SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (16736)11/19/2003 9:10:01 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
Twaddle from the Axis of Neville
by Austin Bay
November 19, 2003

Angry Euro-protestors attacking an American warmonger president?

Yawn. In the American idiom, "Been there, done that." Translation for Euro-sophisticates: "Passe, pal."

It's 2003, and the president is George W. Bush, but the teeth-gnashing rhetoric is right of out 1983 and the "Euro-missile protests" against Ronald Reagan.

This month is the 20th anniversary of the Great Euromissile Crisis. Oh, the accusations! Reagan was stupid. Reagan was dangerous, a warmonger seeking the nuclear destruction of the USSR. Reagan was -- good heavens -- a unilateralist. Today, the mayor of London calls Bush "the greatest threat to life on the planet."

Twaddle. The current crop of Axis of Neville (Chamberlain) leftish pundits and leaders are thus exposed, recycling 20-year-old insults.

Here's the background: In the late 1970s, the Soviets began deploying SS-20 theater ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe. In response, NATO pursued a "dual track" strategy, NATO would negotiate to remove the SS-20s but would deploy its own missiles if the Soviets refused.

Germany's Socialist Chancellor Helmut Schmidt saw dual-track's flaws, the most dangerous being loss of will to follow through with deployment. Schmidt was livid with Jimmy Carter, who insisted on "dual track." Schmidt favored an approach that said: "You deploy, we deploy. If you want to talk, we'll listen."

Dual-track delighted the Soviets. They could jiggle the American nuclear umbrella protecting the West and perhaps deal NATO a fatal political blow. The American media were wallowing in the defeatist "Vietnam Syndrome" and, if one trusted European polls, neutralist sentiment, evident in Holland, Belgium and Denmark, had spread to West Germany.

The Soviets knew the negotiating track of NATO's "dual strategy" was doomed. Moscow had no intention of withdrawing the SS-20s. With the SS-20s as the rattling sword, the Soviets began a political and propaganda campaign designed to portray the NATO missile (SET ITAL) response (END ITAL) as an aggressive act.

By 1983, NATO realized dual-track had failed. Cruise missiles and Pershing 2 ballistic missiles would have to be deployed to militarily and politically counter the 200-plus Soviet SS-20s. So the Soviets launched the "Euro-missile crisis" to frustrate NATO's deployment. Communist sympathizers, Western "peace" organizations, Western pacifists and other political elements in the West participated in demonstrations throughout Western Europe and the United States.

Despite the heady boost from left-wing elements in the West, Moscow's strategy experienced setbacks. In 1983, the Dutch elected their most conservative government (Lubbers government) since World War II. Italy issued statements welcoming deployment. Fear, it seemed, wasn't selling. Common sense and the common need to defend democracy against tyrannical bullies held sway.

Though in some brash sectors hysteria reigned (a review of the videotapes of television news programs and talk shows will illustrate hysteria's near-domination in the American mass media), thanks to U.S. leadership NATO made the cool chess move of counter-deployment.

With a theatrical huff, the Soviets withdrew from negotiations. Nothing, however, went "poof," except perhaps the protestors' adrenalin high. Within 18 months, the Gorbachev regime would assume power in Moscow. The Soviets would return to the bargaining table and accept the Reagan administration's "zero-zero" offer -- no SS-20s, no NATO missiles. And we're all better off.

History never really repeats itself. However, themes from 1983 remain relevant in 2003, a key one being the absolute necessity that democratic leaders demonstrate to tyrants and thugs that the consequences of testing a free people's will to defend themselves are deadly sure and certain. It's a sad fact of human existence: There will always be another tyrant who'll need convincing.

Another theme isn't so important, but it's worth noting. The leftish teeth-gnashers will never get it. The figment utopias they tout can't be challenged by difficult facts. The green-cheese moons they detect orbit their own weightless imaginations, and the gravity of down-to-Earth decision, particularly when it comes to defending liberty, exerts little pull. Hence, the rhetorical hokum they spew that Bush is "more dangerous than bin Laden."

Ironically, the Euromissile Crisis proved to be the last big political battle of the Cold War. In 1989, the Berlin Wall cracked, and the communists' workers' paradise was exposed for the Red Fascist hell it always was.
strategypage.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (16736)11/20/2003 9:29:09 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
Demos must lighten up if they're going to win
By Ellen Goodman

My dad was a JFK Democrat who swore he could identify Republicans in our precinct by the way they came to the polls: mad.

I grew up thinking Democrats were the happy warriors. Roosevelt, Truman, JFK. I thought liberals, or progressives if you prefer, were the ones who believed in people and the possibility of change.

They carried the torch for the improvement of everyday life, the flag of hope for American progress.

But it doesn't feel that way this year. I'm having trouble finding a happy warrior.

It's not just that the most committed Democrats in the primaries are the most angry. After all, there's much to be angry about, and no one should have to smile through bad news like a TV anchor reporting disaster as if it were a pep rally.

Nor is it just the passionate anti-Bush sentiment that has turned this Democratic primary season from a debate about who should be president to a debate about who can beat the president. It's something deeper, maybe even darker.

When you talk to folks in the most committed wing of the Democratic Party, the deep frustration at the Bush administration often turns on one question: "How do they get away with it?"

How did they get away with tales of weapons of mass destruction? How did they get away with an underfunded Leave No Child Behind Act, a polluting Clean Water Act, a soaring national debt?

This outrage at George W. Bush morphs too easily into pessimism about the American people, a perception of the public as dupes. I have heard, even shared, some of it.

After all, about two-thirds of Americans in polls believe Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 terrorists. How could they?

On the other hand, I also know that when liberals start talking about the American people as "them" instead of "us," they're done for.

On Monday, Rush Limbaugh came back from rehab and after some baby steps - about 12 steps - he returned to liberal bashing. "You ever see liberals smile about anything?" asked the man who epitomized the "angry white man." But he's making a charge that has some Velcro. Since I lifted my personal embargo on presidential politics, I've watched several debates and joined in one.

The closest thing to a happy warrior is John Edwards, and he exudes more good nature than gravitas. Howard Dean has perfected a rallying cry of empowerment - "You have the power to take this country back!" - but his optimism is only about Bush's defeat.

Bush no longer claims to be the "compassionate conservative" but he knows enough to work on the vision thing. In a recent foreign policy speech, he said Americans were not only fighting against terrorism, but for a "global democratic revolution."

Well, I don't believe pre-emptive war is a good ambassador for democracy. But Democrats who are dead-on right about this misleadership have yet to share their own ideal of how to turn enemies to allies and despots into democrats.

Sometimes I think of the late Paul Wellstone, a man who loved his work. He argued that progressive politics should be less about what's wrong with the other guy and more about getting citizens "to dream again." Where are the big dreams about universal health care or education or jobs?

I am not looking for a happy talking, cockeyed optimist, Candidate Feel Good. This week, America is commemorating the 40th anniversary of JFK's death.

But it's worth thinking of the life of the man who called on our best. A man who lightened his Cold War realism with wit and eloquence.

Leaders who project an energetic belief in people and the future draw voters into their magnetic field. Politicians with that sort of positive energy hold an edge whether named Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.

There is nothing contradictory about anger and idealism. But anger without idealism makes for a unhappy warrior and an unhappy election.

As Clinton, who is still a better politician than Karl Rove on his best day, said recently: "We've got to fight. And we gotta look like we're havin' a good time doing it."

Anger may win a primary. But it takes an upbeat pol to get folks to come to the party.

* Ellen Goodman is a columnist for The Boston Globe, P.O. Box 2378, Dorchester, MA 02107-2378; e-mail: ellengoodman@globe.com.