Democratic Blue state (of mind)
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
The article posted by Brad Cloven raises an important point--but one that falls down based on the reporting of the Washington Post this spring on the White House memo asking several bureacracies to be prepared for much lower budget requisitions after 2005 than the ones Bush has promised now. Veterans affairs is to get $500 million increase in the upcoming FY, for example, but has been asked to prepare for a $900 million cut. Let me know if you want the citation, i haven't found it right off but want to get jiggy keeping up with the debate.
RP
Yeah, the Greeks never did that to The Middle East through Afghanistan under Alexander.
The Romans couldn't change all of Europe through force of will.
The Muslims didn't change the whole ME region and society throught force of will.
The Europeans didn't remake the American continent through Force of Will
I believe it is a Conservative truism that regions and societies are only remade through the force of will of an opposing party.
Or do you just believe in 'Good Vibes'?
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has proposed to try to eliminate the IRS.
1. I believe Republicans will generally support this.
2. I believe Democrats will generally oppose this.
Do you agree either or both #1 and #2? If so please explain why, and if not also please explain why. And do you personally favor the elimination of the IRS? (Obviously, something else will replace it as a mechanism for collecting taxes, but that discussion can wait for another time.)
Considering the fact that Saddam was paying Palestinians to kill Israeli Jews, how could any Jew be against the Iraq war?? It makes no sense...
"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?"
There is nothing partisan about strict constructionism.
Surely you agree that judicial over-reach is not just a liberal thing - havent you heard about Lochner v New York (1905 USSC decision)?
strict constructionism and judicial restraint a good thing for Judges of every stripe to have, if you belive in Federalism (or was that Madison quote just misdirection?) and it would benefit both liberals and conservatives who have faith in *3* branches of Government not just one!
Don't you agree that liberal and conservative Judges *both* should engage in "judicial restraint" and not usurp the powers of the other branches?
Rick, the fact of the matter is Iraq is a breathtaking and brilliant success that will be studied for years and hailed well into the future. You need more information from better sourcing in order to make informed opinions.
And then you respond to the strawman of "federal judicial decisions on gay marriage" instead of "judges who don't feel bound by the rule of law have led to the backlash of a federal marriage protection act or amendment." .
Whatever... my afternoon offers more constructive choices.
I think both Rick and I know you meant that post for him..dont worry about it : )
Don't know if any of you have visited this thread, but looks interesting.
Being on the left means having to believe endless spinning from one's cohorts.
Not fantasy, merely clear perception. It is refreshing to hear voices like Susan Estrich (sp?) and Dick Morris today, but from 1992-2000, those voices and/or opinions were never given airtime. The rallying around Clinton, no matter the personal costs, was breath-taking, in so many ways. (I actually have some respect for Susan McDougal, for at least refusing to lie under oath to protect him... but she was "loyal" enough to refuse to answer. She spent, what, 18 months behind bars simply because she didn't want to answer, "What did Bill know and when did he know it?")
The clearest example was in the impeachment vote. Several representatives acknowledged his guilt, yet refused to vote to punish him. It was almost surreal. It was the first major signs of the collapse of the New Left, and in retrospect I'm glad for it. Since Cliton's near-cannonization by the Left, your side has lost about 13% of both Houses of Congress, and numerous governorships. Was it really worth it?
It began with the ascension of George Bush,
Here's your first problem. Bush did not ascend. He was ELECTED in a very close election.
Not only that he had half the transition time of other Presidents. He had the Jeffords betrayal, slowing the already slow confirmation process. The FBI director was on the job for 1 week when 9/11 occured.
Your left-wing buddies have spent the better part of Bush's entire term undermining him at every opportunity. Foreign policy and security be damned, they want POWER and are more than willing to sell out the country to get it.
M. Moore sat with J. Carter at the Dem convention. Moore is an enemy of our country. If you don't believe that please note it was just played on national TV in that bastion of leftist love, Cuba. China will show it. Hezbollah will distribute it in the Middle East.
This movie isn't just about Bush, it's about America and the damage won't go away anytime soon.
The recent convention was a "bait and switch" farce. Everyone there were on their best behavior but we've seen over the last 6 months the true feelings of the left in this country. I thank GOD everyday that liberalism is and will remain a minorityview in the U.S.
FReegards Baredog
Mr. Perlstein,
Having been confronted by an Kerry supporter on my way to get in line for a Bush rally, and leaving him crying- yes, crying- after cordially debating with him and presenting facts, and shaking hands as we departed, I've realized that until there can be a detachment between emotions and reason, civilized debate can never take place. I, therefore, appreciate your invitation, but nonetheless decline.
Sincerely,
Republican Warrior Princess
---
Warrior princess, you shouldn't waste your time with punks! Seriously, check out my other debate threads on FR if you don't think this can be done with civility.
But slowly! I realize I'm already 150 posts behind.
It's a Noo Yoke communist tabloid, which should list as its proudest achievement the destruction in 1982 of influential in international artist circles anti-Communist writer Jerzy Kosinski, done at the behest of the Polish Communist secret police during the time of martial law in that country.
Democratic Blue state (of mind)
"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."
"MAD" think about that word, it indicates lost of ability to think rationally. Your anger at the RIGHT, does describe a dysfunctional mind. Your anger logically should be directed at those who seek to destroy this nation and those who give comfort aid, and who have demonstrated they will do and say anything to regain the power they sold out and gave away.
This nation unlike any in the records of history was established upon the principle that "RIGHTS" given by the Creator no man/government can give or take away. Most liberals reject the Creator and see themselves as "gods". Government and religion is one and the same to them and they gain their power by seduction and deception.
Liberals control the education system, they have shaped and formed education into a black hole of ignorance. Liberals run the big cities and it is criminal what has been done to so many children in the name of liberalism and they have the gall to point a finger of blame to conservatives for not spending enough money.
George Bush was duly elected and if only legal votes were cast and counted he would have won the popular vote as well, but in the liberal mind they as "gods" will win elections in whatever manner they can.
Bush's less that artful use of the language is often used as a line of criticism that he is an idiot, uneducated, and flat out stupid. When did his speaking style become a "policy" item?
Attacks on his wife, and calling her a murderer for an auto accident when she was a teenager has what to do with policy?
Repeatedly calling President Bush a coke head (without an ounce of evidence he ever used it) is regarding what policy?
Mocking his past battles with alcohol is a criticism of which policy?
I could go on and on and on, but the thread is long and your time is short.
My ten year old is getting interested in politics (I wonder where she gets that from?) and watched most of the demcon (in fact, she coined the term) and I took the opportunity to explain to her what a budget "cut" is in dem world. Needless to say she was stunned.
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.