Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Democrats and War

Thomas Sowell makes some good points on the Democrats and the war.

They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.


It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue.

You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.


Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.

That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.

Why do the Democrats lack seriousness on the war? Is it because they are cynical and will manipulate any issue to gain power?

I think their lack of seriousness comes from their inability to understand that we are at war. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because many in Washington for decades refused to consider terrorism as a matter of war. Instead they thought of it as a criminal justice matter. John Kerry voiced that opinion in the last presidential election, three years after the World Trade Center attacks. A nation does not go to war against another nation in response to individual criminals.

Nancy Pelosi’s grin and the Democrats’ games show that they still do not really believe we are at war. They still believe that if we just sit down and talk with Iran and the rest of the totalitarian Islamists -- and if we buy them off with enough foreign aid -- then we can fly on by the seat of our pants as we have for decades. In the sophisticated enclaves of Manhattan and Aspen and Napa Valley, the idea of war must seem like an overreaction of the great unwashed masses -- all those jingoist fools who lose their reason in presence of the American flag.

Meanwhile, the enemy is still alive and planning the next attack.


Dismuke said...

Myrhaf wrote:

"In the sophisticated enclaves of Manhattan and Aspen and Napa Valley, the idea of war must seem like an overreaction of the great unwashed masses --"

And, moreover, taking any idea too seriously is the obvious sign of a simpleton.

"They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible"

Sadly, the only way one can advance a political agenda it seems today is by going negative. It is not just with the Democrats - the Republicans have been at their best when they have gone on the offensive attacking Democrats. Neither side is capable of articulating a comprehensive agenda of what they are for without very quickly finding themselves in deep doo doo. In many cases, of course, that is a good thing as most what such people stand for (whether they fully realize they stand for it or not) is pretty terrible and horrible. But I am afraid that is also the case even with the few better sort of people still out there.

madmax said...

This is an excellent talk given by a former liberal who use to write for Bill Meyers tv show. He is now a conservative, what he calls a 9/13 Republican. Yes, he has flaws but the subject of his talk is why the Left (what he calls "modern liberalism") hates all standards and believes in being totally "indiscriminate." What he describes, although he does not use the word, is the skepticism and thus nihilism of the Left. Its a good talk.


Nathan said...

Myrhaf, I'm not a blogger, nor do I read blogs much. I have also never posted a single comment anywhere on the internet (My cursory use of email and myspace doesn't count).
I know you outside of the Internet and I like you. I find you extremely intelligent and talented. I've read just a bit of your blog to get to know you a bit better and because your politics fascinate me and trouble me. I know that you are a rational person so I become quite puzzled when you spew such venom against liberals and democrats.

I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I don’t think conservative is a bad word nor do I think liberal is an insult. Conservative can mean frugal, traditional, safe and liberal can mean generous, broadminded, accepting, non-conventional. Obviously these words have been assigned to political ideals, but it still remains true that some of each can be good and too much of either is not. So, yes I guess I am a moderate. I think most things are fine in moderation, and I believe the lack of moderation is arguably the biggest problem facing America today (take my gut and your gut as evidence). Yet, in our two party system I am left with no party, and when you take away the veneer of platform, I am left with basically only one party, and thus no choice at all.

I haven’t read the majority of your blog, but I believe I’ve read enough to pick up on a theme of conservative good, liberal bad, democrat bad. The mudslinging I’ve read makes me want to sling some mud back. And you, I, and the world know that there’s more mud
to sling at the current administration than there’s been for any other administration in this country’s history. And, the mud sticks too. Yes, there’s a war, yes we need to fight the terrorists. Yes, we did the right thing by going after them in Afghanistan. And then we blew it big time; we squandered the best opportunity we had to unite the free world and quash Islamic fundamentalism. And Christian fundamentalism, a fundamentalism that has hijacked the so-called conservative party in our country, led by its golden boy, played right into the hands of the terrorists and did a better job of recruiting terrorists than they could have done by themselves in two decades. All the while this same boy and his puppet masters make the government bigger than any conservative should be able to stomach. Sometimes… no scratch that… All the time, intelligence should be a major factor in choosing our leaders. And, if your gut and your ears tell you that someone is a buffoon, then you shouldn’t allow yourself to be convinced by those who say, “he just doesn’t speak well” or “he just comes across as stupid.” Sometimes the emperor is simply wearing no clothes. By the way, I’ve been saying these things about W since 1999. And I screamed from every mountaintop that I could find, “what the heck are we doing going into Iraq.” It was completely obvious to me and many others that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were not Islamic fundamentalists in charge in Iraq then; there are now. Yes, Sadaam was a criminal dictator, but so are and have been a large percentage of all world leaders that we mostly have let be, if not employed.

Again, I haven’t read most of your blog, and I’m not sure if I want to. If I don’t read it, then I can still hold onto the hope that you aren’t quite as black and white in your politics as my original impression. That you are conservative maybe, but not a blind Republican. So far I haven’t picked up any of that feeling. So, I think I’ll go with my gut feeling about you. And, like I’ve mentioned, I like you and have a lot of respect for you. I am amazed at your ability of keeping your politics quiet amongst a group of artists who lean probably more left than right. That’s probably a very wise move too.

Myrhaf said...

Thanks for commenting, Nathan. I'm not a conservative, I'm a radical for capitalism. Conservatives try to defend capitalism with religion and tradition, which is hopeless. I base my defense of capitalism on individual rights. Philosophically, I'm an Objectivist; that's the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

As an Objectivist and an atheist, I do agree with liberals on many issues, all of them non-economic: abortion, flag burning, censorship, legalized drugs, gay marriage, for instance. I believe the government should stay out of the economy and out of the bedroom.

I am a registered Republican, but a reluctant one, and one who is willing to vote Democrat if the Republicans continue their slide toward the religious right. As I have stated on this blog, I would vote for Hillary Clinton if John McCain were the Republican nominee because of his calls for national service.

You know me from rehearsals, but there's no contradiction from what you know about me there and what you read on this blog. I don't bring up politics at rehearsals, but I respond when people bring it up, as when you were watching that Michael Moore movie. For the most part, actors are quite uninterested in politics and philosophy. You seem puzzled that I can be a nice guy but believe in "black and white" politics. Well, that's the liberal mindset -- that anyone who is not subjective is bad. I would suggest you watch Evan Sayet's speech that I link to in another post.

Keep reading!