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
If he's been around FR for any length of time he'd know that this is no rah-rah section for W. Many of us have been angry w/ some of his policies, even his most loyal supporters have raised questions.
It's also absurd for a liberal to say that we are a nation of laws when the liberal courts redefine what the "laws" are so frequently.
Finally, its important to remember that the primary reason for going into Iraq was to destroy Saddam: mission accomplished. Rebuilding a democratic Iraq would be the single greatest blow against our enemies and is worth the effort.
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.
Light it is and funny!
So, they blocked the higher income veterans and gave more money to the poor veterans (cruel Republicans?).
Is it intellectually honest to call this a "cut"?
Ah, the evil drug companies. Perlstein, I recently finished up a systems contract at one of those big evil drug companies. They have a very large program to provide reduced-cost AIDS and antimalarial drugs to the developing world. I'd certainly hope that most of the money has been distributed to drug companies, because they're the only ones who can cure the existing patients (prevention is a whole 'nother story, but liberals would rather shout down the president of Uganda who speaks of abstinence and self-control and instead throw condoms at the problem).
And you know why the developing world needs anti-malarials? Because liberal enviro-whackos would rather millions of poor brown people die than allow their countries to spray DDT so that they may live. For all your sanctimony, large corporations have done far more to improve the lives of people than your ilk.
Rick Perlstein, your article is before me. As soon as it is finished printing, it will be behind me.
Rick Perlstein? Who? Never heard of him.
Sorry...bored already. I'll take a pass.
How did you use cordial debating and logic to put a Kerry supporter to tears? do tell.
were they tears of defeat or realization?
was it like that star Trek episode when the computer/vger though Kirk was God and they forced it into a contradiction about it and it just blew its circuits?
Not that a liberal would question a conservative's patriotism, mind you.
To: dead
"James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men. "
So you're trying to get the Dem Senators to approve "original intent" or "strict constructionist" judges? I must have missed that article.
It would be especially nice to see an article in the Village Voice bemoaning the way judges who don't feel bound by the rule of law have led to the backlash of a federal marriage protection act or amendment.
-----
Mr. Smith, honoring the BASIC CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, as laid out by the federalists, is different from insisting on a patisan definition of "strict constructionism," no? And a senator honors the constiution by fulfilling the advise and consent function of the senate in judicial appointments--which is why Republicans held up Clinton judicial opponents, no?
Finally, if there have been federal judicial decisions on gay marriage, I'm not aware of them.
Rick
Never expect to hold a rational debate with an individual who opens the discussion with baseless attacks and lies.
I have 3 questions.
1. Can you post, verbatim, what you consider to be Bush's worst lie?
2. Do you agree it is an important thing to be popular among the world/international community? (My boyfriend is a liberal and he thinks that it's sooooo important to be a popular, I want to confirm this with you.)
3. Do you agree that the quickest way to be popular among the international community is to turn Israel into a glass parking lot?
Still, I think you missed my lightly humorously made (IMHO) point that this is where the intellectual fires of today's polity are burning.
Let them all come here and find light and inspiration (again IMHO).
Being a liberal he'll probably never figure out to read replies addressed to the original poster anyway- despite how long he's been here. If we're going to have liberals here we're going to have to make FR's system much less intellectually challenging.
>>Well, he really hasn't stated anything on this thread that we can debate<<
You're right. All Perlstein does is refer posters to one of his various articles from the Village Voice. This is not a debate in my opinion.
And if he's a liberal columnist, he has a demonstrated ability to ignore inconvenient facts.
I'm sorry...this is not an answer.
What in your opinion, are the differences between a liberal and a conservative? I mean, seriously. rather than name-call, what exactly is it that makes you call yourself a liberal? Give us some details...not just the old, "I care for the poor, I want to help people" crapola. If you're one of those who really, truly believes that conservatives are simply out to make as much money as possible for themselves on the backs of everyone else, then there's no sense in going any further, because the philosophies are simply too far apart.
----
Wow, Big B, this is going to range all over the place. It means a lot of things to be a "liberal" But my most recent Voice article gives a pretty good sense of what I think liberals should be up to now--what should be at the center of the project:
"n the last few decades we've seen a structural shift as tectonic in its way as the sectional crisis that preceded the Civil War. Where in the 30 years or so following World War II, a period of Democratic dominance, the real income of the average American literally doubled—meaning that rural families who once kept outhouses on their property were now able to keep a garage—in the 30 years that followed that same average income stagnated, the amount of individual debt exceeding that of individual savings. It happened coincident with a slow and steady rise in Republican dominance, now nearly complete, as corporations were awarded more and more prerogatives. It's gotten worse. From 2000 to 2002, according to the IRS, the average American income dropped 9.2 percent—and the last time incomes fell in this way for even one year was 1953.
"A visionary party of opposition—you might even say a competent party of opposition—would place fixing inequality and stagnating incomes at the center of its political appeal."
Well-stated, my FRiend...MUD
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.