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
Here they are, in case he's lurking:
think Iraq is a tragic disaster
I agree. Do you/those on your side think that conservatives are throwing confetti and tooting party horns over the fact that we ended up having to send our troops over there as a last resort?
No. No more than parents are "glad" when they have to put their drug addicted teenagers in rehab as a last resort to stop them harming themselves and others. That, too, is a "tragic disaster," but a necessary one.
Finally, Mr. Perlstein, I don't know your background or what your childhood was like, but mine was tough (see profile), and people like me and my parents who "bootstrapped" it, have very little tolerance for liberal ideals. Finally, I have been involved in G.O.P. politics since I was a teen, and NEVER have I been asked to be a "backdrop" at a political event. Through my current job, I have begun attending both Democrat events as well in the last few months (hey, it's a living), and was asked by these democrats who don't know my political leanings to "be a backdrop" recently, because they thought my being hispanic would "make the speaker look good." That's about typical.
| Posted by hispanarepublicana to Perlstein On News/Activism 08/03/2004 3:15:39 PM CDT · 252 of 920 I'll ask another. Why does pro-choice only mean when the choice is about whether or not to kill a baby but doesn't address the choice they made to have sex in the first place? Because it's really pro-abortion and to hell with personal responsbility back at the "having sex" stage, right? I just want a simple answer..... |
||||||
"You really are all talk, no substantive arguments. You had an open forum to sway us to your beliefs, and you've failed miserably. All you do, ad nausea, is cut and paste, and link. Do you have any original thoughts? Can you answer the questions presented without referring to some article you've wrote months ago? Or are you just trying to gin up hits to your web site?"
Cut him some slack. He's a Leftist. Leftists havent had a new idea since 1969.
I was referring to the more idealistic liberals. You know, the sheep, the useful idiots, etc. I would not place the current leadership of the Demorat party in that category!
(snip)I think Iraq is a tragic disaster
I can't put it any clearer than this, there are literally thousands of Islamofacists in the world that would like nothing better than to kill us.We are currently , in Iraq and Afganistan killing ALOT more of them than they are of us.I don't call that disaster I call it winning.
Thanks for the ping, dead.
"Why does everyone left of center get equated on this site?"
Mr. Perlstein, you are a liberal and YOU equate yourself, simply by attempting to escape that tag by using "left of center," you are hard left. The point of my response to your request was simple, liberals espouse the same basic rhetoric, there is nothing original. You quote each other and write for the recognition of your leftist peers. A biography of Barry Goldwater is hardly epic and will not let you off the hook. Regarding Howard Zinn, he is a "horrible historian" as you say, but I will add that he is dangerous, reckless and tampers with our fragile system of democracy as though it were a game. Unfortunately, I find that many liberals commit the same crime every time they open their mouth and I find that few rarely believe what they espouse, they just are challenged with wanting the element of shock and want to be recognized by their elite circle of peers. Some want to destroy our democracy and that is when it becomes dangerous.
I don't necessarily disagree with his premise, that Bush has made right wingers bend on certain principles...but what are the alternatives. As a Libertarian, if I want my vote to count, I have to cast a pragmatic vote. Msr. Kerry is certainly NOT an alternative.
Thanks for the link. The few comments that I read about the "war on terror" were no different than I've read in the Sacramento Bee editorials. To wit, we're mean, they're not; it's partly our fault that we were attacked on 9/11/01 -- the usual, it's America's fault -- and all within hours of the attacks.
Couple of points. When will civil war commence? Well, the bombing of four churches yesterday might suggest it already has.
My point was that it hasn’t, and it hasn’t. The wahabbists are trying to ignite one, but they are not succeeding. It appears that, contrary to the predictions of white liberals everywhere, the majority of the Iraqi people might actually prefer to live in peace with people of various ethnicities and religions. They apparently have this odd notion that, like white non-Europeans, they might actually be capable of not killing their neighbors while daringly living without the thumb of a murderous repressive despot on their heads.
And that the presence of 150,000 allied forces are what's keeping the lid on, more ore less.
Good man, that Bush. Thank God he’s not listening to the “bring them all home” leftist dingbats, who lick their lips at the delicious prospect of bloody corpses overseas that they can do the “I was right!” dance around. Bush is willing to leave our troops there long enough to help the freedom-loving citizens of Iraq stabilize the nation and establish a functioning economy and the rule of law.
And, once again, I have to distance myself from the idiotic headline implying I argued that the MILITARY would pull out of Iraq.
Fair enough. You should find a less idiotic employer, as I agree that they often mischaracterize your articles in their headlines.
I'm proud of that article.
I don’t know why.
I said George Bush was going to move the goalline to the 50-yard-line in Iraq and declare he'd scored a touchdown on July 1, and he did.
But you are also the guy who said, in a different article:
Bush sees no reason to question his policies, because he believes them to be in concert with his faith.
Well, when he does question his policies, and alters them based on new information, you accuse him of “moving the goal line.”
As David Brooks wrote in the International Herald Tribune:
Bremer hadn't cleared the piece with his higher-ups in the Pentagon or the White House, and here he was describing a drawn-out American occupation. Iraqis would take their time writing a constitution, and would eventually have elections and take control of their country. For some Bush officials, this was the lowest period of the entire Iraq project…
Maybe it was time to transfer sovereignty first, and speed things up. Four days later Bremer was at the White House, for a meeting of the minds. That set in train what became known as the Nov. 15 agreement. Sovereignty would be transferred to Iraqis on June 30, 2004.
The think-tank johnnies and the rest of the commentariate (that would be you, Rick) went into their usual sky-is-falling mode. This is pure politics, many said. Karl Rove doesn't want to fight the next elections with 100,000 troops in Iraq.
In fact, the members of the sneering brigade had it backward. The United States had to transfer sovereignty precisely so it could stay. This was the only way to get enough legitimacy to fight the insurgents and work on rebuilding. And from those weeks on, the administration was unwavering in its support of the June 30 transfer. Politically, at least, its constancy is paying off. Since the transfer I've had candid conversations with four senior officials with responsibility for Iraq. They are more cautiously optimistic than at any time over the past year.
Iraq now has a popular government with a tough, capable prime minister. Democratic institutions are emerging, including a culture of compromise. Clerics are now preaching against insurgents. Sistani calls them sinners.
Thanks, in part, to Bremer's decisiveness, the political transition is going well.
Bush didn’t move the goal line. The goal line is a free, democratic Iraq. He’s halfway there. He recognized that the plan he was operating under wasn’t working. He was able to question that flawed plan because he didn't kookily believe (as you opined) that it was handed to him, via his dog Sam, directly from God. He was presented with a better plan, and adjusted.
And you, the commentariate, declared that he was moving the goal line.
And I know you think this next thought is naïve and unrealistic, but I don’t really think he cares that you think that. I don’t think he liberated Iraq to win reelection or positive press. I do honestly believe he went to war with Iraq because he thought it was the right thing to do. For America, for the Iraqis, for the middle east, and for the world.
I guess I’m a dummy, but I do think that was his thought process, for better or worse. History will judge that decision accordingly. And I think it will judge that decision positively.
Care to provide some evidence that without increasing taxes on the American people that the world economy is going to tank?
Michael Moore was the guest of honor of the Congressional Black Caucus at the convention.
Was Rudy Guiliani and the 6 private companies contracted by NYC for air quality tests lying when they said the same thing?
If memory serves me right, every single Clinton judicial nominee except one got a floor vote, and that one was withdrawn by Clinton when it was clear that the nominee wasn't going to make it out of committee.
------
Huh? The reason is because there is a Republican majority in the Senate, so Senate Democrats HAVE NO advise and consent function if they bring a vote to the floor, because any Republican who voted against an administration appointment (unless they cut a deal for a release) would be destroyed. Are you not aware of this?
So, your answer is no, you can't name one.
Um, no? I guess you never actually READ the New York Times, either.
Let's hop in the Wayback Machine and have a look, shall we?
March 25, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "THE PRESIDENCY AND THE WORLD":And so on. I can not find any editorial by the NYT editorial staff itself which advocates that Clinton resign. The closest I could find, other than columns by conservatives appearing in the NYTimes, was the following, by a *former* editor of the New York Times, A. M. Rosenthal, who formally retired from the NYT in 1988 (perhaps the last year the NYT had any integrity). The following is from his column expressing his *own* opinion, not the editorial opinion of the New York Times:[...] Yet America's freedoms and success are envied everywhere. Mr. Clinton carries that strength with him when he travels, and it magnifies both him and the office he occupies. It will not inoculate him from the problems that await his return to Washington, but at a moment of peril in his Administration Mr. Clinton is enjoying the radiance of the nation he represents. [...]August 03, 1998, NYT editorial by Thomas Friedman:[...] Clinton has got to say and do now what is necessary to put this case behind him -- in a way that might give at least some chance for him to pursue the progressive agenda, at home and abroad, for which he was elected. He owes that to all the people who believe in the social and economic programs for which he stood, and still might be able to salvage. He owes that to all the people who don't want to see an isolationist, mean-spirited Republican right shaping America's future. [...]September 30, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial:[...] This page advocates a negotiated settlement that would allow Mr. Clinton to remain in office in exchange for a censure based on his admission of lying under oath. [...]December 18, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "War at Home and Abroad":[...] The clearest thinking in the Republican Party is coming from two New Yorkers, Representatives Amo Houghton and Peter King. Yesterday they introduced a censure resolution noting that Mr. Clinton "lied under oath."December 20, 1998, unsigned NYT editorial, "Impeachment and Beyond":[...] Yet, with both the White House and the majority party in Congress locked in a crisis of leadership, one element remained unchanged. The way back to stability is adoption of a censure resolution that condemns Mr. Clinton for lying under oath, but allows him to remain in office. [...]January 6, 1999, unsigned NYT editorial, "Avoiding a Lengthy Trial":[...] The reason is that some influential Republicans are blocking the plan of their majority leader, Trent Lott, to move the Senate with appropriate speed toward a censure verdict that conforms with the public will, the evidence against Mr. Clinton and the national interest. [...] The senators need to be bigger than Mr. Clinton has been, too. So far Mr. Lott, the minority leader, Tom Daschle, and their pro-censure allies have measured up. [...]
December 18, 1998 column by A. M. Rosenthal, "On My Mind: What Clinton Can Do:[...Bill Clinton has one great service he can offer to his country, only one now -- swift resignation. Democratic leaders, and his true friends out of government, owe it to him to urge him to resign, in the critical interest of all Americans, particularly those he is sending into action. [...] I do not think the President has the courage to resign. But we must say aloud what we think our leaders should do, not duck behind platitudes [...]
I am 31, and for as long as I can remember I have heard environmentalists bemoan the loss of the rainforest as it possibly contains the cure to Aids, Cancer, and a whole host of other things. How could you have missed it?
Perlstein,Thank you you for coming on.fatima
----- Bush will raise taxes in his second term unless he wants the world economy to collapse, is my opinion. And, of course, for most people taxes HAVE gone way up these past four years: the kind of local tax hikes muncipalities have had to impose to make up for the missing federal funds.
First a committed liberal NEVER likes tax cuts because it takes money out of the gummit trough. Second, you have no concept of economics and are stuck in the zero sum game. The multiplier factor of tax-cuts is growing us out of the deficit, just as it was lowered 100B in 6 mos.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Perlstein,Thank you for coming on.fatima
Wow, this thread is still going? I gave up after a couple hundred posts and it was boring. Nail him he moves the goal posts....
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.