I have little problem acknowledging the obvious.
Anti-Bush and Anti-Ashcroft is not being Anti-American. Dare I say it, it is a most Pro-American stance one can take.
Actually I implied that you had inadvertantly complimented her. :eek:
I go now, to the river, there to perofrm the Ancient Tasmanian
Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation.
Before making a statement such as this, you might want to check out letters that readers of The Nation sent in about how 9/11 changed their lives. Nearly every letter is about, as one reader put it, “the fascist foragings of John Ashcroft.” No, criticism is not a zero-sum game, and I have been pretty critical of many of the Justice Department’s actions post-9/11, but the fact that for these readers, the biggest danger after September 11 has been erosion of civil liberties shows that Hitchens’ statement is not off-base.
I think the fundamental problem here are the foreign policy paradigm shift associated with last September. What you believe that we should do to keep the USA and her allies safe not only this week but 20 years from now right now does not fall along party lines.
There is no pro- versus anti-American here. The differing opinions are actually pretty close – I have seen no one who is pro-Iraq (i.e. anti-war and anti-sanctions). Pretty much everybody in government is for unrestricted inspections with the threat of military action if those are not held up. I have not even heard anyone disagree with unilateral American actions if it comes down to that. The UN Security Council has passed resolutions, and everybody (including all of Europe as far as I can tell) wants those resolutions held up.
The biggest issues of contention are regime change and what constitutes an “imminent threat” demanding intervention. I think even the strongest proponents of regime change are backing off of that demand, especially since it opens a Pandora’s Box of factors which could negatively affect regional and worldwide security.
But back to the first point. Strange bedfellows are being made. The public is still quite anti-dissention, but there is no clear course to follow. The White House’s course is non-contiguous and short-termed. The Democrats are unsure (especially this close to midterm elections) how much to dissent. Moreover, people like Lieberman are attending Rose Garden tea parties on Iraq policies while a bunch of Republicans are notably silent on the White House policy. Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of loud dissention. The White House says “Get on my side! We have bipartisan support!” But it can just as easily be viewed as breakdown of the party lines. So when Daschle dissents, it is not a marginalization – he speaks for a broad swath of people on both sides of the aisle that are not falling in line behind the regime-change White House.
This is by far the most important issue in American politics right now. Both parties will probably find their voices and form a cohesive plan. If not, this could redraw the lines of American politics, with multilateralists and unilateralists on different sides of the aisle.
Ann Coulter can complain all she wants about liberals calling conservatives fascists. I don’t think that all conservatives are fascists. The definition for fascism that I find useful has as its features, ultra nationalism, intolerance for dissent and hyper capitalism. Many people who would denominate modern American conservatives fit this definition far better than the definition of conservative or Republican. Ann Coulter, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh etc. are examples of this. Our current president Bush, if he gave it any thought, (and he might, I could be just misunderestimating him) is certainly a fascist, and probably one who has elevevated it to a leader principle, making it nazism.
Yes, Ms. Coulter, fascism is an ugly word, but your politics are that kind of ugly.
Thanks to the SDMB for this opportunity to speak out against fascism.
Fang:
“Before making a statement such as this, you might want to check out letters that readers of The Nation sent in about how 9/11 changed their lives. Nearly every letter is about, as one reader put it, “the fascist foragings of John Ashcroft.” No, criticism is not a zero-sum game, and I have been pretty critical of many of the Justice Department’s actions post-9/11, but the fact that for these readers, the biggest danger after September 11 has been erosion of civil liberties shows that Hitchens’ statement is not off-base.”
I have been a subscriber to the Nation for years, so there is no question of my having not read the letters you mention before writing my post. Nor do I have any interest in discussing these letters, which were meant to provide a representative sample of hundreds of letters that the Nation received from its readership. I judge the Nation primarily by the articles, columns, and editorials it publishes: letters by readers are of comparatively little import.
That said, you seem to have entirely missed the point about criticism not being a zero sum game even as you claim to agree with it. The Nation did not ask these readers, “What do you think should be done about terrorism?”, or “What are your feelings about Osama bin Laden?” or “How do you think Islamic fundamentalism should be responded to in the West?” It asked its readers how 9/11 had changed their lives.
Those who responded by trouncing Ashcroft on civil rights, or Bush on unilaterarlist warmongering were speaking for themselves and speaking from the heart. Such people doubtless found Ashcroft scary in the first place (I know I did), and prior to 9/11 opposed Bush’s position on domestic matters such as taxcuts, social security, deregulation, etc. Hence, for these people what 9/11 has meant is 1) a prolonged diversion from domestic matters bearing on social welfare; 2) a narrowing of civil rights (which you yourself are concerned about); and 3) the unleashing of an aggressive unilateralist militarism that reflects the most rightwing flank of the Republican party–very diffrerent from the foreign policy goals that Bush himself had articulated prior to his election.
This is very scary stuff for liberals, many centrists and not a few Republicans: the so-called Bush doctrine of preemption is entirely unprecedented. Yet 9/11 has made it politically possible for Bush adopt this radical stance. At the same time 9/11 has also made it all but impossible to keep people focused on the social welfare and environmental issues that also matter greatly to liberals.
I don’t see how you can possibly blame people who feel strongly about these issues for answering the question about how 9/11 changed their lives in their own way. I certainly don’t see how anyone can see them as unpatriotic.
Had anyone written “I think warmongering George Bush or fascisitic John Ashcroft are worse leaders than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden respectively,” you might have a point. And doubtless there are some people out there who like to make such facile and inflamatory comparisons. But the Nation isn’t likely to publish such sentiments; because, by and large, the Nation steers clear of simplistic politics and shock-value rhetoric.
I repeat: Hitchens has lost perspective. The Iraq situation is most unlike the Afghanistan situation. The Nation’s position on the former is very much in line with world opinion, and with the flank of the left that has traditionally been the Nation’s own constituency.
You’re picking an awfully narrow definition of Fascism. ‘Hyper-Capitalism’? I guess that makes the U.S. at the turn of the century ‘fascist’? How about Hong Kong?
The ‘classic’ definition of Fascism is a system of government where there is extensive private ownership of the means of production, with the government exerting control over it for nationalistic purposes. (as opposed to Communism, which also has big government, but in which the government itself owns the means of production).
Under that definition of Fascism, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. Things like industrial policy that compels businesses to act in certain ways for nationalistic reasons is fascistic. Wage and price controls are often characteristics of fascism. Likewise, subsidies to certain businesses or regulations imposed on business in order to force them into a direction that politicians see as ‘healthier’ are also fascistic.
That’s not to say that the U.S. is Fascist - just that trying to stick the label on someone just because they happen to support a strong military is about as relevant as calling a politician a fascist because he supports dairy subsidies.
ElJeffe, I’ll take your word on the National Review, having not read it very often, but clearly you haven’t read The Nation very much…and pretty much have no clue about the Left at all…if you believe that it parrots the DNC! I mean, one could argue that the Democrats and Republicans centrists are closer together in ideology than the Democratic centrists and The Nation! [The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), of which Gore and Lieberman were both a part of, and the Republicans are way closer together than the DLC is to The Nation.]
Hell, in the last election, I think there is only one regular columnist in The Nation who endorsed voting for Gore without condition. (Most of the others, including the editors as I recall, endorsed the Molly Ivans’ rule of voting Gore only if you had to; i.e., voting Nader unless you were in a swing state. And, Alexander Cockburn wrote a whole freakin’ book denouncing Gore and arguing, among other things, that environmental policy would fare worse under Gore than under Bush…a statement which I think is particularly hard to justify these days.)
As for diversity of opinion, I think the stronger argument against the Left is our tendency to fractionalize and end up fighting amongst ourselves more than against the Right!
Finally, on this main issue of the OP of the Left and whether they critique John Ashcroft more than Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, frankly I think that is a silly argument. Last I checked, Osama and Saddam weren’t even on my election ballot. 
One may win lots of “brownie points” by saying what a louse Saddam and Osama are, but they ain’t the ones setting the policy in the democracy that I live in. (Well, in an indirect way, I suppose that they are…But that’s another topic!) I prefer to spend my time worrying about people who I can potentially have an impact on through the democratic process. (And, frankly, I also have higher standards for John Ashcroft than I do for Saddam Hussein.)
[By the way, this doesn’t always translate into a “criticize America first” thing for me. When I was living in Canada about 8-9 years ago, I remember being quite enraged when I heard Peter Zosky (sp?) on CBC interviewing someone on the subject of Bosnia because he kept asking what the person thought the U.S. and Clinton, in particular, should be doing. This was at a time when I had really begun to believe that stronger action needed to be taken against the Serbs and I was really angry that Zosky felt he should be wasting time asking what the U.S. should do when the real question for his audience was what Canada should be doing … especially since at the time, Canada was one of the major countries involved in peacekeeping and one who was pushing strongly for there not to be any military action against the Serbs.]
december, you are going to have to do better than make vague sweeping statements about what you believe that Bonior and McDermott said or who they expressed sympathy for. In other words, cite?!?
And, boy, it is truly shocking to me that anyone would ever question Bush’s word! Why, this Administration has never, ever tried to lie, deceive, or withhold information…except on nearly all matters of policy! I mean, Bush and co. may have a better record on telling the truth than Saddam Hussein but he ain’t out in front by as much as he ought to be in that race. If this Administration wants us to take everything they say on face value, they ought to try greater openness and telling the truth more often.
Here’s a cite from WaPo
This kind of defeatist thinking is typical of the revisionist Trotskyite stance that you have so frequently expressed. A stringent program of re-education and self-criticism is definitely called for.
This from the same WaPo that severely castigated Gerhard Schroeder’s position (no war, with or without the UN) while praising Bush’s position (war, with or without the UN) as “principled.” More proof that much of the so-called liberal media are quite hawkish when it comes to foreign affairs. (And remember their support for the Chavez “coup”?)
As for misleading the public about Iraq, certainly the Post would never do such a thing:
http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html
:rolleyes:
december, how many times has the difference between an editorial column and an article been explained to you? Kelly’s quotation makes no sense and has to be some kind of misquote (“you have to take the Iraqis on their value” 
). It is completely decontextualized. Here, from the Seattle Times (the local paper for McDermott’s constituency) is an actual quotation of what the congressman believes; not some garbled excerpt set up to make him look bad.
" “We want every diplomatic effort made to resolve this without war, which should be the last option… We have no interests in having a war.”
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/134544320_jimiraq28.html
Personally, I have no problem with that philosophy, and neither have American presidents during most of our history.
As to Bush’s record on honesty, what jshore and Ace_Face said.
There must be more than philosophical reasons for his leaving. That article absolutely teems with quiet anger and it is not all directed at Iraq’s dictator.
Hitchens’ thrust, I take it, is that he thinks war in Iraq and hunting al-Qaida down is vastly more important than civil liberty or constritutional questions, but he still cares about these. Just less.
Strange. To put one problem absolutely over the other smacks of something a pre-Tokugawa samurai might do - or, perhaps, an al-Qaida fanatic. It is entirely possible for a Westerner to do any of these:
-
support the war and support the administration
-
support the war but oppose the administration
-
oppose the war but support the administration
-
oppose the war and oppose the administration
I’m generally 4, but I can see any of the other viewpoints, even 1. But this is an overly simplistic model - Pat Buchanan is also holding down 4 with me. (And if you mumble anything about the gods of secularism one more time, Pat, I’m throwing you out the foxhole).
Hitchens apparently has no use for 4’s and favors 2. I don’t like a lot of antiwar stuff I see either, but I think warmongers are more worrisome than peaceniks.
It is true enough that the Democrats have no idea where they are, 1 to 4, because few of them feel safe, so they hover around 1. The GOP know they’re on 1 and thus gain strength. This is a big problem.
Whatever you think of the man, he does what he does extremely well. I read this yesterday after also reading all the praise lauded on Clinton for his address to the Labour Party Conference and the old pals act with Blair…Hitchen’s spitting absolute venom at Clinton. Of it’s type and IMHO, beautiful.
All the same, please don’t send Hitchens home, just yet…:
<extract>
Since I had the pleasure of watching Clinton in office every day for eight years, I hope to be excused if I was not impressed by seeing him again. How it all came back to me - the tongue ruthlessly roving the cheek; the lip-biting to indicate sincerity; the husky voice; the abject self-deprecation; the incurable habit of speaking for 20 minutes longer than he should. Most amusing, though, was how he made his own foreign policy sound more statesmanlike and judicious than it had ever been.
</extract>
Ouch !
Here’s a link to the news story that the Post wrote about the Bonior and McDermott visit to Iraq / interview in their hotel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20655-2002Sep29.html
As for elucidator, yours is just the kind of nonsense that I expect to hear from an unreconstructed Stalinist!
For completeness, here is the story from the NY Times that included the “mislead” quote:
Given all the misleading Bush has done on domestic issues, I see no reason to disagree with them.