When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

I am losing all respect for you, not that that matters.

Joe(try to focus, or stop and go shopping)Nation

Mushroom clouds!? Mushroom clouds anybody!?

finn

That's a thoughtful response. Thanks.

You don't know how much your recognition motivates me.

Quote:

Wishful thinking blatham. I don't know how you can conclude that these elections indicate a significant, let alone permanent, rejection of conservatism in America. America remains a center-right nation, which can readily be seen by the manner in which the winners, the Democrats, have read the public sentiment that brought them back into power.

Permanent Republican dominance is, indeed, a lost cause, but then it was never really found. There was never a chance that the Republicans could rule the nation for extended decades, for the very reason that they just lost the congress: Power corrupts, and it takes far less than decades to do so.

First, it isn't my thesis that "conservatism" was rejected. Rather that a different and more extreme set of notions on values/governance along with a tight coalition of interest groups within it - "new conservatism" has been the term used to describe it by Sheena Easton and others - looks to be dead in the water now. Thank you jesus. (Actually, I'd argue that there are two identifiable points where "conservatism" in the more traditional sense took a hit too...Katrina and Iraq).

Really? You could have fooled me, but I accept your contention.

Inarguably, America began a move to the right in the seventies. I don't see that as merely a correction but rather as well organized and marketed push to strengthen and capitalize on a correction. The establishment and coordination of rightwing think tanks with propagandist gears and intentions (see their missions statements) are an identifable element. The financial and organizational support thrown into rightwing media outlets and operations (see, for example, the pundit-training establishment out of which Ann Coulter and many others have issued) have brought into being a large, effective and intentionally partisan information filter is another identifiable element. A third is the establishment and organization of the Federalist Society with its goals of training, organizing and co-ordinating republicans/conservatives in the legal sphere so as to move judicial bodies and rulings in an ideological direction. A fourth is the envelopment of the burgeoning polititicization of fundamentalist/evangelical communities within the Republican electoral machine. Fifth, and related to that last, is the establishment of "faith based initiatives" which, as Kuo and others have pointed out, has a clear strategy of defunding organizations which had previously been pro-dem and moving that funding over to pro-repub groups. Six, that same fund/defund strategy applied, via K Street, to the wealthy and influential lobbying community. Seven, the construction/organization of something that might be termed 'meta-organization/co-ordination' bodies/functions to keep all the various communities noted above working in tandem - the Norquist operation, for one, fits here.

In short, you give no credence to the notion that Americans may have actually embraced conservative principles. Instead, Conservative ascendence was a product of diabolical mechanics. This is, I suppose, is good news for you Lefties as it proves the American electorate is a simple minded mass, succeptible to advance political practices. Since Dems have now gone to school on the Repubs practices once can (if one is a Lib) hope that the result will be the same.

Of course, there are precursor groups and activities from earlier in time, but each of these initiatives above are in important ways new and notable in organizational depth and funding and effectiveness. Perhaps an analogy might be a switch from a ragtag army to a seasoned and organized and trained batallion.

"Conservatism" as a loose philosophy stands apart from all the above.

It is my consideration that had the Iraq project not been initiated, "new conservatism" may well have achieved solid and pervasive dominance for decades. Iraq seems a really serious miscalculation and over-reach from the neoconservative quarter (allied with extremists in Israel) and (I think, though it's hard to make this argument compelling with my level of knowledge/education) the military-industrial quarter.

Interesting that you, who so clearly counts yourself among the heavenly host, would find that the execution of neo-con principle was a "miscalculation" because it did not support GOP political dominance. God forbid that the neo-cons pushed something they believed in rather than an agenda that suited Republican political strategy.

All I asked was a definintion of a WMD. Why that should produce this display of witlessness is beyond me

Are you seriously saying you have followed the news for the past five years like any of us, and never cottoned on to the Bush admin's use of "WMD" as container term for not just nuclear, but also chemical and biological weapons, and even the more massive of explosives?

Iraq was a WMD.

Iraq was a WMD.

Iraq was a WMD.

Bernie-

A dictator can use a nation's resources as a weapon. I don't see how you can quibble with the idea that Iraq under SH was a WMD. What else is military power unless it is the focus of the economic strength of a nation deployed in its basic interests.

My sentence musters perfectly. The liberals can wave their arms in the air anyway they wish but it won't alter that. Which is why they are out of the loop.

spendius wrote:
Bernie-

A dictator can use a nation's resources as a weapon. I don't see how you can quibble with the idea that Iraq under SH was a WMD. What else is military power unless it is the focus of the economic strength of a nation deployed in its basic interests.

My sentence musters perfectly. The liberals can wave their arms in the air anyway they wish but it won't alter that. Which is why they are out of the loop.


Insufficiently discriminating in all aspects, spendi.

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

spendius wrote:
Bernie-

A dictator can use a nation's resources as a weapon. I don't see how you can quibble with the idea that Iraq under SH was a WMD. What else is military power unless it is the focus of the economic strength of a nation deployed in its basic interests.

My sentence musters perfectly. The liberals can wave their arms in the air anyway they wish but it won't alter that. Which is why they are out of the loop.


blatham responded: Insufficiently discriminating in all aspects, spendi.

It is a defensible proposition I think you'll find. In the hands of one man a nation's resources become an expression of his will and anyone who couldn't see what SH's will looked like was blind.

I don't see what you said to be anything other than an assertion.

You are in the luxurious position of criticising without offering any alternative strategies.

What do you want to happen? If you would say we can examine it up to the point our limited knowledge takes us at least.