The Democrats Gloat Thread

Quote:

But lets return to your point. The fact that the demented brutes as well as the civilized sane may consider themselves good does not make it so. The question is should the civilized sane refrain from war simply because there is no overarching authority to render the claims of the demented brutes invalid?

As you agree that there have been, are, and will always be ugly brutes in the world who wish to dominate people by force, how do you propose that the civilized sane thwart their goals when violent free efforts prove ineffective?

finn

You avoid the primary dilemma. It isn't about an over-arching authority, it is about how a community can be (will be?) blind when viewing itself.

It was you who introduced the notion that all player think of themselves as righteous. Now you presume that one player who thinks of itself as righteous must be deceiving itself. Granted, one or both may be be doing this very thing in the context of a given conflict, but it seems that you will not acknowledge that in some matters one or the other player is for the purposes of history and human consideration...the Good Guy.

I know you have a problem with my use of "post-modernist" and "moral relativism," but this seems to be a perfect example of the application of these concepts to a real world situation:Two nations go to war. Both consider themselves righteous. There is no supreme judge on the matter but you put it to the players that they must judge themselves. Yep - no problem. The problem develops when you assert that it is, perforce, a dilemma. You are inclined, by your Lib nature, to assume that any group or community that believes itself to be righteous, must be self-deceiving. Sorry but there are, in this world, the righteous and the sinful.

The Allies in WWII were righteous, and the Axis were sinful. Does this mean that everything done in the name of the Allies was righteous and that every individual within the Axis was sinful? Of course not. However your insistence upon finding a dilemma where none exist is a perfect example of paralysis induced by Liberal thought. Carry everything to it's most basic components and you will never find an over arching principle. This is an interestingly ironic concept of post-modernist thought. From a scientific perspective, the Post-modernists abhor deconstructionism, and yet on a political and social level, they seem addicted to the concept.


One way you use to avoid this is by defining the two sides as the "ugly, demented brute" and the "civilized sane". Setting up the options in this manner puts you (or Osama) in the wonderful position of knowing immediately which definition applies to you and which applies to the other side. Who tortures prisoners...civilized sane or ugly brute?

I, and America are the civilized sane. Osama and his jihadists are the ugly, demented brutes. If you find the certainty of this chacterization troubling, I am not surprised, but neither am I moved.

Yes, among the righteous there are a few who are sinful, and among the sinful there are a few who are righteous, but I don't define systems by their exceptions.

Communal self deception is the dilemma. de Tocqueville, writing about American's self-regard, said, "...it is impossible to conceive of a more troublesome and garrulous patriotism." Why would de Tocqueville, a lover of so much he saw in America, find this version of patriotism so tiresome and troubling? Not merely because he responded the way we all do to a loud braggard, but surely also because he recognized that such cliched self-regard with its simplistic "we are good" assumptions (quite uninvestigated) can be counted on to blind one to the ways in which one's nation might be seriously wrong about something(s).

How the hell do I know what was roiling around the mind of de Tocqueville? That he was a lover of America doesn't mean that his criticisms of America are on point and irrefutable.

Are there instances of America fooling itself through blind patriotism? Undoubtedly. The question is does this self-deceit represent America or is it an unfortunate side-effect? It seems clear that you believe this to be a systemic pathology. Perhaps you are a misanthrope and not simple Anti-American. Is there a people on this earth who fulfill your expectations?

Blatham, it appears clear to me that you are on of those hopeless Romantics who expect too much from America and become heart broken cynics when America farts.

Why do you care whether or not Americans puff up their chest with chauvinism? Is America, on balance, a force for good (order) in the world or is it a force for evil (chaos)?

Don't worry, America is perfect capable of reigning itself in from the path of world domination without the iconoclastic voice of a Canuk.

Feel free to voice your concerns. In some small way you contribute to the forces of restraint, but understand the context of blatham in the great wide world.

So that is the primary problem...mistakes in self-regard through patriotic or ideological blindnesses. If it weren't for this prior dilemma, there would be no need for checks and balances on power. Solving this leads you to "overarching authority" arrangements or to suspending relatively equal power groups at odds with each other (your government system, theoretically).

Quite properly, if your executive branch, say, took it upon itself to disempower the judicial and legislative branches, you would consider this a dangerous move towards authoritarian control. Dangerous because of human tendencies we all understand and which your founders explicitly sought to compensate for with a balancing of power.

Why would their wisdom suddenly count as a foolishness when considering the international level?

Because the international level is a whole lot more chaotic and dangerous than the domestic level.

You would have us believe that there is equivalence between the Executive Branch in America dispossessing the Supreme Court, and America routing tyrants in foreign lands?

I'm sure you are not so naive to believe that squashing Saddam is, in some way, similar to squashing the US Supreme Court, and yet this is the conclusion to which your argument seems to lead.

Two-Thirds of Americans Say Bush Wrong on Iraq

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - Many adults in the United States believe George W. Bush is not proceeding correctly with the coalition effort, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 66 per cent of respondents have a negative view of the job the U.S. president has done in handling the issue of Iraq. [..]

Polling Data

Overall, how would you rate the job U.S. president George W. Bush has done in handling the issue of Iraq over the last several months?

Positive
32% Oct. 2005
34% Jul. 2005

Negative
66% Oct. 2005
64% Jul. 2005

Not sure
2% Oct. 2005
2% Jul. 2005

How confident are you that U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful?

Confident
24% Oct. 2005
23% Jul. 2005

Not confident
61% Oct. 2005
59% Jul. 2005

Not sure
15% Oct. 2005
19% Jul. 2005


Source: Harris Interactive
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,833 American adults, conducted from Oct. 11 to Oct. 17, 2005. Margin of error is 2.5 per cent.

Interesting...wonder whether it will reflect necessarily on the Repubs, if they end up nominating a more reasoned candidate?

What do you think is the number one problem for the President and Congress to deal with -- that is, what is the problem that you and your family think is most important for the President and Congress to deal with?

21% War in Iraq
14% Economy/taxes
8% Terrorism/national defense
6% Energy/ energy costs
5% Deficit/ budget deficit
5% Health care issues
4% Unemployment/jobs
3% Immigration
2% Education
2% Social Security
29% Other/ Unsure

Please tell me, for each one, who would do a better job of handling this issue or better represents this quality -- the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress.

Setting the right priorities

41% GOP
47% Dems
7% None
5% Unsure

Dealing with Iraq

43% GOP
42% Dems
8% None
8% Unsure

Keeping America prosperous

41% GOP
48% Dems
6% None
5% Unsure

Holding the line on taxes

49% GOP
40% Dems
5% None
6% Unsure

For the middle class

33% GOP
59% Dems
5% None
3% Unsure

Safeguarding America from a terrorist threat

51% GOP
31% Dems
8% None
11% Unsure

Homeland Security

50% GOP
35% Dems
7% None
8% Unsure

Holding down federal spending

35% GOP
49% Dems
11% None
5% Unsure

Ending corruption in Washington

29% GOP
36% Dems
22% None
13% Unsure

Making prescription drugs affordable

24% GOP
59% Dems
10% None
7% Unsure

Creating jobs

37% GOP
54% Dems
5% None
5% Unsure

Improving education

35% GOP
53% Dems
5% None
7% Unsure

Strengthening Social Security

31% GOP
58% Dems
6% None
6% Unsure

Shares your values

45% GOP
46% Dems
4% None
6% Unsure

I'm sure even JW will agree that the public disgruntlement over Bush's Iraq policies that the polls show has an impact beyond the (un-reelectable) person of Bush Jr. himself...

Don't forget that most in this country still don't know what the Democrats are for.

Don't forget that most in this country still don't know what the Democrats are for. We know that they're against almost everything. but that usually won't win elections.

It's a good thing Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court, another Bush crony.

nimh - I think Scott Ott's take on polls most closely resembles mine