Thursday, January 18, 2007
Hoping to lose
Whatever one thinks of the president's plan, I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would want it to fail. Still, there seem to be a lot of such people, at least according to the latest Fox News poll (click to enlarge):
It is astonishing that 11% of self-described Republicans want Bush's plan to fail. Unfortunately, it is even more astonishing that only one-third of Democrats hope it fails. In Princeton, the coffee shop conversation has already discounted the chance of success to zero, and you know how reluctant people are to be proven wrong in front of their friends. Still, you'd think a bunch of people who work themselves up into a high dudgeon if you "question their patriotism" -- even if you don't -- would not be so willing to admit to a pollster that they want the United States to lose. Indeed, Democrats are so sensitive on the subject of their national loyalty that it is a lead pipe cinch that some of them concealed their true preferences to the pollster. Apparently no security in Baghdad, no pressure placed on Iran and Syria, the complete failure of the government of Iraq, the escape of al Qaeda in Iraq and no end to sectarian bloodshed are, in the aggregate, a small price to pay for being right.
In any case, I trust it is acceptable to question their patriotism.
CWCID: Power Line.
15 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jan 18, 11:11:00 PM:
Some people suffer from mental illness. Other people want to see the failure of America because of their own failure in America.
Sadly many left-wing schoolteachers don't teach students how to operate effectively in a capitalist society. Perhaps that is because of large number of educators don't know how to do it themselves.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Jan 18, 11:15:00 PM:
You may be right in that reading of the tea leaves, Zach. I don't pretend to fully understand respondents who get so caught up in the emotional baggage around the words "Bush's plan" that they can no longer understand the meaning of the question, but your explanation may be a key.
Two patriotism distinctions should be made, as I think when Democrats feel their patriotism is being questioned, they frame it in terms of extreme definitions. I don't believe that any but a few Americans have no patriotism. Very few are "treasonous" or "traitorous" in the sense of being committed to the destruction of our society and its citizens.
I do, however, believe people elevate other values above patriotism. There may be many morally defensible reasons for this, valuing one's religious beliefs higher being the most common. The person who puts religious values above patriotic ones may be the more noble in many circumstances. But he can no longer claim patriotism as his motivation. Even in situations such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer's, who participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler for reasons that he ultimately felt were more patriotic than mere support of country, the standard is very high to make such exceptions. (And Bonhoeffer believed he could justify such "higher" patriotism only on strict religious grounds.)
Even the most "love it or leave it" patriot can imagine circumstances in which America had become so debased that working against it to restore it might be the higher patriotism. But, as I said, the standard for this is very high. And perhaps "patriotism" is not the best word to use for this.
Love of family or love of principle - perhaps these could be used as well. But love of political party - love of the way our goals should be reached, cannot be elevated above love of country and still be called patriotism. You may have a great deal of devotion to, and willingness to sacrifice for, your country; but if you are willing to put "the principle of diplomacy over military intervention," or "my culture's chances in the next election, because we'd be better for the country," or "multilateralism" over the country, then your patriotism is inadequate.
This is the accusation that conservatives make: that the needs of the Democratic (and sometimes Republican) Party are put ahead of the nation's. This is simply unacceptable. If people wish to contend that it is not "real" treason or "lack of patriotism," I see the point. But I think it is close enough to rationalizing treason to warrant the question of traitorousness being raised. The standards for making such exceptions to regular ol' patriotism in favor of a higher patriotism are very severe. Those who make the claim lightly, telling themselves that they only want what's best for America, can justify nearly any evil under that cloak - and have plenty of room for self-righteousness after.
I believe the Democrats do not make the case. Dissent and opposition can often be patriotic, but these are not automatically patriotic. It is not dissent, but the toleration of dissent, that sets the American way apart.
By allen, at
Fri Jan 19, 01:50:00 AM:
assistant village idiot,
Re: Bonhoeffer
Good example.
There was a time and there were once people like Bonhoeffer, who did not make the present distinctions between religious belief, loyalty, family, industry, and patriotism. They lacked the nuance of compartmentalization. These “virtues”, among a host of others, were integral to the fabric of life. Indeed, there was a time when sane, civilized life would have been impossible otherwise; without a “home” and all that entailed, a man simply ceased being a man.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Jan 19, 03:16:00 AM:
Do you want Iraq to become a democratic oasis or a burning hellhole," the response distribution would have been much different.
Why? The democrat's non-plan is guaranteed to produce the hell hole.
A vote for cut/run is a vote for a hell hole.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 07:16:00 AM:
Most also say that a mere 20,000 more to our current 130,000 is also a vote for a hell hole.
Does that mean they are right?
By skipsailing, at
Fri Jan 19, 10:55:00 AM:
yet you throw that statement out there as if it were fact and therefore unassailable.
further the clear implication in your statement is that this mythical "most" is the seat of all knowledge and can foretell the future.
Are you not expecting this mythical "most" to be wrong because you're suffering from intractable group think? That would be my diagnosis.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Jan 19, 04:39:00 PM:
Most people thought the Iraq war was a good idea.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Jan 19, 04:56:00 PM:
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Fri Jan 19, 07:27:00 PM:
I still thinks so, and would if it looked three times as bad. Perhaps I have the gift of low expectations, but even upon entry, I didn't think it was going to be smooth. Apparently I was unusual, even among the supporters.
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Jan 19, 10:55:00 PM:
but even upon entry, I didn't think it was going to be smooth
So when Cheny said that we'd be greeted as liberators and that we wouldn't need several hundred thousand troops after the fall of Bagdhad (Meet the Press, 3/16/2003), and Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq (House Appropriations Committee testimony, 3/27/03) and Rumsfeld said that the use of force in Iraq wouldn't last longer than 5 months (CBS radio interview 2/14/02, comments at Aviano Air Base, 2/7/03) and that we knew the WMD were in Tikrit and Baghdad (ABC News This Week, 3/30/03) - how did you explain to yourself the deliberate and relentless mendacity of leading figures of the Bush Administration.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Jan 20, 01:53:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Cassandra, at
Sat Jan 20, 02:07:00 AM:
how did you explain to yourself the deliberate and relentless mendacity of leading figures of the Bush Administration
Dang. I told them they should never have left that crystal ball back at the ranch in Crawford...
You know, it takes true genius to peer back at statements made several years ago without the benefit of hindsight screaming, "LIES! THEY WERE ALL LIES!"... as though the administration's assessment of future events were statements of fact rather than the kind of educated guesses that are the best human beings can do in a world where they must make decisions in the absence of perfect knowledge.
And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain how it's possible to lie when you are speculating about future events, the nature of which is unknowable because they haven't happened yet?
But since you're so much smarter than everyone else, surely you have the answer to that one, too.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jan 20, 11:56:00 AM:
By Tom the Redhunter, at
Sat Jan 20, 02:23:00 PM:
I don't have time to research all of your claims, Pudentilla, but Wolfowitz most certainly did not say that "Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq" See Richard Miniter, "Disinformation", pages 93-95, where he quotes Wolfowitz at length during the March 27 hearing. A more honest assessment of what he said was that Iraq would not need an unlimited amount of money, or open spigot. Further, remember that Wolfowitz was before the committee to ask for a supplemental $12B in aid to Iraq. If oil would pay for it, why the $12B?
Further, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. President Clinton said that US troops would only be in Kosovo/Bosnia for one year, and then a year later said the same thing.
John Kennedy ran against Richard Nixon in 1960 based on an alleged "missile gap", accusing the Eisenhower Administration of letting the Soviets get ahead of us. Then once he was in office, it was discovered that, "oops", the Soviets weren't ahead of us after all.
Did Kennedy lie his way into office?
By Buce, at
Sun Jan 21, 05:47:00 PM:
Want it to fail? Read it again; that wasn't the question. The question is: do you want Bush to succeed.
In order to make sense out of this question, you'd have to know what "succeed" means to Bush. I have not a clue; certainly he has not given me a clue, and I know the term is not (like Moore's definition of the good) simply undefinable.
For example: if success means "an alliance with al Sadr to suppress the Sunnis," I might want it to fail. If it means "a lockdown of oil facilities for the petrolios in the Bush funding base, I might want it to fail. If it means "scorched earth and resettlement by aliens from the Gamma Quadrant," I'd at least like to give it some thought.
Have you any idea what "success" means in this context? Can you explain it to your readers? Better, can you explain it to the President?
