Asymmetrical Information

I just read Kevin Drum's and Matthew Ygelsias's
articles. They ask a lot of questions, and that's about all. I also spent some time at the Nation's site. None of them has a clue or an answer to a problem they can see with the Democratic party's lack of national defense policy, but somehow are unable to address the issues. They are all afraid to say anything. I guess they're worried they will offend someone. Where are the leaders of the party?

Everyone avoids talking about the underlying reason that Kerry lost. IMHO the voters saw that he's a fraud! It wasn't the religious right; it wasn't that he wouldn't fight terrorists; it wasn't that he wouldn't work to improve health and education. He creamed Bush in the debates. Bush probably did goof off his last two years in the TANG, not that it mattered. It wasn't that Karl Rove outsmarted the DNC. Bush was really vulnerable on many fronts. However, Bush's record in the WoT was a very strong point for him with Red State America.

Kerry's military record was a sham. He chose to run on it because there was nothing else on which to hang an empty suit. He hoped people wouldn't notice, but when they did, he was a fish out of water. He was unable to ever personally respond to the Swifties when it came to his Vietnam record and his post war activities. All refutation of those charges were left to lawyers and surrogates, and the MSM declined to force him to answer the the simple question of why he refused to sign the Form 180.

For Kerry to win, he had to decry Michael Moore and Hollywood. He had to rise above Kos and Bush-Hitler, he had to demonstrate real leadership and denounce CBS and their fraud. He didn't need those fruitcake endorsements. People were looking for reasons to vote for Kerry, but all he gave them was Anybody But Bush!

In a close race, his actions could not be reconciled with the American ideal of what our President should be. That's what the answer to the exit poll values question was about. That's why we celebrate four more years of GWB.

As a moderate, I look to Yglesias and Drum to represent the intellectual left as I consider various issues, and they often present arguments that influence my thinking. I read Atrios and Kos for entertainment value only.

I don't think the left thought the cold war was an exception, I think they thought it was our fault like every other war. They believe in peace and think that if we were just nicer to people then things would get better. It is a constant theme with them. I just had a liberal from San Fran say to me the other day, if we had only been nicer to the Soviets, things wouldn't have gotten so bad. I think it is a really underlying belief, that somehow it takes two to tango and if we just did our part somehow everything would just work out, and we could all be peaceful.

I agree they need to get real about threats in the world. But the idea that there is a threat we would have to go after and start and fight a war so conflicts with their ego image of always being peaceful, when it become so obvious as it is now with terrorism, it causes a major sensory overload and they end up with a bunch of muddled nonsense because both ideas just can't compute simultaneously.

Michael Moore is their hero, and he has said flat out there is no threat of terrorism, it is just something that the Bush administration is making up to justify going and stealing oil.

They will have to somehow wake up to the fact that other people do things because they want to, like kill you, and it is not your fault or responsibility. There is a world that exists outside your own ego, and some of it is dangerous. They don't get that, and they are a long long way from it. Good luck to the ones that do, because you have a big job ahead of you.

The irony of Yglesias' comments is that, in point of fact, many people in the donkey tent DON'T believe that the war on terror is a big deal. They will protest in public when challenged on it, but in general don't view terrorism in general as a threat. They will happily tell you that they would prosecute OBL, but that is the end of the deal to them - there is no broader issue to be worried about.

Interestingly, the 'reality based community' can't bring themselves to put that in a stump speech.

My own two bit theory:

The real division in foreign policy isn't hawk or dove or red or blue or reb or dem, it's between those who distrust/fear the rest of the world and those who are neutral to positive about the rest of the world. The first go for either strict isolationsism or strong defense or occasionally aggressive nation building (to make 'them' more like 'us'). FOr these folks, 9/11 was the distilliation and confirmation of all their worst fears.
The second group tends to favor a hands off foreign policy geared toward diplomacy and with maybe the occasional bit of humanitarian intervention. For them, 9/11 was terrible, but, statistically off the graph and not necessarily a sound basis for establishing foreign policy for the next 50 years (anymore than a belltower sniper is a reason for avoiding public places).

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Well put, Mr. Farris. That's about as cogent and concise an explanation for US foreign policy trends as I've seen anywhere.

Mr. Farris:

Perhaps true to a point, but it's a little simplistic to divide the US into paranoids and sane people, and then to permit the inference that the paranoids now outnumber the sane. Goodness, I don't think I'm paranoid about, say, the French, or the Japanese, or the Maori, or the Chileans... only Islamofascists whose goal is the elimination of the depradation that is, to them, the West, and who expect to achieve heaven if they further that goal. And I guess people with similar goals.

Jamie, I didn't mean paranoid and sane, there are, I think, relatively saner and insaner factions on both sides. My side (generally positive toward the rest of the world) has definite weaknesses.

But as terrible as 9/11 was, I'm still not afraid of "Islamofascism" as a real force (in the abstract it's scary, in the real world, it's pretty marginal). And the plain fact is that if there were enough determined terrorists, we'd be having suicide bombingshijackings all across the USA on a daily basis (or until moslems were put in camps and/or deported which wouldn't take long). Fortunately, the number of people bound and determined to do that are very, very rare and probably better dealt with by law enforcement/intelligence.

In other words, the military is a blunt instrument (as currently seen in Iraq, as much in it's successes as in its less successful moments) and promoting democracy and western values requires a delicate touch that the US just doesn't have.

Mr. Farris:

Yet we're the only ones who seem disposed to do so (that is, "promote democracy").

I'm not afraid of Islamofascism in any day-to-day sense; I don't look up at the sky every time I hear a plane overhead and wonder whether this will be the next one (any more). But - uh-oh, I'm about to enter the realm of twentieth-century history, about which I'm only as informed as a decently educated person - I am NO historian. Here goes. When Hitler was building what eventually became the Nazi party, were there voices declaring that this sort of "German Pride" movement could grow to threaten all of Europe? If there were such voices, were they heeded? I don't know the answer to the first question, but if there were, clearly the answer to the second question is "No." I'm not suggesting that there's a perfect parallel between Naziism and Islamofascism - far from it. What I am suggesting is that when a group has shown that it is both motivated and able to cause chaos and terror (cf. Kristallnacht), it behooves us not to ignore the situation until it becomes exponentially more difficult to stop it.

Comments are Closed.