<<It is impossible to argue/wrestle with a liberal skunk without getting stink all over you>>
Gator wrote these harsh words about you, and Ed, I share the anger that is reflected in them. But not at you.
We are living in an extraordinarily partisan time. Two nights ago I watched cable TV's Bill Maher ("politically incorrect"- not). For an hour Maher trashed Bush for everything from hiding in the National Guard, being AWOL, a DUI 20+ years ago: the entire well-used litany. And when Maher referred 3-4 times to the "slimeing" of Kerry by the swiftvets, I am sure he didn't even recognize the irony.
The river of vituperation from the Michael Moore/Al Gore style "intelligentsia" and their rag-tag celebrity wannabes is incredible: Bush is stupid; he is the worst president; he is the Manchurian pawn of Saudi Arabia; he has alienated the rest of the world; he and the Republicans stole the election/ denied Florida felons the right to vote; on and on.
ON THE ONE HAND, it is working: I have many otherwise meek, mild "liberal" friends who with passion in their voices describe Bush, and Republicans in general, as though they were bugs to be squashed to save world civilization. ON THE OTHER HAND, it makes me in turn- and apparently many others - very, very mad, partisan and passionate.
All of the above is the background to my belief that, regardless of who wins in November, our nation, our society, is going to have a very dangerous hangover. The passions and the 'win-at-any-cost' tactics will not be forgotten. Between now to November, things will only get worse.
In 2000, there was undeniable vote fraud: in Wisconsin where easy last minute registration allowed students to vote multiple times (ten or more in cases); in Milwaukee where Democratic workers went to homeless shelters with cigarettes and then bused the recipients to the polls; in Oregon where polite'young people' met voters at polling places bringing turn-in ballots, received them and destroyed the ones not voting "right". In 2004, I am certain, because of passion, anger,and a perception of what is at stake, things will be much, much worse.
To an extent we all tend to forget, civil democratic societies rely on mutual trust and respect for their continued existence. It probably would take years, even in a worst case scenario, but I believe it possible for American democracy to be destroyed. Re-read your Thucydides and Thomas' "The Spanish Civil War." In late 19th century Spain, many believe that the lingering effects over decades of name-calling and bad blood undermined a democracy that while imperfect was wistfully looked back upon.
<<I'd like someone that understands that the world is a complex place full of cultures that share different values; many of them repugnant to our own. Someone that understands that not all people crave equality for women, equal rights for minorities, material wealth over spiritual sacrifice or...>>
Ed, I think that the above is where you and I disagree. Forget your rhetoric about Bush's exageration of the threat of WMD and his supposed use of "fear, envy and distrust"(??) You were opposed to the invasion REGARDLESS of the existence of WMD, regardless of the faults of Sadam's regime or the suffering of its people. Regardless also of the EXECUTION by the Army and the Bush administration of the occupation. (As to the execution, the way the occupation was handled, I happen to agree with you, but that is a long complicated topic all its own.) And your position is principled and I don't fault you for that. (And that position is shared by many "conservatives" who we used to call isolationists and "American Firsters!")
On the issue, however, of what a "people" want, I couldn't disagree with you more. I believe that all peoples, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Turkey etc. do want a say in how their society operate, do want to be empowered, in other words, DO want democracy. And I am certain that most of the women in those societies do want equality. And I am even more certain that these countries- and I'll discuss it with you on a case by case basis - do prefer material comfort to spiritual values.
This is where we get to the heart of the so-called "neo-conservative doctrine." Totalitarian regimes in the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia and Egypt) oppress the people, keep them poor,and give them no outlet for expression other than religious fanaticism and carefully controlled anti-American nationalism. These become breeding grounds for terrorists. Any effort to fight the terrorists without eliminating the breeding ground ,in the long run, will prove fruitless.
A principled well-intentioned theory and quite different from the Kissinger-Nixon real-politik that Kerry, I believe, would take us back to. Simple minded critics of a conspiratorial bent would have us believe that Bush invaded Iraq to get back at Sadam for attempting to kill his father; or to finish the job that his father started. In fact, the neo-conservative, Wolfowitz doctrine set forth above was announced at the very start of the Bush administration, even before 9/11. (As regular readers of Foreign Policy magazine would know)
As to how things are going and whether we want "four more years", my answer is: surprisingly well, and yes. Where you see chaos, I see promise. I advocated at the outset of the invasion, the breaking up of the country into 3 parts: Kurd, Shiite and Sunni. But I think there is real hope that a more or less free and democratic country can be created that will be like a beacon to the rest of the middle east. I see regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia tottering, in large part brought about by their people's heightened sense of empowerment and self-awareness which itself was brought about by the invasion.
Finally, I think you are overly impressed by images of 12 year old Arab boys spouting hate of America. I give that no more substance than I would pictures of German or Japanese boys looking up with hate at American planes fire- bombing their cities. Those images were also used as propaganda.
Bruce |
