to prosecute our interests, not appeal to do-gooder instinct.

I have had the same experiences the original post cited in trying to express my support for Bush. I am a registered Democrat, although I'm thinking about departing. My favorite absolute refusal to listen occurred when a Bush basher was trying to find the ultimate insult about the war and he said: "You don't really buy that nonsense that we will have to fight them here if we don't fight them there, do you?"

I was so dumbfounded that I didn't even remind him that I lived through the attack on the World Trade Center and watched the murder of 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers.

Pointless, isn't it?

>>
There's a special exemption for 'Neo-Marxists' who are considered nobly idealistic and kinda cute.
>>

That is the most repugnant statement I've ever heard. Imagine if the screams of disgust if Bill Buckley ever said that, "While wrong, Fascists are nobly idealistic and kinda cute." Color me strange, but anyone who espouses an ideology responsible for the murder of 100 million people is far from cute.

The employment of irony, Mr. Bono, seems to have escaped your attention.

Our political culture has become nothing more than base tribalism, largely stripped of reason, and many of the posts above illuminate this phenomena. Well, at least nobody is having old tires filled with burning kerosene placed around their necks yet. All in good time, I suppose, assuming the Bin Ladens of the world don't get their hands on some enriched uranium, which is what it will probably take to get people to grasp that it really isn't all that damned important whether the top marginal income tax rate is 6 percentage points higher or lower.

Here is the bottom line: what ever you or anyone else thinks, the Islamofascists think that every vote for Kerry is a vote for them.

Now, do you want our mortal enemies to be comforted? If not, you vote for GWB. Because every vote for anyone other than GWB is a vote for the Islamofascists who are intent on killing us all... asap.

Maybe it's always been this way. Maybe it's just that the internet that brings us mass exposure the the intractable 180-degree Other Guy's Opinion.

But it really does seem like people are talking right past one another, with not even a gesture towards listening to the other side. When somebody's arguing with me, I try to listen carefully to what they're saying, and address exactly what they say, either as responses to their my own questions or answers to mine. If they then evade answering questions, or change the subject (like, say, Mike Moore in a newsconference), or otherwise try to change focus, well, what are you going to do? Tell 'em they've got deficient argumentative skills?

I just try to keep people on point with the issue at hand, and state my case as calmly as possible. that's all you can do. You surely can't expect anyone to do something crazy like go off and AGREE with you, so just make your case as well as you can and bail out before it gets tedious. Probably you won't change anybody's mind, but only the most stalwart and incurious will not at least go through a mental routine of considering you case, if only to dismiss it. It's just as important to confront somebody's notions of what's true as it is to convince them, and most of the time that's all you can expect to do, anyway.

And, who knows, there may be someone listening, and you might convince them.

Probably the most important thing, though, is just stay calm. Save the freaking out for later when you tell your friends about it.

Oh -- I almost forgot. Do actually listen to your opponent. Hell, maybe they ARE right.

I'm also planning on voting for Bush, and I still think the tax cut was a necessary move to fend off a deeper recession. In March 2000 it was quite obvious to me that the economy was running out of gas. Take a look at the Nasdaq then if you doubt that simple assertion. (yes, I know the stock market does not equate to the macro economy but it can be a leading indicator...)

The war in Iraq was a slamdunk for me. Only a willfull suspension of reality could allow one to gloss over all the evidence that Saddam's Iraq was a danger to the USA and the rest of the post-9/11 world. Bush didn't "fool me" into believing anything at all about Iraq. The mere idea that Saddam would still be shooting at our fighters patrolling the no-fly zones after 9/11 was more than enough indication to me that he had to go. And setting up Iraq for a shot at being the first real Arab democracy is worth a try, no? As far as 90% of Iraqi's wanting us out NOW, as asserted above by Jim, I note that he's using a Moorish technique of leaving out all the relevant facts. 90% of Iraqi's want the occupation over. It is as of yesterday for all intents and purposes. The new government could ask us to leave and we would. However, that same poll Jim was using also finds that there are quite a large percentage of sane Iraqi's who realize our troops will be around for awhile - necessarily - to provide security and stability as they prepare for national elections.

However, I also differ with Bush's policies on a number of fronts. Actually, more precisely, I differ with some Republican party planks and I differ strongly with whatever it is that is causing this president and congress to spend money hand-over-fist. The tax cuts were fine, just reign in spending a bit. At least reduce the rate of increase in spending for crying out loud.

Gay marriage? Fine by me. Legalize pot? Sure, why not. Clamp down on illegal immigration? Sounds OK. Offer amnesty to those who are already here, perhaps illegally? I could live with that (unless they have committed other meaningful crimes...) Abortion? I think there should be some sane limits but otherwise let society work it out. Government should stay out of it for the most part. Socially, apparently, I am rather liberal. Religion injected into politics? Yuck.

So I suspect that many liberals would consider me to be a knuckle dragging neocon. Some conservatives would be exasperated at my social views. I live in a red state, Missouri, that has correctly called the past dozen or so presidential elections. It will be close this year.

I know the author is using it ironically. But that isn't why I find it repugnant. I find it repugnant is that there is a large section of the left which *doesn't* find it ironic, but actually revels in "commie-chic".

Today, about 1/3 of the American left thinks Stalinists like Castro are somehow reformable, and that for all the evil that was present in Communist regimes, they at least provided free health care, making them morally superior to the United States.

What is repugnant is that 30% of the American left feels the need to make exuses for an ideology that murdered twice as many people as Hitler. Imagine Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, or Pat Robertson saying that "while fascism might have some troubling aspects, it at least gives the people a sense of national identity."

I have to agree with Twn on this one. My best political discussions are with a friend who is my polar opposite politically. What makes the discussion great is that we don't just look at positions but at why we hold them. And we often find that we share the same motivation and the same goals, and just have different ideas on how to get there.

Once, he shared that he felt that conservatives hate African-Americans. I asked him if he felt I (a conservative) hated him and he laughed. That discussion turned to sharing our different views on solving the issues of race and poverty. Our viewpoints still differ but I respect his because I see his heart and the motivation behind them. (And hopefully he sees the same thing in me.)

I believe that the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. out NOW is 90%.

And I believe you need to take your meds. The United States liberates 25 million people from a brutal dictator, and 22.5 million of them wants us out NOW? Right.

I'll bet you won't even find 90% of former Baath Party members thinking that way...

Oh, and one other thing. Remember the following--twice as many people were murdered under Communism than under Naziism. The Nazis murdered between 25 to 40 million people. Communists murdered anywhere from 80 million to 100 million.

I liked Brent's comments, and I would appreciate it if more posters would look at mine and compare.

People have different self-interests! Isn't this astounding. The fact that we have differing self-interests means that the same political issue may mean something different to each of us.

Take it at its polar opposites, say for the quota system. If you are black or female, the quota system probably looks pretty appealing because it serves your self interest. If you are a white man or Asian, that quota system penalizes you and it doesn't look so appealing.

I find a consistent refusal among people to recognize this fact. People tend to argue political issues in the abstract, as if individual self-interest were not even a factor.

I view the war against terrorism from the perspective of self-interest. I'm not interested in abstract issues of justice or morality. I live in New York City, and all I care about is how this city will be defended. Even here in New York City, self-interest differs. For many, the morality of killing even in self-defense is the over-riding concern. It is not for me.

One of the best ways to defuse the hostility is to understand that the person you are arguing with may have a radically different self-interest. If you comprehend this, you might understand that global issues of morality and right and wrong are not really the issue.

Mindles writes,

I'm a very unusual animal where I come from, sort of like a large reptile or rodent. Just a mild-mannered profession of non-Democratness is very disturbing to the equilibrium. For some reason, it's OK to wax polemic for a half-hour at a time if you are dissing Bush, but non-Democrats must stay in the closet.

This is a fascinating phenomenon. As someone who grew up in NY suburbia, graduated from a reputable local public school, a well-known New England college and grad school, and lived among the "correct" sort of Manhattanites, I have had to keep my right-leaning politics low key for much of my life or face a subtle (well, usually subtle) sort of ostracism.

This ninth-grader has seen the phenomenon:

I live in a town, and region, of the country that is largely populated by liberals. In fact, in my social milieu, it has become a custom to be liberal. This custom alienates me because I am not a liberal. I have chosen to cleave to my own conservative principles. In my community, being conservative is viewed as a character flaw.

The profile of people who use the term "Republican" in a bigoted fashion tends to be fairly straightforward: Educated, intellectually gifted and generally thoughtful in their speech. They are the very people I sat next to in newsrooms in New York, Chicago, Tokyo and Johannesburg. They are my friends and neighbors. They are academics, lawyers, bankers and stay-at-home moms—decent, kind and sensitive people, for the most part.

John in Tokyo:

"Since you regret the war in Iraq, please tell us which course you think would have been preferrable, 1)continued containment, or 2)detente with Saddam, or 3)total withdrawal from the Gulf and/or the Middle East? Explain why your preferred course would leave us in a better situation than where we are now. Can you persuade some of us non-skeptics?"

Since Hans Blix seemed to think there were no WMDs, there was little or no link between Osama and Saddam, and Iraq, while headed by a bad bad man, was, in fact, more secular than most of the middle east and since our forces were already committed elsewhere, yes, I think continued containment was the correct response. Given that the majority of the "evidence" against Saddam turned out to be from unreliable sources, the international community was against us and we would receive no help from other nations in containing whatever threat was established after we choose to invade and occupy a country that did not want us, I suspect that would have been a more appropriate action. Saddam was not an immediate threat. It's becoming apparent that the Bush Administration knew that. The fact that they have *Faith* in an Osama/Saddam connection after 15 months of evidence to the contrary scares the bejesus out of me. We should not be making militaristic foreign policy based on faith.

Mindles:

"I don't, actually. I remember an ill-advised and poorly worded comment about 'watch what they say'. "Unpatriotic" is something I hear mostly from people who say they stand accused of it."

I'm not claiming you ever called anyone unpatriotic. I'm saying that I remember hearing people claim protesters were unpatriotic, that exercising the right to assemble and say what they felt was unpatriotic. I remember being told by posters on other boards that my distaste for the war in Iraq was proof that I did not love this country. My inability to support the President unconditionally meant I was for the terrorists. It pretty much sucks.

Stephen:

Are you sure your not my brother? Couldn't be, he's wife is Asian, he had significant ties to the black community but he votes along a progressive line. What I find interesting is that I tend to agree with you on all but number 3 of your post. But I don't think the conservative movement is doing anything any better than the progressive movement at this point on the first two. Democrats passed through there ideas and they didn't work. You'll never see another policy like that pushed theough by them Democrats again.

As for #3, that's your opinion, albeit I think an unwise one. When you take a fight to another land it's important that you have the world behind you. In Afiganistan we did. I think we could have done great things in Afganistan. I think we could have done great things to show we were right and terrorists were wrong. Now all we've done is make a predominently secular country hate us, and take terrorist money to fight us. I believe this has increased the terrorist threat on the U.S. I think it is urgent that we have the international community behind us to assist in preventing this threat from becoming a reality. I hear you, but I think you're wrong.

Pouncer:

It's because many of the conservatives I know think Kerry will do a better job, but will cost them more money in taxes and so their voting for Bush. That's the connection.

Paul a'barge:

"Here is the bottom line: what ever you or anyone else thinks, the Islamofascists think that every vote for Kerry is a vote for them."

Here is the bottom line: the terrorists love Bush. They want him to stay in office because it gives them a moral victory. They can say, "look we said that the U.S. would invade our land, counquer our people and claim moral supremacy. Then they would attempt to give equality to our women and show their superiority over us. And, in fact, they did just that. Now we must kill them because we were right and must defend our land."

The truth is, neither of us have any idea what goes on in the mind of a terrorist. You just made that up. As did I. You wanna show me supporting facts and figures for your statement, fine, I'll show you supporting facts and figures for mine. It's a specious arguement.

Then why do I go to conservative blogs (although I find this one tends toward moderate)? I go because I want to hear other people's opinions. On occasion I have had my opinion swayed. Generally it has not been on issues like the War in Iraq or Abortion, but I often find points of view I wouldn't find elsewhere. It gives me a better perspective regardless.

Mindless H Dreck wrote:

Both parties are chickenshit on gay marriage. I don't think the state should have anything to say about it. On the other hand, it's sad to me that anybody thinks state recognition should be important to their own sense of worth. This is what becomes of subsidies (which the legal status of marriage is). They are inherently discriminatory. It's appalling that people think marriage has to be 'defended' with subsidies or other attempts at social engineering.

I disagree except to the extent that neither party wants to mess around with a four thousand plus year institution. Either way the POTUS has no role in a constitutional amendment so it’s pretty much a non-issue as far as the presidential race is concerned.

Free trade is incredibly important to the growth of the world economy and the distribution of wealth to the far corners of the earth. Steel and agricultural subsidies are inexcusable even if the other guys are doing it. These protections simply slow us down and screw the little guy - in Africa or South America, that is.

The FCC's actions are just chilling to free speech. The new fines are restrictively punitive, and create at least the moral hazard of using them to shape political speech.

Bush never saw a spending bill or entitlement he didn't like, all small government rhetoric aside. Descriptions of his spending policy as some kind of fiscal rope-a-dope defy imagination.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, the decision to transplant Gitmo's prisoner treatment guidelines to Iraq is a textbook example of bureaucratic stupidity. The lack of control of potential WMD sites immediately after the invasion is a major screw-up - one that made the world a MORE dangerous place (remember the 'one vial' argument? Since we really thought they were there, job one should have been lockdown, regardless of the invasion pace).

I'm tired of people who think that businespeople are automatically immoral actors, or that the mere existence of profit or business self-interest signifies a problem. In my experience, the profit motive often protects us from the human instinct to control others when we gather in groups. Without the more objective monetary yardstick, it seems like the unspoken prime directive of groups (read:bureaucracies) is to control others, despite the best intentions of the individuals involved. I sit on a nonprofit board and I've seen it in action.

I endorse the mission in Iraq, which WAS, contrary to much invective, about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Or did I just imagine all the pre-war criticism of the administration being in the thrall of a 'cabal' of Straussian Neo-cons with precisely that mission? You remember, back when everyone thought WMDs were a lock? I understand some people thought Saddam could be deterred. I don't understand people who think it is all about oil or Halliburton. An immense good has been done getting rid of Saddam. It is beyond me why people are so vested in portraying that as entirely venal. Counter-tribalism, I guess.

Given the formidable risks and obstacles undertaken, the situation in Iraq does not appear to be as bad as critics paint it. If we had outlined these conditions as success criteria before the war, many would have been glad to accept them (or bet against them). The desire to make Bush look bad has gotten the better of many folks' judgement, and a high-stakes mission is evaluated in hindsight on distinctly unrealistic terms. Incidentally, I don't think our popularity on the continent is the right indicator for success, they tend to be quite hostile to change. I spent plenty of time in Europe during the Reagan era, and I'm quite pleased he didn't use Continental opinion to keep score.

I agree for the most part. The opposition domestically to the liberation of Iraq seems to be driven mostly by domestic political concerns really than a principled disagreement with the mission. These were largely the same people (as Putin pointed out when he revealed that Russia warned the United States that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks on our soil post-9/11) who generally had no problem bombing Kosovo which had far less justification from a national security perspective.

As far continental Europe is concerned, I’m not convinced that they like or dislike us anymore substantively than they did before Bush was in office. They were, as they always have been, driven by what they see as their own self/national-interest regardless of who our POTUS is or what they United States is doing. More importantly, given their cooperation in Afghanistan, the reconstruction in Iraq, intelligence, law enforcement, and the fact that they really don’t have much in the way of a military to contribute anyways – I don’t believe that it affects the level of support they could or would provide anyway.

For the me the election is about three major issues.

One, who is most likely to appoint constructionist judicial nominees to the courts and that’s Bush.

Two, who is most likely to support a market-oriented entitlement reform. We tried it with divided government for Social Security in 1983 and got a tax increase (arguably we had divided government in the Senate thanks to the Democrat’s threat of a filibuster which resulted in a much larger prescription drug entitlement that was originally proposed). Not only does this refute the “divided government leads to smaller government” meme IMNHO but it stresses the importance of making sure that when it comes time to negotiate and get reform passed, we want the sides to be as one-sided “pro-reform” as possible which means (a) conservatives controlling both the House and the Senate and (b) reelecting Bush over Kerry who doesn’t even think that there is a problem.

Finally who is most likely to champion policies geared towards long-term economic growth. Bush supports an investment option for Social Security while Kerry has pretty much ruled out anything but a tax increase. On the tax cuts, the only issue where they differ is whether to keep the portion most likely to encourage capital formation which Kerry denounces as “tax cuts for the rich” and Bush favors keeping. Bush is also generally more pro-trade than Kerry and has a more market-oriented and cooperative approach to regulatory reform.

Kate, one of the frustrating aspects about debating the Iraq war is how the descriptions regarding the pre war situation varies so widely. To speak of pursuing containment as an option is to ignore that containment was going to fail, because major actors in the international arena, namely France and Russia, wanted containment to fail, and were actively lobbying for it's failure. The reason Colin Powell was speaking favorably of "smart sanctions" prior to 9/11 was becasue he knew the containment regime was failing, due to non-cooperation of other important actors, and therefore he was trying to construct a fallback position, which in all likelihood would have failed as well. If one wishes to portray coninued containment as the preferred policy, intellectual honesty demands that one acknowledge that important actors, actors who you, in another context, portray as being nearly essential, energetically were seeking to undermine containment.

Kate - And I don't get why you don't see it Barely anyone sees it the way you do Kate. For instance, what percentage of people think like you, that Bush wants them barefoot and pregnant? There are people who think like you but if you are saying that you don't get why people don't see it the way you do, then that should be an indicator to you that your perception is off, or you need to explain your position better (not a bulleted list but a detailed explanation of a position).

Jim - Sure Iraq is on a scale of -10 to +10 somewhere in the negative range. So was the rebuilding of Japan and Germany (you hear conservatives mention). When in one practice session day before D-Day you see 800 of our soldiers were killed we tend to have a little more perspective I think. I have hear the president say repeatedly that this will be a LONG war with many battles. The war on terror is not just Afghanistan or Iraq. The war on terror and the war on Iraq were always portrayed as tough but something we must do.

What is the alternative Jim? Kerry's solution is to try to convince the UN to do our war on terror. Bush has tried to convince the UN to do stuff but the UN won't step up to the plate. Besides the BASHING and perception portrayed by liberals that are "off" to the point of lying about Bush, we wonder what YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS... Take time out to tell us a solution without casting aspersions at the same time please.

Kate writes: "And I just don't get why you don't see it. And it worries me. I ask people I know who are voting for Bush why they will and I keep hearing these very wishy-washy answers."

Here's my answer, and I doubt that you'll be able to dismiss it as wishy-washy.

We are currently fighting World War IV. (World War III was the Cold War, which we won.) This war is nothing less than the final showdown between Western civilization and the barbaric savagery of the Arab world. Winning this war will require us to systematically clean up the entire Middle East, removing ALL of the corrupt dictatorships that harbor and support terrorists. Afghanistan and Iraq were only the beginning. We have to deal with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, and Pakistan at the very least. Some of these nations may choose to reform themselves when they see that the only alternative is invasion by U.S. forces. But one way or another, they will have to change.

I will vote for whichever candidate strikes me as most willing to fight this war to win. Right now, that candidate is Bush. I am far from delighted with his performance, and I flatly disagree with his positions on numerous issues, but he is better than any of the alternatives.

"If a Democrat was pulling this crap, there's no way in hell you'd even consider voting for them."

If there were a Democratic candidate who was more hawkish than Bush, that person would get my vote in an instant. Joe Lieberman had an excellent shot at getting my vote. But Kerry isn't even close.

I am not a Republican. In the presidential elections since I came of age, I have abstained, voted Democrat, or voted Libertarian. But this year, I am going to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in my life, because I see Arab terrorism as the greatest threat in the world today.

As far as I'm concerned, the war is the only issue that matters, because none of the others will mean anything if we lose. And lose we will, if we don't fight tooth and nail. Gay marriage? I happen to think Bush is dead wrong on this issue, but I also know that if the Arabs succeed in establishing Sharia throughout the world, the question will not be whether gays can legally marry, but whether they can avoid being hunted down and lynched. Budget deficit? I think the Bush administration is spending way too much, but if we lose this war, no one will care.

Prescription drug benefits? Social security? Give me a break. I don't lie awake at night worrying about those things. I lie awake wondering which American city will be the first one destroyed by a terrorist nuke. I lie awake wondering if my children will grow up in a liberal democracy or an Islamic "republic". When that issue is settled, I'll be happy to debate prescription drug benefits. Until then, those issues strike me as trivial.

There's my answer. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but wishy-washy it is not.

The real question everyone needs to answer is "Are we:

a) At war with a worldwide dangerous enemy that will take years of focused, determined and united effort to defeat

b) At war with Al Qaida and his followers who are mostly on the run but still capably of attacking us

c) At war with some misguided poor uneducated Muslims who need our simpithy, understanding and support.

d) At war with ourselves to fix all the great sins of the past which has created the worldwide hatred that causes people to want to attack us.

e) Never were at war. Some isolated terrorists just got lucky once and it is unlikely to happen again.

I am, only for this election cycle, a single issue voter that believes there is only one answer to the above question and only one candidate for President has answered correctly. Can you guess which one?

"Socially, apparently, I am rather liberal. Religion injected into politics? Yuck. So I suspect that many liberals would consider me to be a knuckle dragging neocon. Some conservatives would be exasperated at my social views."

Brent, just wanted to tell you you aren't alone. I have a Ph.D. in the social sciences, and it's bad enough that all the radical-chic types assume that ANYONE with a Ph.D. must look down their noses at conservatives.

But I'm also a Goth, alternative, heathen type who has many Wiccan/hippie/gay friends. It's fun at parties when someone new insists that I MUST be a Democrat, because you can't be that socially liberal and still vote for Bush, right? Wrong. I think the government should pretty much leave us alone, except when people (who happen to be fundamentalists, by the way) are trying to kill us (and kill other freedom-lovers). I have no problem with the wars that topple dictators and squash terrorists, especially when those terrorists are as misogynistic as they come.

(But if the government insists on doing something, like run a public school, they should do it right and be held accountable, which is why I support testing and oppose "progressive" education.)

It's amusing to see people try to pigeon-hole me. My lefty friends consider me the token Republican in the group, while to my conservative family, I'm the left-wing whacko. So I know how it feels. Neither side really thinks I'm on "their side," and that seems to be a very important thing these days.

Pat Berry, if we are indeed in a war which requires us to get rid of every corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East, then we ought to stop fighting it right now, since neither Bush nor Kerry, nor anyone in any position of power is seriously suggesting doing anything about Musharraf in Pakistan or the Saudi leadership either. Both are clearly corrupt dictatorships and both have done their part to foster terrorism and anti-American hatred. Pakistan is particularly troubling and far from showing a willingness to do anything about, Bush seems to have his lips permanently affixed to Gen. Musharrag's posterior.

That was a real frog-choker of a rant, Mindless. Sometimes you just have to let it out all at once. Permission for one comment, please.

I hate to be the only defender of agricultural subsidies here, but I must. Every time I hear that we would be better off without them, I think of the real people I know who are still trying to make it on an old style, commodity production farm. Does it make sense to prop them up?

My position is yes because agriculture is, in the final analysis, a regionally based activity if some disaster - natural or otherwise - destroys the global distribution process that our current industrial model is predicated on.

Depending on where you live and how, it is an outcome that one should think about.

I would like to take a crack at what the terroists are thinking.

See, if I was a terroist, I would be thinking about defeating the United States now that I am fighting them in Iraq.

"Since I can't defeat those darn Marines or those darn Army dudes with their 50 cal sniper rifles, I'm just going to defeat democracy using democracy's own tools. I'm going to get the military pulled out by convincing their civilian masters. I still remember Black Hawk Down and how the American satanists were humbled. "In Somalia, killing is negotiation". Americans are weak since a soldier can't even negotiate when captured, not even if he was a General. All power comes from their "President", and their President rules by polls and what the mob thinks. Here in Arabia, the people think what we tell them to think, and in this war we know how to win and have the tools to do so.

With the help of Western Media, we can bloody the American civilians without even touching them. Spain was a soft target and we hit them, what we didn't expect was how the elections changed magically in our favor. Who knew that bombing people made them favor policies that would put less pressure on us and more pressure on our enemies? We thought Americans were spineless like that, but maybe we were wrong, but that doesn't matter, we will still win. Spain already knows that and soon the world will know it as well.

There's a candidate called Kerry, and people tell me that if he gets elected he will be just like the one we forced the Spanish to elect in Spain. Except the US is a hard target to hit again now, so if Kerry gets elected we will have been proven right. So afraid of an attack from us, can't even stand a hit. The US are cowards, spineless. No matter who their leader is, they will always be so. Their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is just the tough talk of a strong man, it is only Bush we fear, since he feels no Democratic guilt about conquering nations as we tried to make them feel. What idiots would believe we believe that conquering jihads are not justified? Tthe American public is as we thought they were, too weak to face us in jihad, too guilty to conquer us allowing us to conquer them. Bin Laden was right all along, Allah is with us, show enough pictures of American "Rangers" dieing and they will defeat their own military for us. No need to fear Bush, if they are willing to elect someone else cause they fear our prowess in Iraq.

Such a victory is a sign that Allah is with us and that the tide of Satan's power has turned from our light. What FOOLS Americans are and always will be, if I had such power America would be under Sharia already! Democracy has always breed weaklings too afraid to use their own power. That is why we will win and they will not, evil is always weak in the end. GOD IS GREAT!"

Kerry's response.

"I think international terrorism will be solved when we bring the world in on policing international terrorism inside their borders".

What do you think the terroists are thinking when they read such things as that or see them on AL-Jazeera?

Will Allen;

I always appreciate a comment from you. It always gives me something to think about. Here is the problem. Saddam had been pretty silent for about 10 years. We didn't like that he was there, we were pretty sure he was up to no good, he was ignoring U.N. resolutions. He was generally not behaving appropriately toward the international community. But we had a lot on our plate and there was no imminent threat. We just knew that at some point we would have to really deal with him.

We could have played the political game with the U.N. and eventually I suspect we would have had to join U.N. forces go in there. But it wasn't within the time-table the U.S. wanted. So we went in there without the U.N. and I think this was a terrible, terrible mistake.

I understand that France and Russia had a vested interest in Saddam remaining in power. But the fact that Iraq had ties to these western nations, allies of the U.S., is even more evidence to me that they did not pose an imminent threat to me or my country. We see the same facts, but read them differently.

Kamakazi --

I'm guessing (a). If I win to I get a cookie ;-)

(I myself fluxuate wildly between a, c, d & e...but tend to believe a more often than not.)

Eamon, I agree with you completely about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But I think you missed my point. I am not 100% satisfied with Bush's performance in fighting the war so far, but he's better than the alternatives. Show me a candidate who's willing to go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and I'll vote for that person in a heartbeat. Kerry is not that person, and there aren't any other choices, are there?

On the subject of agricultural subsidies, Gary Owen writes: "My position is yes because agriculture is, in the final analysis, a regionally based activity if some disaster - natural or otherwise - destroys the global distribution process that our current industrial model is predicated on."

If the global distribution process is destroyed by some major disaster, then agricultural subsidies will not help a bit. American agriculture would grind to a halt without fuel to run the tractors. And that's assuming that the farmers would still be able to obtain parts for those tractors, seeds to plant, fertilizers and pesticides to keep them growing, and so forth.

If international trade stops, the U.S. is screwed no matter what. Subsidies will not change that reality.

"Pat Berry, if we are indeed in a war which requires us to get rid of every corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East, then we ought to stop fighting it right now, since neither Bush nor Kerry, nor anyone in any position of power is seriously suggesting doing anything about Musharraf in Pakistan or the Saudi leadership either. Both are clearly corrupt dictatorships and both have done their part to foster terrorism and anti-American hatred. Pakistan is particularly troubling and far from showing a willingness to do anything about, Bush seems to have his lips permanently affixed to Gen. Musharrag's posterior."

President Bush can't invade and topple every dictatorship in the world. If Reagan was the President he had succeded, perhaps. But with the military being what it was when President Bush got ahold of it, what with all Clinton's military cut proposals added in with what the Democrats did with the military spending budget in return for balanced budget, it was particularly hard for any NSA adivser to say "We can take them all on, just let them try us".

Churchill didn't invade Hamburg by sea, he decided to get a beachhead, a toehold, on France. Iraq is a toehold, that is becoming a beachhead and then a dam bursting.

The only other alternative is to start a nuclear war in order to wipe out Arab civilization itself from afar, nuclear arsenal we have plenty of, but that alternative is not one that's very tempting to the American public. Nor is it really necessary.

Diplomacy back in the Ottoman Empire days was considered to also mean a "knife in the back. I am sure Pakistan knows this. They can either get stabbed in the back after Bush is out of office where they can then have a chance to deal with a more weak successor, or they get stabbed now. Iran and North Korea has decided now is the time to stand up to the Americans.

When the time comes, who will be in a stronger position. Pakistan and Iran or the US? Which countries now surround Iran btw? Which countries surround Syria?

Israel is besieged, but that's cause on their west is the sea and on their east is the Arabs. What's on the west and east of Iran anyways?

Kate writes: "I understand that France and Russia had a vested interest in Saddam remaining in power. But the fact that Iraq had ties to these western nations, allies of the U.S., is even more evidence to me that they did not pose an imminent threat to me or my country."

There's just one flaw in your analysis: France and Russia are not allies of the United States.

Mindles I totally totally sympathize with you. I do label myself a conservative. There are 2 points:
1st point:
1) Others define conservatives many times and so many do not understand what a conservative is.
2) Just like liberals there are many variances to a conservative and for a liberal to assume or perceive that a conservative thinks like Pat Robertson is not doing anyone any good.
3) It may be useful for liberals and conservatives to talk about an issue instead of the a) personality (like Bush or Robertson), b)lumping everyone into a certain disdained mindset (as Kate thinks Bush wants her barefoot and pregnant etc.), c) try to come to an agreed set of facts that do not have spin interlaced or someone elses perception in the story first (as in the world temperature has risen in the last century .1 degree now what do we do for a solution (without bashing each other))

2nd point:
To every conservative in my circle it isn't about Bush. But it seems to us as if to the liberal it is about Bush. It is "anybody but Bush", it is "Bush is a liar", it is "Bush wants me barefoot and pregnant" (Kate's view), etc. To us conservatives we have our core beliefs and we seem to only agree with Bush between 50%-75% of the time. We have a set of core beliefs and there is no way that we'd vote for Kerry when we believe either a) he has a perception problem or a set of core beliefs because of that perception that would take this country farther left than even Bush would.

Now - Kate (in a post up above) likens that to people who are voting for Bush as being wishy washy as if we have to AGREE with Bush 100% of the time before we vote for him.

Remember Mindles, it is ok to espouse your views. There are those on the right and left who will attack you for your perception or belief. I have been trying to hold up a mirror to attackers in the last month. It doesn't work. I'll try a different tactic maybe in the next month. One thing is for sure to me though, the more speech the better and if the leftists are more prone to attack instead of write with logic, common sense or facts then they do theirselves more harm just as I've probably in the last month done some harm to the conservative position for trying to hold up a mirror.

Kimberly wrote...

But I'm also a Goth, alternative, heathen type who has many Wiccan/hippie/gay friends. It's fun at parties when someone new insists that I MUST be a Democrat, because you can't be that socially liberal and still vote for Bush, right? Wrong. I think the government should pretty much leave us alone, except when people (who happen to be fundamentalists, by the way) are trying to kill us (and kill other freedom-lovers). I have no problem with the wars that topple dictators and squash terrorists, especially when those terrorists are as misogynistic as they come.

Interestingly, last Saturday I was waiting for my wife to get ready to go out to a friend's going-away party and posted on some blog comment page about Michael Moore and what I consider to be his despicable tactics. Asked if I had seen F9/11, I said no as it is not being shown in my area (I wouldn't likely go see it anyway...) Immediately a few Moore supporters ridiculed me for being a red-state hick, and one guy made the comment that (I'm paraphrasing) he wished that the blue states could simply get rid of the red states because that is where all the rich, interesting people live while the red states are full of dull-witted blindly-Bush-supporting Walmart-shopping racist homophobes.

A few hours later I was at the party listening to live alt-rock, talking to two lesbian friends who were quite open about their relationship - in homophobic Missouri? My they are brave! ;) The guest of honor was drunk and flashing her breasts at our table, and I had an interesting conversation with a guy who happens to be black and gay. So here is a gay black guy and two openly lesbian women hanging out in a town most people from NYC would automatically assume was smack-dab in the middle of red state hell. And did they have any problems that night, despite a decidedly hetero/midwest/ethnically-no-so-diverse crowd? No, of course not. They never do. If anybody gave them a hard time they would be quickly dealt with by myself and any number of other people there.

Just interesting on how perceptions some hold so dear are often just plain wrong.

And don't even get me started about how people treated me differently when I had long hair and wore it down. Nutz!

This is my first post to this site, came over from Instapundit, so I don't know the history here. I consider myself a moderate Republican, a supporter of lower taxes, smaller, less intrusive government. On social issues, I think I would be consdiered more to right vis a vis the folks I have seen here but among some Republicans I am viewed as a wishy-washy type. I have no problem with gays marrying but I am very concerned with HOW that change comes about. I am a Bush supporter and a supporter of the war in Iraq. And I will be casting a very enthusiastic vote for him this November, even though I have been very unhappy with his record on government spending (way over the top...the man has never even introduced himself to the veto pen and I wish he would). The reason I cannot wait to get to the ballot box is that I believe we are at war with an implacable enemy, an enemy that adheres to a totalitarian, nihilistic belief system whose only foundation is the destruction of western values (liberal values, actually), particularly America.

I have been stunned by the statements of some of my very liberal frienjds about terrorism lately...stunned. I have had several of them totally dismiss the possibility (in my view, the inevitability) of another attack on this country, that these killers aren't coming back, that the terror alert system (which is, admittedly, pretty rudimentary and unhelpful) is simply a ploy by the Bush admin to scare us into voting for him. The people who have said this stuff to me are my loved ones, dear friends, but I believe these statements are truly ignorant, verging on crack-pot, and I think they are rooted in a blind hatred of Bush, desperately searching for a rational basis. It seems to me we have two choices in the future....the first one, the one that is being offered by Kerry (and the hard-core isolationist libertarians on the right, as well), is to revert to our previous policy approach to terrorism, which is to attack only after we have been attacked first, so as to avoid being labeled preemptive and try to talk some sens einto these folks. But in order to do that, we will have to create a fortress in this country and a liberal administration could never and would never agree to the kinds of safeguards and infringements on our liberty that would be necessary to truly innoculate us from global terrorists. These are people who have promised us publicly that they intend to destroy us. I, for one, am taking them at their word. The Bush administration, for all of its faults, undertands that there is no internal defense against these people and that the only policy that will work is to 1) go out and root out the cells and eradicate the authoritarian regimes that either finance them, tolerate them with a blind eye, or are simply so chaotic that they are ripe for exploitation by terrorists elements (Sudan and Somalia, for examples), and 2) use all the diplomatic, trade, tools available to chip away at the regimes in that region that are spawning these groups. Does this mean that we must rush out quickly and invade more countries? Absolutely not. There is no one-size-fits-all template that can be slapped on. Would that it were true, we would have used it by now. The liberals I talk to fall back on a tired argument that goes something like this...."well, North Korea is a bad actor, why doesn't Bush go after that regime?" as if the Democrats would actually support such a move. But the carrot is no good without the stick. Themelimination of Global Terrorism, which includes the previous regime in Iraq, in my opinion remains the single most important issue facing our country. I agree with a previous post that said that kerry would not be some unmitigated disaster (the country will survive any one person, in my view), but I think that reversion to the old tired principles that he is espousing on the foreign policy front would be debilitating.

Mr. Berry, I agree with much of your thrust, but differ in the details. Sharia is not going to arrive the U.S., under any circumstances. However, what will happen absent rapid, revolutionary, change in the Persian Gulf despotisms, is rather hideous.

As long as a giant portion of the world's most imprtant mineral resource is despotically controlled, theocrats with designs on mass slaughter will have ample resources with which to pursue their goals. Even despots must have means of garnering support, and the way for Islamic despots to do so is to lend aid to their murderous theocrats, who, in turn villiainize the U.S., because the U.S. is influencing their culture, and a world-dominant infidel nation like the U.S. is, in their view, an apostasy. If the U.S. is to remain influential in the world, and economically dynamic, it cannot withdraw from the Persian Gulf, because such a large percentage of the world's oil supply is there. Hello, vicious cycle.

A couple of other nasty factors have rendered this conflict unlike that of the Cold war, where decades were available to wait for the adversary to implode (this where critics like Zinni and others go wrong). First, the genie is truly out of the bottle when it comes to the technology of mass slaughter. Ten nations have now developed nuclear weapons, including poverty cases like North Korea and Pakistan. Absent extreme luck, Iran will soon join the list, and it will not end there. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that any any entity, including a non-state actor, which is highly motivated to acquire such technology will eventually do so, if they have ample resources. The despotically controlled Persian Gulf oil will provide the resources, and the Islamic theocrats are nothing if not motivated.

In addition to being motivated, they are also not nearly as sensitive to deterrence in the manner of the Soviets, and this is the final factor which, while not posing the existential threat of a Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear warheads, makes this situation more tactically dangerous. Their view of the world makes the Islamic mass murderers extremely prone to massive miscalculation. When they obtain such a device, they will most likely use it.

When they do, the U.S., isn't going to submit to Sharia, and isn't going to withdraw from the world. In such a circumstance, when millions, if not tens of millions of Americans are burying somebody they know (it is striking how interconnected the modern world is; I live in the Western U.S., and am from a non-military family, and I knew people killed at the W.T.C. and Pentagon, and someone I knew fairly well was recently killed in action) , a large majority of the population is going to conclude that the root problem is that there are great masses of people on the other side of the globe who are alive that they would prefer to be dead.

Then a 21st century technological and industrial colossus will get down to the hideous business of a systematic slaughter, the likes of which the world has never before witnessed, by means which we likely cannot imagine, since the desire will be to kill a lot of people without destroying all of the infrastructure. That is what is coming down the pike, unless the people of the Persian Gulf gain control over their mineral wealth. No, they will not love us if they have the opportunity to self-govern. That isn't important. What is important, however, is that they recognize that providng resources to those elements which seek to wage war on the U.S. is manifestly contrary to their own self-interest, and will result in their utter annihilation. In short, the goal is to make sure the mineral wealth of the region is controlled by people who are sensitive to deterrence, and unfortunately, there aren't decades available to have that development slowly unfold.

Of course, if the people of the Persian Gulf decide to employ their resources to wage war, then war will result no matter what strategy is employed. First, however, we must find out, and somewhat quickly, if that is what they desire.

Eamonn, Perv is stepping up to the plate. They're starting to clean out the rat's nest, he gave a very interesting speech to a college graduating class about extremists, another author published a thought-provoking piece about islam and progress recently and Bush has calmed down India and Pakland rattling sabres. they're even talking trade ties and are going to be visiting each other.--

Kate - get over wanting to be loved or liked by the rest of the world. We never were, we're the original rogue nation with a different vision which upset the "natural order of things" as they see it.

We have always and will always be the bastard child. We, our money, and power are tolerated. We will work w/them when we can and won't when we can't. At this point in time, they know they need us and wished that they didn't. But quite a few of us are not as magnanimous as we used to be. 20th century's over.

France has not been an "ally" for decades. You don't pass on bombing info to the enemy - and that was in the mid-90s.

I have tried to understand what is behind the venomous hatred of our President, and my head swims. The criticism of him inevitably boils down to nearly fact-free, incoherent and contradictory arguments. I have concluded that it is visceral, but I don't understand why. My deepest disappointment is that so many liberals want to look the other way when it comes to the human rights abuses in the Arab world so they can advance an anti-Bush agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.

/
We all are products of our experience, and bring bias to any debate. I think it is important to keep our own biases in mind when looking at current events. Here are mine: I come from a solidly Democratic area; Republicans rarely even run a candidate for local offices. I was raised in a blue-collar world with traditional liberal values: the rights of the individual must be protected, and the violation of civil rights (by bigots, corporate America, or government)is one of the greatest betrayals of American values; that America remained isolationist too long in the 20th Century, leading to great human tragedies which might have been prevented or lessened by earlier American intervention; that we should be reluctant to use our military power unless it is to defend US interests, or to prevent genocide or help free people from tyranny, which is still widespread, unfortunately.
/

The criticism of Bush is self-contradictory. He is criticized for spending too much on the war, and not being able to predict the total cost. Critics also say he should have greatly increased the number of troops, which, of course would greatly increase the cost that was already considered excessive. He is criticized for extending the tours of reservists, which was necessary to keep troop levels at proper levels. The same people who criticize the number of troops used also claim our troops have been too visible and vulnerable to attack. So on the troop level issue, according to the critics Bush should have used a larger, cheaper, invisible force, not exposed to combat risks, without extending any tours of duty while having plenty of reserves for other contingencies. Remember, Bush inherited a military cut almost by one-half from the time of the first Gulf War. He is criticized, really, for not doing the impossible. Instead, he steered a course up the middle, which I think is his usual practice, despite all the talk about extremism.

/
Bush is also criticized for "running up" a deficit. Well, he came to office with a recession, which to the extent a President can, he eased and shortened. The economy suffered an unprecedented shock from 9-11 (hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars lost to economy), we had to hire tens of thousands of new government employees (Homeland Security, etc.)and we needed to greatly increase intelligence and military resources (combat air patrol in the US, changes at NORAD, Afghanistan, FBI, CIA, etc.). How could the deficit not go up? Could he have cut some of the business-as-usual government waste? Not without a paralyzing political fight with the Congress, particularly the Democrats. So he again, steered a middle course, and is damned from all sides.

/
There are many other examples of the incoherence of the Bush critics, such as, is Bush too stupid for the job, or is he an evil genius?

/
I also think the Bush critics do not take in to account the monumental task we have undertaken in Iraq. Bush critics forget that defeating European fascism and reconstructing parts of Europe took millions of more troops, many more dollars, and nearly a couple of decades to achieve. There were many set backs, horrific human losses and success was uncertain. People should not expect that establishing a tradition of human rights and self-determination in the heart of the Middle East can be simply, and quickly accomplished. People should recognize that this will advance Human Rights and enhance US security at the same time. What is there not to like about that?

/
The War in Iraq is the right thing to do for numerous reasons. Honest liberals should support the effort on humanitarian grounds alone. There is simply no honest debate that the people of Iraq deserved the oppression of the Saddam regime.

/
The internationalists should also support the war. Saddam invaded a neighbor, was kicked out under UN auspices (and US muscle) and agreed to certain terms, including disarmament, in the cease fire. Saddam did not comply with disarmament, committed almost daily acts of war against the aircraft enforcing the UN no-fly zone. The UN is meaningless if someone like Saddam can get away with committing genocide and thumbing his nose at the world.

/
The anti-capitalists should have criticized France, Germany and the USSR for their shameless greed and corruption in the "Oil for Food" scandal. They seem to be silent, because it was not American companies which acted so amorally and cravenly.

/
Finally, I think people should recognize that persons who would do us harm work very hard to keep their activities hidden from us. That our national leaders will always be working with imperfect intelligence prepared by fallible human beings. But considering the catastrophic harm which will befall us from these threats, that if we must err, we need to err on the side of our national security.

/
We should also realize that today's threat is fundamentally different than in the past. Today a relatively small number of terrorists can commit genocidal acts. These enemies do not need to hold much territory, but desperately want the support and protection of nation states.

/
Initially, European fascists could not do much harm to the US, unless they got the atomic bomb first. Back then it took the resources of an entire country (or the axis powers) to be able to threaten us or attack us. This is no longer the case, which unfortunately will require a more vigorous military posture for the US to protect itself.

/
To summarize, when I look at the situation Bush was given, I am glad he made the decisions he did. I wish no American had to die to free the Iraqis, but Bush always warned that we are taking on a difficult, but worthy task. The Bush critics are all over the lot, but seem to have a common thread: the lack of any plan which can be demonstrated to be superior to the one chosen by Bush. I wish we could put the hysterics aside and recognize that Bush is trying his best to protect the US; that he was dealt a lousy hand, but for the most part is succeeding better than anyone predicted; that there is more than one right way to do things and the worst thing we can do for our national security is to continue to take cheap shots at Bush, and lead our enemies to believe that we lack the will to see this thing through.

Mindles - I'm tired of people who think that businespeople are automatically immoral actors, or that the mere existence of profit or business self-interest signifies a problem.

I agree. In my circle of people there are a few leftists. One common thread between them is that they have a very negative view about "corporations" and "business". They throw the words around as if they are unseemly and evil and what we need to fight against. On top of that they associate corporations as being for the Republicans. But what has happened is that corporations tend to give money to the political party in power. During the Clinton administration there was more money given by corporations to Democrats (fact).

There is a guy who sits a cubicle across from me who every political discussion he is in he is railing against the "corporations" (yet he is a contractor who has his own business). He claims he is a moderate but he sounds exactly like Ralph Nader when he goes into his diatribes.

I've pointed out that it is against the libertarian and conservative principle to either a) give just a tax break to a certain business but not others in the area just to lure jobs b) have the taxpayers pay for things like stadiums and sports centers such as:
1) The 49ers stadium that Willie Brown (d) wants the taxpayers to spend money for a new facility.
2) The new Kings basketball arena in Sacramento that Heather Fargo (d) wants the taxpayers to spend money on for a new facility.

This country is definitely headed in the wrong direction. If a pollster asks I'll say that. But the reason is because Bush is too left for me and the alternative (Kerry) is even farther left. For 50 years this country has tended towards larger and larger government and each department, agency or program administered by the government tends to grow itself, justify itself, fight against any plans to shrink it, reproduce, and just about every politician whether Republican or Democrat has the propensity to SPEND SPEND SPEND. Just look at the data on NTU.org's website that shows how little difference there is between the two parties.

Kate wrote:

Here is the problem. Saddam had been pretty silent for about 10 years.

Well I suppose if being “pretty silent” includes refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, firing on US and British aircraft, sponsoring Palestinian terrorists, and continuing to keep illegal weapons systems, then yes Saddam had been “pretty silent.”

We could have played the political game with the U.N. and eventually I suspect we would have had to join U.N. forces go in there. But it wasn't within the time-table the U.S. wanted. So we went in there without the U.N. and I think this was a terrible, terrible mistake.

Just out of curiosity, what additional forces do you honestly think we could have gotten to go into Iraq had we but waited? Which countries could and would have been able to send in more troops?

Will: I wish I could share your confidence that Sharia will never be imposed in the U.S. But if the U.S. is attacked with nuclear and biological weapons, there are those who will argue that we should try to appease the people who did it. That sort of weakness will open the door to more attacks, leading to more concessions. Laws can be changed. The Constitution can be amended. Nothing will be sacred if the American people are frightened enough, and our leaders tell them that making compromises is the only way to be safe. It's already happening in places like France and Canada.

But that's a worst-case scenario, I agree. And you're certainly right about the nuclear genie being out of the bottle. Nevertheless, we have to fight to slow its proliferation while we eliminate the bloodthirsty ideology that is willing to use it against us.

Kate , you seem to ignore the structural deficiencies of the U.N. where one actor on the Security Council can stymie any chance of effective action. France and Russia's interest in seeing containment fail, given their seats on the Security Council effectively meant that the U.N. could not address the issue in the future.

Also, see my post above in regards to how I see the larger strategic picture. Iraq is but one part of a larger puzzle, but one, if handled with even a modicum of success, makes the rest of the puzzle easier to work on. Was it risky? Entirely so. Given the hideous nature of the status quo, however, large risks are entirely appropriate.

Shell - Your post at 8:58 AM was so good to me. Bush cannot do a FMA unilaterally. In fact the FMA is the most UN-unilateral approach that could be taken. It is for this reason that people who are voting AGAINST Bush because of this one issue are short sighted. Bush is sort of leaving it to the states and Congress to have an FMA passed and I believe that process is good for the country. BTW, I could almost care less about this issue. I just get tweaked a little that leftists want to be AGAINST Bush on this issue when Bush has taken the most UN-unilateral approach.

I agree. In my circle of people there are a few leftists. One common thread between them is that they have a very negative view about "corporations" and "business". They throw the words around as if they are unseemly and evil and what we need to fight against. On top of that they associate corporations as being for the Republicans. But what has happened is that corporations tend to give money to the political party in power. During the Clinton administration there was more money given by corporations to Democrats (fact).

Certainly, largely this is because Democrats tend to be more inclined to support “industrial policy” more so than Republicans. Clinton was a strong supporter of business subsidies which was actually a large part of the 1995 showdown with the GOP Congress that tried to cut about $15 Billion of them from the federal budget.

There is a guy who sits a cubicle across from me who every political discussion he is in he is railing against the "corporations" (yet he is a contractor who has his own business). He claims he is a moderate but he sounds exactly like Ralph Nader when he goes into his diatribes.

I greatly appreciated the tone and message of Mindles's post. It's good to see confirmation every now and then that you and most people here are not one-dimensional. However, now into the fray...

Mark writes, "Kerry merely seems clueless on everything. It's embarrassing that the Democrats couldn't put up a candidate with a voice and a backbone."

This is a case of what SomeCallMeTim spoke of as I see the sun and you the moon. But I ask, have you seen Kerry speak, in debates or in interviews? Have you gone to his web site and read through the positions there? Have you reviewed his record as a senator? How can you possibly call Kerry "clueless"? How can you possibly refer to a lack of voice and backbone?

As for Mindles's professed reason for the war in Iraq (funny how everyone brings up a different one), if we wanted to "establish democracy in the Middle East" there are a lot of other places where it would have been easier (and not requiring of total war) and more effective. For example, Saudi Arabia. A monarchy hated by many of its citizens, that spawned bin Laden, that spawned 18 out of 20 hijackers or whatever it was, that as far as can be seen continues to be a hotbed of terrorist fomentation, and that we presumably have some influence with given our long military and industrial cooperation. John in Tokyo, how can you call Saddam's Iraq a "terrorist factory country" when the terrorists we know of come from other places?

Regarding Kamakazi's options (what kind of "enemy" are we up against), the only way to get to this is to understand the perspective of people in the populations that are producing terrorists, and also to understand that their perspective does not form in a vacuum, but depends on how we, the United States, act. Sitting here in our armchairs we cannot know in depth or detail, but we can reasonably infer from the sources of information we have that terrorists are created by a combination of feelings of desperation, perceptions of injustice, senses of righteousness. Are suicide bombers a natural development of Palestinian culture, or a result of hopeless war against a formidable foe supported by an invincible one? It may be comforting to think that we can just strongman our way to victory in the conflict against muslim "terrorists" as it is, but can such a strategy really work if this is the situation? Those of you who believe that Bush's stance in this arena is better than Kerry's, please consider this.

Stephen - Thank you for trying at 9:24. Your positions align with what I believe is conservative. Unfortunately for the both of us, Bush and Kerry are to the left of us.

On your preferential treatment stuff, here in CA Ward Connerly (who I wholeheartedly agree with) was able to get the CA Civil Rights Initiative passed which bans the CA state from having preferential treatment in the hiring of contractors or acceptance of college students, etc. George Bush is not aligned ideologically with Ward Connerly. Bush is to the left of Ward's thinking but the left attack Bush vehemently about race with the famous James Byrd commercial that was aired in Texas and stuff and other examples.

Glad to see you write.

jmurphy writes: "I have tried to understand what is behind the venomous hatred of our President, and my head swims. The criticism of him inevitably boils down to nearly fact-free, incoherent and contradictory arguments. I have concluded that it is visceral, but I don't understand why."

I think I can explain. These people simply don't take the war or the terrorist threat seriously, and are focusing entirely on domestic partisan politics. To them, September 11 is ancient history, and Afghanistan and Iraq are just places on the other side of the world that don't matter. What concerns them is that there is a Republican in the White House. They want a Democrat there. And they'll say or do anything, as long as they think it will increase the chances of replacing Bush with Kerry.

Fact-free? So what? They don't care about facts. Incoherent? Who cares? If it convinces people to vote for Kerry, it's good. Contradictory? Whatever it takes, baby. The goal is to beat Bush, not to make sense.

Yes, it's visceral. Look at the way sports fans work themselves into a hysterical frenzy in support of their chosen team, and scream vicious insults at the other team. What you're seeing is politics as a sporting event. The Democrats want their team to win, and Bush is on the other team. Of course they hate him.

Pat, you underestimate the blood-thirsty capacities of the average American, when millions of them have recently buried a murder victim they knew. Go back and read a little bit about how American attitudes, in terms of what constituted legitimate treatment of the Japanese population, were altered by accounts of the Bataan Death March. The attack of September 11th could easily be portrayed as an isolated event in which a few nuts got lucky in executing their tactics. When Katie, Matt, and Al, along with, just guessing, 500,000 to 1,000,000 others (the threshold may be much lower) go "poof" on national T.V., by the most advanced technological means, any voices preaching restraint, accomodation, or withdrawal, will be swept aside like sand pebbles in the path of a tsunamai of utter and total rage. Americans ain't any different than any other tribe, and given the right circumstances, and they will consign other tribes to the dust-bin, or abattoir, of history.

Will, I hope you are right. But I also hope we don't get the opportunity to find out whether you are.

Grr. Just lost a lengthy post in the making. That'll teach me not to use a word processor and then copy the text into the comments section.

I'm not going to start over, but I will make this observation. 800 deaths in the military in Iraq is still less than the number of deaths in the military that those units would have experienced stateside (from training and auto accidents). So, a little perspective, please.

Brent The stock market really showed tanking at April 2000 and October 2000 (before Bush was in office). Also majore economic indicators showed in September and October of 2000 that the economy was not technically in a recession (because the technical definition of a recession means that more time has to pass) but the indicators were down. Bush didn't cause the recession and it is true that Tax cuts benefit the economy (funny argument last week had leftists all upset about that sentence). But it is true that tax cuts have positive effects on an economy (so do spending increases by the government).

Brent - I find your positions OK. I'm socially for common sense I believe. I differ with you a little but so what right? :) I just don't find it alarming that people who are religious are able to run for office. I am not for purging religious people or views from government. I believe that the courts will do their job of checks and balances and make sure that the executive or legislative branch doesn't overstep thier bounds with respect to "legislating morality".

Kimberly - your positions seem reasonable to me. :) Welcome to the conservative movement. :) Where no party Dem or Repub really fits you.

ABR, trying to move on the House Of Saud while Iraq's oil reserves were under Hussein's control would have been strategically unwise, given the chance of gigantic global economic disruption. If Iraq, with the second largest proven oil reserves can become even moderately successfully governed, and it's oil production fully ramped up, then there is much more freedom action in dealing with the House of Saud. There is a reason, after all, that the House of Saud opposed removing Hussein.

Not being a mind reader, I cannot tell what Bush's thoughts are regarding the House of Saud. Good strategy precludes announcing one's views on the matter, even if one does understand that the House of Saud in it's current form is dying, and the only questions are how many people will be killed in the process, and how disrupted the oil supply will become. I do know, however, that a functioning Iraq with an oil industry with the ability to fully exploit it's reserves makes managing the fall of the House of Saud easier.

Second, I think you don't fully appreciate the nature of the Islamic, and particularly the Arab view of the world. The Palestinian suicide bombers aren't simply driven by their hopelessly inferior military position to the Israelis. They are also driven, for a non-trivial segment of the population, by the notion that it is an affront to Allah himself that Jews should politically dominate any part of that region of the world, and it is an apostasy to accept that state of affairs. Similarly, Bin Laden has spoken of the apostasy of Muslims no longer ruling Andalusia, or failing to have ruled Vienna. As long as this non-trivial element has access to resources which allows them to pursue mass slaughter, they will do so, with some effectiveness.

Mindles, Jane : first of all, I'd like to compliment you both on your fine blog. Yep, it's a really nice blog y'all got here. Oh, and one more thing :

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! DID YOU HEAR ME? WE! ARE! ALL! GONNA! DIE!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well then. I feel much better now.

Seriously : you and Jane do about as good a job as anybody does of managing the collective fight-or-flight reflex that is a comments section, and the reason is not your position on this or that issue but rather that you yourselves stay civilised. Were I you I wouldn't worry about anyone's surprise and discomfort. The people who come here (self proudly included) bring that with them.

Rex, your request for perspective is based on a false premise, for it assumes that we are not losing troops to stateside accidents as well as losing them in Iraq. Military accidents don't stop happening here at home simply because we send troops overseas.

Thorley - Thank you for your post at 12:50 PM. I appreciate seeing others counter the misinformation by Kate. :)

ABR writes: "Sitting here in our armchairs we cannot know in depth or detail, but we can reasonably infer from the sources of information we have that terrorists are created by a combination of feelings of desperation, perceptions of injustice, senses of righteousness."

Sorry, but I don't buy that. European Jews during the 1930s were desperate, but they didn't become terrorists. The people of India under British rule experienced injustice, but they didn't respond with mass murder. Dark-skinned people in the United States and South Africa were cruelly oppressed, but they didn't resort to blowing up buses full of children or crashing planes into skyscrapers.

Do desperation, perceptions of injustice, and senses of righteousness lead inevitably to terrorism? Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King tell us that the answer is "no." Even Nelson Mandela, who eventually called for armed rebellion, did not advocate the deliberate murder of innocent, defenseless women and children. The Palestinians have embraced such measures not because they have to, but because they WANT to. They have a choice, and they have chosen bloodshed.

Thank you Pat for taking the time to refute ABR's belief. A belief born of good perception? I dont' think so...

Patrick, I absolutely do not think religion should be a disqualifier for any office-seeker, and am probably much closer to your thinking than I initially came across. Although I'm not religious and really never was (despite attempts by my mother when I was younger :o) I don't find it offensive that Bush prays and speaks about religion. Most presidents do. I don't get worked up that John Ashcroft has prayer meetings in his office or even that he may have made not attending them uncomfortable for some. I didn't put up with people who criticized Clinton for "faking his religion", although he probably didn't really "feel it". "Under God" in the Pledge? Whatever. I said it when I was a kid and somehow I managed to turn out like this.

I could expound on this subject but really don't find it very interesting.

Brent - I don't find it interesting either. :)

It cracks me up to see people 'reacting' because of their 'perception' that Republicans are extreme.

I remember Kate didn't like Bush because of his opposition to having the federal government fund stem cell research with stem cells from embryo's (yet he split the middle and allowed spending for stem cell research on the remaining stock of stem cells).

To many conservatives like me, we just don't understand why it is that the federal government should be in the business anyway. The private sector (corporations) will and have been doing stem cell research far more efficiently and if they can find a cure for parkinsons or alzheimers or meningitis or whatever, they will because they want to be able to provide the supply for the demand. And believe me there is plenty of demand for a cure. We (conservatives) just don't believe that is the government's role or responsibility to spend on everything and we get lumped into being "a fundamentalist" or "extreme" and talked about with disdain by the likes of those like Kate. :)

I remember Kate didn't like Bush because of his opposition to having the federal government fund stem cell research with stem cells from embryo's (yet he split the middle and allowed spending for stem cell research on the remaining stock of stem cells).

To many conservatives like me, we just don't understand why it is that the federal government should be in the business anyway. The private sector (corporations) will and have been doing stem cell research far more efficiently and if they can find a cure for parkinsons or alzheimers or meningitis or whatever, they will because they want to be able to provide the supply for the demand. And believe me there is plenty of demand for a cure. We (conservatives) just don't believe that is the government's role or responsibility to spend on everything and we get lumped into being "a fundamentalist" or "extreme" and talked about with disdain by the likes of those like Kate. :)

I’m glad to see that someone else agrees with me on that and for precisely those reasons. Bush’s moratorium was rather limited and it kept the door open for both private and State-funding of embryonic stem cell research. I’m pro-life and while I disagree with the POTUS on the specifics (I believe that we should draw the line for legal protection at brainwaves and not conception), from a limited government and constitutional perspective, Bush’s decision was a small step in the right direction.

Mindles and Jane, I'd have a lot more sympathy about how the two of you are treated in New York if I hadn't received the exact same treatment from the two of you.

I have discoverd on this very blog thread and in the otherwise completely hospitable kitchen of Jane Galt that I can't raise a point critical of the President (excepting, of course, those pesky fiscal issues) with out immediately being dismissed as a Chomsky-loving, little-red-book-holding, flag-burning son of Brecht.

It seems, from your responses to posts on this blog, that you - even Mindles and Jane - believe in some kind of "serious gap," and that if you are serious and well-read, you can only come to the obvious conclusion that those screaming protesters just don't get it.

I am not a screaming protester. I hate Noam Chomsky and I know better than most of you just how ridiculous and arrogant the German and French worldviews are. In fact, I was a Republican before this pouting crowd of incompetent, reckless, theory-lovers took office. I do not like them, I do not like what they do, and yet I also do not have a bumper sticker on my car that reads "Visualize world peace."

So please, Jane and Mindles, before I hear one more time just how blithely condescending New York is (and it is, but you don't get any points for that), try to be a little less blithely condescending about the people who disagree with you. Try to assume that they, perhaps, have also read a book or two, and that just because they are raising a point critical of the administration does not mean they have bought into the entire Ted Kennedy canon. We're out there, you know. There are a lot of us.

It's all about me for contributor B. Not one example just a general feeling of being condescended to.

Great essay, Mindles,

Contributor B - Reading books doesn't give one a good perspective. That is what it's about. It is all about perspective. This is what Stephen, Kimberly, Brent, Mindles and others seem to have but others like Kate, ABR and you don't. I'm trying to be polite here.

As Some Call me Tim alluded to, one can say the grass is green and another can say it is purple. If the truth and facts are closer to the green then we'll let you know that we differ with you.

If you are chastising the President as having lied about WMD's, don't you think it is our duty to let you know that French Intelligence, German Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, the UN, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, British Intelligence and George Bush all said the same thing about Iraq's WMD's and that Iraq has used them on his own people? With perspective the more pertinent question is what has happened to them?

And thank you for contributing. :)

Well, contributor B, since both hosts of this forum have criticized the current White House occupant on matters other than fiscal policy, it is difficult to grasp what your are ranting about in an ill-informed way.

If you dislike this Administration and their foreign policy, fine, go ahead and explain why. Some have done so in this thread, and I, for one, have treated them respectfully while illustrating why I believe them to be in error.

"Anyone who is 20 and not a liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone who is 40 and not a conservative doesn't have a brain"

Not sure who said that (Churchill?)

On a related note, if one wishes to gain some insight as to how it is so difficult for an outside observer to gauge events in Iraq, and why that is the case, see this, which instapundit linked to.

http://www.commentarypage.com/johnson/johnson062904.php

Contributor B, well put. I have often wondered why Bush supporters have a problem understanding that it is possible to oppose this war in Iraq and not be a member of ANSWER or hate Bush. Anyone who criticizes this administration's handling of this is desinted to be pegged as a "Bush hater" or "fact free" (even though it is a fact that our troops are dying and being wounded, it's costing us billions, we haven't found stockpiles of WMD, etc). One doesn't have to agree with Michael Moore about the Bin Ladin conspiracy or Ted Kennedy about this war being fabricated in Texas in order to have legitimate criticisms of the way this administration has sold and conducted the war in Iraq.

Eamonn, go ahead and criticize, as some do responsibly. General Zinni is one good example, although I believe his stategic assessment to be in error in several important regards. However, when one writes, as you did....

"Pakistan is particularly troubling and far from showing a willingness to do anything about, Bush seems to have his lips permanently affixed to Gen. Musharrag's posterior."

....one is likely displaying such severe ignorance as to make conversation pointless. Do you own an atlas? Perhaps you may wish to reflect upon the geography of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the rest of a somewhat large land mass known as Asia, and then consider the logistical problem of prosecuting a war against a political entity which controls Afgahnistan, as the Taliban did at one time, without first gaining the cooperation of the political entity which controls Pakistan. Or perhaps you are advocating that Pakistan be invaded first?

One may wish to at least mention this somewhat thorny problem in evaluating the Bush Administration's stance vis-a-vis the Musharaff regime, but no, it so, so, much, much, more emotionally satisfying to break off a thoughtless quip about Bush kissing Musharaff's ass, than it is to actually think things through. Thus, so goes the "debate", such as it is.

Eamon, You can oppose the war but if you do so at the same time as attacking Bush with lies then that is what makes us reactively defend him with facts.

Just state you oppose going to war in Iraq and then states some factual reasons why... If you can't then maybe you need to examine your position. :)

Yes it is fact that our troops are dying and being wounded (they did in WWII and every other war - how do you eliminate that?), it is costing billions (2%-4% of federal budget - what war didn't cost that or more?), we haven't found stockpiles of WMD, etc. (does that mean everyone I sited above was "lying" - the leap you go to?)

If you have a legitimate criticism, we are still waiting to hear it... Your perspective on the war thing is just a little off we beleive.

Can we state that? BTW, Thank you for not agreeing with Micael Moore or Ted Kennedy. Ted has gotten a little extreme with his rhetoric lately. I don't understand how he gets reelected....

BTW, we may not be that far off if you disagree with Moore and Kennedy.... Why do I say that? Nobody likes war. It is just a sense on some of our parts that it may have been either a) necessary b) beneficial in the war on terror c) one of the many long battles in the war on terror.
If you can see some of a, b or c then you are close to us. :)

Brent: I'm from Missouri too, and can second everything you've said about people's perceptions of it as a hicktown. I now live in the Pacific Northwest and stick out like a sore thumb whenever politics comes up (and it does ALL THE TIME). I too am sick of people assuming I'm Republican or worship George Bush or think that God is going to strike down all the immoral liberals. But what I was going to say is a very close friend of mine spent time working for Mr. Ashcroft, and convinced me that his religious habits were not causing problems for his staff. I'm not a fan of Ashcroft, as you can see from reading my blog, but I believe my friend. I guess it's just more of people's perceptions becoming the reality for people who never have the chance to perceive.

Pat, If the failure to find any evidence of the stockpiles of weapons after over a year of searching isn't a legitimate criticism of this war, then what is?

Contributor B, you say "In fact, I was a Republican before this pouting crowd of incompetent, reckless, theory-lovers took office."

From this can we assume that you are a fan of the real-politik approach of Nixon then? Are you an ex-Reaganite of the Pat Buchanan ilk? Color me confused. Part of being a conservative today is realizing it was the real-politik aproach that has caused much of our current problems. Even the left is getting somewhat adept at pointing this out.

Actually I do think I know where you are coming from because I have debated many "McCainiacs" who perhaps hold your same views. Let me know if I'm warm here.

a) We should have stayed in focused on Afghanistan until Bin Laden was caught. Anything else is a distraction.
b) We should have invaded Pakistan or Saudi Arabia but not Iraq. Of course you would not have supported any of these but you have said this, right?
c) We can't take out all the bad guys, so why start now?
d) The idea of a country like Iraq becoming a democracy is idiotic.
e) Saddam was so secular that Bin Laden hated him to the extent that they would never cooperate. In fact, Saddam was a defacto ally against Bin Laden, or at least a neutral.
f) Saddam only supported Palestinian terrorists, and so did Saudi Arabia so why go after Saddam for that while leaving Saudi Arabia alone?
g) Any other terrorists Saddam may or may not have supported are insignificant.
h) Saddam was only shooting at our fighters because we were provoking the fire.
i) Any likely outcome in Iraq will make us less safe and result in more terror attacks on us here and overseas.
j) Our primary reason for the Iraq war was to help Israel.

Did I hit on the standard McCainiac-talking points?

Pat Berry writes in reference to my '...terrorists are created by a combination of feelings of desperation, perceptions of injustice, senses of righteousness', "Sorry, but I don't buy that. European Jews during the 1930s were desperate, but they didn't become terrorists."

I made my point unclearly. I was basically saying that terrorists are made, not born, and furthermore it is likely that many of the forces that make them are not intrinsic to Islam or the culture of a particular middle eastern country or even the history of the Arab world. And in fact, some of these forces arise from western, Israeli, and American handling of certain affairs in the Middle East over the last few decades. I'm not saying let's condemn our past actions, but I am saying that when faced with an enemy that is more like spreading fire or water than a single man whose heart can be stopped with a knife, it might be better to take a different approach than straight-ahead force.

As far as comparing muslims in terrorist-generating populations with European Jews or other groups, you will be able to find factors that are different in each of these cases. There are many factors at work in the middle east, and it may well be that the presence of certain attitudes in Islam is a crucial ingredient. In the Koran, Mohammed successfully brings a military force against Mecca that had cast him out before, an event depicted as a noble triumph, whereas in the Old Testament we have the Jews fleeing from the Egyptians, and in the New Testament, well you get the idea... No matter, it is not going to be useful to simply say "these people are bad", if the resulting strategy ends up just creating more of "these people". Understanding the causes of their actions and attempting to address these might help instead. Trying to bring democracy by the sword to the Middle East is likely too crude a method.

Will Allen, thanks for the interesting perspective on strategic considerations respecting Saudi Arabia and oil reserves.

Eamon - "If the failure to find any evidence of the stockpiles of weapons after over a year of searching isn't a legitimate criticism of this war, then what is?"

What is the criticism?
Is the criticism:
a) Saddam hid them too well?
b) Germany/Russian/French/British/US Intelligence, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George Bush lied when saying they were there?
c) That they were moved?

We don't understand Eamon. Let us know please what the actaul criticism of the war is.... WMD's were one of a few reasons for the war and that reason was agreed to by the world. Did they world lie to you Eamon? Is your perception off? :)

ABR, I appreciate the attempt to keep an open mind.

Pat, The WMD were the prime reason for the war. Concerns about human rights etc. were mentioned secondarily and of course, didn't require the supposed urgency that the ability of Hussein to have a chemical or biological attack ready in 45 minutes or the possibilty of Hussein having "reconsituted nuclear weapons" did. There are of course, more options that the ones you listed. One possibility is not so much that Bush and Co. lied, but that they rushed into the war and decided to rely on faulty information because it backed their position. Clearly the administration screwed up. Whether it was an intelligence failure or willfull ignorence, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that the stockpiles that Bush, Cheney and Powell claimed that Saddam had were not in fact there. That is my criticism.

ABR - Are you in favor of negotiating with the Islamofacists? What would you negotiate with? Give? Allow?

Would it help you to understand that the Cosovo war was fought by us on the side of the Muslims against the Christians?

Would it help you to understand that we were feeding the Islamic Somalians in 1991?

Would it help you to understand that we helped the Islamic people of Kuwait when they were taken over by Iraq in 1991?

We aren't against the Arabs or Islam in 'my eyes'. That's my perception. My belief is we have people that we just can't negotiate with. That'll embolden them and make them believe they are on the right path. When Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted in 1995, there were those who criticized saying that you don't give land to terrorists. That will mean they've one.

But it turns out that Arafat turned down the offer and ordered the escalation of violence. That was the turning point for me and many others. Our perceptions is that the Palestinians had it within their grasp to have what they've never in the history of the world had (a Palestine) and they turned it down and called for more violence.

Sorry, ABR, but I don't think you're going to be able to convert me to the "ask yourself why they hate you" way of responding to Arab terrorism. I place the blame for their barbaric savagery squarely on their pathological culture, which is also responsible for the stagnation of their economies and the brutal repression of their own citizens. This is not the first time we have fought bloodthirsty killers driven by sick cultures, and we will deal with these the way we did in the 1940s: by soundly defeating them, dismantling their dysfunctional cultures, and building liberal democracies to replace them.

"Trying to bring democracy by the sword to the Middle East is likely too crude a method."

It worked in Germany and Japan. But perhaps you have a better method to suggest. What is it?

Eamon - "but it's pretty obvious that the stockpiles that Bush, Cheney and Powell claimed that Saddam had were not in fact there. That is my criticism."

Interesting. You chose to ignore the world saying the same thing and just focus like a laser beam on "Bush, Cheney and Powell claimed". What is your criticism again. I truly want to get it right. Those 3 lied to you? Those 3 made mistakes?

Please tell me specifically and exactly. What was the lie? Or what was the mistake (limited to WMD's)? And how is it that it is all on those 3 individuals (or just Bush Administration officicials)?

"Clearly the administration screwed up". You aren't saying here that you oppose the war. You are leveling an attack. What specifically did the administration do that was a screw up? It sounds like to the rest of us (discussion limited to WMD's) that you are saying that Bush screwed up because we (collectively with 130,000 troops) can't find more than a couple WMD's (a stockpile)(WMD's were found but they aren't a stockpile). Is that what you are saying?

Please help us...

Eamon, the lack of stockpiles of WMD is a valid criticism of the war as long as you maintain perspective on the entire WMD situation and its relation to the buildup to the Iraq War. For instance, it wasn't just that Saddam had attempted to deceive the inspectors about WMD he may have had already assembled, it was also about the proven tendency for Saddam to aquire WMD and the ability and wherewithal to do so very quickly after regaining full control of his country (that is, after sanctions were lifted.)

All one has to do is harken back to pre-9/11 discussions on Iraq and know that the sanctions were going to be lifted sooner rather than later. They had lost almost all of their effect other than that of punishing the in-country enemies of Saddam. The corrupt officials in charge of the UN sanctions program had already made more money than they could effectively hide, and it was just a matter of time.

That is just part of the "rest of the story" vis-a-vis WMD. It is not so simple as "Where are the stockpiles?"

Note that we would have never invaded Iraq over the WMD question had Saddam not invaded Kuwait and subsequently lost the first Gulf War. There were very specific things that Saddam needed to do to keep his side of that bargain that left him power. He was not a good actor during the 90's, and he needed to be to survive long post 9/11. This is the main difference between Iraq and all the other countries (such as Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia) that probably deserve and need a good old-fashioned regime-change.

Here is a newstory
------------------
9/11 Commission: U.S. Terror War has Stymied al Qaida

The Sept. 11 Commission has found that the Bush administration's war on terror has severely impaired al Qaida's ability to organize another spectacular attack against the U.S. homeland by capturing or killing the deadly terror group's key leaders, drying up their financial resources and severely limiting their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide."

The bombshell finding, buried at the end of the Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, should have been hailed in the press as evidence that we've at least turned the corner in the war on terror - and may indeed have the enemy on the run. Instead, reporters have ignored this particular Commission finding since its release on June 16.

Debra Saunders in SF Chronicle about Iraq

Eamon, ABR, Contributor B and Kate.... don't read this because Debra Sanders disagrees with ya. :) You'll feel chastised...

My Gawd, Pat in CA, would you please stop putting words and opinions in Kate's mouth.

I disagree with what a lot of what Kate says but your nasty comments attributing invented opinions and decorated with passive/aggresive smiley faces are just unacceptable.

Cool it with the personal vendetta.

Sorry Hates S F (Kate),

It goes a while back when Kate (you) said many things that to me are just weird. She said that Bush wants her barefoot and pregnant. :) What can I say, her perception is off. :)

This is one of the most civilized, and substantive discussion on Bush-related issues that I've seen.

I think Mindles's initial essay set the right tone.

I'm in Ohio, a battleground state. My father, a Dem in from New Jersey was given a dinner party by my sister, a lawyer and a Dem. It was attended by my son, a Libertarian - another cost of sending him through a law school in Boston I guess. My sister's neighbors, all lawyers, Dems, and reformed Republicans were present. A small art-type theater is near her home, and was showing F9/11. Before the show, a local Dem Party worker stopped by, saying he was heading over to register voters in the lobby of the theater.

My sister asked if I was going to the show. I told her I had no interest in it. She was polite, but there was hidden glee that it made me uncomfortable - the show, the voters drive, and the politics present at the party.

I am in agreement that we are in a serious fight. I like the bold moves we as a country are taking - they seem to me to be much more likely of being effective than the previous decades of containment, diplomacy, and well-wishing that led us to this point. I have fears about how well it is going, and angst over the mistakes we have made, but still have some confidence that we are on a correct path, and some hope that some parts of the major strokes we are taking will be effective.

I fear a diversion from our path that appeasement efforts would create. I believe that such appeasement would end, again, only after another serious strike brought it home that we really are in a serious fight.

Domestically, the tax cuts were just the right tonic for goosing the economy. And, while I don't like spending, the spending didn't hurt the economic rebound either. I hope that we will now bring it under control. I am sure that bringing spending under control will mean more shrill criticism about the programs that are being cut and the lack of compassion that it demonstrates.

Sigh.

I would love to have a direct citation from you of when she made such a comment.

Just as I would live to hear from Kate about someone (other than a marginal web poster) who called her unpatriotic for supporting the war in Iraq.

Cuz I'm with Mindles on the accusations about being unpatriotic, always hearing about them and nver hearing them (except from whackos and citing whackos is a classic strawman tactic)

And Pat, lose the smileys. For the last time, they're really passive/aggressive. If you want to insult someone, a smiley face doesn't make it OK.
:(

What a big baby, Mindles. No wonder some people hate blogs. If this is all you're giving us in your once in a month posts, forget it.

OK. Hates SF. I'll lose the smileys for ya.

Quote from Kate (May 23rdh at 9:34 PM in an email directly to me), "who want me barefoot and pregnant than in the Republican party."

BTW, What does passive/aggressive mean to you?

Patrick in CA,

What can I say? I don't read your e-mails. Maybe, however, it's time to knock it off (no almost-a-pun intended)

Here's an example of what I mean by passive aggressive quoted in one of your earlier posts:

"Eamon, ABR, Contributor B and Kate.... don't read this because Debra Sanders disagrees with ya. :) "

The message is I know you don't like to hear from/can't cope with people who disagree with you. Not exactly flattering and then there's a smiley face to try and pretend it's all just a big joke.

The aggressive is the message. The passive is the pretence that it's just a joke among friends.

No, I must stop procrastinating and work.

HSF, Eh. You're right. It really isn't among friends. I aim to tweak them. And I shouldn't.

Re: Missouri, I live in Mississippi. You can only imagine what travel to non-conservative areas (though I'm socially pretty liberal) is like. I met a friend-of-a-friend who is a Bostonian when he came down to visit. In my own home, he proceeded with an anti-Bush rant. Granted, the guy was a known boor, but I would never have gone to Boston and started slamming Kerry and boosting Bush - aside from the utter pointlessness of it, why be a jerk?

I think the whole problem is that it's a high-powered reaction to Republicans' general opinion of Clinton - a visceral distaste for a guy with apparently no principle other than self-interest. Then Bush, who shouldn't have stood a chance, ends up getting the White House. To top it off, he (mis)pronounces things with a Texas accent, doesn't stay in the office until the wee hours of the night, and generally pushes all their buttons. To be honest, I can't say that I'd have been any different in their shoes.

I think that too many people have let political tribalism color their views about what are very important issues. But that's a danger of politics.

For me, I'll be voting for Bush (not, of course, that it matters here at all) because I trust that he believes that there really is a wider war to be fought. I don't think that Kerry does. (Obviously, I vote [a] on Kamakazi's poll.)

I do wish that Lieberman - well, not Lieberman, because he wouldn't stand a chance, but someone with similar views - were the D candidate. I'm dissatisfied enough with Bush that I'd be willing to vote Democrat, but only if I felt they'd really fight the war on terror.

Hates Smiley Faces,

I appreciate your coming to my defense. I am unfortunately in the possition of either answering Pat in CA's posts where he takes text out of context, brings up previous discussions which have no relivence in the current one, or ignoring these posts and going on with my life (taking myself out of the interesting discussion I may have been having). I breifly had a very odd email discussion with him, I wrote him back perhaps twice -- although it may have been three times (once to find out why he was emailing me, once to respond to the email he sent me), and the quote he cites is once again taking out of context (and was meant in a tongue and cheek fashion, although I guess he didn't get that). I subsequently blocked his emails as I found them harrassing. I can only assume that he chooses to target me because he is angry that I don't pay attention to him. Quite honestly, I don't really know.

I would be happy to have a conversation with you, should you choose to email me, but obviously I am choosing not to deal with Pat in CA (or whatever he is calling himself this week). If I did I would never get anything done and would be constantly defending myself. As I am not running for political office I do not feel the need to spend my time this way. It's really a shame, because I really like this blog, especially posters like Will Allen, Thorley, Tim, Eamon and anony-mouse. They have a wide group of opinions, but they say things well and rationally and Jane is a friend of mine. In my opinion, Pat should take a page from the lot of them.

Interestingly enough, I think it's a pretty good example of what the left hates about the right and vice/versa.

Funny Kate. Now we know you are a stone cold LIAR.

Because I sent you two emails and you sent me two. I never replied to your second one so how is it that you were provoked into saying that you "subsequently blocked his emails as I found them harrassing."

What else do you lie about? Bush? I'm thinking.

I can and will post the emails here and other blogs if you'd like. Don't ever tell a lie about me again. :)

I find the venom that comes from your mouth about Bush (lies) extremely displeasing so I have taken to holding up a mirror to you in the last month. If you don't like being held accountable for what you say then don't say it.

Especially if it's a lie.

It goes a while back when Kate (you) said many things that to me are just weird. She said that Bush wants her barefoot and pregnant. :) What can I say, her perception is off. :)

No Pat, it is your perception that is off, and badly so. Your initial response to Kate (and some of your behavior since then, actually) bordered on forum trolling. It is an admirable testimony to her character that she simply ignored the hook. Kate said nothing about those things in this thread; you brought them in, well outside of their original context, which consequently denies them the kind of evidential value you wish to ascribe.

Once again, as you have previously been taken to task in this forum by myself and a couple others, you are attacking very specific claims with vague and wandering generalizations, as though the existence of your worldview automatically refutes any specific points that could be brought against it. To address it this way is either willful blindness or something better suited to a cult ritual than an educated debate.

If you want to preach to lost souls, try your hand over at Atrios or the Democratic Underground. (Be advised that missionaries in such lands tend to be persecuted.) If instead you want to have an educated debate here, then great; but stop comporting yourself in a way that will drive off the minority voices of alternative viewpoints. As much time as you evidently spend at this site, those voices may be the closest anyone ever comes to challenging your current worldview.

Well, I withdraw the civilized comment made earlier. I guess this bit of flame was brewing while I was composing my post.

Wow. Mindles's cir de coeur has inspired a large outpouring from others. I have had similar experiences, having spent many years in university and government laboratories, before moving to the private sector. Mindles described the experience of working and socializing in a left-leaning poltical environment very well. I remember the shock of some of my closest collegues when they discovered that I might actually sometimes vote for Republicans. The reactions were similar to those experienced by Mindles. It was very unpleasant and ultimately lead to my questioning my place in academia.

Having worked in both left-leaning and right-leaning environments, I have noticed a peculiar asymmetry in the phenomenon described by Mindles. Although I have worked for several years in some right-leaning environments, e.g., a utility company in Texas, I have never seen the kind of extreme incredulous shock that Mindles describes when a left-leaning person comes out in a right-leaning environment. I do not wish to say that it never happens, but I have never seen it, and I have seen very left wing people discuss their politics in these right-leaning environments; yes, including the utility company in Texas where one of the vice-presidents subscribed to The Nation. He was an excellent manager who, justifiably, got promotions.

I have a theory about this asymmetry which seems to fit many observation I have made. The theory is that for many, but not all, left-leaning people their politics is a part of their self-esteem. To put it another way, they believe that their left-wing views are part of the reason that they are good people. On the other hand, for most, but not all, right-leaning people their politics is their opinion and is not strongly tied to their self-esteem. If this theory is correct, then this asymmetry can be explained. It occurs because left-leaning people tend to perceive right-wing views as attacks on their person. Expression, and sometimes even the presence of right-wing politics calls into question the reasons they think of themselves as good human beings. For these reasons left-leaning people often have difficulty socializing with people with whom they diagree on politics. To them, such a person must be either stupid or evil, or they must call their own self-esteem into question.

My sincerest apologies to everyone who has been mauled by a rogue Pat in CA today. The Logical Reasoning Fairy has been tracking him for over an hour, says she's hit him with four darts so far but he just won't drop. Please stay inside your homes and we'll update you when the situation is safe.

Thanks, everyone.

Average Joe,

I have almost always been in the private sector. Recently I added earning another degree to my life. I enrolled in a very liberal school. At times, I am amused at being the 'token republican' in their diversity program. Other times, I am not up to the fight and keep my views to myself.

I cannot speak to the asymmetrical reactions that you suggest. I would be interested in affirming its existence before trying to ascribe reasons for it.

Bush's shortcomings have been well documented by mainstream media, but little attention has been paid to Kerry, who is one of the worst people ever to be nominated for president. Starting with his service in Vietnam we see a poseur who is constantly trying to manipulate the system to enhance his prospects. Kerry went to Vietnam because he thought it would enhance his political resume. Once there, he gamed the system so he could leave after only 4 months. Submitting phoney applications for three purple hearts allowed him to make use of a loophole to get out of his duty. Kerry won't agree to the release of his service record, raising the question of whether there is something in it that embarrases him, but first person accounts reveal that he was reckless and self-serving in his command. After he returned home, he lied to a Senate panel while under oath, making the most absurd statements imaginable about war crimes that he supposedly witnessed.

John Kerry is singularly unqualified to serve as president, having never held an executive position for any length of time, and showing poor decision-making ability in the Senate. During nearly 20 years there he authored no bill of any consequence. Kerry is so confused about most matters that he can't even tell you his opinion. If elected, he'll make Jimmy Carter look good by comparison.

Patrick in CA,

Your posts about Kate have a nasty stalkerish quality. It's easy to believe that she felt harrassed by you because the way you go on and on at her, as you do in this thread, qualifies as harrassment.

Who the hell do you think you are? Threatening to post private e-mails and setting yourself up as some kind of truth seer and sayer.

The people on this thread our adults who can decide for themselves what we think of what Kate has to say.

Frankly, if I ran this site, I would block you too because you're starting to sound downright creepy.

I apologize.

Will there be an apology from Kate for lying? She was clearly the last one to email. I didn't reply back to her last email.

Will follow through with proof unless she aplogized also.

Ahh. I started to write my comment before the recent flame-out. To prevent a similar thing happening with my comment, please note all of the qualifiers in the last paragraph. The statements I am making their are of the same nature as the statement "Dutch people tend to be taller than Italians," i.e., they are statements of tendency that may not apply some specific cases. I am not trying to insult anyone and certainly I am not trying to insult anyone who is reading this blog. I personally know people who are exceptions to all of the tendencies that I noted, but my observations have lead me to believe that these people are exceptions and not the rule.

This particular discussion thread, as far as I can tell, turns on how Democrats and Republicans treat each other, so I didn't add my opinions on specific policy points, because I've done that elsewhere on this blog and I wanted to keep my point germane and specific.

But it looks like I accidentally conducted a neat little experiment. By indicating only some unspecified level of dissatisfaction with the administration, I have coming back at me three or four profiles of what you assume I must believe.

From Patrick in CA:

Reading books doesn't give one a good perspective. That is what it's about ... others like Kate, ABR and you don't.

How could you possibly know whether I have perspective or not? I didn't write anything about policy; you have from me only one comment: that it's possible that you can read a few books and still disagree with Jane and Mindles. Of course you cannot learn everything from a book, Patrick, of f*****g course. But good, you've laid out another instructive myth: if you disagree with the President, it's because you believe in some fairy-world you read about in a book.

My perspective: I grew up on Marine Corps air stations; my old summer job was keeping boat for the editor of the National Review; I got dusty and bloody on September 11; I have written opeds for the (gasp) Wall Street Journal; I just got back from a year in Germany, constantly arguing against the ridiculous assertion that Bush is a war criminal and a violator of international law. Yet somehow I find time in this busy, conservative, terrorist-hating schedule to dislike a lot of what the President does.

But my perspective doesn't matter to you, does it? You've already got me all packed up in a neat, liberal, book-loving box.

If you are chastising the President as having lied about WMD's, don't you think it is our duty to let you know that French Intelligence, German Intelligence...

But I didn't chastise the President about having lied about WMD's. I didn't say a think about WMD's or, for that matter, Iraq. You just made that up. This is, by happy accident, exactly my point.

Now that you've brought it up, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Hussein had or wanted WMD's. I even agree (gasp) that if we have to piss off France, we should. It would take a long post and a lot of your patience to outline exactly what I believe about Iraq, but in short, I don't agree with the arbitrary timetable of the invasion, the complete disregard for the advice of the Joint Chiefs about the invasion and the State Department about the occupation, and the aggressive way in which we seemed absolutely determined to piss everyone off on our way in. How, oh how, did G.H.W. Bush manage to invade Iraq with all those niggling European cowards on his side?

From Brent:

Actually I do think I know where you are coming from because I have debated many "McCainiacs" who perhaps hold your same views. Let me know if I'm warm here...

I don't believe any of these things. I don't even know what you're talking about; does McCain believe these things? I mean, all I've said is that I reserve the right to disagree with both the President and Moveon, and suddenly you pull this complete profile out of a hat.

I am neither Buchanan nor Nixon; I am a fan of judgment. Reagan was hard when he needed to be; he also showed a willingness to talk and reason with allies. This administration has substituted impatient brawling for judgment and called it conviction. Nixon realpolitiked but also opened up China; oddly nuanced, yes? But we hate nuance now, don't we? Shows weakness. In a way, I believe that Carter and Bush made the same mistakes; they insisted on principles - whether human rights or the remaking of the Middle East through Iraq - to the absolute lack of any judgment or compromise.

From anonymous:

It's all about me for contributor B

Fair shot. I did not read back through give-and-take I've conducted in other threads on this blog to find specific examples. Yer right; this one's all about me.

From Will Allen:

Well, contributor B, since both hosts of this forum have criticized the current White House occupant on matters other than fiscal policy...

But my point was that the authors and commenters in this blog only allow you to disagree with the President on fiscal policy, since they, themselves, also do. Any step further and you get tossed in with the other peaceniks.

If you dislike this Administration and their foreign policy, fine, go ahead and explain why. Some have done so in this thread, and I, for one, have treated them respectfully while illustrating why I believe them to be in error.

Mindles, in his post, was commenting specifically on how he feels unfairly profiled and Nazi-ized by liberals in New York. I was pointing out that I am often profiled and Chomsky-ized on this blog, and that he should clean his own house first. This specific thread, as far as I can tell, is not about this administration's foreign policy, which I have criticized at length in other threads on this blog.

When I do, incidentally, I am not treated with respect, nor does this, from you,

ranting about in an ill-informed way

strike me as a particularly compelling example of respect.

Respectfully,

Contributor B (who hates emoticons of any kind)

Average Joe
At least on my part, you are not being offensive.

I have noticed significant negative reaction to my views from people 'left' of my position.

I also note, mostly in these blogs, less so socially, similar negative reactions from the 'right' to those on the left.

Rational discourse is the only way we are going to get through the divisions that are dividing our country right now. I am not suggesting compromise on the core values, but that eventually, the core values should convince more people if they are rationally discussed and backed up with evidence.

I know personally that the rhetoric level is so high right now, that such a discourse seems impossible, even to good acquaintances. Close friends seem to be able to discuss these things, but tend to be like-minded anyway.

contributor B, um, wow...

Sorry if I appeared to be prejudging you but your casual sideswipe aka dismissal of any possible "stategery" that may be happening, characterizing it as theoritical hogwash or what not, all the while maintaining your "Republican" credentials reminded me of similar arguments I've been party to. Perhaps reading your original post in context of the responses before it changes the tone somewhat, not that I'm insisting you do that.

My experience has been that the harder-core Republican/conservative opponents of the war mainly, almost entirely, come from the McCain camp in 2000. Just my personal experience. The fact that don't believe any of the laundry-list of items cited earlier provides much solace. It has always been my style and conviction to think first and not pre-judge. I may have failed on that account this time though, and for that I apologize.

I have just read a long essay here that has me wondering if perhaps that stay in Germany has worn on you a bit. Perhaps not, but just a possibility. The brief resume' you recounted for us is interesting and helpful, and I thank you for that.

Sorry but the url didn't post in my response to contributor B. Here it is undecorated.

http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html

John Lynch, you have made a very interesting observation about comments on blogs. I too have noticed that the asymmetry of which I spoke seems less pronounced in blog comments. Unfortunately, that means means that right-wing people tend to be just as likely to ostrasize those with whom they disagree as left-wing people.

I do not know the reason for this difference between physical social interaction and blogs. Here are a couple of possibilities. First, the internet generally lends itself to flaming and general rudeness. Second, political blogs will tend to attract like-minded people and people who are strongly drawn to the company of people with like-minded politics are more likely to think of politics as part of their self-esteem, regardless of the kind of politics. Thus, to take an obvious example, a blog like Asymmetrical Information will draw commenters who feel the need to pontificate on libertarian politics without fear of contradiction. These people will get quite nasty if someone starts to argue with them. There are undoubtably other possibilities to consider as well.

I have also noticed some distinct types among the people who post comments that are against the main tendency of a political blog. There are two particular types that I have noticed. One type, my favorite, is the person who is trying to learn about "the other side" of issues. These people are usually polite in their comments, intelligent, and well-informed, though they are sometimes over-earnest and, at their worst, self-congratulatory. Usually these people, especially the best of them, add depth and breath to a blog by their comments. Unfortunately, they sometimes receive shabby treatment from the more rambunctious members of the blog community. The second type is the trolls. These people post incendiary comments in order to anger the other members of the blog community. They hijack threads, turning them into angry flame-fests, all the while claiming that they are really just like the first, virtuous, type of person mentioned in this paragraph. They are the scum of the internet, making rational discussion difficult. Here the asymmtery appears to return, as I have noticed more left-wing trolls on right-wing blogs than right-wing trolls on left-wing blogs, however I have not had the time to make many observations, so take this last statement with a large grain of salt.

I wonder why there appears to differences in social settings?

Is the left-right as vitriolic to the right-left in social settings?

My impression is that it is so, but I do not have anything to go on except personal experience, and that experience is of being one of the right, being reprimanded for my views from the left. I have not ever been attacked from the right.

I wonder if that means that I am the most right person I know? Smile. (Note: Not an emoticon)

I do not recall personally seeing, in a social setting, the left getting any strong reaction from the right.

This might be a perception problem. To me, I might see a reasonable attempt at discussing the issues (from the right) where a person on the left might see an attack on their values.

Is there anyone on the left, in this blog, able to add some point-of-view perspective on this issue?

B-

I think you are right. Responders made a lot of assumptions about you - much like my complaints.

However, you have twice accused me of Chomsky-izing you:

"Mindles, in his post, was commenting specifically on how he feels unfairly profiled and Nazi-ized by liberals in New York. I was pointing out that I am often profiled and Chomsky-ized on this blog, and that he should clean his own house first."

Back that up, would you?

Well, contributor, when you write the following....

I have discoverd on this very blog thread and in the otherwise completely hospitable kitchen of Jane Galt that I can't raise a point critical of the President (excepting, of course, those pesky fiscal issues) with out immediately being dismissed as a Chomsky-loving, little-red-book-holding, flag-burning son of Brecht."

and....

"But my point was that the authors and commenters in this blog only allow you to disagree with the President on fiscal policy, since they, themselves, also do."

this certainly conflicts with the fact that the hosts of this thread have disagreed with the Bush Administration on far more than fiscal issues. So unless you mean to say that the hosts of this thread will denounce you even when you sometimes agree with them, it appears that your statement (I'll drop "rant") is ill-informed. To be factual is not synonymous with disrespect.

Peter Flynn,

I was referring only to those 120,000 troops in Iraq and Afganistan. The fatality (not casualty; I am well aware that there are tons of non-fatal casualties from the war that far exceed the stateside rate for injuries) rate for those 120,000 if they were stateside would exceed the fatality rate they have experienced overseas.

Strange but true.

Will, 'B',

Someone tagged 'Average Joe' and I have taken a slightly different thread in this blog, but your reconciliations and corrections of opinions are very similar to what we are trying to get at.

I am pretty sure that I do not agree with either of our hosts, and that I am 'right' (awkward term that) of either of them. I suspect 'Average Joe' is as well (although I will ask him to speak for himself.)

Nonetheless, we are both discussing a point that 'Mindless Dreck' has brought up, I think intentionally.

The point is not his direct point: that of assumptions about one's politics. Instead, it is one about civility.

Joe and I have come to an unsupported synthesis that at least on blogs, there is not difference in civility between 'left' and 'right.'

However, both of us, perhaps coincidentally, and also perhaps erroneously, have posited that in social (personal) settings, the left succeeds in making the right feel awkward and attacked about their views (if they come up) while the right does so (to the left) less often.

I am fascinated by this thought, but skeptical that it exists. I think it may be a difference in perception. That is, the 'left' feels attacked as well, and as often, as the right (again in social settings) but that the right may perceive the attacks as an attempt at rational explanation.

I will let 'Average' speak for himself on his perceptions.

John Lynch, in one of your posts above, I think that you have expressed the kernel of my idea better than I have. Using your terminology, perhaps I can phrase the idea as the following:
People on the left tend to think about political arguments as revolving around values;
People on the right tend to think about political arguments as revolving around issues.
Stated in this manner, one can see where exceptions are likely to occur. An example is abortion, which both sides tend to see the debate as revolving around values. My main problem with this formulation is that it seems a bit too smug, but then my initial comments were, if anything, even more smug; thus, I think some progress has been made. Naturally, this idea expresses only a tendency. I have encountered left wing people who think everything is about issues and right wing people who think everything is about values, but, in my experience, they tend to be the exception, at least among the highly educated people with whom I usually associate.

Of course, the huge problem with this whole idea is that it revolves around subjective impressions, in particular, my subjective impressions. I freely admit this weakness, and give the excuse that it seems to sum up several observations that I have made. Also, please be tolerant of my idiosyncrasies; by profession I am a financial modeler, and to make matters worse my degrees are in theoretical physics, so I have a certain complusion to develop theories and models of all sorts of behavior, of both natural phenomena and of social phenomena. I realize that these ideas may be superseded by ideas that are more correct, precise, accurate, or general.

Anyway, I am tired, have had two glasses of wine, I should sign off. From the wonderful initial post of Mindles, through all of the comments, and most of the comments in this thread have been of high quality, this has been a remarkably interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone who has participated so far.

Joe

No kidding! My early (30 years ago) training was in Physics as well!

Small world.

I am signing off as well. I will follow up as time allows tomorrow.

I think the terms "right" and "left" are so lacking in descriptive value as to be nearly worthless, so I try very hard to avoid using them, or even thinking in those terms. I don't have the slightest clue as to whether some factions are more intolerant of differing thought than others; it really is too fuzzy a phenomena, with groups that are too amorphous, to measure in any accurate way. I find high quality critical thinking in most factions, and really, really, poor quality critical thinking in all factions. Unfortunately, the poor thinkers tend to shout loudest, and the unhappier they are, the louder they shout. Thus, the lowest common denominator tends to prevail.

I apologize.

Will there be an apology from Kate for lying? She was clearly the last one to email. I didn't reply back to her last email.

Will follow through with proof unless she aplogized also.

Hmm, I would rather expect a charter member of the "party of personal responsibility" to be more responsible in his actions, and to take responsibility for his actions without a "sorry but..." formulation, yet I seem to have been mistaken. Want to lay odds on what that does to the value of the above, or any future messages, you might choose to leave here?

I don't normally speak in pluralities because I feel my thoughts should stand on my own ability to assert else not stand at all, but this time I'll make an exception: Nobody cares about your personal email spat. Incidentally, it may not be in your best interests to target a lawyer for personal harrassment. Just a thought.

Yes anonymouse. Though I was rude I remained truthful.

Kate resorted to lying (pattern for a long time).

This will be the last post from me. I don't find it beneficial to converse with people who lie or tolerate a liar.

Kate will remember that my first out of two emails was correcting her about her statement that NCLB (No Child Left Behind) hasn't been funded. She actually did the research and came back to me and said that she stands corrected. My second of 2 emails was not harassing either. She then replied back to that one with some really off the wall statements about the religious right and the republicans wanting her barefoot and pregnant and Iraq etc.

I chose not to reply back to that yet she claims she had to block emails from me. Stone Cold Lie.

I have directed my comments at more than Kate. I have directed my comments at anyone who needed to be corrected. However, people choose not to be corrected. Instead as Mindles points out, the left will make you feel like you are the village idiot.

This is what this exercise was all about. Perception and how everybody treats each other based on your perception. It is my experience that leftists are some of the most closed minded people who will not accept any other point of view and attack the messenger.

Bye :) :) :) :) :) :)

I can't comment on any exchange with Pat other than my own. Pat was dishonest, consistently misrepresenting my views. Pat was contradictory, out of what I can only guess was an attempt to backtrack from his initial dispute with me. He then refused to address his original dispute, a dispute he instigated, and instead tried to move the dispute in another direction. Finally, he was rude enough to bring that hijacked debate into a thread on a completely different topic, despite the original thread being still available. Why someone would behave this way is a puzzle; perhaps one can attribute it to social incompetence. In any case, Pat, please make good on your promise, and don't allow the digitized door to make contact with your digitized posterior on your way out.

Brent - that guy is dead on about being an American and living in Europe, and expressed it better than I've ever been able to. I worked on a piece recently about an American who works as a drive-time DJ in Germany; the station lets him do his wacky schtick, but won't let him read the news, since that's not what Americans are expected to do. We're expected to be wacky, stupid and completely dismissable. Either that, or we're told - with a wink and a nudge - that we're one of the "good Americans." Disgusting.

Mindles - I apologize for being incautious; I did try to make it clear that you, Mindles, have never profiled me, but I failed. It does happen, however, often, on this blog. My point is only that it's hard for me to feel bad for you about being slightly to the right of center in New York (and I've heard the same complaint, in person, from Jane) when I know the difficulties of being slightly to the left of center on your blog.

I'm not presenting a libel case, by the way; I participate freely in this blog and am capable of defending myself. This is a weird thing to be doing, because I know Jane and think she's a great person, so I'm offering this up to make a point and not to prosecute her for being a meany.

I wrote on February 25 (full thread) in a discussion of the Musgrave Amendment:

Fiscal profligacy, now THAT was rammed down my throat; it's going to cost me and my children a lot of money, and I can't avoid it, not unless I want to become a citizen of Norway. But gay marriage? I don't get it; all I have to do to avoid having gay marriage rammed down my throat is to marry a woman and love her for the rest of my life.

Jane responded (in addition to a number of other things that made sense; I've excised not to misrepresent her, but to keep this readable):

I'm second to none in my hatred of the budget deficit, but I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether small numbers of judges should be altering by fiat a social institution that affects 85% of the people in the country. The deficit spending was done legislatively, not judicially. It's also at least as much the fault of your party as the other side; LBJ and FDR were the primary architects of the deficit that matters, which is the $45 trillion unfunded liability for Social Security. [emphasis mine] This dwarfs our current downturn, of which only about half is the fault of Bush's tax cuts or military spending. And by demagoguing Medicare/Social Security, the Democrats just forced the Republicans to expand the Medicare entitlement that's already bankrupting us.

And then later:

And that anger, that rage you feel at having these guys irreparably jam this down your throats -- an anger that, I submit, is different from how you feel about the budget deficit, and much different from how you would feel about the budget deficit if you examined just how much taxes would have to rise, and social spending be cut, in order to make the country solvent on a financial accounting basis[emphasis mine] -- is exactly how a lot of people feel about being told that they can't have any abortion laws other than Roe, can't let anyone put up a nativity scene in some Alabama public square if an ACLU member lives within a hundred miles, and so on. They feel that they're having someone else's morality jammed down their throats.

So, without getting too involved in the substance of her argument (which we've all hammered to death in other threads), look at the assumptions she's made: I am wholly in support of the New Deal and Great Society; I blame the deficit completely on the Republican party; I've never really examined the budget deficit and believe that a country should square its accounts like a bake sale; I believe in everything the ACLU does.

What? Why do I have to answer for LBJ just because I oppose the Gay Marriage Amendment? Should I answer for Strom Thurmond, too? 'Cause he used to be a Democrat. And as for the budget deficit, she's performed this weird judo that states that she agrees with me, but I clearly haven't done the homework to understand why. Of course I understand that it's hard to be a Christian and not be allowed to have your nativity scene, and that it's hard to sit by and accept something you believe is murder and I never indicated that I didn't.

I made a very specific point about gay marriage (where I happen to draw the line), indicated that I felt less threatened by it than I do current congressional spending habits, and suddenly I'm to answer for everything that any Democrat has ever believed.

There are other (some rather virulent) examples; they come from trolls on this blog and I blockquoted Jane only because she's a reasonable person, for whom I have great respect, who made these assumptions anyway.

Apologies again to Jane,

Contributor B

Mindles, also: I asked of you a question in another thread that you haven't answered. An NYT journalist wrote that he feared for democracy in

...one of the city's overheated, chaotic traffic jams, with the trucks crawling over the sidewalks?

and you responded

Nobody likes traffic, but only elitists fail to recognize that is often accompanies material progress.

Leave aside for a second the fact that he wrote not of traffic, but of chaos, with trucks "climbing on the sidewalks," (and the fact that there's traffic in all sorts of places that aren't free) and I'll ask again: why the word "elitist"? How is that the opinion of an elitist? Perhaps an anti-capitalist, but "elitist"? Why does "elitist" get to function as a code-word for the left, a neat way of saying how rich and out of touch they are?

I don't use "redneck,"because it's just as wrong, simplistic, offensive, inaccurate and culturally misleading as "elitist." Frankly, If I start counting the elitist Republicans I know, I soon run out of digits.

And - Here's an interesting article that touches on what it's like to be a lefty among righties. Granted, it's in Salon, but presented fairly.

Contributor B

'"Anyone who is 20 and not a liberal doesn't have a heart; anyone who is 40 and not a conservative doesn't have a brain"

Not sure who said that (Churchill?)'

Yes, it was Churchill, whom I am beginning to suspect was the last Brit with a brain.

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of lefties are low-carb diet haters?

Really, I'm not kidding. I supported Dr. Atkins while on a bike trip with a Human Rights worker and an extremely photogenic family, whose planned entertainment for later in the day was Supersize Me, and I was treated as if I had just arrived from Mars.

Will, Average Joe
Thanks Will, for the comment. You are probably correct. The subject is probably not worth pursuing. The generalizations describing one's politics are too broad to be able to get to any specific modalities of thought that may be different, if indeed they are.

The subject is probably politially (different use of the word) incorrect anyway.

Contributor B:

This is not an attempt at provocation; don't take it as such. It's also not an attempt to hijack the discussion into a different direction. I'm simply curious as to the group's opinion regarding an issue Contributor B mentioned - specifically, gay marriage and opposition thereto.

Have you considered the possibility that many persons are against gay marriage due to the US Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause?

I'm not a lawyer. However, from what I remember from the civics and law courses I took some years ago, the whole purpose of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is to ensure that contracts and other legal arrangements would be recognized nationwide. Marriages are one form of legal arrangement.

I can frankly see why folks in more conservative states would be disturbed. If my understanding is correct, the full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize marriages performed in any other state. Ergo, it would seem to me that a lawful gay marriage performed in another state would also perforce be recognized.

Yes, I know about the Defense of Marriage Act. I also don't see how it will pass constitutional muster after the first state formally authorizes gay marriage, based on the fact that it would then conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the Constution. (It now doesn't, because the issue is currently moot; no state has yet by statue recognized gay marriage as a legal institution - though Massachusettes might have de facto done so already.)

Comments welcome, especially from any lawyers who might be lurking.

Hondo, I believe you are incorrect about the Full Faith and Credit Clause, although I am not an expert, either. If the citizens of Utah backtracked and decided that polygamy was terrific after all, I don't think the rest of the Union would be forced to honor Orrin Hatch's union with all seven of his wives.

Hiya Hondo, I'm not a family lawyer, nor and I an expert on constitutional law or Massachusetts law, but I am a lawyer, so perhaps I can help. (My advice may be as valuable as those cough medicine commercials which have a spokesperson say, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on T.V.").

You are absolutely right, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution would likely mean that marriages in other states, even those between two people of the same sex, would have to be recognized by a state that did not allow gay marriage. The Defense Against Marriage Act is likely to be declared unconstitutional on that basis.

The problem in Massachusetts (should you choose to view it as a problem) is that Gay Marriage in Massachusetts isn't illegal by Statute. It's that the statute is too vague and therefore Mass. MUST allow Gay Marriage, based on the current statutory provision. (Something like 'two people over the age of consent may marry', as opposed to 'a man and a woman over the age of consent may marry'). If they don't specifically say it's illegal, then it's not. Similar statutes are similarly vague in, I believe, 11 other states, but I could be wrong. All of this is just from memory.

Since Homosexuals have been allowed to marry in Massachusetts, and they did it within the confines of an appropriate statute,I have already heard of several law suits in a number of states have been filed attempting to get the Defense Against Marriage Act dismissed in this context.

Here is where we see the great divide, however. If you view homosexuality as a genetic inevitability, and not something "wrong" then the fact that gays can't marry each other is clearly discrimination based on something the person cannot change. This is like a law that prevents blacks and whites from marrying. Clearly unconstitutional.

If, however, you believe homosexuality is wrong, that it is like beastiality or incest or assault, then the idea of making gay marriage legal is repugnant. The idea of recognizing it is even more so.

There is no solution to this one. The constitutional amendment will most likely be shot down for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that we, as Americans, dislike restrictive amendments in our constitution, the only other time we did this was the 19th Amendment -- prohibition -- and that worked out badly. In addition, it is unlikely that the conservative movement will be able to get the legislatures of 37 states to vote to amend the constitution in this way.

Just for the record, I was the happy token heterosexual (with my Husband) at a legal wedding between two female friends this past month in Massachusetts, so that pretty much tells you were I stand on this issue. I also know that there are a variety of other reasons why many fiscal conservatives don't like the idea of gay marriage (one friend mentioned to me she didn't like it because of the additional social security benefits paid to the surviving spouce) but I hope this clears things up. Perhaps others can give another side to this issue.

Will,

If I'm correct (and again, I could be wrong) Utah agreed to end Poligamy as a condition for joining the Union. I'm not sure of what the legalities of it are, but it would certainly be an interesting battle if Utah changed it's mind.

Hondo wrote:

Yes, I know about the Defense of Marriage Act. I also don't see how it will pass constitutional muster after the first state formally authorizes gay marriage, based on the fact that it would then conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the Constution.

Well for starters there’s the rest of the article that people seem to forget to mention:

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to prescribe the manner in which “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state” (in this case marriage) can be proved the effects thereof. In this case, the mechanism by which they defined the effect was through the Defense of Marriage Act which states:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

So to answer your question – yes States are required to give “full faith and credit” to the “acts, records, and judicial proceedings” (to an extent) but Congress is authorized by the same portion of the Constitution to prescribe the manners in which they shall be proved and the effects. Which is what Congress and the POTUS did with DOMA.

Kate:

Thanks for the reasoned, logical, and civil response. Even here (on this blog) you don't always see that.

I will say that I don't share your point of view regarding the desirability of legal gay marriage (I'm opposed on both economic and utilitarian grounds). However, I must admit that I share your opinion regarding current law.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that a constitutional amendment on the issue is dead. The last polls I saw indicated that a large majority of the US population is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Once a test case forces the issue, I frankly don't know how the US population will react. They may shrug, collectively say, "Whatever," and go on about their business. Alternatively, they may collectively say, "What the hell??!!" and demand action. In the latter case, I believe an amendment specifically exempting marriage from the Constitution's full faith and credit clause just might fly.

Hondo,

I'm not sure your right. The number I heard was about 55-60% of the people in the U.S. didn't approve of Gay marriage. But that's not an even breakdown. It's not 60% across the board. It's 75% in Kansas and 35% in Massachusetts (before someone gets on me for making up numbers let me say now that I AM MAKING UP NUMBERS for an EXAMPLE. The numbers are probably totally different. I do not know). I would be very surprised to see the state legislatures of the following states agree to the amendment:

Maine, Vermont, Conneticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Oregon, Washington State, Illinois, Maryland or Delaware.

That's 14 states. There are other states that come to mind as well which are somewhat unlikely to go along with an amendment.

Keep in mind that something like 90% of people approved of misagination laws (sp?) in the 50s and they were repealled because they were unconstitutional. I think it would be very sad if the United States added an amendment to the constitution essentially limiting the rights of someone because we do not like what they do in their bedroom. I suspect there are many who do not like gay marriage but who find the idea of altering that document for that purpose and in that way more repugnant then gay marriage itself.

Thorley:

I think we are in philosophical agrement on the basic issue re: the desirability of gay marriage. However, I must disagree with your assessment of the US Constitution.

As I read it, the phrase "the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved" refers to a mechanism for certifying state actions - not approval/disapproval authority. Under this part of the fair faith and credit clause, Congress has the power to regulate the METHODS one state would use to verify/certify another state's actions. I believe that the intent here was to preclude one state from deliberately attempting to introduce barriers to accepting legal agreements entered into in another state throught he artifice of prescribing arcane and difficult procedural methods for acceptance.

The intent of the final phrase "and the effect thereof" is less clear. (Legal help here if you have time, Kate or another lawyer lurking out there?) However, to me it seems clear that it was never the intent to give Congress a general veto over state actions in this context. Otherwise, there is no need for a full faith and credit clause in the Constitution in the first place; Congress could have handled this through legislation. The intent seems clearly to be that EACH state would be REQUIRED to recognize legal contracts and other actions - such as marriage - entered into in another state, and that not even Congress would have the power to abrogate these by legislative fiat.

Actually, B, one of the reasons I use 'elitist' is because I don't think they belong to a political persuasion. You may be...making an assumption there.

Virginia Postrel's book defines 'dynamists' and 'stasists' for a similar reason - they come from both ends of the political spectrum.

I liked the article, but some people look at traffic, or chaotic traffic, or other mass& crowding phenomenon as purely negative (other examples- suburban sprawl, unconventional housing, street vendors, informal private transportation services) . I tend to view these things positively despite their risks, and view those who are overly critical, or say that it reflects a society or public's unreadiness for intrinsic freedoms as...elitist.

Perhaps, like "Zionist", the term needs to be taken back from its abusers.

Kate:

It's been too long for me to remember with certainty. However, I think the poll I remember was in fact a nationwide poll, and that the percentage opposed was in the 65% range. If I'm remembering correctly this is politically quite significant; a 60/40 split election is generally regarded as a "landslide".

On the states you list, you could be right - or maybe not. I think some of the states you mention legally already define marriage as male/female only.

For the record: I most emphatically DO NOT ADVOCATE legal restrictions regarding personal sexual conduct except in a very few specific situations (pedophilia, rape, and incest immediately come to mind - and maybe bestiality; that could be regarded as cruelty to animals). IMO, what consenting adults do sexually is their business - not mine, nor any level of governments.

Having said that, I must also say that I do not think that gay marriage is good public policy.

For some reason I am troubled by the notion of "gay marriage", and I suspect that the reason lies in the historical purposes of "marriage." As I learned in law school, the state interest in marriage (which takes it out of the private sphere) is the compelling interest in providing for the children of the union of a man and a woman. Think about it. That's what it's all geared to.

So I don't view marriage as what two loving couples are entitled to do; I view it as a state-sponsored institution that is designed to provide for the usually eventual children.

I find it interesting in myself that while I oppose the idea of gay marriage, I am in favor of permitting civil unions that would carry all the same entanglements as marriage does, but be called by the name "civil union." That avoids the religious objections to changing the term "marriage" to mean something that is a mortal sin in many religions.

Yes, I know there are contradictions in my position, and that there are married people who never have children, and that there are loving partners of the same sex that have children, whether through adoption or artificial insemination, but I continue to think that "civil unions" would be okay but that "marriage" should be reserved for man-woman unions.

Assuming that same sex unions become legal in one fashion or another nationwide, an interesting question then becomes whether "common-law marriages" or "common-law unions" would be recognized between same sex partners?

Contributor B, I don't think you're being fair to either me or Mindles.

For one thing, I think you're attributing the sometimes over-the-top comments by our commenters to us. It's true, I haven't deleted them, but I don't delete comments by anyone, other than for profanity. If you scroll down a few threads, you can see a wing-nut making contemptuous ad-hominem attacks on yours truly, without being censored. Any attacks on you are not site policy.

For another, I disagree with George Bush on many things, not just fiscal policy, and so does my co-blogger. As you may have noticed, I called for Don Rumsfeld to resign, and still think he should have. I've been consistently critical of the early pullout in the war, have stated openly that I'm willing to consider the idea that it was a mistake (though I'm not yet convinced), think he made a huge mistake endorsing Sharon's West Bank annexation plan, etc. I don't love Bush; I just don't hate him. In today's polarised climate, that casts me in the role of Bush supporter, particularly as I am surrounded by people who spend quite a bit of their time venting their own hatred. I neither love nor hate Kerry, either, and as I wrote, not long ago, I doubt that there are significant enough differences in their policies to get me terribly excited no matter who gets into office. You're the one assuming that I am on some sort of mission to get Mr Bush re-elected; I most emphatically am not.

We did get into a shouting match over the war, but I deny that I was condescending. Most of my friends oppose the war, and I've said all along that I think that an informed person could decide either way, because it ultimately boiled down to a value judgement about various national security issues that would be conclusively proven only in long hindsight, if then. The one time when I think I can be fairly accused of having assumed you knew less than I did was on the budget, where you in fact did know less than I did, because I write about it and you don't, and it's a complicated subject that simply doesn't get extensive enough treatment in the press to get a decent picture of what's going on unless you spend a fair amount of time digging through budgets and academic articles. The fact is, there's just no compelling way to write about the budget for popular consumption, and so what most people know is very scattershot, and heavily dependant on who the journalist who wrote the article could get on the phone for a sound byte. It seems only reasonable that there are some things that I know more about than you, and vice versa; and only human for both of us to have formed opinions despite our less-than-perfect information.

However, of course, one doesn't always remember what one said in the heat of battle, and the fact is my extended family has the nasty academic habit of fighting their battles with sarcasm, which I myself fall into too often. So if I made you feel that I believed that people who were opposed to the war are ignorant rubes, I apologise. The fact that I am dating one should tell you that these are not, in fact, my feelings.

Indeed we should not assume that our interlocutors are ignorant or stupid, unless they give us reason to believe so other than the fact that they disagree with us. If you catch us doing it, please feel free to lambaste me, either in comments or in email. But even if we are doing so, can I suggest that feeling talked down to on this blog is not the same thing as living your life surrounded by a group of people who

a) all hold one broad set of political beliefs very different from your own

b) talk about these beliefs as if there were no possibility for disagreement

A conservative living in these circles, even such an attenuated species as Mindles, has two choices at these frequent conversations: pretend to hold beliefs you actively disagree with, or risk causing an exceptionally ugly scene. By which I don't mean heated disagreement about a political idea; I mean ugly, very personal, fights. You argued with me about the war in a kitchen surrounded by a crowd that was more anti-war than pro. A conservative at many New York cocktail parties, perhaps most, could have expected to stage that scene with all the other guests surrounding him, interrupting his arguments, and interjecting things like "I can't believe you're such a fascist". I've known people who have had drinks thrown at them in this milieu, although its never happened to me. A conservative in New York finds himself constantly required to hide his beliefs, or apologise for them.

Now, perhaps it is exactly the same with Republicans in Georgia. The only majority Republican place I know is the small town in upstate New York that my mother's from, where etiquette frowns on heated political arguments. Indeed, until I was a senior in college I had never, to my knowlege, actually met a Republican other than my grandparents, and one cousin who briefly flirted with the party to piss her mother off. I submit that an environment sufficiently cloistered that I could be taught that Republicans are an evil and brutish race, without ever actually meeting a single person who might refute that, is less hospitable to ideas, and other people, than it should be.

Hondo,

There are not currently 67 senators currently sitting who would be willing to pass this amendment. Virtually all of the democratic senators and 14 of the republican senators have said they will not vote for it. It is even less likely to get out of the house. It will never go to the states. And even if it does, there is a big difference between amending the constitution and enacting a law. Amending the constitution of the United States is a really big deal. The difference between the two is like the difference between telling your kid she's grounded and telling your kid she's grounded, padlocking the door and burrying the key in another state.

For more details on the constitutional process, this site might be helpful:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Oh, and the 19th Amendment gave me the right to vote. It was the 18th that took away my liquor.

It's been a while since I studied family law, but if I remmember correctly, even if the Full Faith and Credit clause didn't require one state to recognize a gay marriage in say, Massachussetts, the existing case law would probably require the other states to do so. The general rule is that if a marriage is valid in the place of celebration, it is valid elsewhere and conversely if its void in the place of celebration it is void elsewhere. Preventing this was essentially what the Defense of Marriage Act was designed to do, but obviously, its been a moot point until now, since no state had recognized gay marriage.

So if all polygamists were to move to Wyoming (avoiding the possible problems with Utah's agreement upon enetering the Union), and elect enough like-minded legislators, New York would be required to recognize polygamy? Somehow, I doubt it.

Kate, if forced to choose between voting and drinking, well, set'em up, Joe.....

It actually isn't too hard to imagine the polygamists from Utah and Arizona getting together with polyamorists from all over the country and moving all together to someplace like Wyoming, à la Free State Project. Wouldn't that be a sight.

Will, the main obstacle is that there aren't nearly enough polygamists in Utah and Arizona to colonize even the smallest state. You'd need there to be hundreds of thousands of active polygamists.

I'd argue that if we, as a culture, ever reached a point where there were hundreds of thousands of polygamist families peacefully seeking marriage rights, we'd be discussing the Full Faith and Credit clause on that basis. I would argue that your example seems ridiculous right now precisely because polygamist families don't have the numbers and visibility that same-sex couples have built up over the decades to reach the point we're at now.

Will, no they probably would not have to recognize polygamy. An exception is usually made if the marriage "violates public policy", so I think a polygamic marriage would be not have to be recognized in another state.

Kate wrote:

I'm not sure your right. The number I heard was about 55-60% of the people in the U.S. didn't approve of Gay marriage. But that's not an even breakdown. It's not 60% across the board. It's 75% in Kansas and 35% in Massachusetts (before someone gets on me for making up numbers let me say now that I AM MAKING UP NUMBERS for an EXAMPLE. The numbers are probably totally different. I do not know). I would be very surprised to see the state legislatures of the following states agree to the amendment:

Hondo wrote:

As I read it, the phrase "the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved" refers to a mechanism for certifying state actions - not approval/disapproval authority. Under this part of the fair faith and credit clause, Congress has the power to regulate the METHODS one state would use to verify/certify another state's actions. I believe that the intent here was to preclude one state from deliberately attempting to introduce barriers to accepting legal agreements entered into in another state through the artifice of prescribing arcane and difficult procedural methods for acceptance.

That’s part of it, but you seem to be missing the “public policy” exception that the SCOTUS has long upheld which (sometimes) allows one State not to enforce the legal pronouncements of another State when it conflicts with their public policy. AFAIK the “Full Faith and Credit” clause has never been considered absolute particularly in the area of marriage (I don’t believe it has ever actually been used successfully to force one State to recognize another State’s marriage) or other licenses (e.g. having a license to practice law in Minnesota would not mean that California was obligated to let you practice in their courts without their license although IIRC some States have reciprocity agreements).

The intent of the final phrase "and the effect thereof" is less clear. (Legal help here if you have time, Kate or another lawyer lurking out there?) However, to me it seems clear that it was never the intent to give Congress a general veto over state actions in this context. Otherwise, there is no need for a full faith and credit clause in the Constitution in the first place; Congress could have handled this through legislation. The intent seems clearly to be that EACH state would be REQUIRED to recognize legal contracts and other actions - such as marriage - entered into in another state, and that not even Congress would have the power to abrogate these by legislative fiat.

DOMA doesn’t constitute a “general veto over state actions.” States are still free to define civil marriage however they like within their own States. What it does do is protect the rights of people of the other States not to recognize so-called civil “marriages” that conflict with their own public policy. AFAIK the FFC has almost always been interpreted by the courts as having a public policy exception to preserve the tension between (a) the rights of States to enact their own public policies and (b) States recognizing the legal proclamations of other States.

Of course, that begs the question as to what "violates public policy", and who gets to decide. This whole area seems to be a case where 9 people in robes will just make it up as they go along, which is sometimes an unavoidable phenomena.

Will, you are quite right in that public policy isn't truly defined, although each state's case law may provide guidance and therein lies the problem, or at least part of it. With respect to polygamy, I think the overwhelming majority of us can agree that it does run afoul of public policy. It rasies all kinds of nasty issues about spousal support, property rights etc. I don't think the issue of gay marriage is nearly as clear cut though and while a majority of the country does seem to oppose gay marriage at this time, it's not as one sided as the polygamy issue.

I don't think the issue of gay marriage is nearly as clear cut though and while a majority of the country does seem to oppose gay marriage at this time, it's not as one sided as the polygamy issue.

Thirty-nine States have thought it important enough to change their laws and/or State constitutions to prevent having the definition of marriage arbitrarily redefined by another State (or in this case another State's courts). The public policy concern seems pretty clear cut to me.

For one thing, I think you're attributing the sometimes over-the-top comments by our commenters to us.

Jane, I'm not. I'm trying so hard not to flame here; I thought I'd bent over backwards to avoid precisely that. I quoted only you, addressed only your quotes and specifically pointed out that I was leaving out the troll rants from others. If I wasn't clear, I'm sorry. You're right. You can't be expected to answer for your trolls.

For another, I disagree with George Bush on many things, not just fiscal policy, and so does my co-blogger.

I'm at a loss to find where I've said that you didn't. My point has been consistently that it's made difficult for ME to step outside the well-worn grounds where we all agree it's ok to disagree with Bush. (And, see below, sometimes it's difficult to even stay within them.)

You're the one assuming that I am on some sort of mission to get Mr Bush re-elected; I most emphatically am not.

Again, this is nothing I've said or implied, ever - where, I mean, where did I say this? I have never called you any color of fanatic, and in fact this was never about what this blog believes; it's about what it assumes any and every member of the left believes. It's almost like you're allowed to disagree with Bush because you've thought it out; the lefties, well, they're just angry, aren't they?

The one time when I think I can be fairly accused of having assumed you knew less than I did was on the budget, where you in fact did know less than I did, because I write about it and you don't...

What? How is that the point? Of course you know more about economics than I do, but how is it ok for you to assume that I'm pedantically insisting on balancing the budget for the balancing's sake, or that I blame it all on the Republicans, or that I think Great Society didn't cost any money?

I only mentioned two words -- fiscal profligacy -- in passing. I did not blame them on Bush. I didn't, in fact, say anything about them, other than that they bother me more than the prospect of gay marriage. So why did I get a lecture on LBJ? How is it that you assumed that I'm not aware that Democrats have spent money in this century? If you want to tell me I'm wrong, fine, but at least let me get something out first.

My point has nothing to do with what we know, it's about how we respond to people who disagree with us. Again, on this issue -- fiscal profligacy -- you're allowed to disagree with Bush, because you've looked into it, but I dare to mention it and you tell me that it's impossible, given the state of journalism, for me to know enough to even bring it up. Remind me to jump in the next time you have the temerity to post something on translation.

We all live in worlds where we know more than the people around us; if we aren't allowed to have an opinion on a subject in which we do not have a graduate degree, there's no point working as a journalist or, for that matter, bothering to vote or even argue with each other. I live in Cambridge now; maybe I should just walk across the street and have a Harvard professor fill out a ballot for me; I'm sure they know a lot more about politics than I do.

I have no doubt that it's difficult to be a conservative in New York. My only point is that if you're going to complain about being jumped and misinterpreted, watch how you handle those who disagree with you; maybe you're doing something wrong, too. Just like you're not a brownshirt, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or Tip O'Neill. If I'd said the deficit is Bush's fault (alone), I'd expect you to rap me for it.

But I didn't. That was some other liberal, and it's stressful and boring to have to speak for him.

Yours,

Of course, that begs the question as to what "violates public policy", and who gets to decide. This whole area seems to be a case where 9 people in robes will just make it up as they go along, which is sometimes an unavoidable phenomena.

I wasn’t a fan of the FMA or DOMA originally but it’s become clear to me that the other side on this matter wasn’t willing (or apparently able) to persuade a majority living in any State that redefining civil marriage as something other than a man and woman was good idea. If I didn’t like the laws in one State, I could petition to change them or move to one of the other forty-nine such is beauty of self-government and federalism.

Instead they’ve relied on judicial fiat in the case of Massachusetts or simply decided to ignore the law when they didn’t agree with it (e.g. San Francisco) while at the same time counting on the rest of us to be obey the law when they feel free to ignore.

Agree or disagree with DOMA and the FMA on the merits, to their credit the supporters at least respect the legislative process and rather than trying to change the law by judicial fiat (or simply ignore it when it proves inconvenient) are at least honest enough to go through the slog of the democratic process for such an important public policy decision.

I'm getting married in Massachusetts because I have a house and a life here and because the state constitution protects my equal right to marry my partner without discrimination on the basis of sex. Not because I'm "venue shopping."

Kate:

I'm a bit puzzled by the tone of your last post. Frankly, I felt patronized. I don't believe I have said anything to indicate that I required a lecture from a learned colleague, or to legitimately give offense. If I have, please enlighten me as to what.

For reviewing the text of the US Constitution, I personally prefer

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I am quite well aware of both mechanisms prescribed by Article V of the Constitution for proposing amendments to same.

One mechanism requires Congress. The other does not.

The Congressional mechanism has been used repeatedly. The other mechanism - the Convention method - is defined, but has not been used to propose amendments (though it was used to write the Constitution itself).

Both mechanisms require some type of 2/3 majority. The Congressional method requires agreement of 2/3 of each house of Congress to propose a specific amendment. The Convention method requires application by 2/3 of the legislatures of the states (34 states, rounding up) to convene a Constitutional Convention - which would presumably have carte blanche to propose what it desired in terms of amendments.

As far as I can tell, the Constitution is otherwise silent as to what happens at a Congressional Convention beyond "proposing amendments". Are these amendments to be proposed by unanimous acclamation? 2/3 majority? Simple majority? Anything mentioned in passing? How are the delegates to be chosen? I don't know. (Personally, I'd bet on simple majority for proposing amendments and either legislative appointments or governatorial appointments with legislative confirmation for choosing delegates, but I could be wrong.) I don't think anyone living knows with certainty.

A simple majority is likely all that is required to constitute "application of the legislature" of a state. On a sufficiently hot-button issue, getting a simple majority in 34 state legislatures might well be possible.

Gay marriage might be such a hot-button issue. I believe that more than 34 states have legally defined marriage to be a male/female union. Then again, maybe it isn't. I don't know.

The thought of a second Constitutional Convention frankly scares the living hell out of me, and I hope to never see one. The Constitution has served us well, and should be changed only when absolutely necessary. A Constitutional Convention could be a vehicle to allow wholescale changes. IMO, this would not be a good thing.

However, if enough people in enough states get upset enough the possibility of a Constitutional Convention cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I am also aware that the bar (intentional pun) is a bit higher for ratifying constitutional amendments - specifically, 3/4 of the states. That's 38 states. Again, for a sufficiently hot-button issue, that may be possible. If 39 states have already defined marriage legally to be only applicable to a male/female union, it's possible that these same 39 states would choose to ratify a Constitutional amendment formalizing what is already existing state law.

Thorley:

I think Eamon is essentially correct regarding state recognition of marriages. I could be wrong, but I also remember reading that the general rule is that a marriage that is valid where formalized is considered valid in all states. I believe that the legal reason for this is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. That's one reason why many young couples formerly eloped: to take advantage of a neighboring state's lower age of consent and/or shorter waiting periods. As I recall, the marriages were not invalidated if/when they returned to their home state (although in some cases Daddy was certainly sorely tempted to do so with a shotgun . . . ).

Hondo,

So sorry. I did not mean to sound patronizing. I just disagree. I don't think both houses will ratify it and even if they do I doubt that many of the states which passed statutes would be willing to ratify an amendment. It's a totally different animal. I absolutely meant no malice in any way. I was expressing an opinion. That's all.

If the failure to find any evidence of the stockpiles of weapons after over a year of searching isn't a legitimate criticism of this war, then what is?

Eamon, that's not a legitimate criticism because "stockpiles" of WMD simply wasn't part of the basis. Indeed, in Bush's rather widely-covered SOTU address, he specifically stated we couldn't afford to wait until Saddam's various programs bore enough fruit to have produce operation quantities of weapons all ready to go.

It was the 18th that took away my liquor.

Wow, Kate, you're much, much older than I thought. [Can I :-), or is that still banned here?]

Kirk -- Only if you tell me I look good for my age ;-)

Reading this thread, and seeing all the false justifications and denials of reality, reminds me of a quote by Mark Twain:

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Grotesque self-deception.

Indeed, in Bush's rather widely-covered SOTU address, he specifically stated we couldn't afford to wait until Saddam's various programs bore enough fruit to have produce operation quantities of weapons all ready to go.

Give it up. Iraq posed no threat to the United States and had no connection with Al Qaeda, and Bush knew it.

Kirk, it simply isn't true that the admin. did not claim that Hussein had WMDs stockpiled. To quote Colin Powell in his speech to the U.N. "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." and " Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people." (Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html) If you want to quibble over whether they had "weapons" or "agents", fine, but I don't think that's a distinction that the admin. was keen on making. Remember, Rumsfeld said Hussein had WMD too, and even claimed that they knew they were in Tikrit.

The problematic ADVOCACY mindset

"...and I think most of the gaps between the parties here are narrower than they are portrayed. Polemics are fun (and I have indulged), but it may well be MORE loyal to one's beliefs to work at being open-minded - you might actually provoke some re-thinking."

Your discussion brings to mind the problem of our advocay mindset, which seems largely set-in-stone within politics and trial lawyers, is progressively more prevalent in the media, and therefore is gaining ground in our personal lives. My experience in business - within large companies - is that advocay mindset is still strongly resisted, and justifiably hated.

The advocay mindset can be witnessed any day, when two or three persons are debating. Each person follows this policy:

I shall say good things and ONLY good things about my position, and
I shall say bad things and ONLY bad things about other positions.

Perhaps, among trial lawyers in court, advocay mindset must be followed.

It seems that business quite abhors the advocay mindset -- except perhaps in advertising, where there is justifiable fear that such advocay mindset will corrupt the marketing staff.

When I worked on a project in business, I was given no leeway in staying fully aware - and IDENTIFYING - the various strengths and weaknesses of any option. I could not be a rooter for "my" position, because I was then demonstrating a willingness or foolishness in seeing things just "our" way. Failure to point out the important problems or risks was more serious than failure to refine the strengths to get a more profitable proposal.

Please take a survey, if you're ever again watching a TV discussion show, to find the proportion of talk which follows this policy:

I shall say good things and ONLY good things about my position, and
I shall say bad things and ONLY bad things about other positions......
That's the way it's gotta be, so help me God.

I was never in a Debate Club. I've heard that a student would arrive for a session, and would be told - at that time, and sort of randomly - which side of the argument he was to be a participant. If so, then a METHOD is being trained for, which is good if you're going to become a lawyer. Can anyone confirm whether Debate Club follows an advocacy format, rather than a problem-scoping format?

In summary, advocay mindset is largely dysfunctional in the context of our personal lives.

Kate,

Maybe I was overly sensitive or having a bad day. Mutually forgive and forget?

I hope you're right that any future Constitutional amendments (re: gay marriage or anything else) will continue to use the Congressional process for amending the Constitution. If so, you might be right about the prospects of an amendment banning gay marriage.

Then again, you might not be. If this comes up as an election-year issue (say, in early 2006 - which is about when I'd guess a test court case might be hitting higher courts), how many Senators and Representatives are going to oppose something that around 2/3 of the US population agrees with? I've observed that polls often have a funny way of changing a politician's position.

However, my more serious point is that there are in fact two ways that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could be proposed. My concern is that the issue of gay marriage just might be a hot enough issue to cause the second amendment mechanism - Convention - to be used for the first time. That possibility scares the bejezsus out of me.

I think that Larry H, makes a pretty decent point about the “advocacy mindset.”

However while I am unabashedly an “advocate” for my favorite causes, promoting my worldview, and (sometimes) my preferred candidates and parties, I try to avoid being intellectually dishonest in my advocacy if only to avoid discrediting my cause(s) or undermine other issues I care about. Plus there are people on your side or who may come to rely on some of the points you raise and I think that there is a moral duty not to send them into an intellectual gunfight with only blanks.

My experience has been that those who try to be honest in their assessment (and to be fair, nearly everyone has their lapses and not all are intentional) such as Arnold Kling and Eugene Volokh tend to be the most effective and their opinions tend to carry greater weight than those who develop a reputation for “cooking the books” to support their argument.

Just my $0.03.

Mindles -

Jeebus. Look what you've done. 170-odd comments. I'm feeling a lot of love on this thread, people, a lot of love. Is someone going to lead us in a round of Kumbaya?

I've never thought that, just because you were a Republican, you must worship Satan (though obviously it makes it easier to imagine you clubbing baby seals and drinking blood at Dark Masses). In fact, I'd describe you as fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Guess what? Me too. And for most of the 90's, a consensus seemed to have formed around that point. In general, I suspect we (center Dems and center 'Pubs) hope for similar political ends.

I was trying to make two points in my post. I made them rather badly (which I'll probably feel again after posting this), but let me give it another go.

1. It's not so much that I think you have radically different ideas of what's right than I do (i.e., you love Bush's agenda). It's that, given a portfolio of risks, you think he's managed those risks properly (i.e., Bush has done a great job).

To me, this suggests that either (a) we estimate risk really differently, or (b) we value the various things at risk really differently. I suspect that it's more (b) than (a) at work, because we probably have roughly similar views on, for example, the risk that terrorism will bring down the USA (non-existent) or cause 100K+ deaths (very small but existing).

The problem is that this differing valuation of goals worries me. The Padilla case prior to the S. Ct. decisions might provide the basis for a small but useful example. As I understand it, Padilla gets grabbed on a tip, re-designated as an "enemy combatant", and the government asserts the right to hold him indefinitely and without benefit of counsel. And when this happened, (as far as I can tell) the war supporters politely looked away and coughed.

(Small aside, to try and forestall the commenting loons. 9/11 was awful. I can't imagine what it must be like to lose family like that; I really don't know how you get up in the morning after that. I don't think the loss was negligible).

So here's the thing. If we were told that either we would lose 3000 people a year, every year, to horrible murder, or the state would have the right to designate its citizens as enemies of the state, to confine them indefinitely (without hearing), and to refuse them the right of counsel, I would willingly chose to send the 3000 to their death. Not happily. But I'd count it as cheap at the price. I take it that forcing the government to justify its actions to its citizens, often stringently, is the core of what the United States is about. (Bush or Ashcroft repeating "Terror, terror, terror," and making the sign of a cross is not enough). I'm willing to see that core distorted in times of great need (e.g., the Civil War), but this is nowhere close to that point.

Given your comments about restricting civil liberties above, and in general your support of the Bush Admin., I guess you'd pick the other way.

Soon enough, that won't seem to matter. We'll be fully out of Iraq in under 2 years (longer if its Kerry, b/c he'll have to prove he's not soft), and things will settle down. But the problem is that now I know the price at which half of America is willing to trade what it means to be an American, and the price is 3000 lives. To me, that's not nearly enough. And so, even when things are normalized, I'll be more wary of my Republican fiscally conservative, socially liberal bretheren. Because now I know. And I guess that saddens me.

2. One point at which most center Dems meet center 'Pubs is on agreeing that accountability is important. It's probably what butresses our enormous faith in the market - a lovely mechanism that should force accountability.

But I have NO idea what you are measuring in Iraq to see success. (Really not snark - just no idea). I looked at the link to the four pillars of success - Security, Essential Services, Economy, and Governance. I'd mention two things. First - that isn't enough for me to justify Iraq. I'm sorry that bad things happen to other people, but I don't think it obligates me to help them at whatever cost. Certainly I feel more of an obligation to provide for the welfare of other Americans than for the welfare of Iraqis. Second, I agree that the four pillars are good goals, but I'm unclear which of them you think has been achieved. Security - not if we quick-kicked the turnover. Economy - oil-dependent, and terrorists (or whatever) keep sabotaging it. Governance - does anyone really think there won't be a State of Emergency called shortly? Essential Services - I agree that we want them to have it, but the reporting I've seen suggests we're pretty far off achieving it.

Again, I don't think our difference in opinions is the result of any bad faith on your part. I honestly believe that you are willing to say "Yeah, I screwed the pooch on that one" when you believe it. (I'm less clear that Jane's willing to say that. She seems to have rethought the invasion, but be unwilling to say it. Show some O's, Jane. We've all made tragic mistakes. I once owned several pair of parachute pants).

Anyway, the larger point here is that notions of the need for accountability are where center Dems and Pubs struck the consensus referenced above. But now that I have no idea what accountability means to you, that consensus (and what I think were its considerable benefits) seems less likely to be sustained.

[Out of curiousity, what would it take for you to believe that Iraq was a mistake? For my part, I would have needed nukes or evidence that Hussein was part of 9/11 or an ongoing present plot].

Sorry for the length. Believe it or not, this is the shortened version.

P.S. Please give my thanks to your mom for keeping the faith.

Err - the "for my part" bit obviously references what I'd need to consider that I was wrong about opposing the invasion of Iraq. And the reference to your mom (always risky) was about her chastising you for not being a Democrat, and was a joke. Sort of.

We're expected to be wacky, stupid and completely dismissable. Either that, or we're told - with a wink and a nudge - that we're one of the "good Americans." Disgusting.

Ah, so this IS a broader phenomenon. I haven't lived in Europe but I have had the misfortune of interacting with a left-leaning German on another forum who possesses prcisely this handicap where political issues are concerned. I'm increasingly convinced that it's a mental defect of some sort, a complete inability to deal honestly with people who refuse to conform to the prejudice.

Tim, I can't speak for Mindles, but I think you are cooking the books here. You posit a finite amount of annual murder victims, in this case 3000, against a non-finite amount of citizens designated as enemies of the state, to be confined indefinitely (without hearing), and refuses them the right of counsel. What if it were designated that one citizen per year received such treatment? Would one so easily give up the 3000 lives?

One can easily envision a response; "well, it cannot be assumed with any degree of certainty that such actions will be limited to one person a year". True enough, but then (and this leads to another area of disagreement; that of risk assessment) it cannot easily be assumed that murders by foreign enemies will be limited to 3000 a year, or, in my opinion, that the chances of an event involving 100k plus murder victims is as small as you believe, over the next 10 years. In fact, absent some lucky dvelopments that have yet to materialize, I think such an event has no more slim a chance of occuring than 50-50.

Furthermore, your hypothetical adopts an unrealistic view of American political culture, which, to understate, is rather rich in the tradition of branches of government and political factions successfully pushing back, when one branch or facton oversteps it's historical bounds. That process began to unfold this week with the SCOTUS decisions, with, plug the irony meter in, Scalia leading the charge against the Bush Administration in one case.

Another tradition may be in play here, also: That of an American electorate demanding bloody revenge in the wake of deadly attacks. Frankly, I am a little suprised it was not more evident in the wake of the events of Sept. 11th, but sometimes it takes some time for these things to scale up. American attitudes as to what constituted legitimate behavior of Japanese civilians was pretty harsh on Dec. 8th, 1941, but when the accounts of the Bataan Death March were published, a new universe of bloodlust was entered. I fervently hope I am wrong, but I think this is the universe the world is on the precipice of re-entering, except the technology of slaughter will be far more advanced and more one-sided. Yes, it is better to be on the side doing most of the slaughtering, but it is still a hideous universe in which to live.

Finally as to the course of this war, I think it historically unwise to think that evaluating a 15 month old conflict with anything approaching clarity is possible.

Any large comment section on the blogosphere seems to be a war about the war.

To the owner of this site: I know exactly how you feel. I'm surrounded by people who "know" that anyone intelligent or reasonably sensible must be a liberal just like them. To these people, it is completely obvious that the conservatives are evil and/or selfish and/or stupid.

Not that I am a classic conservative either. Like my friends, family, and acquaintances, I do not think government has any place telling people how to run their personal lives. Yet, because I support the war in Iraq and the opportunity of 25 million people to choose their own government, I just have to keep my mouth shut. I guess I am not as brave as you.

Mr. Dreck

Three Cheers for you.

TomCom

PS

Dear Abby,

These days, I find myself in the situation described by Mr. D. often (usually, virtually always?), w/o any support. Seems that many of my friends, who agree at all other times that we should be able to discuss the Big Issues as adults, clam up when someone engages in pious Liberal rhetoric at a house or restaurant get together. (On the other hand, in the rare instance that the reverse happens, they are quick to shush anyone who engages in mindless Conservative rhetoric.)

My friends are especially cowed when confronted by a Genuine Thinker who has Thought Through the Big Things & found that Business is Bad & Big Business is Badder! And that everyone who is not a Big Businessman (Boo, Hiss) must be excused for anything he /she does because he/she is a Victim of Big Business. And that the Iraq War is simply War for Big Oil.

Now, I don't want to be the skunk at the garden party, but I don't agree that anyone who spouts anti-Democratic Capitalism rhetoric (while living off the fruits of Democratic Capitalism) has the Moral High Ground & can assume that no one of sound mind would disagree with him/her.

Regards

Confused

Here is the problem. Saddam had been pretty silent for about 10 years.

Well I suppose if being ?pretty silent? includes refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, firing on US and British aircraft, sponsoring Palestinian terrorists, and continuing to keep illegal weapons systems, then yes Saddam had been ?pretty silent.?

Thnaks for a great post! You have summed up everything I feel in an incredibly coherent way. I do feel like I have to hide my belief that Iraq and perhaps the whole ME may end up better from this war, yet at the same time I am no Republican or Bush flag-waver, and wish the whole WMD thing wasn't trumped up to allow the war to occur.

Pitty us, the reasonably mildly-libertarian, who are neither GOP conservatives, socialist liberals, or even nut-case libertarian anarchists, and are shunned by all!

Comments are Closed.