Wednesday, March 21, 2007
On Atria and Ventricles
My comment follows:
Let's break the left down into its more granular segments, to be fair. The pacifist left clearly does not support the troops. They think the projection of force is immoral. What troops do is immoral. So whatever fraction of the left is pacifist does not support the troops. Any troops.
Then there is the "capitalist rejectionist" camp. I think of these types as Luddites -- anti globalists, isolationists, antitrade, anti capitalist, socialists, even marxists. This crowd still clings to life, every shred of empirical economic evidence notwithstanding. They wear Che T-shirts. They dig Castro. Or, as Chris Chambers said the other day, they dig Chavez. This crowd thinks they are really smart, but in actual fact, they are as dumb as hammers. Debating them is almost hilarious because they don't see (or hear) their own dissonance. They are hard to deal with, because they are invariably passionate, just ignorant and wrong. They are permanently 16 years old, worried about a draft that doesn't exist.
This faction of the left definitely does not support the troops. It doesn't support America, and its projection of force, ever. It equates that with "imperialism" -- now there's an out of date term.
Those two (is it only two?) crowds alone account for a not insubstantial percentage of the American left. They detest the troops, would undermine them at every turn, hate what they stand for, etc. etc. If they say they support the troops, it is a fiction. Pure tactical lying. Horse manure.
Then there is the mainstream left. They are pro-capitalist. But they believe in a broad social welfare net. They do subscribe to the notion that, while imperfect, America is the greatest nation on Earth. In the main, they believe -- wrongly I think -- that the Iraq War was a tactical error in the execution of our Middle East policy. Having said that, they appreciate and value the American military. They no longer bother much with the Iraq war debate. It's over. The war has for the most part been fought. They just can't stand Bush, and hang on to the Iraq war argument just to score political points -- like the stupidity going on in Congress on non-binding resolutions and the like. They vote for Petraeus, give him the money and troops he needs, and then whine about Bush, making his life miserable.
And then there are those few left-leaners who actively support the effort - Lieberman, Nelson-types. Not too many of those. I saw the Governor of Arizona just joined that crowd too. Good for her. They don't hate Bush. They stand by certain principles. They love the troops.
And therein lies the political dilemma faced by Democratic politicians. they are, for the most part, in the latter two camps. But they have to cater to the first two camps.
Bombs away....
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Mar 21, 10:23:00 AM:
"And therein lies the political dilemma faced by Democratic politicians. they are, for the most part, in the latter 2 camps. But they have to cater to the first 2 camps."
Is that really true? Aren't the first two camps strictly minority concerns? They tend to be more vocal, true, but that doesn't reflect greater numbers. They tend to be more visible as well, which distracts attention from (and largely alienates) the larger numbers in the second two camps.
By , at
Wed Mar 21, 10:36:00 AM:
"They tend to be more vocal, true, but that doesn't reflect greater numbers."
True enough, but the fact that they are more so much more vocal leads us to another consideration:
They are also the ones most likely to be politically involved and actively raising money (think DU, Daily Kos, MoveOn). Money that Dems with Lieberman-like values will not see.
However, although they are by far the loudest portion of the party, I do not believe that they represent majority of Democrats. But you wouldn't know that by looking at almost all of the party leadership and spokesmen.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 21, 02:49:00 PM:
"They are also the ones most likely to be politically involved and actively raising money (think DU, Daily Kos, MoveOn). Money that Dems with Lieberman-like values will not see.
However, although they are by far the loudest portion of the party, I do not believe that they represent majority of Democrats. But you wouldn't know that by looking at almost all of the party leadership and spokesmen."
Precisely, and another point. The passionate activists are far, far more likely (I'm talking whole degrees of magnitude likely) to vote in the party primaries and, thereby, determine said party's candidates. It is in the candidates' interests to cater to these elements in order to get nominated, even though they don't matter so much in general elections where most voters are far more centrist. (sane?)
This is exactly the reason why sometimes bat shit crazy candidates don't do as bad as expected in the primaries, because a chunk of the people who vote in the primaries are also bat shit crazy and their votes go to whomever is the bat shit craziest, votes which might put you ahead of your rival; and why more mainstream candidates say all kinds of bizarre things to cater to these more-extreme party elements, often mistakenly referred to as their "base." (They're only a base in-so-far as they can be relied on to not vote for the other party, but they aren't the ones who determine national elections.)
One other quirk, which is more modern. Since the Internet has reached maturity, many of these fringe believers have met one another. They've formed communities. They raise money. They get on the news. They wallow in little black holes of reality where they reinforce one another's conceptions of the world. And, since they are in contact with all these other people who think like them, they come to believe that they are a majority. Or at least, more significant numbers than they really are.
For an example, look no further than Howard Dean's candidacy for '04, where all these "Net roots" people raised X-thousands of dollars, volunteered to work for him, and so forth. Anyone else remember the predictions of how Internet campaigning would reign supreme, and old fashioned ways were doomed? It created this illusion of mass popularity that was unceremoniously crushed when it came down to real elections. (primaries, even)
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Mar 21, 04:04:00 PM:
Here are some other camps, which I rather freely generalize for your consideration. You tell me whether they belong on the left of the right (and in so doing, also tell me whether party affiliation is secondary to political orientation):
The fiscally conservative, social progressives: They are not spendthrifts and they demand an accounting for how their taxes are invested, but they also believe that government should provide for the general welfare and that many of the freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are worth defending from our own government's infringements as well as from our enemies abroad. They do not completely agree on which of these freedoms are inviolate (the right - or not- to bear children or to carry handguns) but freedom matters. They support the troops, if not always the war.
Non-pacifist regligious progressives: Lots of god-fearing folks here practicing anything from reformist Judaism to Christmas and Easter only Episcopalianism. They tend to care about economic, social and environmental justice but are less likely to be members of the ACLU, or PETA. They don't care for arrogant leadership and they aren't buying everything that government sells. Split on the war, support the troops.
Old School Republicans: They find the current president distasteful and find the direction he has taken their party dismaying. They were the social progressives whose grandparents brought us food safety standards and safer working conditions and who supported the Nixon Era Clean Air and Water Acts. They are fiscally conservative but believe that waste is wrong, including the waste of human beings as well as natural resources. They love their country and distrust their government. They support the troops, but increasingly not the war.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Mar 21, 05:21:00 PM:
GT, I think those are excellent categories. Nice comment.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 21, 05:42:00 PM:
GT - no question, your categories are interestng though really disrupt the party discussion.
In your first category, you could put a Giuliani, for instance. In your second category, could be a Lieberman. The third category is a little more complex...it could include some folks like Bush Sr, Powell, Baker or Scowcroft. To be clear, they never supported the war -- they authored the notably cynical 91 Iraq withdrawal.
In some ways, there are an infinite number of categories -- but each of yours is ultimately pro America and pro troops, with a debate about tactics on preserving or extending freedom and other values consistent with our culture.
By Escort81, at
Wed Mar 21, 06:51:00 PM:
GT -
Yes, good comment.
I'll add one or two more categories that you may have alluded to -- seniors (over 70 years old) and super seniors (over 90 years old). The super seniors are folks who grew up with economic boom and bust and a couple of World Wars, and are used to the idea of the federal government taking a major and beneficial role in the life a citizen.
My father is 91 years old and is an FDR Democrat, literally -- he voted for him in 1940 and 1944. He saw first hand the difficult circumstances of the 1930s and looked for his first job out of college at the height of the Great Depression, and believes unfettered capitalism with no regulations might be a bad thing, but very much believes in private property ownership. He volunteered for the U.S. Navy in 1940 and served in active duty until Q4 1945 and then another dozen years in the reserve, but basically thinks that there was only one Hitler and one Nazi Germany and that there really hasn't been much of a point in any U.S. military action since VJ day, but that the Navy does a nice job of keeping the sea lanes open for free trade. He supports the troops, and I don't believe he favors gays in the military (I think someone senior to him tried to make a pass at him once, during his time in the Navy, and that kind of turned him off, but hey, it's hard to blame the guy, my father won the genetic lottery in looks and passed it on to his kids). He started paying into Social Security within a few years after it started, and maybe, because he has lived long enough (though he doesn't need it to maintain his standard of living), he has actually received enough from the system to compensate him for what he would have made had he invested the money on his own. He has been an Democratic Party lever puller in the voting booth since 1937 (well, now it's button pushing), notwithstanding the fact that the party that he joined back then bears very little resemblance to the party today.
As an independent, I don't agree with all of his views, but they are not uncommon in his peer group.
By Pudentilla, at
Wed Mar 21, 11:38:00 PM:
The pacifist left
The use of definitional categories are more persuasive in an argument when you can give specific examples of those included in them.
Your argument seems to be that adherents of this category, by definition, can't support the troops. Argument by definition, of course, is a particularly uncompelling rhetoric, in part because of the circularity of the logic required.
It is interesting to consider the mirror or your assertion here - must the warmongering right, by definition, support the troops? One could break down and consider actual evidence. I suppose in
the wake of the Walter Reed scandal, and given the cuts the administration proposes in services to vets, the recourse to evidence might defeat your project.
We might, therefore, abandon the premise that this screed is argument and consider the possibility that it is simply invective. Any student of Cicero or Demosthenes knows how powerful a tool invective can be in political argument, but any student of Cicero or Demosthenes would never, of course, confuse invective for argument.
"capitalist rejectionist" camp ["They wear Che T-shirts. They dig Castro."] Your description might be more rhetorically effective if it didn't sound so comical - if this is the best boogeyman you can carictature, I just don't see the folks in red America, now that you've conjured the image of lefties in Che tee-shirts, shaking in fear or rage when democratic canvassers come knocking at the door come campaign season. As invective this is very thin beer indeed. Haven't TH and Anne Coulter set the floor for this kind of invective? Don't you have to start with traitor/faggot to even be in this game? Che tee-shirts.. Che tee-shirts - that's all you've got? Che tee-shirts?
Before you try this again, you might want to take a gander at how masters use this weapon - the Philippics (either Demosthenes' or Cicero's) or the pro Caelio might offer instructive examples.
As a matter of logical analysis, what you've done is defined everyone who disagrees with you as "left," and defined the left, ab initio as unpatriot, unsupportive of the troops, etc.
Since the majority, the very significant majority of Americans who do not support the war far exceed the number of people who identify as "left," this kind of rhetoric might serve the interest of "the left." After all, if one is not "left," but opposes the war, or has some criticisms to offer of the way the Decider has discharged his duties, one might consider a screed describing one's position as mendacious and unpatriotic, alienating.
I don't think, in fact, that your effort at invective will help the left by alienating most folks in the middle - because most folks in the middle have too much sense to be more than bemused by such purile crap.
By , at
Thu Mar 22, 12:32:00 AM:
The left are trying to make their vultures look like doves and are doing a poor job at it when it comes to conservatives
By K. Pablo, at
Thu Mar 22, 09:26:00 AM:
Pudentilla, after your pedantic analysis of CP's nomenclature post, I am surprised to note that you have persuaded me not one bit. This is disappointing to me, as your theoretical and erudite post certainly SOUNDS persuasive.
I think the major obstacles for you are the premise that argument and invective are mutually exclusive categories, and that you seem to make no room for satire or perhaps are unduly influenced by the Janeane Garafalo school of (unfunny and unpersuasive) "humor". Persuasive rhetoric, of course, can be a composite of logic, satire, bombast, etc. Thus arises the persuasive power of CP's instantly recognizable caricature of the type of dipshit who wears a Che t-shirt but couldn't distinguish Regis Debray from Regis Philbin.
Other significant obstacles include your appeal to "the majority, the very signifcant majority..." which is always a hazardous undertaking. The Majority view is not always static and not always right. In fact, if it were static and not notoriously capricious, there would not be much utility for rhetoric, would there?
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 22, 11:45:00 AM:
Pudentilla - I think I described your type as the sort who thinks they're really, really smart, but...
you just typed a whole bunch of words that said nothing, zero, nada. The majority of the country isn't against the war, because the war is over. The polls don't mean squat. On the day the war started -- the only day that counts besides the day you win or lose -- 70% of the country supported it. When we displaced the regime, arrested or killed them, fostered an election, and the formation of Iraqi rep govt, the war was won. The polls operate under a false premise, and therefore are not in my view valid. They are asking how do people feel about the uncertain future of a distant and mysterious country dominated by islamic culture. The answer is, well, not so good. What a shock that is. I bet the feel better now than they did in 2002 (for those who have that good a memory).
Pacifists are morally opposed to war, right or left. They don't support troops because troops are an instrument of war. It's a philosophy.I'm ok with them because at least they are intellectually honest, even if I think they are worng.
Capitalist rejectionists are people who cling to the notion that the free capitalist system is inherently unjust; that the projection of capitalism abroad reflects imperialism. Troops are tools of imperialism. So they don't support troops either.
Instead of assigning some pejorative terminology to the descriptions, as a form of critique, why don't you say " I agree", or I don't agree", and explain why? Because you can't. I didn't do an Ann Coulter and call John Edwards a homosexual. To my knowledge, he isn't, and besides, I wouldn't care much if he was. So don't be insulting. If you don't like my sense of humor about Che, Castro or Chavez, tough. I was far kinder to them and their supporters than they deserve.
By Pudentilla, at
Thu Mar 22, 03:50:00 PM:
"The majority of the country isn't against the war, because the war is over."
I have a good friend who just went over for his third tour. Why don't you tell him or his wife and kids how over the war is. I have a good friend whose daughter just got back from her second tour. She figures she'll be sent back in a few months. Why don't you tell her the war's over.
I guess down in the 101st kommando basement bunker, where the beer is cold and the keyboard's hot, the war's over. Congratulations soldier.
Is the vocabulary simple enought for you now?
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 22, 07:18:00 PM:
Pudentilla -
I know the winters are long up in Maine, but go outside and get a breath of fresh air, or fly south to Florida and get some sunshine and cruise South Beach for a hook-up, or something.
CP is distinguishing between the takedown of the regime, the search for WMDs and Saddam, on the one hand (to which you as a Teacher/Decider/Grader ought to assign a grade above a C, and probably above a B) and, on the other hand, the constabulary mission which followed, which has been the cause of the vast majority of U.S. and non-U.S. casualties, and probably grades out as a D or F, or, at best, an Incomplete. If you were opposed to the use of U.S. military force to remove Saddam four years ago for any of a number of reasons, you may feel that you have been vindicated because of the difficulties of the last 3 years and 49 weeks, but don't confuse ex post and ex ante analysis. Every serious western and non-western intelligence service believed Saddam had WMDs (and there were many other reasons, including humanitarian, to remove him). If you think he would have fallen anyway over time, or could have been "kept in his box" without causing a great deal of trouble in the region, then we have to agree to disagree on those points.
I feel for your friends serving in theater. I assume they signed up with eyes wide open, and wish them a safe and speedy return.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 22, 08:08:00 PM:
Escort81: "Every serious western and non-western intelligence service believed Saddam had WMDs..."
I don't want to get into a debate about your position on Iraq. But I want to set the record straight because I frequently see this point in the mainstream press.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the multinational force officially began on March 20, 2003. Here is what Chirac said in a "60 Minutes" interview with Christiane Amanpour on March 16, 2003:
AMANPOUR: "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?"
PRESIDENT CHIRAC: "Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that… It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.
"As for weapons of mass destruction, bacteriological, biological, chemical, we don’t know. And that is precisely what the inspectors’ mandate is all about. But rushing into war, rushing into battle today is clearly a disproportionate response."
In other words, the French didn't know one way or the other.
Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/16/60minutes/main544161.shtml
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 22, 09:57:00 PM:
DEC -
Your point is well taken. I don't want to be inaccurate in summarizing the history.
Setting aside whether the DGSE is a serious intelligence service and whether Chirac accurately reflected its conclusions during that interview, it is an uncontested fact that during the 1980s and into the 1990s, Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMDs because a) Saddam used them on his own people during the Iran-Iraq war, and b) western inspectors found and destroyed significant quantities of WMDs in the 1990s. The question was whether every stockpile had been destroyed (and if not, whether that mattered). The British, German, Russian and Israeli intelligence services did not think every stockpile had been destroyed, but except for the Israelis, the majority of people in those countries were content to leave Saddam in his box (notwithstanding the suffering caused by the sanctions on the Iraqi people, but not Saddam and his tribe). Scott Ritter didn't think so at first, and then he changed his mind. It's a fair viewpoint to say, OK, Saddam might have a few stockpiles left (or we don't know if he does or not) but we can live with that uncertainty and keep him in his box and assume he won't hand off any of his remaining WMDs to terrorist groups. That's a calculated risk like anything else, and may have borne a lower cost in the long run than regime change. But the document that Congress voted on in 2002 to provide authorization for military action in Iraq did list WMDs as a significant concern, among more than a dozen other reasons for taking down Saddam's regime. From an epistemological standpoint, how would we know about Iraqi WMDs with certainty unless Saddam was removed?
All of this is somewhat off the subject of CP's original post that related to TH's post of a photo of protesters burning both an American flag and what certainly looked like an U.S. soldier in effigy. I have my share of problems with the current administration, but I am more troubled by flamethrowers on either side (9/11 was an inside job, burning soldiers in effigy, we knew there were no WMDs and used that as a pretext; or, using homophobic slurs against presidential candidates, blaming 9/11 on the lifting of God's protective cloak because of abortionists, the ACLU and gays).
By Escort81, at
Thu Mar 22, 10:20:00 PM:
K. Pablo -
I learned something from your post -- I did not know who Regis Debray was. I can't tell from the Wikipedia entry what drew Debray to Che. Maybe that's worth a sequel to "Motorcyle Diaries." The cinematography alone would be reason enough to watch.
By K. Pablo, at
Fri Mar 23, 06:41:00 AM:
Hey, escort81, glad I could illuminate a little bit. My knowledge of Debray is residual from my undergrad education, where all manner of French intellectuals were forced down my throat in my brief exposure to Journalism and Media classes. Interestingly, many future political figures in France were, in their younger days, media critics or sociologists, frequently Marxist, with perhaps Jacques Attali being the most prominent example (and the most interesting to read).
As to what might have motivated a young Debray to go on Che's ill-fated crusade, I can only speculate. I have a biological theory for such behavior:
People are familiar with "steroid psychosis", wherein body-builders or athletes injecting anabolic steroids experience personality changes. Most notoriously, these people become more aggressive and violent.
Not as many people are familiar with the fact that sex hormones, which enable us to go through puberty and acquire our secondary sexual characteristics, are also steroid hormones. The human being's first exposure to endogenously produced steroid hormones during puberty is accompanied by many emotional changes and occasionally personality changes, aggressive behavior, etc. Some of the personality changes include a desperate need for the pubertal human to differentiate him or herself from authority figures, the most prominent of whom include the adolescent's parents.
My plausible but scientifcally unconfirmed speculation is that rebellious tendencies and defiant behavior are directly proportional to either the levels of circulating steroid hormones or to the brain's sensitivity to them. George W. Bush, the State, whoever, can soon take the place of the parents as the target of these emotions.
Not quite cinematographic enough, probably....
