Dole asking Kerry about Nam.

dyslexia wrote:

to be fair to George I did offer a bit of a barb with my comment but it's intentioned meaning was clearly overt. It's reasonably obvious the the democratic party has dressed the populace in a cloth of drab likeness one size fits all greatest good for the masses just as it's reasonably obvious that the "modern" republican party has done the same but under the guise of "conservative" values. They equally distort and cajole the public into needless conformity thereby reducing the very essence of freedom. in simple terms both the republicans and democrats suck when it comes to repecting individual rights and responsibilites. were I only as smooth of tongue as Bernie I could have said this better, so it goes.

I think you are a funny and a lot of times seem wise. However, I am getting sick and tired of government help being equated with some kind of meaningless freedom phrase.

What would you all suggest as an alternative? Do you want to see a bunch of homeless sick and dying children with no hope and help in times of need?

An example is this; lets say a single parent gets sick and cannot work for a while. Later they can't pay their bills, their utilities gets shut off first and they can't afford to go to the doctor to get better. The family suffers from lack of food and clothing and as a result of that the children can't function at school very well. Soon they get evicted from their home because they can't either pay the rent or house payment so the whole family is out on the street. The kids of this family is going to have to be really exceptional to overcome these odds to be able to grow up to successful in society with a job and a house and all that good stuff that we all take for granted in this day and age of government help that so deprives us of our freedoms. Our caring and compassion is what made our country great and what helped us form the biggest middle class of the world. Other countries used us as examples and now we want to go back like the old Aristocrat English Gentry days while the rest of the world is being like we used to be before these republicans took over and used different language to fool into thinking that black is white.

I am personally so discouraged and disgusted with the current way things are now that I can't hardly stand it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

neo-conservative connections to bush administration policies...

welcome to the new american century

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't know about that, but Kristol and Newt Gingrich are both on record as admiring Roosevelt. They don't like the content of his agenda, but they do admire his determination and ruthlessness in pushing it through. Or, in my own polemical words, they don't like FDR the architect of the New Deal, but they do like FDR the breaker of the constitution, the wannabe packer of the Supreme Court, the purger of moderates from the candidate lists of his party. It's hard to think of this side of FDR and not be reminded of George Bush junior.

georgeob1 wrote:

Rather than dark, abstract conspiracy theories why not consider specific issues, policies, and their alternatives?

Sorry to pain you George, but I have to quote J.M. Keynes here, because nobody answered your question better than him. "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is generally understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil"

I pay attention to people like Norquist and Kristol -- though I never heard of Strauss -- because I think they are exactly the kind of "defunct economists" and "academic scribblers" that Keynes talked about.

0 Replies

and just one quick note on the link from Thomas earlier...accepting Kristol's slim description of neoconservative ideas and influence at face value wouldn't be intellectually prudent.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...and finn is much closer than you to getting it right.

Ooh, I guess I need to work harder so I can beat out george to blatham's finish line.

blatham wrote:

Finn suggests that this element has limited influence on Bush personally, and on the administration. I'm sure thomas would agree with that, and so do I. There are other discernible influences as well (eg Grover Norquist and the Christian Right most evidently) who definitely are NOT supporters of Straussian notions, but very happy to work with folks like Kristol to create and maintain Republican/conservative dominance.

And why wouldn't or shouldn't they? There are also factions on the left that are working together to try and establish Democratic/liberal dominance. These efforts only take on a sinister cast if one is alarmed by the ideology driving them. It seems rather clear that you are alarmed about the Straussians and the Christian Right. I don't think you need be. Not only because I don't believe that their unstated missions are to establish either a Platonic Autocracy or a Christian Theocracy, but because neither have the power to do so.They are an influence not drivers. George Bush has already shown that he is not the pawn of any ideological faction. He may have done some things to please them all, but he has also done some things to piss them all off, and if you don't believe he is a canny enough politician to avoid falling under one ideology's sway, trust in Karl Rove.

blatham wrote:

But direct influence on Bush doesn't give us the entire picture. Norquist, for example, has influence in Washington and on the Republican Party machinery (thus on real aspects of governance, slowly accumulated over two decades) which arguably may, in the long run, lead historians to suggest he's a greater real influence than Bush.

Greater in what respect?

George W Bush had virtually no influence prior to assuming the presidency and is unlikely to exert much after he leaves (especially if he only serves one term), but during his tenure he has had far greater influence on the governance of the US than Norquist, and an influence that can easily be more far reaching as well.

Unless Bush was doing Norquist's bidding in establishing the largest entitlement program since the Great Society days, this one accomplishment is likely to have a longer lasting influence than anything Norquist has managed.

The desire to find unelected puppeteers pulling the strings of our leaders and exerting the real power in Washington can become something of a paranoid obsession.

Without a doubt, Norquist is a powerful man who exerts considerable influence, but so was Clark Clifford and that other Strauss...Bob.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well if Keynes is correct then my lingering influences are now aged Jesuit priests who beat Cicero, Seneca, Thucydides, Montaigne, and Thomas Aquinas into my head, and a Marine Sergeant who told us that if we wanted to know what someone really thought, we should observe what they do - and that we better goddam well do what he said.

Sure. And I think that as lingering influences go, those are pretty respectable ones.

georgeob1 wrote:

That's possible. I hope you are right on these guys.

0 Replies

Thomas,

Well, I hope I'm right about Bush & company too. Sadly, certainty isn't possible. Didn't J.M. Keynes also play a secondary role as an advisor of some sort to Lloyd George at Versailles? There's a source of lingering influences.

BTW, I should aknowledge the perhaps undeserved good grace Dys showed me earlier in this page. He really is as good with words as Bernie - and it is hard to stay sore at him.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I find it remarkable that Irving Kristol and many other prominent neo-conservatives had started out on the far left. True to their roots, they and their followers have continued to advocate the use of government for telling people how to behave -- except that they now do it from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

So even if the letter of Dys's remark might count as a cheap shot, I think he has a very good point when you consider the spirit of it. I wish the John McCains, Arnold Schwarzeneggers, and Rudolph Giulianis would wake up to it and chase the Neocons out of town.

These are aspects of Thomas' proposition to which I failed to respond.

I do believe the polar extremes of the political spectrum have more in common than often meets the eye, and that a willingness to use government to coerce desired behavior is an all too common and dangerous one - just as Thomas has suggested.

I'll confess that I believe that many exaggerate and use the 'Neocon menace' as a straw man to beat on their opposition more or less as conservatives once did with respect to 'communist sympathizers'. However, I suppose there is a kernel of truth in the proposition.

I'm not so sure that John McCain or Ralph Guliani would really be any less inclined to coerce than the prominent figures in the Bush administration. Their records show such a willingness in many areas. Perhaps the perceived difference is only the relative lack of opportunity. (There were those in the Navy who said of McCain that 'he wouldn't float head down'. He is a good guy, but a bit impulsive - "Ready, Fire, Aim"). Arnold has just begun, but he has shown great skill and solid judgement so far. Very cool !

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Didn't J.M. Keynes also play a secondary role as an advisor of some sort to Lloyd George at Versailles? There's a source of lingering influences.

Indeed Keynes was an advisor to Lloyd George at Versailles. His advice was that the treaty was catastrophic, would wreak havoc with the economies of Europe in general and Germany in particular, and would, in the long run, lead to a second world war. When Lloyed George refused to listen, Keynes resigned from the advisory board in protest and wrote his book "The economic consequences of the peace". In this book, published 1919, he predicted pretty darn exactly that what did happen in the Germany of the 20s and 30s, would happen.

Do you see any way Keynes could have acted more intelligently and honorably than he did?

georgeob1 wrote:

BTW, I should aknowledge the perhaps undeserved good grace Dys showed me earlier in this page. He really is as good with words as Bernie - and it is hard to stay sore at him.

I second that. And I should apologize for the way I hijacked his remark the way I did.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm not so sure that John McCain or Ralph Guliani would really be any less inclined to coerce than the prominent figures in the Bush administration.

You may be right. My personal preference would be that the Republicans clone Barry Godwater and let him run. Unfortunately they oppose the stem cell research neccessary to do that -- though probably not for that reason.

0 Replies

Amusing! Very urban guerilla...with a major in graphic design. Is this an online tie-in to the street violence set to kick off today?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Do you see any way Keynes could have acted more intelligently and honorably than he did?
.

No I don't.

Damn ! Another book to read. Thanks for the insight.

0 Replies

Kerry's Real Heroism Came After The War
Kerry's Real Heroism Came After The War
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
- Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, August 30, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle

To be fair about it, George W. Bush did what many of us would have done given the chance. He ducked the war in Vietnam and got free flying lessons in the deal.

That he stopped attending Air National Guard meetings is really no big deal. Those meetings are boring and unproductive.

What is troublesome is Bush's hypocrisy. He has no qualms about sending others into battle, but he himself did a sophisticated cut and run when the shooting started.

That is one reason, when it comes to waging a war, John Kerry might make a better president than Bush.

Kerry's record in combat seems to be mixed. It is apparently true that he took a risk in rescuing a crew member, but what else could he do? If he'd left his buddy behind, he'd never be able to look his crew in the eye again.

Putting Kerry's heroism in perspective, any infantryman who goes out on patrol takes at least a big a risk as Kerry did the day he won his Bronze Star.

As for Kerry's wounds, he apparently did what any sane man would have done in his situation: He worked his wounds for all they were worth. Three Purple Hearts and you're out of 'Nam. Any scratch counts. Kerry apparently got a couple of scratches that could have been overlooked, but he used them as his ticket back to the States.

Who can blame him?

But his real heroism revealed itself when he became a front man for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. We Americans don't like to admit it, but we live in a culture that adores war. Our World War II veterans were long ago promoted to sainthood, and our younger men deliriously want the same kind of respect. The nation as a whole sees our success in WWII as "the good old days."

So in our national psyche, war is good. By logical extension, people who oppose war are bad.

It seems there are two kinds of war veterans: those who make their war experience the cornerstone of their existence, and those who come home, try to forget, and get on with their lives.

In the case of Vietnam veterans, the first kind, the "professional veterans," are angry and bitter because they never got the kind of respect accorded to WWII vets.

The "forgetters," on the other hand, don't care. They've gotten on with their lives. That was then; this is now.

In any event, it took a remarkable amount of courage for John Kerry, and others like him, to take an active public stand against the war they had just helped fight.

They knew that in a pro-war culture they would be looked down upon as traitors. They knew they'd be linked with Jane Fonda and the myths surrounding her anti-war efforts.

They knew all that, but they also knew what was right. They knew the war was wrong. The bogus "domino theory" (if Vietnam falls, the entire region becomes communist) was such a shallow lie it could have been something today's so-called neo-com advisers would have whispered into President Bush's ear.

The vets who dared speak against the war knew there was nothing about Vietnam that justified the deaths of tens of thousands of American boys and an estimated 1 million Vietnamese.

They'd been there. They knew it was wrong. And they had the courage to say so in a country that thrives on war.

The Vietnam vets who despise Kerry do so because he has helped rob them of the glory they feel they deserve. Most of them, like most of the WWII vets, were dragged into battle through the Selective Service System. They were drafted. They didn't want to be in a war. But once there they did what was expected of them, which was no more nor less than the WWII vets did.

They crave the same respect.

The war in Iraq is, in a way, a continuum of World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. So America in my lifetime went from its most noble war, to its forgotten war, to its unjustified war, to the hopeless quagmire we're in now in Iraq.

Does John Kerry still have the courage he exhibited after returning from Vietnam? If he does, and if he's elected, our troops will be out of Iraq by next February.

Courageous or not, Kerry is a peace-loving American's only hope. The incumbent president (Mr. Bring It On) has signaled he'll be sending others off to fight for as long as he holds the office.
---------------------------------------------

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/08/30/hsorensen.DTL

0 Replies

Isn't that nice. The left wing doesn't like the right. This sort of cut and paste posting kills otherwise interesting threads.

0 Replies

That is such an informative article, BBB. So now, Kerry should be viewed as a hero because he milked some scratches for all they were worth, came home early and was brave enough to use his right of free speech to undermine those who were still fighting by accusing them of wide-spread atrocities? Well, at least someone on the Kerry bandwagon is finally admitting that the SBV have some truth behind their charges.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

I think you misapprehend something important in this mix.

The neoconservative element is a group of folks in America who hold to a political ideology developed particularly by Struass who was himself influenced most particularly by Plato's notions of governance. They have achieved significant profiles and levels of power in Washington within the Republican Party. Kristol's Weekly Standard represents their presence in the punditry. They populate various think tanks, the AEI most obviously. Their ties to Likkud are not insignificant. And these are the fellows who have been pushing since 92 to set to war with Iraq.

Reed and Norquist ought to be seen in a somewhat different light. Though both men have their own notions of proper governance (Norquist heads up Americans For Tax Reform and Reed, before moving to the Bush election team, headed up the Christian Coalition. But these two men, though both very bright, are not political philosophers in the manner of Kristol or Wolfowitz. Their genius (proper term for either of them) lies in organizing. And both have achieved amazing organizations, but they've been continually working at that from their college days thirty years ago.

0 Replies

finn said

Quote:

And why wouldn't or shouldn't they [seek permanent Republican control of governance in the US]? There are also factions on the left that are working together to try and establish Democratic/liberal dominance. These efforts only take on a sinister cast if one is alarmed by the ideology driving them. It seems rather clear that you are alarmed about the Straussians and the Christian Right. I don't think you need be. Not only because I don't believe that their unstated missions are to establish either a Platonic Autocracy or a Christian Theocracy, but because neither have the power to do so.They are an influence not drivers. George Bush has already shown that he is not the pawn of any ideological faction. He may have done some things to please them all, but he has also done some things to piss them all off, and if you don't believe he is a canny enough politician to avoid falling under one ideology's sway, trust in Karl Rove.

First, and perhaps most importantly, I believe your initial sentence is false. I think the notion or goal of permanent partisan dominance is very extreme. I doubt Lincoln had this as a goal, and for the obvious reason. I doubt Goldwater had it. But Norquist for sure, and Reed almost for sure, do have this goal. In college and after, Reed and Norquist worked together in the College Republicans under Jack Abramoff. Here's a quote from Abramoff...

Quote:

It is not our job to seek peaceful co-existence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently....This means removing Leftists from positions of power and influence in every area of student life: student newspaper and radio stations. student government, Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Groups, and academia. We are replacing those Leftists with committed conservatives.

from "Gang of Five", Nina Easton, page 143.

The claim is made commonly, even by some older style Republicans such as Thomas alludes to, that the present party is extreme. It is. This is not the old party. And many of us think this extremism - the degree of it and the nature of it - is contrary to American principles of liberty and democracy.

0 Replies

Just take a look at Texas to see how the Republicans work towards perpetual dominance...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I think you misapprehend something important in this mix.

The neoconservative element is a group of folks in America who hold to a political ideology developed particularly by Struass who was himself influenced most particularly by Plato's notions of governance. They have achieved significant profiles and levels of power in Washington within the Republican Party. Kristol's Weekly Standard represents their presence in the punditry. They populate various think tanks, the AEI most obviously. Their ties to Likkud are not insignificant. And these are the fellows who have been pushing since 92 to set to war with Iraq.

Reed and Norquist ought to be seen in a somewhat different light. ........... Their genius (proper term for either of them) lies in organizing. And both have achieved amazing organizations, but they've been continually working at that from their college days thirty years ago.

Interesting point. My experience (such as it is) gives me a bias against overvaluing the influence of the weavers of ideas, thinkers of thoughts, writers of papers, and thinkers in think tanks.

They certainly figure prominently, after the fact, in the record of the development of policy. Moreover they are certainly quick to claim authorship for the perceived intellectual underpinings of new policy ideas, and to leave their finger and foot prints wherever they can. However, my (albeit limited) experience in that world strongly suggests they are more often mere hangers on, or at best pawns of opportunity in a larger game played for more concrete and specific goals framed by people in power on a more intuitive basis.

That was certainly the case in the Reagan Administration in the development of our strategy vis a vis the Soviet Union, which in the early '80s still seemed to be very powerful. In 1982 Détente and "malaise in the West" were the watchwords in the halls of academic strategy. It was only after Reagan did the "evil empire" bit and announced his intent to spend the USSR into oblivion, that the theories of a decadent Soviet system countered by forward deployments of cruise missiles, mobile conventional forces poised in Scandinavia and Hokkaido and a forward maratime strategy began to unfold.

I believe it is far more likely that the abstract Neocons are the followers and opportunists in this game, attempting to claim authorship for things decided on a much more intuitive and political basis, more or less as they have been described by the administration.

0 Replies

Dole asking Kerry about Nam.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know