I've gone a couple of rounds with Barry B. and Bubba over certain leftist's notions that anything that is bad for Bush is good for America, regardless of the short term costs in lives or money. We talked in particular about Gary Kamiya, editor of Salon.com, who argued that it was moral to oppose success for Bush initiatives if you believed that success for Bush was bad for America, even if the failures cost the lives of American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. It is a particularly heartless calculus, no less reprehensible for it's basic accuracy.
I ran across another example of that calculus today, (Well, yesterday. I really should be in bed.) only this time from the right. I was listening to All Things Considered on NPR, and they ran a feature on what the Democratic Party needed to do to become a viable political force again. While most of the piece focused on the disarray within the party, both tactically and ideologically, near the end of the piece, another view was expressed.
Norm Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, says this:(Audio link. The remark comes at 7:00 into the story.)
But just remember that there's nothing wrong with the Democrats that 10% unemployment wouldn't cure.
Maybe I'm just too idealistic for politics, but this kind of numbers crunching, without regard for the real human costs sickens me, whether it comes from the left or the right.
Posted by Rich at July 15, 2003 1:51 AM | TrackBackThe problem with all of this is the basic difference between thought and action. These Democrats may think that fortunes of Bush would decline with hard times in employment or in Iraq. That is all pure speculation.
Republicans on the other hand not only thought things would get worse for Clinton and Gore if Clinton were impeached over a sexual encounter and the ensuing fallout. They acted on it regardless of it's effect on the country.
Republicans put us through an 80 million dollar INQUISITION for years that rightfully proved fruitless but cost the country in terms of confidence and good will. You should be reaping the whirlwind in independent investigations of Harkin, Halliburton and WMDs but you are not. And still you want to treat speculation and thought with censure.
That is simply remarkable Rich.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on July 15, 2003 7:46 PMAgain, I'm not advocating punitive action. But we do speak out when people say offensive things. When I hear a David Duke, Pat Robertson, or in this case, a Norm Ornstein speak in my name, if what he says is hateful, I speak out against him. Otherwise, those from the left will feel justified in attacking me with his words. Take a trip through Bubba's comments, and see how often I've been attacked for views I never advanced because some other conservative did advance them.
If you do not speak up and disavow the sentiments of extreme members of your political group, then you will be held accountable for those sentiments by your rivals.
Posted by: rich on July 15, 2003 11:35 PMThere is nothing extreme about speculation that things going bad for BUSH will benefit Democrats.
It is just a simple fact.
You still misread Kamiya's intent and his rigorous self-evaluation. He is not calling all Democrats traitors. He is confessing a moral dilemma when a thought crossed his mind about hard times in Iraq for soldiers meaning a quicker end to Bush and whether or not that feeling could be morally justified on the basis of the greater good. In other words would a few more deaths now mean less suffering for more people later? People make those evaluations all the time. Bush should have when he sent the troops there.
But thought is not action and those musing are not reprehensible. They are valid considerations of what the future may bring.
If Bush is successful in Iraq will he be emboldened to attack IRAN and if we don't get out of Iraq soon will we be threatened by NK. And which of those senarios will result in the most harm to American soilders. A few more death in Iraq now vs 1000's of deaths later.
Speculation like this is valid, natural, and needed. It is not a cause for censure. It is not extreme. In fact I don't comprehend why you keep bringing it up.
When Pat Robertson speaks about the wages of sin and blames the 9-11 attacks or aids on the sins of the American left he is speaking of a biblical jihad that actually supports extremist action on the part of abortion clinic bombers and gay bashers.
When Ann Coulter calls a Democrats traitors guilty of Treason she perverts the Democratic process by saying one half of Americans don't deserve to be considered in the debate.
Politics is compromise and there is nothing in Kamiyas remarks that bar compromise. He does not blame any group of Americans for sin crimes or gay crimes or the crime of being liberal and his words do not evoke that thought of making a whole half of Americans criminals for their political beliefs or bound to hell for their political beliefs.
You surely see the difference in that don't you?
But these extreme Democrats _are_ traitors.
Placing partisanship ahead of the safety of our nation and the lives of fellow citizens is treasonous behavior. It gives aid an comfort to the enemy in a time of war.
The real issue is if those espousing such views be censured. In my view there should be severe sanctions for such irresponsible and self-serving behavior. Loyal Americans understand that the key to representative democracy is debate, but debate within the framework of civilization and western democracy; not raw power politics designed to score points regardless of the cost in lives and treasure.
-G
Posted by: Greg on September 8, 2003 5:38 PMthis web site is gay