powerclown

The article is spot on. I think there will be a paradigm shift in the way the Left will need to view foreign policy from now on. The illusions of 9/10 are gone, and have proven a detriment to winning a presidential election. Instead of instilling terror, the terrorists have succeeding only in angering and emboldening the Americans. The Left has nowhere to hide now; they must also pick up their swords and join the fight if they ever want to wield power in a post 9/11 America.

Once this is realized, the Left will have the potential to dominate the American political scene. Bush's unilateralism, his 'with us or against us' doctrine will be seen as a detriment to the Right, and the Left will be perfectly positioned to create a world alliance against global terrorism, IF the Right chooses to maintain a unilateral approach. Out of political necessity, the Left will be reborn, with a spine. Thanks to the terrorists, the American Left could formulate the new post 9/11 intellectual effort in uniting - not just America - but the world, against fundamentalism.

This is all assuming that the Left is capable of learning from their mistakes.

jonjon42

I strongly disagree with the thing about having no “Islamophobia” ...in the article it talks about germanophobic and such...the thing is we were curtailing a groups civil liberties....the japanese internment is a good example...we forced them to sell their stuff and move to crappy half built towns because we believed that they were "traitors" A lot of anti-asian feelings surfaced around this time too and people did not limit themselves to the Japanese.

as for rusophobia...what would you call Mcarthyism and the HUAC hearings were all about?

This has happened in the past and to prevent such a thing from happening again constant vigilance is needed.

Also, why does he make the comparison to how christians are treated abroad...Yes it isn't nice, yes it should be stopped, but that should have no bearing on how we treat muslims in America. He keeps trying to paint all of islam with the small minority of crazies in my opinion. The ones I have known have been religous and peaceful people.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Lebell

My sincere thanks to those who actually took the time to address the points of the article.

I agree that there is a certain amount of Islamophobia in the United States at this point and I would further say that it does motivate people to attempt to pass laws and rules that are blatantly unconstitutional.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

archer2371

Heh, realized I spent my entire post on Islamic, Byzantine, and Merovingian/Carolingian Empire history.... (sorry guys, I took my Western Civ Final today, I was in that sort of mood). Anyways, I think it goes without saying that I agree with a lot of what the article has to say, (National Review is on my favorites list). I do disagree with the "there's no islamophobia..." thing, that's not true, because there's always going to be a fear of things we don't understand, and there are people that over-react. The fact does remain that the left has been losing ground since 1994 (not that I'm complaining, I actually work to continue that , yeah, that's right, official card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy) anywho... I am completely baffled by the Democrats insistence to go with a major left wing guy when most of America is centrist. The Democrats were BRILLIANT when they nominated Bill Clinton, I mean, I disagree with the guy and what he did, but he made serious inroads in Republican strongholds and I'm not so party blind as to say something wasn't a great political move when it was. I would actually like to meet Bill Clinton to pick his brain about winning elections and such, because he's got it figured out, and he's a brilliant politician, I am in awe of his political prowess. He made you feel like he cared about YOU, he had compassion one on one and was able to connect with you, which is some of what Dubya has. Just look at some of the photos of him with 9/11 Victims Family Members, you can see the passion in his face and you can probably even discern a tear. He got choked up when he was talking about the soldiers in his convention speech. Choosing an aloof candidate is not the way to win, I thought this was learned with Bob Dole, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Gerald Ford, etc. The Democrats just don't seem to have the ability to nominate someone who can at least act like they care (yeah, they've got Obama, but he is unelectable, there are still too many people who will vote against him because he's black, I wouldn't, but not because he's black, but because I disagree with his social policies, then again, I'm one of the few Americans who actually LIKES politics and pays attention). Anyways, until the Democrats can find someone who has a pulse they won't win an election where a lot of things like the economy are non-factors for most Americans.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Locobot

I've actually heard disappointingly little post-election talk of reorganization from the Left, absolutely nothing regarding rethinking matters of foreign policy. I have seen a great deal of advice from rightwing sources, such as this very article, attempting to sabotage future political endevour from the Democrats. As if the Right actually has a vested interest in making the Left more successful, please.
Here Hanson is setting himself up as a priest figure ready to hear a tear-drenched mea culpa from soon to be reformed Leftists. His accusations here range from the vague "forced equality" to the utterly meaningless "expediency." "Good intentions" are not an "end." The one organization which has done more than any other to ensure individual liberty and freedom in civil America is the ACLU. The ACLU is a non-partisan organization but it's supporters are overwhelmingly leftist.
Hanson fails to mention a single example of a "basic ethical consideration" that has been brushed aside by the left. This is most likely because the phrase is vague, holding no meaning. Hypocrisy requires an expressed belief, something Hanson has not accurately defined from the left, and a failure to act on that belief, again something Hanson doesn't provide examples of. I would accept "virtual incoherence" from a political body any day over the actual incoherance of Hanson's prose.
"Exceptionalism" is another term with such a wide range of possible meaning that it becomes meaningless without further definition. It could apply to the uniqueness which every nation posesses or a Falwellesque belief in the holy righteousness of America bestowed by a higher power. Every nation has the right to believe they are God's chosen people, none of them are. Again Hanson claims the left has abandoned "freedom and individual liberty" without any examples. I'm guessing by "freedom and individual liberty" he's not referring to the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy, the freedom to grow one's own medical marijuana, the freedom to speak out against Republican leaders, or the freedom to marry someone of the same gender.
Were 50s rightists accused of this? Or is Hanson just providing this exaggerated untruth to cover up the stench of the unmitigated bullshit he is about to spew?
This is stated as cause and effect logic (If--Then) which it clearly is not. So the statement is rhetorically false, what about the substance of the statment? Yes there are Castro sympathizers on the left just as there are Hitler apologists on the right (I've spoken to more than one). I've never heard or read anything from a leftist source that would indicate sympathy for Iranian mullahs. I have no idea who Hanson is referring to by "the Noriega Brothers," google returns a mixed bag of hits--mostly music related. Surely he couldn't be making reference to the CIA-GHWBush lovechild Manuel Noriega could he? Arafat did condone terrorist tatics both before and after he was invited to Camp David for peace talks, the ultimate failure of which cannot solely be placed on his shoulders. To say that any of these people earned something as vague as a "pass" from the unquestionably leftist "American and European cultural elite and media" is patentedly false.
What about Oliver Stone's fauning biopic on Castro, surely something like that would be universally embraced by the left who long ago gave Castro a "pass." You wouldn't expect such a film to be lambasted by leftist Salon, attacked by leftist reviewers, or indefinitely postponed by HBO. It seems that the Left does tend to apply the same critical standards to it's supposed pet causes, but Hanson chooses to remain ignorant of that fact.

Have you had enough or shall I continue?

stevo

talk about a threadjack. The only people posting about the article are the ones who agree. The only ones that spoke up against could only trash the sources of the points, not the points themselves. What happened to all of you left-fielders that disagree with it? I know there's a lot of you, are where are you??

I was waiting for a post like this to come along, and I had this great rant about the UN, but then my session timed out when I tried to post it and it was lost, but it was a threadjack as well, so I guess I'll save my rant for later, the time will come. great article labell.

stevo

ahh--you beat me to it locobot, way to step up. I'll read your post later...time for bed.

filtherton

Let me start off by saying that it is just a little silly to treat a nebulous and diverse group such as "the left" as one entity. Right off we veer into lala land where the millions of people that subscribe to the same "non-rightist" philosophy are all mass murder apologists.

This is an article first and foremost about the p.r. problems surrounding the group ascribed the ideals associated with lefthood. If you doubt that, just notice that in order to contrast the left from the right, the author must make a distinction between harmfull despots(castro) and benign despots(pinochet, "c'mon he's senile, let's pity him"), between small potatoes financial scandal(enron) and big-time scandal(un oil for food). The gist seems to be that there is nothing wrong with allying yourself with despots, nor supporting scandalous figures, the problem is when you support the wrong ones. The left, as far as inconsistent nebulous entities go, support the wrong evil people.

Let me be clear, i don't care about the "left" any more than i care about the "center" or the "right". As far as i'm concerned such terms are very vague descriptors employed by many a pundit seeking to engage in intellectual dishonesty.

roachboy

the article at the beginning of the thread operates at the usual tiny wattage of a national review op ed piece:

why would anyone on the left allow these people to frame the political situation, frame the understanding of that situation?

even if this "analysis" was at some remote level correct--which it is not--from premise to conclusion, there is no there there--these are the last people who are in a position to suggest anything constructive about the left---to the 49% of the americna population that the n.r.. would understand as "left" because they voted for kerry. i do not understand what purpose it serves to pretend that the national review is other than it is: a mediocre rightwing rag whose readership is consistent with its politics--so the first problem is that the article is not directed at "the left" it is not and cannot be addressed to "the left"--it is addressed to conservatives. you have to accept the articles frame of reference for it to be other than laughable, and that frame of reference is conservative.

it seems that the right-dominated medai apparatus--you know the one that serves a necessary function for conservatvies as a source of persecution---has taken to repeating the statement--which is nothing more than a statement--that the last election demonstrated some kin of "credibility problem" for the left. i assumed from the outset these claims meant nothing, and reading the article at the start of the thread changed nothing.
what credibility problemj, really?
the national review supports an administration that has, to name only the most obvious example, lied to a country about reasons for war, about the nature fo that war once under way----for example--what on earth puts any such magazine (or person) in a position to talk about credibility problems? how is credibility even an issue under the bush regime?

the question of "morality"--which of course conservatives like to pretend they alone and exlcusively define (perhaps with a little input from that voice in your head)--- i am not convinced that "the result" of the last election "proves" anything about the relative importance of this register of discourse in politics. of course the folk at the national review would think otherwsie, since developing such a language for rightwing ends has been their stock in trade for years. the main thing the article leqve out--at it is not in the least surpriring that it would do this--is the way in which the bush administration instrumentalized its "war on terror"--from the sliding color paranoia index, to the incessant declarations about "threats of attack" ad mauseum--which is at the discursive level far more important than christian funamentalist terminology in general, this ludicrous discourse of "morality" in particular.

there is an interersting political fight ongoing about the dominant discourse: the national review is not analyzing it---it is a participant in it

why should anyone take seriously an analysis of the last election that says nothing at all about the ways conservatvie christians have organized into a kind of rightwing machine politics? that's right, this is not an analysis....

the point about "islamophobia"
such argument as there is above comes down to "we're the national review. we're racists. we are proud of it." to justify what admits of no justification, you get the usual torrent of cliches. nothing interesting, nothing important in this argument--nothing new.

it seems like here, as in most places, the national review is just making stuff up.
it starts off with a tough sell--that allawi is not a puppet of the americands--hard to imagine anyone writing that without laughing--and them moves directly into neoconservative delerium. the author is not talking about the actually existing debacle in the actually existing iraq: he is simply channelling wolfowitz. nonsense, all of it.

the bit about the un is without substance or scale. it is, sadly, too typical of the kind of pseudo-analysis that passes for thinking in conservative circles---the apologia for racism, the hallucinations about iraq, the john birch society rant about the un--pretty sad stuff, folks.

and you imagine that credibility problems affect the Left?
look in a mirror.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sob

I am writing this before I have finished reading the thread, but PLEASE do not edit or remove the post you refer to.

It's a very educational example, and needs no explanation to deliver its unintended, but very clear message.

sob

Leftist rhetoric:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This statement is anathema to today's Democrats.

Note my signature below.

Konichiwaneko

I thought it was a nice article. Personally if someone releases an article about what may be wrong with my beliefs I would be okay with it. It's not like they are trying to change your opinion, just trying to help. If you get offended by information, it's probably only because you are easily swayed or you just aren't that comfortable with your posistion.

In my life the best discussion among opposites starts like

"That's an interesting point of view, but this is how I feel about this...."

rather then

"FUCK YOU RIGHTY(OR LEFTY) YOU DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL?....blah blah blah"

I simply asked...do you know how you feel also then?

__________________

JumpinJesus

I'm not sure how I feel about what he's written. One thing that's always somewhat troubled me is how the "right" has effectively used the "elite" moniker as a derisive description of anyone on the left who is intelligent and educated enough to disagree with the ideology and policies of conservatism.

I also think he assumes that the majority of conservatives are informed enough of the issues he discusses (support of despots, oil for food, etc.) to have an opinion based in reality while leftists are either ignorant of those same issues or are just looking the other way when those they support commit crimes against their own people. The truth, in my humble and mediocre opinion, is that most people of any political persuasion are mostly ignorant of the complexities of most issues.

Both the left and the right hold an informed citizenry in disdain as it does not allow them to reduce these issues into simplistic sound bites. The terms Hollywood elite, media elite, university elite, et al. are exactly that. The oversimplification of complexities designed to insinuate that those opposed to conservatism are just too damn big for their own britches and don't care about the concerns of the everyman the same way the conservatives do.

The reality is that both parties have their "elite" establisments and institutions that hold the lesser citizens in contempt. This article focused on just one side of the see saw. The same could be said of conservatives using corresponding terms. That is, if they had lost.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

jonjon42

I also have a problem with him marginalizing Pinochet although I do believe that at this point he seems quite far gone and then laying the blanket statement that liberals excuse Castro....I don't know anyone that excuses Castro nor do I wish to know. And this is from a guy who was labelled a "damn dirty hippie"(later just "damn hippie") by a professor

I think that alot of the problem is that the media puts too much attention on Moore, Jackson, and Soros more then liberals follow them. The conservatives have a field day on these people, and suceed to make these 3 the "image" of the liberal philosophy, merely because they are easy to attack and ridicule.
I propose we put John Lennon up as our "image" (note: it's a joke)

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Konichiwaneko

Same thing can be said though about righties all following Jerry Falwell(sp) or so on.

It realy is sensationalism that gets the front page unfortunatly and that means both sides suffer. It's kinda like you don't hear about the normal good things, but if there's one murder in a peaceful town it's breaking news.

I honestly believe though the lefts issue maybe alienation within it's own ranks.

__________________

roachboy

if you are actually interested in what might be happening on "the Left" the national review is the last place you would go to find out about it.

is there anything going on it that piece that does not reduce to a recipe for total capitulation?
what they are really saying is that "the Left" should adopt the dysfunctional, myopic discourse of the right.
that is all it says.
there is nothing of interest in terms of strategy, nothing of interest in terms of analysis in it.
i do not understand why it was taken seriously.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Manx

And I do not understand how someone could have intentionally voted for Bush - but I have the feeling these two things are related.

Mojo_PeiPei

It's self righteous comments like this that are the problem with the democratic party.

I think it's obvious, I intentionally voted for Bush because I am sheep who has been Bushwhacked by Bushworld and his Bushcronies, never mention that Kerry was a turn coat moron whose policies both foreign and domestic were no better then Shrubs at best.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

martinguerre

It's the Irony-Meter, Sir! It's been turned up to 11!

Quite obviously, there is little love lost...party affiliation is becoming a matter of deep perceptual differences. Why should either party advise the other? We aren't even seeing the same world.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Mojo_PeiPei

Because my team won

Also I never insulted anyone's intelligence i.e. "I don't see how someone could intentionally vote for Bush..."

I just insulted Kerry, that botox really pissed me off.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

tecoyah

Lets play nice please....this was actually a pretty good discussion, perhaps it can be again.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

JumpinJesus

mojo has a point here. While I detest Bush and what his administration stands for, it would be highly arrogant of me to put forth the notion that anyone who sees things differently does so through lack of intelligence. The fact remains that some of those who voted for Bush did so with their eyes - and intellect - wide open. It also goes to say that some not so very bright people voted for Bush as well. But then, the same can be said for voters of Kerry.

The question we need to answer is: do we truly want to move our country forward and try to work towards the betterment of all of us or do we just want to squabble and masturbate to our own ideology? If we do want the betterment for everyone, then we need to be able to understand each other's point of view instead of decrying it as ignorant or evil or treasonous. Just detesting Bush without ever trying to understand why he does what he does - and even allow that he believes he's doing what he believes is best - will never solve any of our problems.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Konichiwaneko

I could shake Jesus hand and appreciate our differences because I know in him there would be a person I respect and would like to know his point of view.

I applaud your beliefs but yet your willingness to rational

__________________

jonjon42

I would not mind the democratic party imploding and falling apart. They try to be too far to center most of the time in my opinion. They do not push issues that i think are important and I disagree with them on a couple issues. I do not believe "centralizing" ourself more is going to solve this problem either. We need to stay loyal to our principles.

I think the GOP needs the democratic party though. Without this "ultraliberal" threat I believe already strained relations between different segments of the party will create party infighting that could be just as bad or worse then the fighting between the divides between the democratic party. Alot of Republicans in this area feel rather mutinous because they believe their issues are not represented. (rather moderate republicans)

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Manx

I beg to differ.

Unless you are referring to someone who intentionally voted for Bush for the express purpose to vote for the worst possible candidate, out of spite for humanity. I considered it myself, but dismissed it in the end. Maybe there were a handful who followed through with it, but they're statistically insignificant.

alansmithee

The problem with this type of thinking is that it leads to condemning all opposing opinions as being rhetoric of the "other side" without looking at any inherent validity. This is part of the problem with American news and media in general: people only seek out opinions that agree with their own and assume anything else is an attack. Sure, the author is probably being a little condecending. But I believe many of those points to be valid, especially the U.N. section. If you are in a burning building, it's really irrelevant if Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore yells "Fire!", what's most important is dealing with the situation.

Manx

No it doesn't. Simply because this article is assuredly rhetoric does not mean I condemn all opposing viewpoints as rhetoric.