Article

2004-02-15 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-02-15 1:06:26 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 David Warren is a smart fellow and is always worth reading. I've got him bookmarked.

Posted by Steve White 2004-2-15 2:23:26 AM|| 2004-2-15 2:23:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Dr Steve - Are you on Thorazine this morning?!!?! IMHO, this is an over-dramatic hash, swinging wildly to and fro, waxing and waning between absurdity, phantasy, and skeer-mongering. Methinks he succeeded (whether through luck, or action, or some lucky action) in stumbling to the bitter bloody jagged end of the piece. None for me, thanx.

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 6:22:40 AM|| 2004-2-15 6:22:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 .com
As an infamous politican in Australia (Pauline Hansen) once said "please explain"

Posted by tipper 2004-2-15 6:53:50 AM|| 2004-2-15 6:53:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Hmm..I guess I agree with both Steve and .com if that's possible.

It's almost like a list of the benefits of why Bush and Democracy are the better way, with a feeble attempt to pound a square peg of "Americans and Republicans suck" into a round hole.

For example:
..."One cannot help but sense ... each viscerally hates almost everything the other stands for, and may be prepared to forget their most fundamental common interests in pursuit of each otherâs demise. "

This is EXACTLY why democracy is the best available form of government to date in the 5000+ years of the recorded history of mankind. You will NEVER get consensus. Never ever, ever. Democracy allows groups, who despise each other, a peaceful means to place in power the leader who would win if you actually did have a battle. Ballots are basically a "show of arms" as to the strength of the various sides and allow the two sides to see where compromise is the better form of valor.

That we live in peace, despite our dramatic differences, is why our form of government is what is needed in Iraq...unless he has a better plan. Maybe he should consider working with the best available instead of allowing perfect to be the enemy of good.

Posted by B 2004-2-15 8:35:12 AM|| 2004-2-15 8:35:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 This is EXACTLY why democracy is the best available form of government to date in the 5000+ years of the recorded history of mankind.

WRONG!
WRONG!
WRONG!

Democracy is not. A REPUBLIC where the rights are retained by individuals and governments are constrained by law and restrained by courts and voters is the best form of government.

Democracy is what we have when we vote in people who will rob one group to pay another, when you have a mob who rules, when when you have charlatains who restrict speech based on "popularity" or "political correctness".

Democracies suck.

democracy is best used as one fo the tools to help maintain a republic. Note the smalld and smallr - the Big D democrats have lost sight of the fact that we have a republic, and the Republicans have lost sight of the fact that they need to educate the populace so they can be informed voters.

That simple.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-2-15 11:01:54 AM|| 2004-2-15 11:01:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 OS - I stand corrected :-)

Posted by B 2004-2-15 11:31:33 AM|| 2004-2-15 11:31:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried"

Winston Churchill

Posted by john 2004-2-15 11:37:50 AM|| 2004-2-15 11:37:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Democracy is not. A REPUBLIC where the rights are retained by individuals and governments are constrained by law and restrained by courts and voters is the best form of government.

What about a democracy where the rights are retained by individuals and governments are constrained by law and restrained by courts and voters?

'Republic' is but the word you use for the concept "representative democracy", and it still falls within the general scope of the word "democracy", same as Stalinism and Maoism both fall under the general scope of the word "communism".

You seem to be contrastic "Republic" to some sort of absolutist democracy where there's no limit whatsoever to the people's decisions -- but that's disingenuous because the question of limits to the state's power is a completely separate one from whether it's a Republic or a Democracy that wields said power.

Please check out these links here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

--

Am expecting people to start calling me a troll again, simply on the basis of my disagreeing with them.

Cheers.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-15 11:58:03 AM|| 2004-2-15 11:58:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 'Republic' is but the word you use for the concept "representative democracy",

fair enough. Hardly what I'd call a disagreement though. More like splitting hairs.

Posted by B 2004-2-15 12:18:26 PM|| 2004-2-15 12:18:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 As I've mentioned before, we often use the word "democracy" as shorthand for "system guaranteeing individual liberty." Unless the rights of the individual are guaranteed you can have all the "democracy" you want and you still end up with Pakistan or Venezuela or 1933-model Germany or Iran.

Posted by Fred 2004-2-15 12:40:04 PM|| 2004-2-15 12:40:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "system guaranteeing individual liberty"
and property.

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-15 1:00:36 PM|| 2004-2-15 1:00:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Splitting Hares? You leave those bunnies alone you evil man! I ought'a........(What? ... Oh.) Never mind.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-2-15 1:50:55 PM|| 2004-2-15 1:50:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Lincoln said it best:
"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

Posted by Spot 2004-2-15 2:04:30 PM|| 2004-2-15 2:04:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I agree with Old Spook on this. Democracies (pure types especially), 'only last as long as it takes for the general populace to learn that they can vote themselves their nations largesse'

(No I don't remember who said that quote but what it means is that in a true democracy the population can vote to give themselves the monies in the treasury)

Posted by Valentine 2004-2-15 2:46:01 PM|| 2004-2-15 2:46:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Valentine - Robert Heinlein, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven are the most known for having said it in recent days.

The Founding Fathers in America often mentioned it in so many words, summing it up as "people have the government they deserve, by their own actions."

Ed Becerra

Posted by Ed Becerra 2004-2-15 3:58:15 PM|| 2004-2-15 3:58:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I offended some - apologies. Now I'll explain in detail. This guy wins the All-Time Drama Queen Award -- with Chicken Little Clusters. I've never done a formal fisking, before, but I'll give it a try. I read this article very very carefully several times - and few pieces have offended me more. Where an AlQ website is openly hateful and adversarial, this jerk is not even remotely so honest. Read it carefully - everything is spun negatively with a barely-hidden underlying desperate desire for US failure. It is a beautiful piece of Donk propaganda. His words are meant to dishearten and to erode support for the current US administration's policies and actions. His agenda is the internationalist agenda, pure and simple.

How do you build up democracy in Iraq when itâs falling apart in the United States? Well, that is perhaps an overstatement, but the appearance is father to the fact on most of this planet. Our own prime minister seemed utterly secure until the Auditor Generalâs report landed on Tuesday. The American President was in fairly good shape until David Kay reported back on Iraqi WMD. John Kerry was a shoe-in for the Democrat leadership until the Drudge Report got its scoop on Thursday.
No perhaps about it: excess over-the-top drama and misinformation. Classic courtroom tactic - say the wildly extreme, then withdraw it half-heartedly - setting the stage and the tone for what follows to sound reasonable (comparatively) when it actually is unfounded and speculative. He repeats this pattern in almost every paragraph. The American Constitutional Republic is not falling apart. There is ZERO evidence to support the wild-eyed use of the words. Openness and public disclosure and public debate are precisely what our form of open democracy is all about. Drama Queen / Lawyer.

And at a deeper level, the most basic questions about our political and constitutional orders are now going before the courts, as the "culture wars" between left and right, libertarian and conservative, pull apart what remains of the social consensus that makes parliamentary democracy possible. One cannot help but sense this in the tone of recrimination between Clintonian Democrats and Bushite Republicans south of our border: each viscerally hates almost everything the other stands for, and may be prepared to forget their most fundamental common interests in pursuit of each otherâs demise.
Culture wars - excess drama, again. Once again, this is precisely how and what an open system does - issues are ALWAYS before the courts. Always have been and always will be -- where's the crisis implied??? There is no abiding social consensus - it is always in motion. Open systems allow for open debate and afterwards the losing side of the argument moderates the winning side - yielding the new consensus. The current rancor is deep, but it has been the case numerous times before in US history and is not unique or life-threatening to the Republic. One of the hallmarks of an unjustifiably extreme position is its persistence after defeat in the debate process. Look at history and you find that sensible people fall away from such an untenable stance - leaving the core embittered that evolve into social jokes - a very effective societal teaching / moderating mechanism for it is a label only a fool would want to wear. It teaches moderation is preferable to ridicule. This paragraph is utterly speculative and grossly over-stated to anyone who isn't holding one of the extreme positions described. Parliamentary democracy is a voting process on binary questions, up or down, precisely how does he think it is being torn asunder? Drama Queen.

But to stay on topic, President Bushâs bold, and so far remarkably successful essay in changing the whole Middle Eastern order, so that it ceases to offer an external threat, has depended upon his own relative political security. He has been able to rely until recently on solid domestic support and trust, and on that was built the worldâs perception that American power is irresistible. But now the world sees a President Bush whom it thinks may be, in political terms, mortally wounded.
Bush has, indeed, been bold in his policies, but all US Presidents face precisely the same issue of bringing the people on-board - and bold changes require more time for the public to accustom themselves to the new ideas. The rest is his political view - and his secret hope for failure - stated as if it's a brilliant insight into a fact never before revealed. Drama Queen.

One of the many immediate repercussions is in Iraq, where the prestige the U.S. requires to force various Iraqi factions into agreement on a way to conduct elections, or even a way to avoid a terrorist-triggered civil war, is ebbing quickly.
In Iraq, US prestige is not the issue. Force, and the fear of, is the issue when Arabs cooperation is the goal. If one wishes to talk about prestige, fine - who has more? No one. The possible consequences include his speculations (and his secret hopes, again) but this situation is unique and the CA will deal with each obstacle as it can and when it appears. The notion, which he obviously subscribes to here for it implies failure has already occurred in dramatic style, that everything must be planned out and foreseen with crystal clarity in advance is idiotic. Seers and oracles have been thin on the ground for thousands of years. The CA is attempting to bring a society several hundred years along the path of progress - and so far they've had less than 1 year from first shot fired. I'd suggest that there are some absurd expectations afoot in his view. Ebbing quickly - and his measuring device and its accuracy are? Cut some slack to the people who are on the ground doing the job. They will, just as everyone does when faced with a fluid situation, find their way through in stepwise fashion - sans oracular perfection. The ONLY thing that can actually stop Iraq from being a success is the same as with all significant endeavors: for the American public to lose heart. This guy seems fully determined to see that come about by fear-mongering everything he can lay hands upon. Fuck him by ignoring him. Classic back-seat nay-sayer and voyeur-critic Drama Queen.

The transience of political power in a democratic order is what makes it so attractive in every situation except that of mortal external danger. Faced with a huge post-9/11 threat, and shocked by the events which announced it, the U.S. responded boldly; but with a consensus that is now wearing off. The long-term strategy on which Mr. Bush embarked -- to deal with terrorismâs "root causes" in the ideological turmoil of the Middle East -- is being reviewed in the light of short-term political exigencies, with babies and bathwater swirling about.
I prefer our form of democratic order 100% of the time. It has weathered everything faced for 200+ years, including some very serious external threats. It is slow to react - and that is a moderating influence which helps prevent over-reaction. His desperation to convince the reader that there is a waning consensus is execrable and offensive and his allusions to babies and bath water, et al, is once again indicative of his hope for failure, not a statement of fact. Drama Baby Queen.

Mr. Bushâs sudden decline in support may be more apparent than real. A look into the numbers reveals that while John Kerry may be ahead of him for the moment in polls, the Bush support is more solid and certain. And the Internet convulsion over Mr. Kerryâs alleged sex life this week has undermined his own candidacy. But the primaries have shown one trend clearly: that whoever emerges atop the Democrat ticket, he will be trying to ride the very American pendulum that is now swinging back from internationalism to isolationism, as Americans ask themselves, "What have we got into?"
This is an election year. The incumbent party, basically out of the news, ALWAYS falls in the polls because the other party dominates the news. With Kerry's dramatic successes (over such a group of losers, it's not hard to figure why) has made him look strong and helped immensely by the press which favors him by the default editorial agenda. The one thing he gets right is that Bush support is solid and based upon his performance in The Big Chair - and Kerry's is momentum-based news reporting. Then he re-inserts his private agenda: internationalism and reining in the rogue US. Americans are asking many things, but "what have we got into?" is only coming from one of the extreme positions, the Looney Left -- the rest of us have been paying far better attention. Here he reveals his true private agenda openly, for the first time, without subterfuge or speculation or fear-mongering allusions. He's Chirac's buddy, not mine.

It is because the Bush administration has succeeded (whether through luck, or action, or some lucky action) in preventing a repeat of the 9/11 massacres, that the American public is beginning to forget why it is fighting abroad. The danger in forgetting is very large -- for as a direct result of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, they may not have found huge stockpiles of "WMD" on location, but have a much better idea of the extent of proliferation elsewhere. Only a very tough-minded and assertive, internationalist U.S. can continue to make progress.
This is a beautiful attempt to insert his private agenda into a scenario for success. He disparages Bush and implies our efforts haven't paid off - it was all just dumb luck. Fuck him. He suggests that Americans have switched off and are lulled by success into dangerous slumber. Fuck him. He accepts the obvious regards proliferation, but ascribes it not to US policy and efforts, but lets the reader subconsciously believe it's just more dumb luck. Fuck him. The last sentence reads much more factually sans the word "internationalist" - and he presents zero logic or substantiation for having inserted it. I guess it is his notion to imply that it will fill in the gaps when our dumb luck runs out. This entire paragraph is pure opinion and disingenuous outrageous bullshit. Fuck him.

Perhaps the good news in the war on terror is that the other side has no idea how to exploit the chaos of an election year: you have to be familiar with democracy yourself to grasp the possibilities. The bad news is that the first priority of "terror international" through November will be to get rid of Bush -- their most lethal single enemy.
I agree with every word. Finally, he left out his private bullshit and relied upon observable fact and logic.

The last paragraph is truly loaded, so one sentence at a time...

This means the security of the United States and the West depends in the interim on the responsibility of the U.S. Democrat Party.
And where, pray tell, did this come from? Where has he made a case for such an outrageous statement? Nowhere. Total fabrication out of his thinly veiled private agenda: get rid of Bush by supporting the Donks and then, with the tough-minded Bush out of the way, restrain the US with the UN leash.

It must have the wisdom to allow domestic politics to end at Americaâs shores; and it must make clear to the world beyond those shores that, if it wins power, it will be every bit as stalwart and, when necessary, unilateral in defending U.S. interests as the Bush administration has been.
He uses Bush as an icon of toughness - correct, but then goes on to whack the Donks with it. His agenda now imposed upon the Donks: I want you to win, but if you do you have to keep defending the internationalist community which has disarmed in order to pay for our socialist programs. It will be okay for you to act unilaterally to defend US interests (Gee, thanks!) because we couldn't do anything even if we wanted to - we're fucking helpless. Wow, this is some beautiful shit. Brought tears to my eyes.

If, as in Vietnam, they think they can win, by making sure that the United States loses, then Iraq wonât prove another Vietnam. It will be much worse.
WTF? This wild-eyed bit of absurdity raises the specter of the boogie-man Vietnam - oooohhh... but I love the wildly goofy logic: If "they" believe they win by making sure the US loses (in a binary system... oh never mind) then this will be a catastrophe greater than Vietnam - er, I think. Certainly not clearly written, but obviously laden with doom and gloom and, ooooooohhh, Vietnam! Beware! Run away! Run away!

Fuck him. This is a unique situation. It is not some old tape and we are not re-running it and making the same responses / mistakes. We don't have the same leadership (Thank Mother Nature there was only ONE LBJ / McNamara debacle team) and we don't have the same military and we don't have the same opponent and we are not the same people, now.

We have no choice in this. We were attacked. We will continue to be attacked if we do not take the fight to the enemy. These observable facts were seen and addressed in a broad re-think of US policy by Bush. It is a work in progress. Those who wish to derail Bush from this task are pulling out all the stops. David Warren has clearly identified himself as one of them. He is arm-in-arm with Soros, Chirac, Schroeder, Annan, and all of our other erstwhile / fair weather allies. His agenda focuses not on the WoT or the health of the US or even the well-being of the world -- it is focused on getting rid of Bush so the internationalists can more easily constrain the US and negate the policies that Bush has implemented that do not put them at the helm. It is interference in US domestic politics. Fuck him.

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 4:45:45 PM|| 2004-2-15 4:45:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 A couple of observations. The premise that democracies require consensus is false. Democracy is a mechanism to mediate a lack of consensus. If you had consensus, you wouldn't need democracy.

For well over a generation the mass media has projected a false consensus. The Internet is now demonstrating that the consensus was false. Blogs like RB can take the news, strip out the spin and add their own spin. Profound differences that had been concealed are now revealed. Many people have very different world views. They are now out in the open. At the end of the day I believe the best ideas will win, but at the moment the Left is deeply unhappy that their manufactured consensus is being swept away in a torrent of different viewpoints.

I am a techno-optimist and see a new Enlightenment in the making, and the article above is just an example of the old priestly classes trying to make sense of processes they don't understand.

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-15 7:23:59 PM|| 2004-2-15 7:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Great analyis of David Warren's essay,.com. I'm sure that tipper and Madam Hansen are satisfied with the detail.

Posted by GK 2004-2-15 10:41:27 PM|| 2004-2-15 10:41:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 .com

I think you are misreading this. Warren is pretty conservative and pro-Bush's WoT policy. I think what he's saying is that America's electoral process threatens the future of the WoT because he recognizes that a Bush loss would be a win for the terrorists and their appeasing allies (France, Howard Dean, John Kerry?, etc.). If anything, he is imploring the Dems to be sensible about foreign policy in the event that Bush loses in November (it ain't gonna happen, BTW).

Posted by Tibor 2004-2-15 11:43:48 PM|| 2004-2-15 11:43:48 PM|| Front Page Top

08:35 1234L
08:09 B
00:09 Lucky
23:47 Lucky
23:43 Tibor
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:39 Lucky
23:22 Les Nessman
23:20 Zhang Fei
23:18 .com
23:18 Zhang Fei
23:11 phil_b
23:10 Seafarious
22:41 GK
22:35 AF Lady
22:32 JAB
22:21 rkb
22:20 PBMcL
22:13 Dan
22:03 Old Patriot
21:45 djohn66
21:44 Pappy
21:40 Zhang Fei
20:39 Robert Crawford