I am curious about your opinions about a subject that I’ve been thinking about for some time. I believe that liberal political ideas were dealt a severe blow on 9/11. Look at the results. The majority of the people seem to be just fine with the following; increased military spending, pre-emptive military action and closer monitoring of foreign nationals.
Spending has increased for the Border Patrol, the FBI and the CIA (especially the operations side). CIA paramilitary teams who capture or kill terrorists are common knowledge.
(Please correct me if the following example is incorrect.)
The Clinton Administration mandated that CIA that operatives could not deal with people with criminal pasts. IMHO, that is a perfect example of naive and shortsighted leftist thinking. That rule has been recinded.
Nationalism has surged.
The further left you are, the more you can’t stand all of the above. And none of this would have happened without the attack on US soil to destroy the credibility of those who never worried about it and to enhance that of those who warned against it.
As I once told a colleague of mine (and a fellow doper) regarding the response to 9/11; “Pacifism in today’s world is an intellectual luxury.” Now, it seems that a majority of people in the country agree. Given the areas where the political philosophies have staked out their territory, it seems to me that the left has taken a heavy blow in the wake of 9/11.
Since liberalism had hitched its wagon to being apologists for every Muslim extremist worldwide, even going so far as to act as their hit men in the Balkans, it was no wonder they ended up with egg on their faces.
This is the most intelligent, well-reasoned thing I’ve ever read. Truly an insightful response to the OP, not to mention a thought-provoking look at politics and the world we live in. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
An attack on US soil while a Republican administration is in power destroys liberal credibility? I saw it more as an abandonment of reason with a general frothing-at-the-mouth righteous rage and need for vengeance. We acted too quickly.
Dogface, that’s just partisan [sub]checks forum[/sub] nonsense. A reasonable reply to that kind of libelous ignorance is scarcely needed.
If you can provide any evidence to prove that liberals were more likely to “never worry” about the threat of international terrorism, or that conservatives were more likely to “warn against” it, prior to the terrorist attacks, then I vow to eat my copy of The Clinton Wars.
Alternately, I would be willing to print out a copy of this and eat it.
The problem with the OP is that it makes two assumptions: (a) that the increased support for defense and military action is based on nationalism, and (b) that “lefties” are opposed to those things. :rolleyes: I’d say more, but this isn’t in the Pit (yet ).
I’m SO confused – the murderers who took down the Twin Towers were zealous religious extremists who think the U.S.A. promotes worldly, evil, capitalistic values, right? Somehow, that profile doesn’t strike me as “liberal”, IMHO - and so how could liberals have lost power? I generally avoid political discussions at all cost, so y’all will have to educate me on this point, I guess.
A good documentary about 9/11 is showing right now on A&E, by the way.
If anything, 9/11 and its political aftermath have been the ultimate vindication of Leftist politics. The attack itself showed that years of conservative international relations were not without their consequences. Our current slide towards a militaristic police state clearly illustrates the everpresent threat from The Right that all True Americans must be on guard against. The change in the political landscape is the result of a weak Democratic Party’s failure to hold the line and stick to their ideals, instead falling into line with the administration in a pathetic attempt not to alienate middle of the road voters, abandoning those of us who still yearn for a Free America until at least 2008.
[sub]The above post is as hyperbolic and loosely based in fact as the OP.[/sub]
Of course the rational response to rabid, dogmatic fundamentalists who eschew personal freedom and liberty is to turn to our own rabid, dogmatic fundamentalists who have dialed down our personal freedom and liberties. Makes perfect sense.
I will respond to some of you individually in a moment…but first a general note. The OP was originally published in IMHO because that’s what it is. An opinion. I was very careful not to use inflammatory language because I honestly want to know what people think of the basic question. Instead, those who bat from the left side of the plate apparently saw the post as the opening shot in an idealogical shooting match. Hence, the thread ends up in the pit. And out of 14 responses, only a couple even try to address the subject at hand. The rest are either talking to each other or resorting to tiresome sarcasm. And for the record, I am not a rabid conservative.
The roots of the 9/11 attack go back more than 20 years. It began with the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. In the eyes of radical muslims, the United States was pushed around. Then came the Marine Corps barracks bombing in 1983. Reagan withdrew the troops, giving some the idea that the United States would back down even after blood was spilled. Terrorism rose steadily after that. Given the political realities of the day, a military response was not possible…but the aura of vulnerability and weakness was there among those who desperately wanted to see it. Bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, executions…and very little military response from the United States. The bombing of Libya was an exception. Fast forward to the mid 90’s. Bin Laden increases his profile and his minions become bolder. US embassies and warships are attacked. Is the military budget increased? Is the CIA beefed up? Are illegal aliens from countries known to be hostile more closely monitored? No.
Now ask yourself…those of which political philosophy are most likely to oppose increased military or CIA spending? Who would call the closer monitoring of young arab men from countries known to be hostile “racial profiling”? Who would think that telling the CIA it can’t deal with informants with criminal records is a good thing? Who thinks that CIA paramilitary teams are a bad thing? And who is more concerned about the civil rights of hostile prisoners than with the information they possess that might prevent many more American deaths?
Now back to the original question. Is the political philosphy of the left taking a blow because of post-9/11 realities?
We waited a month after 3000 people were killed. We rounded up a coalition of every country on the planet who could reasonably have been expected to participate, and even a bunch who couldn’t. We focused on the organization which attacked US and the government which harbored them (and, most experts believe, was controlled by them). We gave tons of food and medical aid to the residents of the country we invaded, and helped put in a government endorsed by a UN conference. What part of that exactly was frothing at the mouth?
Help me out on a couple of things here. I was not a poli-sci major, so have always had a little trouble understanding the American political system. It is my understanding that conservatives would be inclined to resist change and that resistance to change would also lend a tendency towards smaller government and less government intrusion into peoples lives. So why would conservatives call for more spending, and at least in theory, more taxes, for more military? Wouldn’t conservatives be more inclined to want to preserve the liberties that many thousands of American lives have already purchased, in wars from 1776 up to the present? And if so, why would they then want to try and circumvent the constitution and bill of rights which guarantees these freedoms to all Americans?
I personally don’t have any trouble with profiling of foreign nationals on American soil, or overseas when they are seen as an enemy of the state and a threat to innocent civilians. I am a bit more concerned with profiling of Americans of certain ethnic backgrounds, although I could see how certain groups might be deemed dangerous. Some radical Christian groups in the USA that think that is okay to murder doctors would spring to mind. And I’d have no qualms about monitoring any radical group that would plot to commit murder and mayhem. My main concern with the CIA is that it seems to get it’s data wrong as often as right, and what data that is acquired is not always acted upon.
If hostile prisoners are held, it would seem that they should be accorded protections of the Geneva convention, if they are indeed prisoners of war, and constitutional protections if they are prisoners in our legal system. If they are not then have we not lost what the many brave men and women of the US military, and more recently civilians, have sacrificed their lives to preserve.
My main problems with the war in Iraq were that a) the data that was provided did not seem to, at the time, bear out that Iraq posed a terrorist threat to the USA. Recent information seems to bear this out. And b), that the USA did not seek international alignment and gather a coalition of opposition to this perceived threat. The cost of this is seen in the inability to control Iraq against guerilla fighting that is still going on there. To what end was this war entered? We have not, it seems, reduced the terrorist threat. We’ve deposed an evil sonofabitch, but there are a lot of evil sonofabitches out there and we’ve not historically taken it upon ourselves to rid the world of all evil sonsofbitches. Now we’ve set a precedent, right or wrong.
The war in Afghanistan seems to have been justified and supported, internationally. The war in Iraq does not bear those same hallmarks, as best as I can tell.
).