Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
Opening Statement
Dear FRiends:
I once suffered two great frustrations in being a freelance political writer. First, the loneliness: you put an article out there, and you might as well have thrown it down a black hole for all the response you get. Second, the ghettoization: when you do get response, it would be from folks you agree with. Not fun for folks like me who reliish--no, crave and need--political argument.
Then came the Internet, the blogs--and: problem solved.
I have especially enjoyed having my articles in the Village Voice posted on Free Republic by "dead," and arguing about them here. The only frustration is that I never have enough time--and sometimes no time--to respond as the threads are going on. That is why I arranged for an entire afternoon--this afternoon--to argue on Free Republic. Check out my articles and have at me.
A little background: I am a proud leftist who specializes in writing about conservatives. I have always admired conservatives for their political idealism, acumen, stalwartness, and devotion. I have also admired some of their ideas--especially the commitment to distrusting grand social schemes, and the deep sense of the inherent flaws in human nature. (To my mind the best minds in the liberal tradition have encompassed these ideals, while still maintaining that robust social reform is still possible and desirable. My favorite example is the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, author of the Serenity Prayer and a great liberal Democrat.)
Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
Finally, in what I see as the errors of the Iraq campaign, I recognize the worst aspects of arrogant left-wing utopianism: the idea that you can remake a whole society and region through sheer force of will. I think Iraq is a tragic disaster (though for the time being the country is probably better off than it was when Saddam was around--but only, I fear, for the time being).
I am also, by the way, a pretty strong critic of my own side, as can be seen in my latest Village Voice piece.
So: I'm yours for the day--until 7:10 pm CST, when I'm off to compete in my weekly trivia contest at the University of Chicago Pub. Until then: Are you ready to rumble?
Respectfully,
Rick Perlstein
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
How exactly do conservatives enact and enforce laws when black letter laws are routinely overturned and subverted by liberal courts?
Liberalism is no longer advanced through law; it is advanced through court edict. Time after time the clear meanings of laws and the Constitution itself are swept aside by judges with a liberal agenda. I cite the gay "marriage" movment going on right now. Judges are running rough-shod over the wishes of a large percentage of the people and their legislators.
Judges are increasingly MAKING law, not interpreting it. It seems to me it is the liberals who couldn't care less about the law.
----
Yes. Sometimes unelected judges overstep their bounds. The most grievous examples these days come from conservatives in the "takings" movement going after eminent domain.
What did you think of the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, running roughshod over the majority of Americans who thought states should be able to outlaw marriage between people of different races?
I could care less what a Hanoi Kerry supporter like him thinks.
I have a Coast Guard Auxiliary meeting tonight.
(See my FR Profile)
I don't have time to waste like he does.
Without the actions of President Bush and his Administration-Sadam would still be in power-still a threat to the world.
One more reason why I support the President, even though he isn't perfect.
Max, he has yet to experience any atrocity you described...that is the "beauty" of liberalism in American...the haves telling the have nots how to live....its scary but freedom will prevail and we shall be on the RIGHT side of history : ) People applauded john wilkes booth..now he is scorned....history is not kind to traitors despots and their supporters of sheep....
I simply asked which side you supported. If you wish, I'll rephrase the question to be a vote of Congress rather than a national referendum of the people themselves, though one wonders why an avowed liberal would prefer such a Republican solution over a purely Democratic one...
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Thanks for the ping!
Then you are in favor or more old people who cannot support themselves in old age!?
You are in favor of oldsters relying on the government rather than their investments and families who understand their needs?!
Why are you in favor of more old people living at subsistance level?
There should be no cap on income withheld for social security. What can I say? I'm a lefty.
And so it ends up as all leftist utopias: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Have a great time and I am a FR fan of yours, keep up the good work.
~~~Lisa : )
General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.
"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.
General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''
The Russian advance party took the airport unopposed. The world watched nervously.
A senior Russian officer, General Leonid Ivashev, tells the BBC how the Russians had plans to fly in thousands of troops.
''Let's just say that we had several airbases ready. We had battalions of paratroopers ready to leave within two hours,'' he said.
Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.
General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.
To DEADDOG: I copied the following from Harvard Law School information showing "rule of law" has no fixed meaning and is always up for debate.
"But overlooked in much of the dialogue about the rule of law is that the term has no fixed meaning. It originated in normative writings on law and government, principally by Western authors, and each tailored the term to fit his or her vision of the "ideal" or "just" state. As a consequence, one recent survey of how the term has been used in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States concludes that it "belongs to the category of open-ended concepts which are subject to permanent debate" (Grote 1999: 271)."
The World can thank President Bush for the removal of Saddam.
One more reason why re-electing him is extremely important.
---
Please read better. I said Iraq is better off without Saddam.
So Iraq is better off without Saddam but the world isn't?
"In Perlstein's article on people who love Bush, I wondered why he painted conservatives/Republicans as people who change the subject if they don't have a good answer, when that's exactly what liberals/Democrats do."
Because by projecting their own tactics onto conservatives, Dems hope to put us on the defensive. Keeping your opponent on the defensive is the way to prevent them from launching a counter attack. When that doesn't work, they scream bloody murder at about 110 decibles, until the opposition is silenced. That's why I don't watch shows like Hannity and Colmes anymore (though I do listen to his radio show)
-----
Guys, do you really think that my most efficient contribution to silencing the opposition is to spend all day arguing here? We're not that malevolent, you know!
I don't watch H and C either. I think Ailes is a punk for picking the nerdiest looking liberal in the world to go against H. Clearly bias. ;-)
So, is this what you really believe about the Liberation of Iraq?! Tens of millions of Iraqis FReed from Totalitarian Despotism and Mass Graves, and you see it as an "invasion"!! Mr. Perlstein, was the Liberation of Kuwait an "invasion"? How 'bout when America LIBERATED Germany, Japan, Italy, much of South America, and eastern Europe?! What is it about LIBERTY that Lib'rals so loathe?
------
Who on FR is aware that the mass graves are over ten years old, by the way? Not to excuse Saddam. I despise the thug. But look: the death toll from the ENFORCED starvation in North Korea is greater than Saddam could even spit at. When comes that invasion?
I don't trust Bush with the Iraqi people's freedom and security. His man in Iraq, Chalabi, was revealed to be a spy for their sworn enemy Iran, remember.
Hear Hear! The Monica scandal was mostly media generated interferance (Titles "It's Only Sex") to cover his crimes.
I wanted him out of office for Waco, Ruby Ridge and the illegal war in Kosovo, in which he orderd our troops to fight for the terrorists side, without UN sanction (that's a real important issue these days) and without evidence the crimes the "ethnic Albanians" accused the Serbs of were being committed.
WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE MASS GRAVES TO BE FOUND.
Though his behavior was reprehensible, Monica was nothing more than a running joke to most of us - until he committed perjury.
So, as I leave the office for home, I ask for a reasoned liberal explanation of the place of concepts such as "good" and "evil" in a government that cannot admit to a concept of God. I'll respond when I get home.
----
I guess my question would be why would you formulate a question that implies those who don't believe in God don't deserve civil rights.
Where do the laws come from? Men, not some ethereal entity. Since we are the creators of the laws, then we should have a say in what the laws are.
Your whole statement is an attempt to place on conservatives the very thing that is happening to liberals: when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
This is exactly what is happening to the liberal movement.
"2 - On Fox News Sunday, John Kerry continued to insist that the president misled the nation about Iraq trying to get uranium ore from Niger, despite American and British findings to the contrary. Do you agree with Kerry? Or is he now lying himself?"
You replied: "2. y'all is nuts if you STILL BELIEVE Iraq managed to ship tons of RADIOACTIVE ORE halfway across the Eastern hemisphere without anyone noticing. I certainly have my criticisms of Joe Wilson, but he does at least a adequate job of debunking that nonsense here: "
BZZZT. Which part of trying requires actual shipment? NONE. The British stand by their intelligence as per the Butler Report. Bush's 16 words were true, and Wilson's allegations were false.
And do you seriously still believe Joe Wilson, now that his claim to have had knowledge that 'debunked' the Niger evidence is now been established to be fraudulent? Joe Wilson claimed to have seen documents that he NEVER had access to at the time he claimed. Joe claimed his wife had nothing to do with the trip (she did). Joe claimed his trip 'disproved' the Niger connection (it didnt and furthermore, to some analysts increased their belief in Iraq's interest in uranium).
After all this, knowing as we know now that this whole scam started when Joe Wilson was chatting with Nick Kristof at a Democrat Senatorial conclave, ie a partisan gathering ... do you really believe Joe Wilson is a credible witness?
You are making our case Mr Perlstein. We need Gutsy Conservatives such as President Bush, to appoint judges who will over ride previous decisions by liberal judges, legislating from the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.