School's Out Blogging
JUST A RANDOM THOUGHT: I'm not a professional political analyst or anything, but I honestly cannot figure this one out. Why is it that both the Democratic and Republican frontrunners for the 2008 presidential primaries are heaping love onto Bush, even though his approval ratings should make him radioactive? And why are they both huge war hawks, even as the war reaches Vietnam levels of support?
Hillary just offered some warm praise for Bush. And if there was a way to distinguish her stance on Iraq from Bush's, I'd like to know about it.
McCain has been eagerly casting himself as a Bush cultist, even making a pathetic little speech at the Southern Republican Conference a few months ago extolling the wonders of W. He's also arguably the most hawkish man in Congress when it comes to the war, pushing for even more troops and staking out the extreme-right position.
Now I understand that a lot of political positioning goes into running to running for President, and that Hillary wants to appeal to moderates while McCain just wants Jerry Falwell to give him an affectionate pat on the head. But I can't understand for the life of me why the two of them choose to demonstrate their conservative cred by backing Bush and his war. It's like someone wanting to run for president in 1976 spending 1974 defending Nixon and Vietnam. Isn't there a better way for Hillary to pander to moderates and for McCain to pander to right-wing crazies?
UNBELIEVABLE: Conservatives are throwing a fit over the possibility that Yale will hire University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a brilliant and esteemed Middle East analyst (and expert blogger). I've been throwing a fit, too, but that's just because I have a better chance to get into grad school at Michigan than I do at Yale, so the odds of my taking classes with Prof. Cole would significantly decrease if Yale hired him.
Neo-cons mostly hate him because he (gasp) opposes the Iraq war and because he (deeper gasp) occasionally suggests that Palestinians are not animals and are, in fact, human beings. Their new criticism of him? He's not qualified to write about Iraq because he's never been there.
Cole has spent numerous years in the Middle East, conducting research and learning Arabic and Persian. Why hasn't he been to Iraq? Well, gee, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that it wasn't exactly easy for Western researchers to enter Ba'athist Iraq, and it's impossible for them to get any research done in US-occupied anarchic Iraq.
I'VE BEEN TRYING to write this op-ed for about three weeks now. HuffPo's Philip Slater took advantage of my procrastination and wrote it for me:
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, specifically in the context of people going off the deep end about Iran. In a larger sense, it amazes how addicted liberals are to doom and gloom. I read numerous liberal blogs every day, and hardly a day passes without a few of them declaring the world is collapsing around us. Don't get me wrong; things are bad under Bush. But the state of the world is quite good now when you compare it to just about any other era, and people generally get more secular and more tolerant all the time and have more opportunities than they ever had before.Have you ever noticed how frantically eager some people are to tell you how hopeless the state of the world is? Point to any tiny progressive victory or corporate concession and they'll rush in to smother your tiny ray of light in dreary counter-examples, as if it were an outbreak of crabgrass threatening their carefully manicured lawn of misery.
Perhaps they think being a wet-blanket demonstrates superior radical understanding--a better analysis. But depression is not intelligence, and hopelessness leads to paralysis. It's the small immediate victories that motivate people to get started and keep going--not distant grandiose fantasies.
...
This addiction to tragedy sabotages people working to create positive changes in the world.
So chill. And while you're at it, read the whole op-ed.
ENCOURAGING DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: "(Palestinian) Patients die as doctors run out of drugs to treat them."
Israel's recent actions (and US support for them) sends quite a message to Arabs. If you vote for who you like, we will take your money, close the walls around you, and prevent you from having medicine or gasoline. When are people going to realize that the only way to stop terrorism is by drawing Islamists into the political process, so that they don't revert to arms?
posted by Joe at 9:44 PM
8 Comments:
Hey Joe,
I hate to rain on your positive parade, but I don't exactly think things are going so swell under Bush myself. The world is more inflamed about America than ever, and here, well, let's see....we have warrantless wiretapping, addiction to oil, (and out of control global warming) a President who just ignores the law, 2 new conservative justices on the Supreme Court who will be there for the next 30 years, a massive deficit, widening inequality, tax cuts for the rich, entrenched republicans in congress due to gerrymandered districts,a UN ambassador who wants to abolish it,and the UN itself isn't doing great, Libya is in charge of human rights, scandals all over the place, nobody stopping Iran, and yes, they are a problem.....Hello? The other reason not to settle down is so we don't get complacent. Yes, small progressive victories are good...but what are they?
Secondly, the only way to stop terrorism is for their own people to reject them. The Palestinians could have rejected a terrorist organization, but they didn't. Hamas will not even recognize Israel's right to exist. That is ridiculous...Israel is willing to give up 90 something percent of the territory, and Hamas, meanwhile, won't even grant Israel recognition. Palestine could have voted for Fatah...sure the U.S. and Israel should have done more to support the previous government, but when it comes right down to it, only the Palestinians can decide who they are going to cast their votes for. They knew full-well Hamas' positions and past, and the United States and Israel are under no obligation to automatically sign-on to whomever they vote for regardless of their proposed policy. Why do we have to accept, let alone support, a terrorist organization under any circumstances? This is especially true when the terrorists did not impose themselves as the rulers- they were elected! That's fine. But if people are going to make that choice, they have to live with the consequences of their votes, and maybe next time they'll learn terrorists are not acceptable to the world. Jeez.
Joe,
I am begging folks with all my heart not to give Hillary a shot at the presidency. She and Bill are part of this grand ol' party called The One Party System. I truly believe the republicans are fully prepared to support her (ie: Rupert Murdoch, but for Senator) and if she wins, which they hope she does, they will slam the last nail in the Democratic coffin and we will lose for years and years to come. She is compromised and they will destroy her and the entire party along with her. Think I'm nuts? I know I sound that way, but I know it deep in my heart. She came out of the gate suporting this war and her husband's support for regime change in Iraq. The money ties that bind the Clintons and Bushes are probably what is behing Poppy's new found love for Billy boy.
For me, it's all or nothing in 2008. A guy like Kucinich or Feingold who have decent voting records and are not afraid to challenge and to even use the impeachment word. If a Demo-lite gets in we are in for a long horrible haul. It would take years and years to recover. We need to chip away at this one party system. I would rather lose to another Republican than to win at their debt. This party has to grow up. Dean can't run around telling Christians, "Our platform is one of a marriage is between a man and a woman," and then say "oooops, guess I got the platform wrong, it's really between, oh whatever, I just tried to pander and got caught." I will not support them. I will withold my money and my efforts. They need to learn the hard way. We sure pay dearly for their mistakes.
Josh, The Israeli arguement has always been based on the percentage of the occupied territory they were willing to give up. The Palestinian side refers to the fact that the way the map is drawn, the piece of the occupied pie they get back is so chopped up it is not even a cohesive land. I am no expert, but you are debating the Israeli side and this country has done no investigation, nor does anyone care to investigate, the complaints of the Palestinians. They are viewed as terrorists because of the way they fight, the Israelis are viewed as the "right side" because they use their military.
The rest of the world has a major bone to pick with the U.S. becaue of how we "cast our votes." Many other countries see the U.S. commander in chief as a threat. The simple act of vote casting or the aggressive act of military invasion or occupation do not a democracy or a world respected leader make.
Josh,
Of course I don't think things are at all swell with Bush at the helm. The laundry list you provided of the problems, scandals, and atrocious things the administration has done is quite a testament to that (and there are of course a bunch of other awful things they've done that you didn't list). Anger can be good if it is channeled into energy and action-- i.e. not getting complacent, as you said. I guess all I wanted to say is that it bothers me when people say things are hopeless. For all the problems you list, we've been through much worse in our recent history-- the Depression, the Cuban missile crisis, WWII, the detention of Japanese-Americans, the war in Vietnam, etc... So as bad as Bush is, this country can survive his presidency.
As for Hamas and terrorism-- I don't see how you can justify denying the Palestinian people food, medicine, money and jobs because of their vote. America voted for Bush, who has done far more awful things than Hamas could even imagine, but I don't think the American people should be punished for electing the bastard.
But anyway... I typically avoid blogging about Israel/Palestine because it always turns into a silly ideological flame war, and I'm by no means an ideologue on the issue.
Karena,
You make a lot of good points. Honestly, my mind isn't made up either way about Hillary. I'd prefer a different candidate (Feingold's my fave, and I also like Mark Warner and Bill Richardson), but if the Dems nominate her, I'll back her 100 percent. After 8 years of Bush, I don't think we have the leisure of being picky.
Nonetheless, I am afraid of what a President Hillary might be like. If she triangulates too much and won't stand up for the right things, it will indeed shift the political debate to the right and cause serious damage, just as you say. I think Bill doesn't get enough credit from liberals for being a solid President, but Hillary's tendency to pander (Murdoch, flag-burning) and her absolutely disgusting and morally unjustifiable support for the war certainly give us cause to worry.
And that stuff Dean did the other day on gay marriage was pretty sick. I like him and support most of his ideas for where the party needs to go, but he's just plain wrong on this issue, and needs to get his head straight.
Knock, knock. Hey Joe... you ever going to blog again???
Joe Joe Joe, your pathetic ritualistic over-optimistic sticky-sweet ranting is just downright sickening. Why can't you just get with the program and recognize Reality for what it is and work toward improving it. Talking up all the good things in the world ignores the things which need to be fixed -- like Dumbya.
Will you ever come back?
Post a Comment
<< Home