What Civil War Could Look Like - New York Times:
"Surveying all the nightmare possibilities in an interview late last week, Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said: 'Those are issues that some people should be thinking about, but I do not believe that we are heading that way. The leaders of Iraq know that they came to the brink with the attack on the shrine, and there has been an evolution of their attitudes as a result. I simply believe that the leaders of Iraq do not want a civil war.'
Lincoln, however, said in retrospect that having leaders who do not want war is not enough - that the problem is whether there are things that they want more than war, and are willing to accept war to get. In Iraq, it seems, this will also determine whether the leaders will one day say with satisfaction that they stepped back from the brink or, sadly like Lincoln, that 'the war came.'"
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Competence vs. Incompetence
As leaders and as statesmen, the members of the Bush administration are totally, completely incompetent. The only thing they can do well is carry out criminal acts. Criminally competent and civically incompetent is the only way to put it.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News:
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News:
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
Quotations from Your Success, a Newsletter
"It takes less time to do things right than to
explain why you did it wrong." ─ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"There is one quality which one must possess
to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the
knowledge of what one wants and a burning
desire to possess it." ─ Ronald Reagan
"Let your thoughts be positive for they will
become your words. Let your words be
positive for they will become your actions. Let
your actions be positive for they will become
your values. Let your values be positive for
they will become your destiny." ─ Mahatma Gandhi
explain why you did it wrong." ─ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"There is one quality which one must possess
to win, and that is definiteness of purpose, the
knowledge of what one wants and a burning
desire to possess it." ─ Ronald Reagan
"Let your thoughts be positive for they will
become your words. Let your words be
positive for they will become your actions. Let
your actions be positive for they will become
your values. Let your values be positive for
they will become your destiny." ─ Mahatma Gandhi
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Rule of Laws
From The Washington Spectator:
In a 1977 interview, David Frost asked Richard Nixon if he thought the president could act illegally if he believes it is in the best interest of the nation.
Nixon replied, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
In a 1977 interview, David Frost asked Richard Nixon if he thought the president could act illegally if he believes it is in the best interest of the nation.
Nixon replied, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose
Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose
"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" - Ann Coulter
You have to read it to believe it, don't you? My first impression would be the usual: another quote taken out of context. After hearing this woman talk, though, I think she probably meant it just the way it comes across.
"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" - Ann Coulter
You have to read it to believe it, don't you? My first impression would be the usual: another quote taken out of context. After hearing this woman talk, though, I think she probably meant it just the way it comes across.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Krugman: Weak on Terror
From Krugman's New York Times Article:
"My most immediate priority," Spain's new leader, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, declared yesterday, "will be to fight terrorism." But he and the voters who gave his party a stunning upset victory last Sunday don't believe the war in Iraq is part of that fight.
My brief response:
Here is an article by Paul Krugman in the NYT that agrees with my argument about the larger significance of Bush's war on Iraq. I need to write the arguments, address the opposition, and make the whole case against the war my own.
"My most immediate priority," Spain's new leader, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, declared yesterday, "will be to fight terrorism." But he and the voters who gave his party a stunning upset victory last Sunday don't believe the war in Iraq is part of that fight.
My brief response:
Here is an article by Paul Krugman in the NYT that agrees with my argument about the larger significance of Bush's war on Iraq. I need to write the arguments, address the opposition, and make the whole case against the war my own.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
The Years Ahead
Last summer I wrote a three-part personal essay called The Years Ahead. Here are the entries:
August 7, 2005:
So what does make blogging so attractive? It's private, but it's not private. You write for yourself, but you have the possibility of an audience. You can write anything at all, and even your mother won't read it. But she could. It's fun.
I'd like to write about the years ahead. Perhaps when the years ahead are the years behind, people will read this and say that he (meaning me) laid it all out ahead of time. "It's all here," they'll say. They said that about Mein Kampf, too, and look where Hitler wound up. In a bunker with cyanide down his throat.
Well, that's way off topic. The comparison does show that you have to plan ahead a little bit. And that's what I'm going to do. But I sure don't want to write a book like Mein Kampf.
Where's the best place to start? Should I write about myself, or about things outside of myself? I'll write briefly about myself first.
A lot of people think about becoming president of the United States. Only a few people actually become president. But, whether you become president or not, no one can make fun of you for thinking about it. Plenty of people have thought about it, and some of those run for the office. Of those, a few have won enough electoral votes to win the office. In this country, anything can happen. Nothing is impossible. So I have to get past my self-consciousness about these thoughts. Would people make fun of me if they knew what I was thinking? Would they raise their eyebrows? So what? Why shouldn't I think about becoming president? If it makes me happy, who are you to say I shouldn't occupy my thoughts that way?
Here's a more practical way of stating this goal. We have to start work now to elect a president in 2016 who is not a Democrat or a Republican. I've already committed myself to that goal. Well, in our political system, you can't get elected president without some sort of political organization behind you. Call that organization a political party if you like. In a little less than three election cycles, we need to build an organization that's capable of electing a president. I want to help build that organization. And I know enough about working with groups that if you commit yourself to them and work hard to make them grow, you eventually get to lead them. Leadership in the case of a national political party means running for president.
Now let me write about some things outside of myself. America needs a new political party. The country's first two parties, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, were ill-formed groupings. They weren't especially well organized, and the names are more for the labeling convenience of historians than anything else. Out of those two loose groupings, and the conflict that occurred when Jefferson rose to the White House, we had the Democrats - Jefferson's party - and the Whigs - the party that eventually evolved from the Federalists. The Whigs didn't have staying power, though, and as their ability to win votes declined in the years before the Civil War, a new party rose to take their place. That party was the Republican party, and its leader was Abraham Lincoln.
Since the late 1850s, as the country slid toward its awful sectional conflict, we have not had a new, durable political party that was able to win votes in the electoral college.
As much as you like writing this entry, you have to sign off here.
August 8, 2005:
America needs a third party. Actually, it needs a new party that can become a force in American politics, and that can force a realignment in American politics. Let's start with some basics.
America does not have a parliamentary system. You need a parliamentary system with proportional representation for minority parties to flourish. Even in systems with proportional representation, like-minded minority parties tend to form durable coalitions so they can work together and exert more influence on national politics. The Labor and Likud parties in Israel are an example of that phenomenon.
The United States has a federal, winner take all system that favors the formation of two major parties. The basic rules of party competition at the national level won't change, so the structure of party politics won't change either. That means a couple of things. First, the emergence of a new party that can win the only national election we have - the one for the presidency - will cause a realignment in American party politics. We have a lot of instances where three people ran for the presidency and won a lot of votes. We have only one case - Lincoln's victory in 1860 - where the outcome of a three-way race led to a complete realignment. The important point is, even if three-way races are fairly common, the party competition resettles into the familiar two-party pattern pretty quickly. The Civil War disrupted all the usual patterns from 1860 to 1865, and the Republican party came out of the war as an established institution.
The second thing to note in the present situation is that we can't tell what the two parties will look like after the realignment. We don't know who will join what party. The most we can say is that one of the parties - the new one we're talking about here - will coalesce from independents, existing minority parties, disaffected Democrats and disaffected Republicans. The shape of the party that forms in opposition to the new party is anyone's guess. The Republican party is pretty cohesive right now, so a good guess is that the opposition will form from the core of the current Republican party. The realignment won't take place in a week or a month. It'll be a while in coming. But we know that a decade or more from now, party politics in this country won't look the same way they do now.
How do we know that? Some people say that an economic crisis during the next decade will cause profound changes in our party politics. We may in fact have a crisis like that. I would trace the changes we'll undergo to the war. I mean the war in Iraq, of course, but also the broader war that started in September 2001. We are losing the war in Iraq, and we have hardly started to fight the war against Al Qaeda. Lost wars always bring big changes in the politics of the country that loses them. That's what we're going to see here by the election of 2016.
It's a fair bet that the winner of the 2008 presidential election will be a Democrat. It's a fair bet too that the incumbent will lose to a Republican in 2012. That means we'll have Democratic or Republican winners in the White House for the next two election cycles. Then in 2016, our economic weakness and our defeats in war will make people vote for the leader of a new party. They'll say that the old parties have had a chance, and they ddn't come through. It's time for a change. A big one, when they begin to see the consequences of losing the war.
We have to be ready for the election in 2016.
August 9, 2005:
This is getting to be quite a series. Tonight I'm listening to Good Vibrations on the headphones, and I'm sure I may listen to some other songs before the night is done. The question is, can you write while you're listening to the music? Now Daydream Believer is playing, and you want to write about politics?
I told Leslie tonight: "What would you think if I said I wanted to be the leader of a new political party?" She said in her dry way, "Perhaps you should start with some small steps close to home." Yes, I said, that's just the thing, since politics in this country is organized state by state. You try to organize a party in Texas, and they'll say, "What are you doing here? Why don't you go to your own state?" Indeed, Massachusetts is the place to start.
But I added, I'm not sure why: "This kind of thing affects you, you know. I can't go this way and have it not affect you." She looked at me a little funny, and I finished: "I don't like to start anything, you know, and not think about the obstacles that might come up."
So that was it. I have Leslie's blessing now. She won't mind the invasion of privacy and all the things that go with politics. She'll go with me where I go. And she's got indignation to spare.
So let's move on to some practical steps... The writing is slow while you're listening to the music. What can you do here in Massachusetts? Well, you have to network, just as you have in other areas. Can the WTPC site give you any ideas about who to contact?
Yes, the e-mail posted to your Yahoo inbox contains full return addresses.
August 7, 2005:
So what does make blogging so attractive? It's private, but it's not private. You write for yourself, but you have the possibility of an audience. You can write anything at all, and even your mother won't read it. But she could. It's fun.
I'd like to write about the years ahead. Perhaps when the years ahead are the years behind, people will read this and say that he (meaning me) laid it all out ahead of time. "It's all here," they'll say. They said that about Mein Kampf, too, and look where Hitler wound up. In a bunker with cyanide down his throat.
Well, that's way off topic. The comparison does show that you have to plan ahead a little bit. And that's what I'm going to do. But I sure don't want to write a book like Mein Kampf.
Where's the best place to start? Should I write about myself, or about things outside of myself? I'll write briefly about myself first.
A lot of people think about becoming president of the United States. Only a few people actually become president. But, whether you become president or not, no one can make fun of you for thinking about it. Plenty of people have thought about it, and some of those run for the office. Of those, a few have won enough electoral votes to win the office. In this country, anything can happen. Nothing is impossible. So I have to get past my self-consciousness about these thoughts. Would people make fun of me if they knew what I was thinking? Would they raise their eyebrows? So what? Why shouldn't I think about becoming president? If it makes me happy, who are you to say I shouldn't occupy my thoughts that way?
Here's a more practical way of stating this goal. We have to start work now to elect a president in 2016 who is not a Democrat or a Republican. I've already committed myself to that goal. Well, in our political system, you can't get elected president without some sort of political organization behind you. Call that organization a political party if you like. In a little less than three election cycles, we need to build an organization that's capable of electing a president. I want to help build that organization. And I know enough about working with groups that if you commit yourself to them and work hard to make them grow, you eventually get to lead them. Leadership in the case of a national political party means running for president.
Now let me write about some things outside of myself. America needs a new political party. The country's first two parties, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, were ill-formed groupings. They weren't especially well organized, and the names are more for the labeling convenience of historians than anything else. Out of those two loose groupings, and the conflict that occurred when Jefferson rose to the White House, we had the Democrats - Jefferson's party - and the Whigs - the party that eventually evolved from the Federalists. The Whigs didn't have staying power, though, and as their ability to win votes declined in the years before the Civil War, a new party rose to take their place. That party was the Republican party, and its leader was Abraham Lincoln.
Since the late 1850s, as the country slid toward its awful sectional conflict, we have not had a new, durable political party that was able to win votes in the electoral college.
As much as you like writing this entry, you have to sign off here.
August 8, 2005:
America needs a third party. Actually, it needs a new party that can become a force in American politics, and that can force a realignment in American politics. Let's start with some basics.
America does not have a parliamentary system. You need a parliamentary system with proportional representation for minority parties to flourish. Even in systems with proportional representation, like-minded minority parties tend to form durable coalitions so they can work together and exert more influence on national politics. The Labor and Likud parties in Israel are an example of that phenomenon.
The United States has a federal, winner take all system that favors the formation of two major parties. The basic rules of party competition at the national level won't change, so the structure of party politics won't change either. That means a couple of things. First, the emergence of a new party that can win the only national election we have - the one for the presidency - will cause a realignment in American party politics. We have a lot of instances where three people ran for the presidency and won a lot of votes. We have only one case - Lincoln's victory in 1860 - where the outcome of a three-way race led to a complete realignment. The important point is, even if three-way races are fairly common, the party competition resettles into the familiar two-party pattern pretty quickly. The Civil War disrupted all the usual patterns from 1860 to 1865, and the Republican party came out of the war as an established institution.
The second thing to note in the present situation is that we can't tell what the two parties will look like after the realignment. We don't know who will join what party. The most we can say is that one of the parties - the new one we're talking about here - will coalesce from independents, existing minority parties, disaffected Democrats and disaffected Republicans. The shape of the party that forms in opposition to the new party is anyone's guess. The Republican party is pretty cohesive right now, so a good guess is that the opposition will form from the core of the current Republican party. The realignment won't take place in a week or a month. It'll be a while in coming. But we know that a decade or more from now, party politics in this country won't look the same way they do now.
How do we know that? Some people say that an economic crisis during the next decade will cause profound changes in our party politics. We may in fact have a crisis like that. I would trace the changes we'll undergo to the war. I mean the war in Iraq, of course, but also the broader war that started in September 2001. We are losing the war in Iraq, and we have hardly started to fight the war against Al Qaeda. Lost wars always bring big changes in the politics of the country that loses them. That's what we're going to see here by the election of 2016.
It's a fair bet that the winner of the 2008 presidential election will be a Democrat. It's a fair bet too that the incumbent will lose to a Republican in 2012. That means we'll have Democratic or Republican winners in the White House for the next two election cycles. Then in 2016, our economic weakness and our defeats in war will make people vote for the leader of a new party. They'll say that the old parties have had a chance, and they ddn't come through. It's time for a change. A big one, when they begin to see the consequences of losing the war.
We have to be ready for the election in 2016.
August 9, 2005:
This is getting to be quite a series. Tonight I'm listening to Good Vibrations on the headphones, and I'm sure I may listen to some other songs before the night is done. The question is, can you write while you're listening to the music? Now Daydream Believer is playing, and you want to write about politics?
I told Leslie tonight: "What would you think if I said I wanted to be the leader of a new political party?" She said in her dry way, "Perhaps you should start with some small steps close to home." Yes, I said, that's just the thing, since politics in this country is organized state by state. You try to organize a party in Texas, and they'll say, "What are you doing here? Why don't you go to your own state?" Indeed, Massachusetts is the place to start.
But I added, I'm not sure why: "This kind of thing affects you, you know. I can't go this way and have it not affect you." She looked at me a little funny, and I finished: "I don't like to start anything, you know, and not think about the obstacles that might come up."
So that was it. I have Leslie's blessing now. She won't mind the invasion of privacy and all the things that go with politics. She'll go with me where I go. And she's got indignation to spare.
So let's move on to some practical steps... The writing is slow while you're listening to the music. What can you do here in Massachusetts? Well, you have to network, just as you have in other areas. Can the WTPC site give you any ideas about who to contact?
Yes, the e-mail posted to your Yahoo inbox contains full return addresses.
The Libertarian Party in the Current Political Environment
Yesterday I received an e-mail request for money from the Libertarian Party to support their current initiatives. I contributed a small amount, and wrote a short note in the online payment form. The party's executive director responded with a short note of his own right away. Here is my response to his message:
I wasn't even sure anyone would read my note. I didn't expect to get a prompt response from the guy in charge!
So, since you wrote that quick note, let me open the gates just a little and write some thoughts back to you. They may or may not be useful to you, depending on how you take them.
First, good work on the letter you sent to solicit donations. The penultimate sentence - "If you have made it this far, I'm relying on you to make a donation of $10 or more" - didn't grab me and make me think, "I have to contribute right now." The small amount requested was a positive factor, and so were your comments about the Democrats. In the middle of the letter, you said they're spineless, and used other severe language. Here's why that language is appropriate, admirable, and motivating, at least in my case.
I've been interested in politics for a long time, and I've been an independent for a long time. I admire Ronald Reagan because I've been a libertarian with a small _l_. I don't admire the Republican party, though. In fact, the Iraq war has made me angrier than I've ever been about our leadership. It's effect on me has been similar to the effect the Missouri Compromise had on Lincoln: it made him want to get involved with politics after attending to his law practice for some years. I sense I'm not the only voter who thinks that way.
The Democrats don't bear the same burden of blame right now that the Republicans do, but their behavior as the opposition party fits your description. How they could fail so miserably in the face of the leadership we have is so strange. It's interesting to see the contrasting reactions people have had to Howard Dean and John Murtha. The stands they've taken are so rare, they easily stand out against the timid backdrop the rest of the Democrats have created.
So what am I getting at here? Like a lot of other voters, I don't feel well represented by either party. Independents and minority party members make up thirty-five percent or more of the electorate, but they don't feel that they have any voice at all. I've been skeptical that the Libertarian party can give people that voice. It's not because I think their ideas are bad, or that they can't overcome some of the real obstacles that minority parties have to face in our political system. I think that the Libertarian party's image is such that not so many people will vote for Libertarian candidates.
My main perspective comes from Massachusetts. It's not my native state, but it's where I live now. (I come from the Upper Midwest, a region that actually has a two-party system.) The two-party system in Massachusetts is not healthy, to say the least. Many, many Democrats, incumbents and new office seekers alike, run unopposed on election day. The Republicans win the governor's race, and that's about it. The latest tally shows that almost fifty percent of the voters in the state are independents - they don't enroll in either party when they register to vote. Yet the Libertarian party lost its ballot access a few years ago because they didn't win 3% of the votes cast.
Why don't the Libertarians win more votes in a state that doesn't feel that comfortable with one-party governance? Well it could be that most voters really are Democrats at heart, and they elect a Republican governor entirely to exercise some restraint on the legislature. Perhaps the Libertarians seem to be extreme here because, given the Democratic sympathies of the electorate, they really are outliers in the state's political belief system.
I keep thinking, though, of the party's tag line - the party of principle - and the message that line conveys to ordinary voters. Its subtext is that Libertarians don't care about winning elections. Or, to put it more precisely: if we have to make a choice between winning votes and sticking with our principles, we'll stick with our principles. We'd rather be right and defeated than wrong and victorious. Well naturally the goal is to be right and victorious, but that's not the message that comes across, either in the tag line or in the rest of the state party's communications.
The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts is only one of fifty state organizations, and I know the flavor of party politics in the other forty-nine states is just as quirky and unique as it is here. You have a hard job, trying to promote the party in a political landscape that's so varied. I much admire the determination the national party has shown over the last several months, to transform itself from a group on the margins of politics into an organization that can compete in elections across the land. I want to believe that it'll be successful, and that the Libertarian party will emerge from the coming political turmoil in a strong position.
To do that, though, I think it has to change the image I've described above. It has to convey that it's open to more than one belief system. The Democrats and Republicans both try to stress, at election time, that their parties are like big tents. They want to welcome as many people as they can. They're right to do that, because in a country that's so pluralistic, and that's bound to have just two major parties because of its election rules, the two major parties have to embrace divergent beliefs and belief systems.
Well, that welcoming attitude only goes so far. A political party is going to have opponents no matter what it does. But the Reagan elections show that people do respond to a well articulated vision. No other president has ever won forty-nine of fifty states, as Reagan did in 1984. That shows that people can be loyal to a certain vision of themselves, and to certain core principles built into our Constitution. It shows that when the circumstances are right, a pluralistic people can achieve a certain degree of unity.
Your remark that the Democratic party is in a panic because it feels so threatened is interesting. The contrasting question is what will happen to the Republicans when people realize what has happened since 9/11 - when the damage the Republicans have done truly sinks in. I said that we're in for a period of turmoil. The grounds for that prediction lie in a pattern of change that's clear from a long view of history. States that lose wars don't survive the loss without going through painful and substantial changes. We've clearly not achieved our aims in Iraq, and we are on the way to losing the other war we should be fighting instead - the war against Al Qaeda that started on September 11.
When these losses begin to have their effects, we'll see changes in our current political system that we can't predict. These changes are already underway, but we can't see their direction yet. The Libertarian party is right to prepare for them, and to see if it can't strengthen itself during the conflict to come. The parties in Washington won't stop sniping at each other, while citizens who aren't part of either party's base get more and more fed up with their representation and leadership. The two parties are so focused on scoring advantages, on finding weaknesses they can exploit, I don’t think they recognize how unhappy their constituents are.
Shortly before the 2000 election, I wrote an article called "Where's a Candidate People Want?" Even then, it seemed to me, the parties had failed in their primary function in national politics, which is to recruit and nominate presidential candidates who can serve and lead Americans well. We have never had leadership as bad as President Bush's has been. Although Gore and Kerry had some strengths, they weren't adequate candidates for the times. That the Republicans managed to put Bush in the office, and then to reelect him, says quite a bit about the ability of the current two-party system to perform well. It is clearly not serving the country.
So what do all of these observations amount to? The Libertarian party has to find some way to appeal to more people. Training candidates, campaign managers and other staff to run effective bids for office is an essential start. The most effective campaign ever can't win votes, though, if people are suspicious or skeptical of the party to begin with. They have to have confidence in the character and competence of their leaders, and they also need to know that their leaders share some assumptions with them about the best way to organize a society. Right now, I think a lot of citizens see Libertarians as people who don't share those assumptions.
We know that the United States will always have two major parties while it has winner-take-all elections in each of the fifty states. We also know that the two-party system has evolved in interesting ways over 225 years, with some dramatic transformations in the system at key points. We are on the threshold of one of those transformations. In ten years, during the presidential election of 2016, we'll be past the threshold and perhaps even past the entry way. It's great that the Libertarian party and its leadership is thinking about how it can grow during the difficult changes that have already started. I hope it succeeds.
I also hope that I and others can lay aside skepticism, and work hard for the changes we want to see. We need hope that the obstacles in our current politics won't always be there: obstacles that block independents' voices, frustrate their efforts before they begin, and make voting seem ineffectual. In this environment, the Libertarian party's bold initiatives to have an effect do deserve respect and support.
I wasn't even sure anyone would read my note. I didn't expect to get a prompt response from the guy in charge!
So, since you wrote that quick note, let me open the gates just a little and write some thoughts back to you. They may or may not be useful to you, depending on how you take them.
First, good work on the letter you sent to solicit donations. The penultimate sentence - "If you have made it this far, I'm relying on you to make a donation of $10 or more" - didn't grab me and make me think, "I have to contribute right now." The small amount requested was a positive factor, and so were your comments about the Democrats. In the middle of the letter, you said they're spineless, and used other severe language. Here's why that language is appropriate, admirable, and motivating, at least in my case.
I've been interested in politics for a long time, and I've been an independent for a long time. I admire Ronald Reagan because I've been a libertarian with a small _l_. I don't admire the Republican party, though. In fact, the Iraq war has made me angrier than I've ever been about our leadership. It's effect on me has been similar to the effect the Missouri Compromise had on Lincoln: it made him want to get involved with politics after attending to his law practice for some years. I sense I'm not the only voter who thinks that way.
The Democrats don't bear the same burden of blame right now that the Republicans do, but their behavior as the opposition party fits your description. How they could fail so miserably in the face of the leadership we have is so strange. It's interesting to see the contrasting reactions people have had to Howard Dean and John Murtha. The stands they've taken are so rare, they easily stand out against the timid backdrop the rest of the Democrats have created.
So what am I getting at here? Like a lot of other voters, I don't feel well represented by either party. Independents and minority party members make up thirty-five percent or more of the electorate, but they don't feel that they have any voice at all. I've been skeptical that the Libertarian party can give people that voice. It's not because I think their ideas are bad, or that they can't overcome some of the real obstacles that minority parties have to face in our political system. I think that the Libertarian party's image is such that not so many people will vote for Libertarian candidates.
My main perspective comes from Massachusetts. It's not my native state, but it's where I live now. (I come from the Upper Midwest, a region that actually has a two-party system.) The two-party system in Massachusetts is not healthy, to say the least. Many, many Democrats, incumbents and new office seekers alike, run unopposed on election day. The Republicans win the governor's race, and that's about it. The latest tally shows that almost fifty percent of the voters in the state are independents - they don't enroll in either party when they register to vote. Yet the Libertarian party lost its ballot access a few years ago because they didn't win 3% of the votes cast.
Why don't the Libertarians win more votes in a state that doesn't feel that comfortable with one-party governance? Well it could be that most voters really are Democrats at heart, and they elect a Republican governor entirely to exercise some restraint on the legislature. Perhaps the Libertarians seem to be extreme here because, given the Democratic sympathies of the electorate, they really are outliers in the state's political belief system.
I keep thinking, though, of the party's tag line - the party of principle - and the message that line conveys to ordinary voters. Its subtext is that Libertarians don't care about winning elections. Or, to put it more precisely: if we have to make a choice between winning votes and sticking with our principles, we'll stick with our principles. We'd rather be right and defeated than wrong and victorious. Well naturally the goal is to be right and victorious, but that's not the message that comes across, either in the tag line or in the rest of the state party's communications.
The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts is only one of fifty state organizations, and I know the flavor of party politics in the other forty-nine states is just as quirky and unique as it is here. You have a hard job, trying to promote the party in a political landscape that's so varied. I much admire the determination the national party has shown over the last several months, to transform itself from a group on the margins of politics into an organization that can compete in elections across the land. I want to believe that it'll be successful, and that the Libertarian party will emerge from the coming political turmoil in a strong position.
To do that, though, I think it has to change the image I've described above. It has to convey that it's open to more than one belief system. The Democrats and Republicans both try to stress, at election time, that their parties are like big tents. They want to welcome as many people as they can. They're right to do that, because in a country that's so pluralistic, and that's bound to have just two major parties because of its election rules, the two major parties have to embrace divergent beliefs and belief systems.
Well, that welcoming attitude only goes so far. A political party is going to have opponents no matter what it does. But the Reagan elections show that people do respond to a well articulated vision. No other president has ever won forty-nine of fifty states, as Reagan did in 1984. That shows that people can be loyal to a certain vision of themselves, and to certain core principles built into our Constitution. It shows that when the circumstances are right, a pluralistic people can achieve a certain degree of unity.
Your remark that the Democratic party is in a panic because it feels so threatened is interesting. The contrasting question is what will happen to the Republicans when people realize what has happened since 9/11 - when the damage the Republicans have done truly sinks in. I said that we're in for a period of turmoil. The grounds for that prediction lie in a pattern of change that's clear from a long view of history. States that lose wars don't survive the loss without going through painful and substantial changes. We've clearly not achieved our aims in Iraq, and we are on the way to losing the other war we should be fighting instead - the war against Al Qaeda that started on September 11.
When these losses begin to have their effects, we'll see changes in our current political system that we can't predict. These changes are already underway, but we can't see their direction yet. The Libertarian party is right to prepare for them, and to see if it can't strengthen itself during the conflict to come. The parties in Washington won't stop sniping at each other, while citizens who aren't part of either party's base get more and more fed up with their representation and leadership. The two parties are so focused on scoring advantages, on finding weaknesses they can exploit, I don’t think they recognize how unhappy their constituents are.
Shortly before the 2000 election, I wrote an article called "Where's a Candidate People Want?" Even then, it seemed to me, the parties had failed in their primary function in national politics, which is to recruit and nominate presidential candidates who can serve and lead Americans well. We have never had leadership as bad as President Bush's has been. Although Gore and Kerry had some strengths, they weren't adequate candidates for the times. That the Republicans managed to put Bush in the office, and then to reelect him, says quite a bit about the ability of the current two-party system to perform well. It is clearly not serving the country.
So what do all of these observations amount to? The Libertarian party has to find some way to appeal to more people. Training candidates, campaign managers and other staff to run effective bids for office is an essential start. The most effective campaign ever can't win votes, though, if people are suspicious or skeptical of the party to begin with. They have to have confidence in the character and competence of their leaders, and they also need to know that their leaders share some assumptions with them about the best way to organize a society. Right now, I think a lot of citizens see Libertarians as people who don't share those assumptions.
We know that the United States will always have two major parties while it has winner-take-all elections in each of the fifty states. We also know that the two-party system has evolved in interesting ways over 225 years, with some dramatic transformations in the system at key points. We are on the threshold of one of those transformations. In ten years, during the presidential election of 2016, we'll be past the threshold and perhaps even past the entry way. It's great that the Libertarian party and its leadership is thinking about how it can grow during the difficult changes that have already started. I hope it succeeds.
I also hope that I and others can lay aside skepticism, and work hard for the changes we want to see. We need hope that the obstacles in our current politics won't always be there: obstacles that block independents' voices, frustrate their efforts before they begin, and make voting seem ineffectual. In this environment, the Libertarian party's bold initiatives to have an effect do deserve respect and support.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Loose Lips Sink Spies - New York Times
Loose Lips Sink Spies - New York Times
What a huge, huge gap exists now! So many things that Goss says in this article make sense, or rather used to make sense. Coming from the head of the CIA in this administration, though, they are scary. Standard arguments about the tradeoff between national security and open democracy don't make sense anymore, when the source of the arguments is the government itself. These guys are willing to commit crimes wherever they look. No crime is too egregious for them. National security justifies anything they want to do. Now the head of the CIA announces his determination to bring criminal charges against anyone who tries to stop them. That's scary.
What a huge, huge gap exists now! So many things that Goss says in this article make sense, or rather used to make sense. Coming from the head of the CIA in this administration, though, they are scary. Standard arguments about the tradeoff between national security and open democracy don't make sense anymore, when the source of the arguments is the government itself. These guys are willing to commit crimes wherever they look. No crime is too egregious for them. National security justifies anything they want to do. Now the head of the CIA announces his determination to bring criminal charges against anyone who tries to stop them. That's scary.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Monday, February 06, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The President's Latest Q & A Session
So now we have to ask, Mr. President, what wouldn't you do?
Say again?
Well, you've authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps, which are clearly illegal. You simply can't do domestic searches without a warrant. When you violate a law that's so clear-cut, I'd like to ask, what wouldn't you do? It's useful to know what you think the limits on your executive power are.
Okay, I'll give you some good examples. I wouldn't authorize torture for people we want to interrogate and intimidate.
You've already done that.
I wouldn't set up a system of prisons outside of the United States where we can keep our prisoners of war.
You've already done that.
I certainly wouldn't leak the name of one our intelligence agents to the domestic press in order to discredit my opponents. You could even call that treason.
You've already done that, too, Mr. President.
Give me a break here. How about this? The president's powers as commander in chief are pretty broad, but to launch an attack on a country that's not an immediate threat to us would go beyond my power. It would violate the UN charter as well.
But sir, you did that, too.
You've got me pinned down pretty well now. Can you think of anything I haven't done yet?
Well, you could drop a nuclear bomb on North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapons. You'd teach them a lesson.
Yes.
And you could drop another bomb on Harvard University to quiet Alan Dershowitz and all those other people on the faculty who keep criticizing you.
I don't think Ted Kennedy would like that very much.
Mr. President, what's one university in the War on Terror? If it's necessary to protect the American people, you should do it.
How about if I just roll some tanks into Harvard Square? That wouldn't be so drastic. Maybe not as effective, either.
Come on, Mr. President, you have a reputation to maintain here. You don't want Dick Cheney to call you a namby pamby behind your back, do you?
Of course not, but I don't want to destroy America. I want to save it. Pretty soon you and your friends will say that I want to destroy America in order to save it.
You've already done that.
Say again?
Well, you've authorized warrantless domestic wiretaps, which are clearly illegal. You simply can't do domestic searches without a warrant. When you violate a law that's so clear-cut, I'd like to ask, what wouldn't you do? It's useful to know what you think the limits on your executive power are.
Okay, I'll give you some good examples. I wouldn't authorize torture for people we want to interrogate and intimidate.
You've already done that.
I wouldn't set up a system of prisons outside of the United States where we can keep our prisoners of war.
You've already done that.
I certainly wouldn't leak the name of one our intelligence agents to the domestic press in order to discredit my opponents. You could even call that treason.
You've already done that, too, Mr. President.
Give me a break here. How about this? The president's powers as commander in chief are pretty broad, but to launch an attack on a country that's not an immediate threat to us would go beyond my power. It would violate the UN charter as well.
But sir, you did that, too.
You've got me pinned down pretty well now. Can you think of anything I haven't done yet?
Well, you could drop a nuclear bomb on North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapons. You'd teach them a lesson.
Yes.
And you could drop another bomb on Harvard University to quiet Alan Dershowitz and all those other people on the faculty who keep criticizing you.
I don't think Ted Kennedy would like that very much.
Mr. President, what's one university in the War on Terror? If it's necessary to protect the American people, you should do it.
How about if I just roll some tanks into Harvard Square? That wouldn't be so drastic. Maybe not as effective, either.
Come on, Mr. President, you have a reputation to maintain here. You don't want Dick Cheney to call you a namby pamby behind your back, do you?
Of course not, but I don't want to destroy America. I want to save it. Pretty soon you and your friends will say that I want to destroy America in order to save it.
You've already done that.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Biographer Richard Reeves examines President Reagan, a masterful rhetorician
Wichita Eagle | 01/22/2006 | Biographer Richard Reeves examines President Reagan, a masterful rhetorician:
"Did Reagan's brainy White House staff members manipulate him? No way, Reeves says. As White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III commented, 'He treats us all the same, as hired help.' A later chief of staff, Donald Regan, told Reeves that everybody working in the White House 'thought he was smarter than the president.' Reeves responded, 'Including you?' Regan's reply: 'Especially me.' But it was Reagan, not Baker or Regan, who managed to persuade power brokers to more than double the federal tax dollars devoted to the military, to decrease taxation of the wealthy, and to substantially neutralize the Soviet Union's influence in a worldwide Cold War."
"Did Reagan's brainy White House staff members manipulate him? No way, Reeves says. As White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III commented, 'He treats us all the same, as hired help.' A later chief of staff, Donald Regan, told Reeves that everybody working in the White House 'thought he was smarter than the president.' Reeves responded, 'Including you?' Regan's reply: 'Especially me.' But it was Reagan, not Baker or Regan, who managed to persuade power brokers to more than double the federal tax dollars devoted to the military, to decrease taxation of the wealthy, and to substantially neutralize the Soviet Union's influence in a worldwide Cold War."
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
Legal Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort - New York Times
This proves it then, that we have an unconstitutional presidency that will operate outside the law. Any person who says that a wiretap in the United States without a warrant is justified can't be right. National security requires some secrecy, but a warrantless wiretap can't be justified under any legal doctrine. To make such a wiretap permissible, we would have to change the law. The president's defense of his actions shows that if the law conflicts with his beliefs about what national security requires, he'll go with his beliefs.
This proves it then, that we have an unconstitutional presidency that will operate outside the law. Any person who says that a wiretap in the United States without a warrant is justified can't be right. National security requires some secrecy, but a warrantless wiretap can't be justified under any legal doctrine. To make such a wiretap permissible, we would have to change the law. The president's defense of his actions shows that if the law conflicts with his beliefs about what national security requires, he'll go with his beliefs.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
http://www-internal.mathworks.com: News
http://www-internal.mathworks.com: News
What is the relationship between the war in Iraq and this action by Iran? Do you see one?
What is the relationship between the war in Iraq and this action by Iran? Do you see one?
Monday, January 09, 2006
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Monday, January 02, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Friday, December 30, 2005
Monday, December 26, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Opponents of the War in Iraq Need a Strategy
Telegraph | News | I have been beaten and tortured, says tyrant
Did Americans torture Hussein? He's getting what he deserves, you say? Remember that the important matter isn't really what Hussein says, or even what Americans did to him. It's what people believe about what he says that counts. After Abu Ghraib and everything else they've heard, people in the region will believe that Hussein is probably telling the truth. The Butcher of Baghdad has become the Lion of Baghdad in a few short weeks, and we have lost another propaganda skirmish. Did you expect three years ago that Hussein would accuse us of torture, and that people would believe him? Did you expect three years ago that Hussein would have more credibility in the region than we do? And we think we're going to lead the way to democracy?
I still wish I could remember what I wrote about torture a few weeks ago. It wasn't meant to be, I guess. The character of these pieces is that I explore what's on my mind now. I won't be able to reconstruct what was on my mind then. Remember this argument, then, because it's the thread that runs through all of the debate about whether or not the CIA or any other agency of the United States ought to be able to mistreat prisoners of war. The United States needs the help of other countries to win this war. It can't win the current war in Iraq alone, but here I'm talking about the larger war against Al Qaeda. If the United States mistreats the people it captures in the course of that war, it won't get the assistance it needs. We are in a new world here. We cannot win the war that started on September 11 alone.
For over three years now, I've been angry about the war in Iraq. I was angry about it the day Bush first intimated that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was his vaunted goal, the feted next step in the so-called war on terror. I must realize now that anger, now vented, won't do much to change our policy. We don't have that many fence-sitters anymore. People have made up their minds about the war, and the country is roughly two to one against it. The people who think the war will advance our goals won't change their minds at this point. The big problem now is that the people who are against the war don't have much cohesion. They can't agree about what we should do next, and they haven't gathered their ideas and their political force around a strong set of leaders. As a result, their anger and their desire to effect a change of course have not had much influence. It's like a pot of boiling water evaporating to steam: lots of heat and turmoil down below, and not much effect from the steam above. The steam, not pressurized, can't exert any force. Somehow the anti-war movement has to exert some force.
My belief is that as long as we talk about timetables for withdrawal and the like, the people who oppose the war will continue to be ineffectual. People who speak against the war in Iraq need to fashion a strategy for prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda. The administration has such a strategy. Victory in Iraq will bring democracy to the region, and that will so weaken Al Qaeda that it won't be a threat to us anymore. It doesn't matter that the strategy is based on the false premise that democratic politics will make Al Qaeda ineffectual. It's a strategy nevertheless. If the Democrats, Republicans, and independents who oppose the war don't formulate a broad strategy to counter the administration's, they'll be stuck in a reactive mode. If all the war's opponents can offer is a timetable for withdrawal, they won't have a plan that anyone can get behind. Though people don't say it, everyone feels uncomfortable about leaving Iraq having no idea about what's next. If we leave Iraq without any kind of plan at all for what's next, that really will be a defeat.
So you want to ask now, what would such a strategy look like? I've said these things about what we should do so often that I think it must be boring by now. Yet mostly I say these things in private, and it's been a while since I wrote them down in one place. The first thing we need to do is admit to the rest of the world that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. We can find a way to do that without losing face. We can maintain the honor of our armed forces and also admit to our allies, in the Middle East and elsewhere, that the war in Iraq ought not to have occurred. The second part of this plan is to withdraw from Iraq in a way that takes political factors into account. This process is a complicated one, and requires us to work closely with our allies, and with many different groups inside Iraq. Our current political leaders have shown no willingness or ability to engage in this process, so talking about it in detail is a discouraging exercise.
The third part of this strategy is to renew the war against Al Qaeda. To do that, we need to reestablish our military strength in Afghanistan. We also need to go to work in Pakistan. The earthquake there gives us an unmatched opportunity to do good there. We need their friendship. They deserve our help. If we can establish a political, military, and humanitarian presence in Afghanistan, and a humanitarian presence in Pakistan, we will have done so much to correct the mistakes of the last three years. Let's make the first non-quake related project the construction of an interstate highway system in Afghanistan. We need the transportation network for our own purposes, and the whole region would benefit from it. What a symbol of success we'd have. If we help the Pakistanis who lost their homes and livelihoods in the earthquake, we'll have another good reason to be active in the area, and a multitude of good deeds to create good will. We badly need to talk with people in that area. We can't win the war against Al Qaeda without bringing American goodness to south Asia. American goodness is precisely the opposite of what we've shown during the occupation of Iraq.
Did Americans torture Hussein? He's getting what he deserves, you say? Remember that the important matter isn't really what Hussein says, or even what Americans did to him. It's what people believe about what he says that counts. After Abu Ghraib and everything else they've heard, people in the region will believe that Hussein is probably telling the truth. The Butcher of Baghdad has become the Lion of Baghdad in a few short weeks, and we have lost another propaganda skirmish. Did you expect three years ago that Hussein would accuse us of torture, and that people would believe him? Did you expect three years ago that Hussein would have more credibility in the region than we do? And we think we're going to lead the way to democracy?
I still wish I could remember what I wrote about torture a few weeks ago. It wasn't meant to be, I guess. The character of these pieces is that I explore what's on my mind now. I won't be able to reconstruct what was on my mind then. Remember this argument, then, because it's the thread that runs through all of the debate about whether or not the CIA or any other agency of the United States ought to be able to mistreat prisoners of war. The United States needs the help of other countries to win this war. It can't win the current war in Iraq alone, but here I'm talking about the larger war against Al Qaeda. If the United States mistreats the people it captures in the course of that war, it won't get the assistance it needs. We are in a new world here. We cannot win the war that started on September 11 alone.
For over three years now, I've been angry about the war in Iraq. I was angry about it the day Bush first intimated that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was his vaunted goal, the feted next step in the so-called war on terror. I must realize now that anger, now vented, won't do much to change our policy. We don't have that many fence-sitters anymore. People have made up their minds about the war, and the country is roughly two to one against it. The people who think the war will advance our goals won't change their minds at this point. The big problem now is that the people who are against the war don't have much cohesion. They can't agree about what we should do next, and they haven't gathered their ideas and their political force around a strong set of leaders. As a result, their anger and their desire to effect a change of course have not had much influence. It's like a pot of boiling water evaporating to steam: lots of heat and turmoil down below, and not much effect from the steam above. The steam, not pressurized, can't exert any force. Somehow the anti-war movement has to exert some force.
My belief is that as long as we talk about timetables for withdrawal and the like, the people who oppose the war will continue to be ineffectual. People who speak against the war in Iraq need to fashion a strategy for prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda. The administration has such a strategy. Victory in Iraq will bring democracy to the region, and that will so weaken Al Qaeda that it won't be a threat to us anymore. It doesn't matter that the strategy is based on the false premise that democratic politics will make Al Qaeda ineffectual. It's a strategy nevertheless. If the Democrats, Republicans, and independents who oppose the war don't formulate a broad strategy to counter the administration's, they'll be stuck in a reactive mode. If all the war's opponents can offer is a timetable for withdrawal, they won't have a plan that anyone can get behind. Though people don't say it, everyone feels uncomfortable about leaving Iraq having no idea about what's next. If we leave Iraq without any kind of plan at all for what's next, that really will be a defeat.
So you want to ask now, what would such a strategy look like? I've said these things about what we should do so often that I think it must be boring by now. Yet mostly I say these things in private, and it's been a while since I wrote them down in one place. The first thing we need to do is admit to the rest of the world that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. We can find a way to do that without losing face. We can maintain the honor of our armed forces and also admit to our allies, in the Middle East and elsewhere, that the war in Iraq ought not to have occurred. The second part of this plan is to withdraw from Iraq in a way that takes political factors into account. This process is a complicated one, and requires us to work closely with our allies, and with many different groups inside Iraq. Our current political leaders have shown no willingness or ability to engage in this process, so talking about it in detail is a discouraging exercise.
The third part of this strategy is to renew the war against Al Qaeda. To do that, we need to reestablish our military strength in Afghanistan. We also need to go to work in Pakistan. The earthquake there gives us an unmatched opportunity to do good there. We need their friendship. They deserve our help. If we can establish a political, military, and humanitarian presence in Afghanistan, and a humanitarian presence in Pakistan, we will have done so much to correct the mistakes of the last three years. Let's make the first non-quake related project the construction of an interstate highway system in Afghanistan. We need the transportation network for our own purposes, and the whole region would benefit from it. What a symbol of success we'd have. If we help the Pakistanis who lost their homes and livelihoods in the earthquake, we'll have another good reason to be active in the area, and a multitude of good deeds to create good will. We badly need to talk with people in that area. We can't win the war against Al Qaeda without bringing American goodness to south Asia. American goodness is precisely the opposite of what we've shown during the occupation of Iraq.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Bush Says U.S. Is Winning in Iraq, Sacrifices Ahead
Bloomberg.com: U.S.
All the talk is about troop levels, a timetable for troop withdrawals, and the cost of the war. We're also talking about torture, limits to surveillance in the United States, and democratization in Iraq. Before you try to reach a judgment about any of these issues, ask yourself about the author of the situation we are in now. Ask yourself you have confidence in this leader, who is trying so hard to vindicate himself. He says that we are winning the war in Iraq, and he asks you to have confidence that he is right. But we have no reason to believe anything this man says. He says that to give up his project in Iraq now would be an act of recklessness. The act of recklessness right now is to believe that our president knows what he is doing.
Ask yourself these questions as you decide whether or not to believe Mr. Bush. The questions are not designed to be fair to the president. They highlight what he has actually done, as opposed to what he thinks he has done.
What do you think of a president who, a year and a half after 9/11, attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
What do you think of a president who authorizes the NSA to spy on American citizens without judicial oversight?
What do you think of a president who thinks it is alright to imprison the citizens of other countries in secret? Who wants to mistreat prisoners in order to force them to give us information?
Here is the most troubling question of all. What confidence can you have in a leader who does not understand the relationship between political and military problems? Who cannot coordinate political and military initiatives in order to solve problems in both areas? Bush has outlined a strategy for victory, as he calls it. The only path to victory, even on his own terms, requires a high degree of competence and sophistication in the handling of political and military processes in Iraq, in the region, and in the entire world. Yet Bush and his team have shown nothing but incompetence and simple mindedness ever since Bush announced that he wanted to overthrow Hussein by force.
He cannot ask for our loyalty and confidence now, and expect to get it. He has no record to stand on. In three years he has managed to make our country an object of fear, contempt, and hatred in one country after another. The entire world stood ready to help us take on our enemies in the fall of 2001, for our enemies were their enemies. Everyone not already against us was already for us. No one questioned our leadership, or doubted our willingness to fight. All counted themselves lucky to be fighting alongside us.
Now survey the state of the world at the end of 2005. The people of no country, not even Great Britain, want to fight with us now. People suspect us of dirty politics at every turn. No one has confidence in our judgment, or in our ability to fight any war - the one in Iraq or the one against Al Qaeda, to a successful conclusion. No one thinks any longer that our success and their success are linked.
Now the president asks for our support as he continues along the path that he has set out. He does not deserve our followership any more than he deserves to be our leader. He has proven his incompetence, his dishonesty, and his inability to accomplish what he says he is going to accomplish. We have to find a way to make this man irrelevant. If we go the way he says we ought to go, if we follow him as we have followed him in the past, we will keep failing.
Mr. Bush may be curiously right about one of his arguments. He says that to turn our back on Iraq now would be disastrous. We can say with some confidence that anything we do under his leadership is going to be disastrous. Yes, our failures under his leadership may be irreversible, so serious that we will crash no matter what we do. But the fight isn't over yet. We may find better leadership, and our opponents may make serious mistakes, too. If we continue to fight under incompetent leadership, though, we will find a collapse at the end of this path that no one could have conceived during the period of unity after 9/11.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Editorial: Iraq war was wrong
asahi.com Iraq war was wrong:
"Including Japan, all nations that have supported or participated in the Iraq war ought to admit their mistakes now. Only then will it become possible to reorganize the framework of global cooperation with Iraq's reconstruction."
"Including Japan, all nations that have supported or participated in the Iraq war ought to admit their mistakes now. Only then will it become possible to reorganize the framework of global cooperation with Iraq's reconstruction."
The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Patriot Act renewal stalls after spy report
"We need to be more vigilant," Sununu said, paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: "Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Emerson
“Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an
experiment. The more experiments you make the better."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
experiment. The more experiments you make the better."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
