Glenn Reynolds and Scott Wallace on the Patriotism Thing
This really is worth reading, IMHO, especially Wallace's e-mails. I think there's some truth in them (and in some of the things Reynolds says). In particular, I do think that some liberals want the U.S. to lose the war, and I think that's (here I have to, weirdly, say probably) bad. On the other hand, Wallace is also radically, hopelessly wrong about quite a bit. It's the combination that interests me, really.
I've got actual things to do today, so I have to make this quick. Please take that into consideration when preparing to shred me:
1. There are some in the leftier reaches of the left who want the U.S. to lose.
2. Sometimes I half-way want us to lose, too.
3. This is not quite as insane as it first sounds. Winning will--and this is almost inevitable--be distorted by the rightier right in order to support the claim that Bush was right all along. But the administration's actions have been so reprehensible and anti-democratic that allowing this to set some kind of precedent may actually pose a bigger real threat to the nation and the world than al Qaeda. I do not say this for lightly-considered reasons. I do not believe it fervently. But I do believe it sometimes. It's on those occasions when I wonder whether losing--disastrous though it might be--might not be the lesser of the available evils.
4. Nevertheless, a good bit of the leftier left is just clueless in the extreme. And there is a streak of anti-Americanism over there, as everyone should realize.
5. However. Wallace's generic attacks on liberals are almost completely out of touch with reality.
6. Although liberals do, in fact, sometimes act like spoiled sixteen-year-olds (as Wallace says), obstinately refusing to compromise or admit that you can't always have your way in a democracy, it couldn't be clearer that, in the last about 15 years, this attitude has, in fact, been far, far more common in conservatives than in liberals. Wallace is right that it's there on the left, but it's so much more prevalent on the right that it takes a truly prodigious degree of cluelessness to rant about the left in this regard. This isn't the place to make a case for this claim, but, very briefly: much of the right refused to accept the presidency of Bill Clinton, continually seeking to, in effect, overturn two elections; it worked hard to prevent a recount (a recount that was clearly warranted by facts and precedent, and a recount the right probably would have won!) in 2000, its central argument being, in effect, "give us the f*cking presidency. Now."; and it rallied behind an obviously fabricated case for war, refusing even to acknowledge the facts, and calling liberals who did look at the facts unpatriotic, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of reasoned dissent.
7. A reader busts Wallace on his position, noting that conservatives don't just fall in line behind, e.g., the courts' abortion decisions. To Wallace's credit, he concedes that this is a good point--but he then goes on to, in effect, dodge the point amid some (admittedly rather interesting) reflections on democracy. The point there, as often noted before: conservatives only think that we should fall in line behind our leaders and policies when they are conservative. Bush's (unjustified) war: shut up and wave the flag. Clinton's (justified) war in the Balkans: welllll....that's different, of course. And, again: to liberals' credit, and for all their faults, they almost never deploy the "shut up and fall in line" argument. The conservatives are doubly damned for (a) employing it and (b) employing it inconsistently.
8. And, incidentally: why are conservatives so adept and teasing out every nuanced imperfection of liberal reaction to the war, while ignoring the glaring, obvious point that much of their opposition and sub-optimal attitude is a natural human reaction to the lies, distortions, and dirty-dealing that got us into this mess? If the case for war had been strong, if those of us who pointed out the obvious fact that it 'wasnt sufficiently strong hadn't been called unpatriotic, and so forth, we might be able to manage a better attitude about the fact that we're stuck in an idiotic war that's prevented us from punishing those who attacked us on 9/11 and actually made us less safe. It's hard to just smile and fall in line when (a) you were right, and (b) your position happened to be the more patriotic one, and (c) you were called unpatriotic for your efforts. the fact that my support for the war is rather grudging is hardly inexplicable.
9. Are liberals often a mote in the country's eye? Abso-freakin'-lutely. But conservatives have, for much of my life, been the beam.
This really is worth reading, IMHO, especially Wallace's e-mails. I think there's some truth in them (and in some of the things Reynolds says). In particular, I do think that some liberals want the U.S. to lose the war, and I think that's (here I have to, weirdly, say probably) bad. On the other hand, Wallace is also radically, hopelessly wrong about quite a bit. It's the combination that interests me, really.
I've got actual things to do today, so I have to make this quick. Please take that into consideration when preparing to shred me:
1. There are some in the leftier reaches of the left who want the U.S. to lose.
2. Sometimes I half-way want us to lose, too.
3. This is not quite as insane as it first sounds. Winning will--and this is almost inevitable--be distorted by the rightier right in order to support the claim that Bush was right all along. But the administration's actions have been so reprehensible and anti-democratic that allowing this to set some kind of precedent may actually pose a bigger real threat to the nation and the world than al Qaeda. I do not say this for lightly-considered reasons. I do not believe it fervently. But I do believe it sometimes. It's on those occasions when I wonder whether losing--disastrous though it might be--might not be the lesser of the available evils.
4. Nevertheless, a good bit of the leftier left is just clueless in the extreme. And there is a streak of anti-Americanism over there, as everyone should realize.
5. However. Wallace's generic attacks on liberals are almost completely out of touch with reality.
6. Although liberals do, in fact, sometimes act like spoiled sixteen-year-olds (as Wallace says), obstinately refusing to compromise or admit that you can't always have your way in a democracy, it couldn't be clearer that, in the last about 15 years, this attitude has, in fact, been far, far more common in conservatives than in liberals. Wallace is right that it's there on the left, but it's so much more prevalent on the right that it takes a truly prodigious degree of cluelessness to rant about the left in this regard. This isn't the place to make a case for this claim, but, very briefly: much of the right refused to accept the presidency of Bill Clinton, continually seeking to, in effect, overturn two elections; it worked hard to prevent a recount (a recount that was clearly warranted by facts and precedent, and a recount the right probably would have won!) in 2000, its central argument being, in effect, "give us the f*cking presidency. Now."; and it rallied behind an obviously fabricated case for war, refusing even to acknowledge the facts, and calling liberals who did look at the facts unpatriotic, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of reasoned dissent.
7. A reader busts Wallace on his position, noting that conservatives don't just fall in line behind, e.g., the courts' abortion decisions. To Wallace's credit, he concedes that this is a good point--but he then goes on to, in effect, dodge the point amid some (admittedly rather interesting) reflections on democracy. The point there, as often noted before: conservatives only think that we should fall in line behind our leaders and policies when they are conservative. Bush's (unjustified) war: shut up and wave the flag. Clinton's (justified) war in the Balkans: welllll....that's different, of course. And, again: to liberals' credit, and for all their faults, they almost never deploy the "shut up and fall in line" argument. The conservatives are doubly damned for (a) employing it and (b) employing it inconsistently.
8. And, incidentally: why are conservatives so adept and teasing out every nuanced imperfection of liberal reaction to the war, while ignoring the glaring, obvious point that much of their opposition and sub-optimal attitude is a natural human reaction to the lies, distortions, and dirty-dealing that got us into this mess? If the case for war had been strong, if those of us who pointed out the obvious fact that it 'wasnt sufficiently strong hadn't been called unpatriotic, and so forth, we might be able to manage a better attitude about the fact that we're stuck in an idiotic war that's prevented us from punishing those who attacked us on 9/11 and actually made us less safe. It's hard to just smile and fall in line when (a) you were right, and (b) your position happened to be the more patriotic one, and (c) you were called unpatriotic for your efforts. the fact that my support for the war is rather grudging is hardly inexplicable.
9. Are liberals often a mote in the country's eye? Abso-freakin'-lutely. But conservatives have, for much of my life, been the beam.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:32 AM
16 Comments:
"Are liberals often a mote in the country's eye? Abso-freakin'-lutely. But conservatives have, for much of my life, been the beam."
Amen!
First of all, impeaching Clinton over chickenspit was bad for the republic. The GOP was punished by losing seats in the 1998 mid-terms, but was that punishment enough?
Probably not, and the payback continues until this day. Now it's the vociferous and corrosive far-left that's found a seat at the table of the American polity, instead of the vociferous and corrosive far-right, which has pretty much been shut up in the back room like an embarrassing, crazy uncle.
The question to me in judging the parties at any particular time is not by their vociferous and corrosive bedfellows (a system with only 2 parties obliges coalitions of the strangest stuff), but by how the putatively "responsible" leadership of the parties handles their more, um, passionate bedfellows.
I thought Wallace's answer was accurate re abortion opponents---bombing abortion clinics, and the more extreme conduct of Operation Rescue, et al., is condemned by almost all pro-lifers. Considering some of these people believe abortion is murder, they've been pretty patriotic in their respect for the American process.
As for the rest, there is a real difference between dissent on domestic matters and dissent when there are American troops on the ground with life at risk anywhere. It should be undeniable that the bad guys are listening. It's also a fact that they will echo internal American dissent for propaganda purposes.
Like Gen. Sanchez' charge that the media may cost American lives (altho I agree he should have offered backing for his assertion), I think it's necessary and proper to ask if dissent can reach a temperature where it's palpably harmful, especially to the troops on the ground.
The working answer has apparently been no, it can't, but (patriotic?) adults must at least consider the possibility that it can, and does.
I agree with all that, Tom. (Except for the bit about the nutty right being locked up in the back room...)
Well, I was thinking DeLay is gone, Falwell's dead, Pat Robertson is laughed at, and we haven't heard from Richard Mellon Scaife in awhile. (His place as billionaire political busybody has been taken by George Soros.)
I try not to count pundits, just real world people. Certainly there will always be a market for Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.
Yeah, that sensible. Point taken.
Since we're getting along so well, please permit me to add that I think Mistress Hillary has handled her own strange bedfellows masterfully.
Statesmanlike, you might say. Credit where it's due. This nation could do worse, and has.
I'd like to see how strong an equals sign (=) exists in WS's opinion between the propositions of "we need to get out of Iraq" and "wanting to lose the war."
I do not think there is anything to win or that can be won, does that mean I want to lose?
I don't think it does, but I am seriously curious as to whether that puts me in the "wants us to lose" camp.
When no positive outcome is achievable, it seems like you have to leave. This might be considered losing, but it also might be considered to be prudent and realistic and in the interests of our nation.
No snark here, just genuinely curious.
K,
Well, no equivalence at all b/w
(a) S wants us to lose
and
(b) S wants us to get out
Though in the Reynolds post he actually says
(c) Some on the left want us to lose
but points to a poll showing that
(d) Some on the left (1 in 5) think that the world would be better off if we lost.
Now, those are different, actually. I might think that the world would be better off if we lost without wanting us to lose...but I guess I'm disinclined to quibble with the difference in this case.
Wanting what's good for the U.S. even if it's bad for the world is more of a characteristically right-wing or "realist" position than a liberal position, so I don't think Reynolds's point can reasonably be dodged.
Again, though, I don't think this position is as crazy as it seems. The U.S. is immeasurably more powerful than, say groups like aQ (though aQ has never, of course, been closely associated with the Iraq war in fact, except insofar as it helps them recruit, I use them as a touchstone). A deranged America run by PNAC types, though less evil than aQ, may in fact be more dangerous. If dangerousness is a function of (A) badness and (B) power, then the fact that we've got so much B might more than compensate for our lower A quotient. And when you add that our PNAC-inspired actions have not only been bad in themselves, but have also pumped up the power of aQ...well,then we're doubly dangerous: we can do more bad, and we make aQ capable of doing more bad as well.
So, one might think that, catastrophic though our loss in Iraq would be, and as much as that would help out Islamic extremists, it would be better for the world in the long run than a victory that (illegitimately) re-legitimizes PNAC types in the U.S..
Not likely, I'd say, but not crazy.
My $0.02, just a shot in the dark, as usual.
I've enjoyed the foray into the topic of patriotism in the last few posts and threads...I'm considering a dissertation on that topic and related topics so the discussion has helped me quite a bit.
One thing I notice in liberal discussions of patriotism is they often cede the concept to conservatives b/c of how successful conservatives have been in pushing their favored view of it...Liberals seem to have also been ok with not embracing the notion, which I think is unfortunate and puts them in a very weak position. They are then prey to questions about their commitment to America and made to seem like they have less of a commitment than conservatives. But I think that is just ridiculous.
I raise this because of WS's point in #4 that there is a streak of anti-Americanism in the left. I think that's true, but as a liberal, I would want to add that there is a streak of anti-Americanism among conservatives. (I don't think WS is denying this, btw.) Conservative anti-Americans, however, are more likely to embrace the label 'patriot' than liberals, even though their understanding of patriotism is closer to nationalism--i.e., the promotion of national interests with no regard to the costs that foreigners may suffer.
But there is a different tradition of patriotism in America that is much more in line with cosmopolitanism, though it's not really cosmopolitanism. This understanding of patriotism emphasizes the core values of America in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and in other defining moments in America's history such as the Gettysburg Address. I think patriotism should involve promoting American interests insofar as this does not conflict with moral principles. That's not cosmopolitanism because it involves a special commitment to one's particular country, but it's also not nationalism because it does not accept "my country right or wrong" as a good understanding of patriotism. We could understand patriotism that way if we wanted, but it's not necessary since there is another tradition, and it's a pretty horrible view as well.
What some far-left folks seem to accept is a cosmopolitanism that shows no special regard for their country, and often a hostility towards it. I agree with that, but I am also pointing out that the mirror image of this on the far right is nationalism, which I would argue is itself anti-American.
It does seem to me that the people who really want us to lose in Iraq are the people who have acted to make the US lose -- namely the Bush administration.
(Consider: the administration's response to Shinseki's testimony; the occupation; the utter lack of justification in the first place; the efforts to rebuild Iraq; the use of young conservatives to staff the occupying authority; the systemic and long-term shortages of body armor and humvee armor; the unbridled use of mercenaries; Abu Grhaib and its cover up; Walter Reed; the systematic denial of medical coverage to vets; not increasing the size of the army when it was clear we are overstretching our current troop levels; borrowing the money for the war rather tahn raising the revenue to pay for it; ...)
We have an administration that wants to retain political power so badly it will not call on the American people to make the sacrifices necessary to "win".
Of all the people in our nation who "want the U.S. to lose" in Iraq, Bush and his cronies are the only ones that matter, the only ones with the power to bring about our loss.
Sadly, Mr. Bush has succeeded in securing an American defeat in Iraq rather than risking his personal power and political ambition.
Sadder yet, those who point out that:
1) We are losing the war (if it is not lost already) and
2) This loss is of Bush's making
are told to shut up, that daring to speak the truth is unpatriotic.
Saddest of all, while our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, are risking their lives every day in Iraq, we discuss the shortcomings of "some in the leftier reaches of the left who want the U.S. to lose" rather than act to get our troops out of an impossible situation of Bush's making.
Excellent points, Jared and Jim.
It does seem to me that the people who really want us to lose in Iraq are the people who have acted to make the US lose -- namely the Bush administration.
The Bush administration wants us to lose in Iraq?
Well, I find it hard to wrap my mind around that particular proposition, but least it's original thinking. Very original.
The point:
The Bush administration has done the most to guarantee defeat in Iraq.
.----------------------------------
So, (semi-jokingly)they seem to be the ones who most want us to lose there.
That is, if you draw conclusions on the basis of deeds, rather than words, the Bushies end up looking like the ones working most assiduously for defeat.
Talk is cheap.
True, if you discount the actual bad guys.
I had posted:
"It does seem to me that the people who really want us to lose in Iraq are the people who have acted to make the US lose -- namely the Bush administration."
To help clarify, let me note something that ROTC teaches our nation’s young officers:
Failure to plan is planning to fail.
I consider this to be a fair standard for judging any administration.
Did the Bush administration fail to plan for the occupation of Iraq? It actually did worse than that.
Before the invasion, the State Department put together a 13-volume study entitled The Future of Iraq, which was the only substantive effort (pre-invasion) to plan for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq.
Mr. Bush's department of defense then ignored the study, which predicted many of the problems that arose in the aftermath of Iraq's defeat.
In fact,
Gen. Jay Garner, the retired Army officer who was later given the job of leading the reconstruction of Iraq, says he was instructed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to ignore the Future of Iraq Project.
Garner has said that he asked for [Thomas] Warrick [who had headed the State Department study] to be added to his staff and that he was turned down by his superiors. ...
None of the senior American officials involved in the Future of Iraq Project were taken on board by the Pentagon's planners. And this loss was considerable. ''The Office of Special Plans discarded all of the Future of Iraq Project's planning,'' David Phillips says. ''I don't know why.''
In war, failure to plan is planning to fail. Planning to fail in war is indistinguishable from wanting to lose. QED.
Well done Jim, and just to add, there is also the collateral damage of lost opportunity costs, something typically associated with economics but also applicable to global political strategy:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/your-world-in-c.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home