Nothin’.
They’re just blowin smoke.
You must be fairly young and inexperienced to believe that to be true. Are you old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Have you ever sat in our National Archives and listened to any of Nixon’s Oval Office tapes? Do you think that George W. Bush had as much compassion for the men and women in the Armed Services as Dwight D. Eisenhower did?
Who took more responsibility for his mistakes – Truman or W.? Who had more problems with forming a complete sentence – Reagan or W.? Which President calmed and inspired a nation with the words that we had “nothing to fear but fear itself”? Which recent President has had as his personal motto “Keep Fear Alive!”?
The men (so far) who have held the office have been quite different from each other. And the principles of liberalism and conservatism are certainly different. As for the political parties themselves, maybe that’s become irrelevant. But I haven’t seen a good liberal Republican since – I think his name was Percy and he lived in Chicago. He was either a Senator or a Governor in the 1960s I think. Anyone remember him?
Also very macho sounding, but I was kind of poking fun at your original point.
K. Gibbler said it better than I above, but it was a nice smear attempt nonetheless.
Being able to criticize the actions of the party/leader/government in power without offering constructive alternatives is a privilege long enjoyed by opposition parties across the world and through the ages.
Which one is that? 
When was it before?
What … you mean when they’re all dead?
There is nothing special about the party names, it’s about the people that make up the part and the policies the parties hold. At one time southern racists were Democrats, but Nixon emplyed the southern strategy and won them over to the Republican party. Some day those people may be in a different party, but right now they support the Republicans and the Republicans have embraced them whole heartedly.
Ever hear of Lincoln? The south so despised him and the policies of reconstruction that they became solidly Democratic. I remember a time when there were plenty of moderate to liberal Republicans. You still see the remnants of them in New England: Olympia Snow is an example.
Hell, Reagan as governor of the state of California was a moderate.
Not to mention the interlude of the Progressive Republicans, exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt.
It’s dangerous to think of parties only in terms of relatively recent history. Having said that, mutability of parties has been somewhat lacking in the last 100 years or so.
I am quite aware of the august history of the Republican party–at one time “Grand Old Party” was an apt descriptor. That’s why it’s so sad to see it go around the bend in thrall to the grandstanding Christers and the Lamborghini libertarians.
When John McCain, a man of intellect and shrewd instincts,* a war hero and accomplished lawmaker, has to bring on some moralizing airhead to appeal to the Republican base, something has gone profoundly wrong with that party.
- Yes, his campaign was an embarrassment, but before that, he had been a media darling. Apparently, conspicuously trying to appeal to the holy rollers and the teabaggers turns off great swaths of this country. Who knew?!?!
Of course. I was calling out Airman on his use of talking points, and not good ones at that.
Because right now the Democratic Party IS “much more noble”. Not because they are anything special, but because the Republicans have become so very awful. When it comes to passing judgement on them, it doesn’t matter what the Republicans were like eighty years ago or what they will be like eighty years in the future; what matters is what they are like now.
According to this article, it’s been on that wrong track since Reagan, and has finally reached its inevitable destination.
I’m not sure I’m a ‘noted conservative’, but I’ll take a crack at it:
First, opinion on the right is mixed. There are plenty of Republicans saying that it would be counterproductive to make statements against the regime, and there are Democrats calling for Obama to say more.
My own opinion on this has wavered. I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, staying out of the debate makes it clearly an internal struggle, and gives legitimacy to the opposition. I understand that, and I think it makes quite a bit of sense.
On the other hand, Obama is probably quite popular with the very young, quite liberal (by middle eastern standards) Iranian population - especially the urban population. I have heard interviews with at least two Iranian protestors who have said that Obama could really invigorate their movement with some carefully chosen words of support.
There’s a big difference between calling for regime change or uttering threats to the regime, and offering some words of encouragement to the protestors. I’m not sure it would do any harm for Obama to basically applaud the courage of those who are continuing to push for free elections, and to make general statements in support of democratic movements wherever they are. He doesn’t even have to reference the United States.
The Solidarity movement in Poland was greatly enabled by the support of the rest of the world. Not just saber rattling by Presidents, but support by other unions, political and religious leaders around the world, etc. The AFL-CIO was very active in helping Solidarity, including providing funds, shipping in copy machines and paper for leaflets, etc. Pope John Paul II was very helpful, giving moral support to Catholics in Poland and making constant statements about the people’s right to be heard. He drew in the support of Catholics around the world, as well.
Interestingly, the person playing the role of Pope John Paul II in this particular revolution may be the Ayatollah al-Sistani in Iraq, and the Iraqi Shiites in general. They are giving Iranians an example of revolutionary change, and Sistani is closely affiliated with the reformist wing of the Iranian government, in particular Hashemi Rafsanjani.
The best possible outcome here is probably not a completely open democracy and the end of an Islamic state. The best possible outcome is more likely to be a reorganization of the leadership with more reformist elements gaining power and the old hard-line revolutionaries taking a back seat. This could give the U.S. an opening for real dialog and cooperation, including even cooperation on a civilian nuclear program if it’s clear that the Iranian people really want that and a more moderate government agrees to proper inspections and protocols.
To that end, probably the best thing Obama could do right now is make general statements in favor of democracy and allowing the will of the people to be heard, coupled with perhaps some condemnation of specific acts of violence by the regime, and that’s about it. But I would hope that a lot of things are being done behind the scenes - helping to open lines of communications, providing satellite modems to Iranians, working through the Iraqi government or directly with al-Sistani and his camp to make sure they get anything they need or ask for, etc.
Certainly this has to be done carefully, and it can’t be done forcefully or against the wishes of any of the reformists involved. If al-Sistani doesn’t want help, then fine. This has to ultimately be a revolution driven by the people of the region, and not guided or directed in any way by the U.S. But the U.S. should be ready to help, clandestinely or overtly, if that help is requested by the Iranian people.
While not denying that pure political conrarianism is part of the reason: there is ample historical precedent that diplomatic pressure from the outside is effective in bringing change. Of course, there is also historical precedent for the opposite happening.
It’s not hard to find people in Iran asking for western intervention … but it’s also not hard to find people saying “keep out.”
So you end up with kind of a Rorshach test, where people tend to draw conclusions based on their own predilections and assumptions. I don’t think it’s surprising that different political orientations have different predilections and assumptions.
I’ve been Googling to try to find the announcment that John McCain has been appointed Obama’s Secretary of State and is now in charge of American foreign policy, but I have been unable to find it so far. I mean, why else would he be spouting off the way he has about what we need to do in Iran the past few days?
Because in spite of his shitstorm Presidential campaign, he’s still a voice in the Senate?
Great post, Sam, and eerily prophetic…if you had posted this a few weeks ago…
Mm, I’m not sure covert help would assist the Iranians enough to be worth the potential damage if it were discovered. Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you’ve said.