Summary:
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.
I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.
First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.
It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.
Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.
In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).
In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Insert Pig Analogy Here
Summary:
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Quagmire Anyone?
Summary:
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Grading the Presidents
Summary:
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
Timetable
Summary:
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
Pakistan's Moderates
Summary:
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
New Format
By the way, I am trying a new format. I am including a summary at the beginning of my posts. This way, people know what my post will be about and can choose to read it or move to the next one. I think of it as mixing USA Today with the New York Times (don't worry, I don't really think I am as good as the Times, but I thought the comparison was somewhat apt since I am long winded and most frequently link to the Times).
Richardson at DL21C
Summary:
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)