I was surfing our sidebar blog listing and came across an article on JoHo the Blog called Ambivalence.
A murderous tyrant has fallen. The symbolic money shot was carried live, and it was thrilling. So why isn’t my breast filled with naught but joy? For bad reasons and good.
Bad Reason: Because I hate seeing Bush win a bet that he should not have made. There are political reasons to hate this, but my real reasons are petty and small-minded.
My remarks are not really a criticism directed the author and to give credit where credit is due, he freely acknowledges that his feelings are petty and small-minded… and let he who has never been petty or small-minded cast the first stone.
Yet it seems amazing to me that people can be so caught up in the banalities of American domestic politics (as if the Reps and Dems were actually that different) that the liberation of an entire people leaves them indifferent. It would be like a Republican in 1945 being indifferent to the liberation of France, Belgium and Netherlands from Nazi occupation by the advancing Allied armies because they worried that Roosevelt was a Democrat and fretting that he tended to say things like “God is with us”. It is entirely reasonable to lament the cost in blood and treasure of this war but that some can look on with ambivalence at the liberation itself is sad.
Also on that blog was a commenter’s remarks to the effect that as the Bush propaganda machine was operating at ‘hallucinatory levels’ and thus they got their news from places like www.iraqwar.ru in Russia (note: they halted their English language analysis on April 8th but seem to be offering reports once again).
As a small-L libertarian I am at best indifferent to Elephant Party statists like Bush and his counterparts in the Donkey Party, but the objective facts of what is happening in Iraq are not that hard to pick out from the noise and I do not see why party political affinities (or lack of them) should colour the ability to discern that essential and quite obvious facts of what has happened.
People like that commenter must be heart broken to now discover that far from being a hallucination, the truth is that the overthrow of Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq is very real. The hilarious conspiracy ladened drivel to be found on iraqwar.ru treated the pronouncements of the deluded Iraqi Information Minister as having as much credibility as live video feeds from Iraq showing that the opposite of what he was saying.
If that is where people are getting their news from, the hallucination is their understanding of reality itself.
and let he who has never been petty or small-minded cast the first stone.
[casts stone]
😉
Firstly may I thank the samizdata team for allowing me to invade their privacy. Anyone providing this forum should know we are not against ’em. :0)
I suspect that it is way to early to see what happens as a result of American intervention in Iraq. I would like to say “coalition intervention” but I am afraid that from this point on the coalition will be less “of one mind”. But I am told that dual party politix can be a good thing….
However as a libertarian I was, of course, a little worried to see the liberating troops deny non agresive Iraqis (er, Doctors, etc.) the means to defend themselves and their property from the likes of Saddams hencemen or other less than savoury types.
The reasons given at the time the weapon (an old snub nosed revolver) was confiscated was that the US army was here to protect people. Therefore no guns were necessary.
Well, citizens I know there is a war on but at some point we will have to acknowledge as “freedom bringing” libertarians that if this confiscation of side arms were to happen in the USofA then we as a collective group would be less than pleased. Indeed we would hold this as a fundamental test of liberty – the right to bear arms.
So one can imagine the local Iraqi reaction when “intellectual” oponents of the Ba’athist regime are denied the means to defend themselves whereas the forces of liberation are considering rearming and empowering the local police forces – the very people who were responsible for implementing Saddams terror in the first place.
And lets not mention the introduction of the convicted fraudster with his 700 armed malcontents that seem to be offered by the American Administration as an example of good governance. As libertarians we all know the dangers of fraudsters. Even more so when they are elevated into positions of power by non democratic means. As the song goes, “Meet the new boss, he’s the same as the old boss…”
If our clear sighted government carries on with its reforms to Iraqi politics, it might well turn out that the invasion of Syria will be the only way to cover up an operation that started out with such nobel intent. The eyes of the world watch as the band plays slowly on…
You quoted the bad, petty reason I gave for my ambivalence but didn’t quote the reasons I consider good. Here’s the rest of what I wrote:
—
Good Reasons: 1. That we would win the war was pretty much certain, although the price of the war might have been much much higher. That we will succeed at peace is more in doubt and failure is more dangerous. 2. Having kicked Iraqi butt, we will now look for more butts to kick.
—
So, yes, I am still ambivalent, not “indifferent” as you say. Ambivalent means of two minds. In this case, I am happy that a murderous tyrant has been overthrown (as my blog entry says), but I’m also worried about the longer term. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I was nodding right along with you, Perry, until it occurred to me I might have found myself equally sour if the author of this victory had been Bill Clinton.
Though, having thoroughly loathed Tony Blair all these years, I’m awed by the great personal risk he took to be part of this campaign. It was an astonishing departure for this most political of men.
As a Libertarian myself, I am suprised that you do not see what has changed since 1945.
The Dems in America have become radical. They have gone from liberal to left. It has been quite a long time in the making, but that destination has been reached. Most of it began in the ’60s, of course.
That is of course a huge difference. Mr. Weinberger seems to belong to the Liberal camp, from which vantage he can still see the good in the situation, despite his dislike of the protagonist.
A Leftist, however, would not see things in that light, as a victory for the opposition is a stumbling block for socialism. If people are happy and content with the world, they are less likely to invest in costly “social programs” to “improve” their lot in life.
Not to mention that the Left does not put a high priority on folks being freed, do they?
David Weinberger: Your article was the inspiration for mine but I was only tangentially writing about about your personal views. Your remarks were a succinct expression of something I have seen a lot of in the media and on the Internet, which is why I quoted you.
I included the link for people to see your full story and I do hope you do not think I was taking a swing at you as that was not really my intention.
(Note to avoid misunderstanding: this is a comment about the general issue Perry raises, not about Daniel’s blog entry.)
It’s my experience that some Americans are extraordinarily devoted to faction, to the point where it rules almost everything else. I’ve seen it in Republicans as well as Democrats, but it seems to me that it’s much worse now than it was with Republicans during the Clinton administration. (It might just be that it’s ratcheting up over time.)
For such people, whose worldview is ruled by this conflict, it seems almost inconceivable that factional divisions might not be the most important thing in the world to everybody. Remember Michael Moore’s cri de couer after 9/11 that they shouldn’t have attacked New York – these are the wrong people, NY was a blue state, *these* people didn’t vote for Bush! Now Moore is a clown, but I think the remark was entirely sincere and very revealing. The idea that perhaps Arab terrorists – people who aren’t even American, and who have declared enmity for America as a country – would *not* consider the distinction between Democrats and Republicans to be the most important factor in choice of target, this idea is inconceivable to someone caught up in political factionalism.
And that seems to be a distressing percentage of the Democratic party core these days.
David’s blog entry, not Daniel’s. Argh.
Warning: Long posts (sorry). Regarding American factionalism, there is some of that but I doubt it’s unique to America. Jeanne says that Democrats seem to be worse, yet I’m not so sure I can go that far. Granted, Democrats are doing some things that are unprecedented like the blocking of nearly every judicial nominee that comes down the pipeline. Also, Carter and to a lesser extent, Clinton have been leading kind of a dissent chorus against a sitting president in a time of war. This is also, fairly unprecedented (yes, I know about T.R., but he was running for president as an independent).
However, I have a hard time saying the Dems are worse. Believe me, I’m as big a Clinton hater as the next guy, but there was one bumper sticker that came from Republicans which I used to be disgusted with: “Don’t blame me I voted for Bush.” It may have been cute, but takes the factionalism to a new height and really makes Republicans look anti-democratic, as if not voting for someone means you don’t have to take responsibilitiy for your democracy. This sticker was everywhere from 93 to about 95.
Anyway, it does seem worse now and I personally think Clinton and Newt Gingrich are responsible for a lot of this. They really took partisanship to a new level I think. And Perry’s point about there not being that big a difference between Republicans and Democrats is important here. Now, there are real differences, especially with the core of each party. But, in practice, their has not been a huge idealogical difference between the last several presidents and presidential candidates. Yet, getting the partisans to admit this is like asking them to slit there wrists.
Bill Clinton, despite both parties’ propaganda, essentially continued Reagonomics. Put it this way, the tax code and the regulatory environment under Clinton was a lot closer to Reagan than to Carter or LBJ. His “successful” economic programs were all passed with Republican votes, over the loud objections of his own party. This includes: the renomination of Greenspan, Nafta, GAAT, welfare reform, and the capital gains tax cut (which Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 would have wet themselves to pass). And in typical Clinton fashion, he made it seem like he came up with these ideas.
But, Republicans couldn’t see straight where Clinton was concerned and literally hated him. And believe me, the rhetoric coming from Republicans during the Kosovo action was not limited to ligitamate qualms about American interests and what not. They were personal attacks on the commander in chief. They were not as loud as our anti-war protesters and it didn’t make up as significant a voting block in the Republicans as the current peaceniks do in the Dems, but it’s important to note that many Republicans (Chip Delay for example) were doing plenty to undermine the president during a foreign intervention.
And I see something similar now in the Democrats. Unfortunately, the Dems seem to have an echo chorus in the foreign media, which is why it probably seems louder. The Dems HATE Bush. Not all of them, but the party base sure does. And it is this hatred which may come back to bite them in the ass. Presidential candidate Joe Leiberman, and possibly John Edwards easily have the most mainstream views, but they may well be cut off at the knees by the loud and increasingly organized peacenik croud which seem to have realized voting Nader isn’t the best way exert power. So, they are back where they belong, running roughshod over the Democratic party in a time of war. So, Leiberman has a double whammy against him. He’s a Jew and he’s been probably more of a hawk on Iraq than even Bush (I specifically remember an interview of him and his shadow John McCain on Sept. 12th, 2001 saying the war on terror has to include Iraq). On top of that he’s to the right of most of the other candidates and will likely get creamed because of it, mostly due to the peaceniks wing of the party.
So, anyway, Perry’s right, there is a partisan obsession with American domestic politics that clouds people’s judgement in what should be a fairly non-partisan issue such as the liberation of Iraq and the war on terror. But, I would add that it seems to be more an obsession with the person than the party. Clinton is a revered figure by the Democratic base and absolutely loathed by Republicans, but any objective view of his policies would show that he was quite moderate and even conservative on some economic issues. In other words, he should get more props from Reblicans than Dems. And Bush, in the case of Kyoto, the ICC, and Iraq is simply giving more muscle to policies already in place under Clinton. So, it’s a partisanship almost devoid of actual policy and ideaology.
“Don’t blame me I voted for Bush.”
I share at least some of your disgust with the underlying message, but the first time I saw that sticker/button, it was “Don’t blame me, I voted for McGovern”. 😉 In other words, this particular indication isn’t new.
But I do think it’s gotten worse over time. Reagan was the target of this sort of partisanship-plus-personal-hate; the first Bush doesn’t seem to be; Clinton was; and now Bush was. (Nixon was, neither Ford nor Carter were, and FDR was as well.)
The difference seems to be that it’s become more respectable. The tone of the more out-of-control Freepers re Clinton is now the tone of all too many pundits re Bush. And I can’t even imagine Bush, Reagan, or Nixon doing to Clinton, or LBJ or Carter doing to Reagan, what Carter and Clinton have been doing to Bush – any time, let alone in wartime. There’s been major slippage in what’s considered acceptable, slippage that I think is being driven by the emotions of a party base that’s become more radicalized.
Thanks Jeanne. I didn’t know about the McGovern sticker. Good point.
“The difference seems to be that it’s become more respectable.” Yeah, that’s probably it. I think that’s probably the key. It used to be left up to the party whips and partisan columnists to play the nasty partisan roll. Now, it’s the party leaders and the party chairmen. Add to that Clinton’s “permanent campaign” which is probably more in tune with the hastened news cycles, and you have a new way of operating. It’s more respectable and it’s essentially the modis operandi (sp?) of the partyies now. Attack, attack, attack and never except blame for anything. That seems to be the constant party platform. Great points all.