2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Dunno whether to feel re-assured or slightly disappointed!



I dont really know what your impression there is based on.

All I wrote was that "to a European, [the] perspective of this board is already skewed all the way to US perspectives, [..] to world standards, its an extremely Amero-centric one, and centrist at best."

So, first, I was talking specifically about A2K. Nothing to do with claiming that, in some general political way, the European viewpoint equates with world standards.

And as for A2K, yes, to a European, it seems a very Amero-centric board and yes, to world standards, I can only assume this is even more so. At least European opinions and topics are represented here - cant say that much about Arab, Hindi or black-African sources, POVs and topics. Just look at the sad state of the "International News" category.

If anything - and this is then also my answer to your question - I view the European perspective as one that's in between the American one and, say, the Arab or African one. At least when it comes to the main topics of world news recently - Iraq, radical-Islamist terrorism, Israel/Palestine. (Course, the fact that those are considered "the main topics of world news" is a sign of Amero-centrist dominance in news reporting in itself - why isn't hunger the main story? Or AIDS? or Western economic protectionism?).

So - no, Europe does not equate with "world standards" (duh) - its just one part of the world. But when it comes to those "main stories", the US is often on one end of the spectre of world opinions - with the Arab countries often on the other end. We just happen to be kindof in the middle right now. And - talking A2K - this is something to keep in mind when talking of "restoring the balance" by getting in more American conservatives. I mean, I think its a good thing to do, but seen from the Paris or Quatar or Kuala Lumpur or Johannesburg or Brasilia perspective, it'll just pull A2K further off into leftfield (err - rightfield) territory.

So personally, to "restore the balance" vis-a-vis the deluge of American liberals here, I'd like to see both more conservatives and more social-democrats, more of the American Right and more of the Latin-American Left, Arab Right, et cetera. People might be surprised about what is mainstream in terms of "world standards".

This is what elicited my crack about world standards. Now I understand your meaning. Thanks.

I think you should feel reassured. You deal with facts, examine new information and deal rationally with them.

Interesting questions concerning what might be the points of view expressed in Africa, on the Indian subcontinent, in East Asia or Latin America on such threads. I would not just assume the general trend would all be to the left of this one. Further, I doubt they would be so obsessed with the subjects we discuss so assiduously.

well, george........never?

nah Lola, I'm the boring one

well, nimh, it doesn't reflect on anyone ........every process has it's ups and it's downs.........then again, maybe I am just a little bit depressed and it 's not the thread that's boring....but please don't let me discourage you, sorry to interrupt.

The notion that this board is 'left' arises as a consequence of where it originates and of the preponderance of folks from America posting (thus the content skew, as well) and likely, the number of ex-military among the American posters.

If one were to group the folks posting to politics here into two groups - American and other - there's really no question that the first group would be significantly further to the 'right'.

That also certainly matches my experience here in Canada. In the course of business and socializing, I'm involved in numerous political conversations each day. And in the context of those discussions, much that is argued here simply does not arise. For example, I can recall only a single example of a Canadian I talked to having the view that the push for impeachment of Clinton was anything but political theatre. The common response was a head-shaking bemusement.

This board doesn't need more voices from the 'right'...that is such a depressingly polarized and shallow take on political discussion. And the board doesn't need more voices from the 'left' either. The board does need more voices that aren't subsumed in myopic cliches and in the crippling language of partisan dualisms.

Good morning Blatham. Hope you recovered well from last night's rather cranky mood

I doubt Blatham's ability to detect much of anything to the left of his own views. He sees us all as, at best, as crypto right wing evangelist, Bush organizers.



.Careful what you ask for. (However I do note the the "partisan dualisms" oblique reference to me.) I'm not aware of many other 'ex-military posters here. Perhaps I just seem to be several people.

My impression, reasonable and devoid of preconception, as it is, is that the regular contributors are, by a large majority, quite left wing in their outlooks. Indeed the several European contributors are generally (except for Steve) more centrist than these regulars.

Well.... hardly ever.

No, george, you aren't the only ex-military...there's a bunch of you. Some, like dys, hold differing views from yours. Others, such as timber and perc holds views more similar to yours. But it is those of you who spent many years in the military who are least likely to question (with much seriousness) the actions and motivations of this present administration, or to question the notion that America's behaviors in the world might be causal to what the world sometimes thinks about America. You are, as a group, also least likely to acknowledge that Eisenhower's warning might have real applicability in the present. And, you are more likely to support military action and to denigrate internationalism. You also are, we observe, fond of authority. Relevant quote: "We ought to...you know...trust the President. I think we should have faith in him." (Brittany Spears). And it is not coincidental that the Americans who have lived much of their lives outside of the country (but not in the military) who tend to argue most stridently against the positions advanced by you fellas.



A more appropriate descriptor for many of the international posters would be 'polite'. What I'm trying to tell you george, what many of us from the international contingent are trying to tell you, is that your notion of 'reasonable center' is like Keith Richards' notion of 'reasonable drug intake'.

What, praytell is relevant to me in a quote by Btittany Spears???

So it is the relatively good manners of our European guests here that makes them appear more centrist or right wing. Let me contemplate that for a moment.

I suppose there are some similarities in the expressed views of Timber, Perception and myself, but we don't represent anything but ourselves. As you indicated there is Dyslexia - and there several others as well more like him than me. While some of your very broad generalities about military folks may have some validity, and while American ex-pats may, as you suggest have different views from ours, I see no reason to assume theirs are necessarily more accurate or truthful than ours. Self selection may well be the most likely explanation for the difference. I think you far too quickly categorize those with whom you disagree and too willingly assign their views to extraneous factors, while assuming a reasoned, objective stance for those with whom you agree. Contemplate that for a moment please.

I have functioned at several levels in both the Military and Business worlds. Overall one encounters the same mix of human strengths and weaknesses in both. Individual differences generally far outweigh the average differences between the groups, and I have repeatedly found that it is a mistake to approach individuals with preconceptions based on their assumed association with this or that group.

Hehehe

I've good manners, not just relatively good ones!

And I've never been called right wing - center left, perhaps. :wink:

(May I add that I served 18 month as conscript and 15 more years as "alarm reserve officer" with at least four weeks exercise/year?)

Walter,

Your best impulses are all center right! The 'absolutely' good manners are no doubt a result of the Navy service.

Content, george

Hold up a catcher's mit...I'll send this over again. The most strident voices arguing here against present (or past) American policy come mainly from Americans, and this is ethically appropriate. Steve, being Brit, has an ethical interest in, and responsibility for, Iraq policy nearly equal to yours. As nimh suggests, American policy and actions now involve so much of the world in critical ways, that all of us have some ethical interest and responsibility regarding the US. For Canadians, there is a unique interest in that Cellucci and Walters put on their ball gowns and come visit us with song requests http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2003/WJ030402.html and http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030326.ucell0326/BNStory/National link 2

Well, george, it's salutory to note just what those simularities are. That'll be a bit tough, likely for either one of you, what with the visual obstruction presented by the forest of waving flags.

So, you aren't likely to see a reason to assume any gain in objectivity from the viewpoints they propose to you.

But what is more likely, my boy? Where might it be more probable to assume 'indoctrination'? Among a group of individuals who have lived in diverse locations, and who have no particular experiential commonality...or a group of men who have spent many years within the US armed forces?

Don't tell the first my party and the latter my mother!
(And, honestly, I don't think, you are right by that!)

You beg the question. I also suggested self-selection as a likely factor. With respect to your theory - how did Dyslexia, Hobitbob and others escape its effects?

With respect to the 'indoctrination' bit, one of the discernable differences I have observed in my transition from the Naval hierarchy to that of large businesses is a greater willingness on the part of military folk to challenge the ideas of those in authority, and a much lesser tendency to work underground to undermine what they profess to accept. My experience in this convinces me that, though self-selection may be a factor here, your ideas about the effects of 'indoctrination' are contrary to reality.

if I may, I don't know about others but for myself and hobitbob, we were first order grunts having virtually zero knowledge of the "grand scheme" of things military. It would be my assumption that the brass have a far more intrinsic knowledge of military thinking/methodology than we would. Of those I knew on a personal basis about 1/3 came out of the military with vehement dislike, 1/3 with memories of glory and 1/3 with no opinion whatsoever. But then Vietnam was a different war with different a different persona. I still think today of Vietnam as being a Children's Crusade.

And both Desert Storm and Somolia were again, completely different conflicts, and the parts of them that I saw were stunning in their examples of organized incompetence. In Somolia, I was forced to beg medical supplies from a Canadian contractor, because the Army, in its infinite wisdom, gave us about three days worth of supplies, and refused to re-supply us.
In garrison I saw very little other than backstabbing behaviour from the NCOs and junior enlisted, most of whom were contemptouous of the concept of competency, and interested only in :
a) Getting and staying as intoxicated as possible.
b) Promotions
c) Finding anything they could to get their juniors and fellows in trouble so as to divert attention from their own often larcenous behaviour.

Count me into the 1/3 with vehement dislike for the military. Especially sad, because my attitude had been strongly opposite this viewpoint upon entry.

Dys, I think it was much worse than that. An impulsive politically motivated act with poorly conceived strategic objectives, little in the way of commitment on the part of the national leadership -- and only the unfolding political aspects of the matter to guide them. The military hierarchy was similarly in the grip of a largely irrelevant view of the situation. Both became the victims of self deception and were heavily corrupted by the process.

What a wonderful description of theh debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hehhehheh. That was quite a funny exchange. Yeh, if I were an American leftist posting here I wouldnt quite know whether to be happy with Blatham's comment there either, george ... But yes, Blatham's Keith Richards analogy is spot-on.

The appearance of politeness on the part of Europeans (if there is any) has probably little to do with any question of character. There's so few of us, in any case. Also, I mean - seeing a President Bush Jr. in place is exasperating (not to say scary) enough when one is over here. I'm sure that for someone who is actually an American himself, the thing feels so much more acute and polarised, that it becomes proportionally harder to keep up a reasonable, down-to-earth, polite dialogue about it with his supporters.

Any kind of appearance of politeness surely hasnt got anything to do with being "centrist" in any way. Walter is from the SPD - the Socialdemocratic Party. You don't have a party that far left in the States - though in Germany it's simply mainstream. I myself am a member of the Green Left in Holland - and that's to the left, again, of the SPD's sister-party here. So a centrist I ain't. Definitely not more centrist than Steve - who is still loyal to Tony Blair's New Labour, a party positioned distinctly to the right of either my or Walter's political choice. So yeh, concerning how that contrasts with your impression, there definitely seems to be a bleed-through going on of finding someone to be polite and thinking (s)he is centrist.

This is where we get to blatham's genius Keith Richards analogy again. To US standards, New Labour, Socialdemocrats, Greens - all of 'em would fit in the furthest-left category of mainstream politics - the category of liberal/progressive politics out left from Clinton. But you'd be squeezing a whole bunch of views in there that in Europe cover the whole centre-to-leftwing range, instead leaving the centre/right positions open to politicians who wouldnt even come up over here. Someone with your opinions, george, or some of the libertarians around here, would for example be left practically politically homeless here - there's just hardly anything like that around (anymore). Whereas to the left of us, again, you've got your socialists, communists, trotskyites ...

(That may be another reason why perhaps some of us have a style that comes across as centrist. I am used to having to debate with a group of people further left than me, too - those supporting the Socialist Party - so I'm used to 'shooting both sides' - whereas even as a moderate liberal in Texas one is already so far into the left corner that one is probably totally conditioned into targeting fire and criticism exclusively (and fiercely) to one's right).

Anyway. In Latin America, Africa, too, apart from a bunch of conservatives you will find a lot of people with opinions to the left of what is even represented in the US system. If we would really "balance" this board as an international site, I'm afraid you conservatives might find yourself even more isolated as you are already now. The upside of it, however, would be: all those new folks probably wouldn't give much of a rat's ass about TX redistricting, Bush visiting funerals or the evangelical's dangerous deeds, and thus their "fire" wouldnt be half as collectively targeted at the odd Republican wandering into here as it is now.

(Long-ass bloody post, nimh, fer chrissakes)