Apparently most people don’t know what “Liberal” means. Here, of course, it’s synonymous with ‘pompous jackass’.
Then again, I’ll bet if you were to ask for a definition from those who continually use “liberal” as a slur, I’ll bet they wouldn’t be able to do more than point to a Wiki article.
-Joe, fuckin’ liberal, but not fucking Liberal
Nope Lib, I’m not being coy about this issue and I’m not pulling punches. I assure you seriously and respectfully (if it’s okay to talk like that in the Pit) that I really don’t understand what you mean when you speak of “forcibly stripping” conservatives of ideas that they have “stolen”.
I mean, the standard way to metaphorically “take back ideas” that have been misrepresented or distorted is to publicly draw people’s attention to the misrepresentations and distortions, and to stand up for your own interpretation of what the ideas really mean. And, not to be immodest or anything, I thought I was doing an okay job of that.
But you seemed to disdain it as mere “criticizing and whining”, which appeared to imply that you’ve got a scheme for a more concrete, practical way to “forcibly strip” these ideas away from those who “stole” them. Okay then, I ask you seriously and respectfully: what is it?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Okay, then. It is using them ourselves and pre-emptively. See the thread about the Freedom Tower, for example. See how the very term is being ridiculed because of the way the conservatives have ruined it. I recommend that, rather than ridiculing the term and allowing them to succeed in destroying a longstanding tenet of liberalism, re-embrace it. We should be glad to have a monument to freedom, and we should tell the world exactly what freedom is. Liberal leaders in Congress should be pointing out what a great liberal jounalist once said: “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” — Edward R. Murrow. Make an issue of it. Let Americans know that it was our term back when conservatives were filibustering civil rights.
"Dear Senator,
As you may be aware, the tower replacing the WTC is going to be named “The Freedom Tower.” But fifty years ago, conservatives voted against civil rights! Please take action immediately.
Yours,
Miller"
I dunno, Lib. As far as political strategies go, it seems to be a little lacking. Got something more concrete? I’m having a trouble understanding exactly what you want liberals to do. You’ve got some great slogans, but I’m still not sure what we’re supposed to do once we’ve started manning the barricades.
And who doesn’t want a President who will give the enemy a timetable of how long they have to hold out. The depth of terror in Iraq is mild right now. Once the U.S. military leaves it’s Katy bar the door. Setting a timetable only gives the enemy a date to circle on a calander.
And taking that attitude only guarantees that we’ll be there until our great-grandchildren are being drafted. We NEED a timetable. We need an exit strategy. We are NOT going to permanently occupy Iraq. We can’t.
Looks like the Whack-An-Apologist game has begun…
I think the problem is there is nothing we can do now to prevent the bloodshed once we leave. Leave in a month, leave in a decade, civil war will ensue. I’m for leaving in a month, it will cost less money.
Of course we need a timetable. Either you misunderstood my post or I mistyped it; but I said “give the enemy” a timetable. There may already be a timetable, but announcing it benefits the enemy.
I can’t think of anything better here than to repeat myself: It’s a secret plan, which he keeps in a jar buried in his back yard.
Forgive those of us of a certain age if we are skeptical this time around too. Been there, done that, got the teargas canister.
Pie in the sky, by and by.
OR’
We should just trust that there is some perfectly good timeline, after everything that has been screwed up?
I see where I used the wrong word. My apologies.
In this post I started the last sentence with “Setting a timetable…” in which I should have started the sentence with “Announcing a timetable…” Again, sorry.
I think very few people, even the ardent war supporters, recognize the need to bring our troops home soon (they have lives to lead afterall). But announcing it is giving the insurgents something to look foward to. It will give them inspiration just like anouncing the Koran was flushed gave them anger and vindictiveness. Ultimately it does not matter when we leave as World Eater mentioned; but announcing it prematurely could matter (in a military strategy sense.)
At some point it has to be announced. We can’t bundle our troops and equipment out of town in the middle of the night like the Baltimore Colts.
I tend to agree with World Eater, the second we’re gone, the insurgency ends and the civil war begins. All we succeed in doing by remaining there is to put off that moment.
Are you implying that the actions of an administration of 30 years ago bears on the current administration? Just because John lies to me, I am not going to assume Joe is a liar because he is also a human male.
As far as the “plan” goes: I think it would be arrogant presumption to think the administration would announce it before it was militarily safe to do so just to imform me and my peers. I grant you that, ultimately, it is not top-secret information, but it will have military impact.
I agree to that too; in that we can’t just leave in one day. But they can effect a withdrawal without necessarily announcing one. And once we leave I think the insurgency will continue until members of the current American sponsored government are gone. Then the civil war to claim leadership of Iraq begins.
Is this inevitable? Probably. Does the administration think it’s inevitable? Not publicy. I fear there is no timetable because they have no hopes or intentions of leaving any time soon. But don’t be surprised if the announcment of a withdrawal is followed almost immediately by the withdrawal itself.
Certainly, I am. Bush is certainly no Nixon (he’d have to be 100 times as competent to be Nixon), but anyone who can’t see parallels from history in what is happening today in Iraq must be blind.
It doesn’t matter that John was a liar - if Joe has an independent history of lying to me, I’m going to rightfully distrust anything he says.
I’ve spotted the fatal error in your analogy. We’re not dealing with human males, here. We’re dealing with politicians. They’re a far more predictable, and infinetly less trustworthy, species.
That’s not neccesarily true. Civil war in Iraq will be avoided if Iraq can establish stablizing institutions that all sides can tolerate, there exists a non-violent process to effect change that’s popularly accepted, and if the material conditions in Iraq can improve enough so that the majority of the population feels content.
Now, this isn’t easy to do. It’s quite possible that it won’t be done in a year, or five years, or even ten years, and I doubt we have the political will to do it. Americans tend not to be able to tolerate heavy US casualties, especially over a long period of time, and Americans tend not to be happy fielding armies of occupation.
But just because we won’t do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
This simply ain’t going to happen, I don’t know what else to say.
Okay then, but many liberals over the last several years have consistently been re-embracing, or rather continuing to embrace, the term “freedom” as an important tenet of liberalism. Consider just a few of the remarks about “freedom” that have appeared recently in that bastion of liberal journalism, The Nation:
An October 2003 article about the “Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride” seeking fairer laws for immigrant labor, which explicitly invokes the “freedom rides” of the civil rights era;
A July 2004 editorial, “Freedom’s Trail”, invoking the American Revolution as inspiration for continuing struggles for rights and justice.
Consider also some remarks in another major liberal journal, the American Prospect:
A March 2005 book review of D. H. Fischer’s Liberty and Freedom, and the importance of freedom today;
An October 2002 column about the annual civil rights report of the Freedom Forum;
An October 2004 article about the centrality of economic security to Roosevelt’s “second freedom”.
And similar examples abound. So I think you’re way off base if you’re suggesting that liberals in general haven’t been “embracing” the concept of freedom and “telling the world exactly what freedom is” from a liberal viewpoint. The authors cited above, as well as many other liberals, have consistently been doing precisely that. Sure, some other liberals could have done more in this regard, but I think your sweeping condemnation of liberals in general as somehow abandoning the liberal commitment to freedom is totally out of touch with reality.