I’ve got people on other threads claiming that Iraq could turn out just like Japan…without giving nod to what it took to make Japan turn out like Japan.
Meanwhile, Iraq has apparently been screening “The Untouchables.” “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the Chicago Way, and that’s how you get Capone.”
We tortured and tormented their soldiers in a prison camp.
Their response is to cut off the head of a civilian and crow about it on videotape.
So they want to go the Chicago Way? Americans want Iraq to turn out like Japan?
Okay. So we come back with not just the Chicago Way, but the “Aliens” way. We stop screwing around. We pull out all our troops and nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure, right? As soon as the last of our people are out of range, we give Iraq dawn at night. If people on both sides are going to toss aside rules, regulations and humanity in favor of one culture dominating another, it’s time to stop pussyfooting around, right? Truman dropped Fatman and Little Boy in order to save the lives of thousands of American soldiers from an extended land war. So why are American lives now any less valuable?
Right? Am I right?
Someone tell me, because I really don’t know.
PAD
• 
“Posted by: Peter David at May 18, 2004 05:11 AM
“Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven’t we learned anything from history?”
Bush certainly has. Let’s see what he learned:
1) The 1994 election taught that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned”
Actually I believe that lesson was learned in the 1992 election. The’94 elections taught us that if a president ignores the opposing party completely, you know, treat them like lepers, then said president will lose control of Congress.
We also learned that Peter Jennings considers Republican voters to be two-year-olds having a temper tantrum, and that they compose “a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage.”
Oh, that wacky liberal media…
(Yes, I obviously knew what you meant, but, everybody else gets to nitpick, so I figured it was my turn. :))
Pamela wrote: “I spoke to the mother of a soldier the other day. She was quite emotional and said she hadn’t seen her son in over 20 months. She said it is a constant battle to be both defensive and apologetic for “her son the soldier”. I believe the truth of the matter is that we are all equal in spite of our opposing views and that the basis is human life. For every one soldier that walks Iraq on either side, there is his family, his mother, his sister, his brother, father, grandmother… etc etc.
The soldier is taught in his training to be tough and strong and ever endearing to the cause, that doesn’t leave an option for having feeling, because emotion might get in the way of the job, but we cannot allow them all to be desensitized either. How many soldiers came back from VietNam with nightmares of war that left them less than human in mind? What will be the product of our soldiers minds now in the future?”
I was stationed on the island of Okinawa for six years. During that time, I saw my parents, siblings and hometown friends (and the U.S., for that matter) only once — at the three-year mark. Such long separations are tough, but they frequently are a fact of life for those in the military.
Regarding the second part of your comment — how will the men and women carry their more horrific experiences with them later on in life — it depends on the individual. Millions of soldiers were involved in combat during WW II, and most of those who came home assimilated back into society just fine afterwards. The same goes for Korea and Vietnam. But, like any traumatic job were death is never very far away (fireman, EMT, doctor, policeman), there are always some who snap. Vietnam vets are often portrayed in popular culture as having more psychological problems than veterans of earlier wars, but I’ve never seen any study that breaks down such percentages by conflict. But Vietnam was a highly unpopular war, and I think if there is, in fact, a higher percentage of Vietnam vets with psychological problems, such mental scarring may be a result of the way the vets were treated by their non-military peers after coming back home. In my opinion, a statement like “Hey, man, were you ever stupid for going to Vietnam” can be far more damaging in the long term to a veteran than a bullet wound from a firefight. A “thank you” might have made all the difference in the world.
And the fact of the matter is, people are starting to make the same mistake with THIS war. Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops, or question their intelligence for volunteering to join the military in the first place (Ted Rall, anyone?). My advice for those who oppose the war? Don’t take your frustrations out on military people for doing what they’re supposed to do — take your gripes to Washington.
Russ Maheras
Russ,
While I certainly credit and respect your military experience (and the credibility it brings to the table), I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush when you say
Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops
Most people I know are opposed to the war, and are most certainly opposed to the current administration — but almost to a person, if we could send a message to the troops right now it would be, “we’re sorry you were ever put in this position, but it’s not your fault. Come back soon and come back safe.” (Well, except for the Abu Ghraib situation, but that’s obviously different.)
Don’t assume we’re all Ted Rall.
TWL
PAD wrote: ” 1) The 1994 election taught (Bush)that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned.”
Actually, PAD, the economy has rebounded, and is currently running smoother than the war in Iraq — thus your conclusion is flawed.
PAD also wrote: “2) Vietnam taught (Bush) that allowing home viewers to see images of row after row of flag-draped coffins can have a rotting effect on support for a war. So the best thing to do is lay down a ban on all such shots. Lesson learned.”
As one who was stationed at Dover AFB public affairs in the mid-1990s, let me again make it clear that the DOD policy about media coverage of flag-draped coffins has been in effect for more than a decade. As a matter of fact, in 1996, the media lost a court case trying to overturn the ban. People who keep blaming GWB for the ban are just perpetuating a partisan urban legend.
PAD also wrote: “3) Watergate taught (Bush) that revelations of shady dealings and dirty tricks can bring down a presidency. So the best thing to do is make your administration even more secretive. Hone your ability to keep the lid clamped tightly down at all times. Make yours the most secretive presidency in history, and also try your best to keep the press out of your hair since, if you give them a sword, they will stick it in and twist it with relish. Lesson learned.”
I keep hearing how secretive this current administration is, but what I never hear is exactly how. Anyone have any specific examples from an OBJECTIVE source?
By the way, PAD, I noticed that you ignored all my other points citing how partisan finger-pointing and unreasonable accusations about the reasons for various wars has not changed one iota in 60 years, regardless of the political party of the administration involved. And that’s a darn shame. Ain’t polarization grand?
Russ Maheras
Tim wrote: “While I certainly credit and respect your military experience (and the credibility it brings to the table), I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush when you say Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops”
You’re right. In my haste, I did make a statement that was too broad. I should have said “Some people who have a beef with the current administration…”
Russ Maheras
Actually, PAD, the economy has rebounded, and is currently running smoother than the war in Iraq — thus your conclusion is flawed.
Really? How come it still sucks in the midwest?
The “economy” cannot and should not be judged by Wall Street. All that says is that people with money invested in Wall Street are doing good.
Those of us with a) no 401(k) and b) no jobs, and c) no stocks, are more or less still screwed.
Travis
RE: LESSONS LEARNED
You’re right, Bush HAS learned some lessons, (just from his father’s presidency alone), to wit:
1.) He learned from Vietnam that – unlike LBJ – if we commit our troops somewhere, we should win, and not let political pressure tun a war in which we win all the battles into a “defeat” or have our soldiers portrayed not only by the most rabid as “psychopaths” and “babykillers” but even by many as “losers”. He realizes that not capitulating and actually making statements that indicate “our soldiers will get whatever they need” and “we will fight to win” are either anathema or simply incomprehensible to many of his enemies, but refuses to vacillate like LBJ.
Lesson Learned.
2.) He learned that despite his father’s masterful garnering of an international coalition for the first Gulf War well not too many seemed to view that as an impressive accomplishment afterward, so he wasn’t obsessed with doing so and worrying about our so-called “allies” this time around.
Lesson Learned.
3.) He learned that his father, though he fulfilles the U.N. resolution and got Saddam out of Kuwait, he was villified by the SAME PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T WANT TO START THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for NOT FINISHING THE JOB, and taking out Saddam.
Lesson Learned.
4.) He learned that his father tried to be reasonable and responsible by raising taxes in 1990, which is credited – along with Clinton’s in 1993 – with our rebound in the ’90s. As a result, he was excorciated by the Right and given no credit by the Left. So he rarely compromises with the Democrats and refuses to consider rescinding the tax cuts.
Lesson Learned.
5.) He learned from the Clinton years that no matter how many people you tick off, no matter what your personal shortcomings or other political deficiencies, as long as people feel the economy is good, EVERYTHING ELSE is parsley (except security after 9/11, and he’s made that even more of a defining issue).
Lesson Learned.
6) He learned that possibly his dad’s biggest mistake is that he didn’t “show” he cared and offered no concrete steps to truly change/fix education, Social Security and Medicare. The son has done so. The Son will still be bashed for DOING the WRONG things in regard to these issues, but it is far different than being bashed for not doing anything at all. He’s taken normal “Democratic layups” away and had the stones to touch issues considered the Third Rail.
Lesson Learned.
Travis,
First, it’s not all about you.
Second, the vast majority of Americans have jobs, and the majority – and an increasing number of them – have 401Ks and stock investments.
Plus the economy in general is “heating up”.
So the statement is correct.
2.) He learned that despite his father’s masterful garnering of an international coalition for the first Gulf War well not too many seemed to view that as an impressive accomplishment afterward,
Please name someone who disparaged the coalition-building as unimpressive. Actual quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.
I was no fan of Bush Senior, but he certainly got that part of things dead right.
3.) He learned that his father, though he fulfilles the U.N. resolution and got Saddam out of Kuwait, he was villified by the SAME PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T WANT TO START THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for NOT FINISHING THE JOB, and taking out Saddam.
Name one person who both opposed the initial war and then disparaged Bush for not going to Baghdad. Actual quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.
4.) He learned that his father tried to be reasonable and responsible by raising taxes in 1990, which is credited – along with Clinton’s in 1993 – with our rebound in the ’90s. As a result, he was excorciated by the Right and given no credit by the Left.
Kindly name someone on “the Left” who considers Bush’s 1990 agreement a bad thing. Quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.
(my usual the-Left-is-not-a-monolith argument deleted in advance, as everyone knows it by now)
So he rarely compromises with the Democrats
Which is, of course, flatly against his campaign pledge to be “a uniter, not a divider.” Just a thought.
TWL
Travis,
First, it’s not all about you.
Second, the vast majority of Americans have jobs, and the majority – and an increasing number of them – have 401Ks and stock investments.
Tell that to Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Oregon, and Washington. All who have record numbers of Unemployment… sustained unemployment over the last three years.
Or the upper midwest, where jobs have been exported by the thousands from Mills and Manufacturing…
And if it’s not about me, then who is it about? This is supposed to be about America… a Democracy right?
Travis
See, that’s the problem. It is about us. The little people. We are the country. If we can’t work, who is going to pay for the economy to keep going? The wealthy? They have all their money in the stock market so they can make even more. And by the way, all those wonderful jobs that have been created lately? All pretty much minimum wage. So, if you do get a job you will make too much to go on medicaid, but not make enough to pay for insurance. What a country.
Travis,
Sorry if i seemed a little snippy. Your “then how come it still sucks” just didn’t seem like a very reasoned argument.
I have had to temporarily move back to my hometown, and it is a very depressed area. Those in power have screwed every opportunity the federal and state governments have given them to improve things.
We had an opportunity to get saturn here before Tennessee did, but there’s NO WAY the Powers That Be wanted the United Auto Workers to come here. Not when the local plant for the military pays $6 an hour.
We also got Empowerment Zones to help the depressed parts of the city. So what did they do? Used them near a new highway, where a businessperson with two brain cells was going to develop anyway! Imbeciles.
I am sorry your situation is not what you want it to be. But the President can only do so much. These are complex problems, and to SOLELY blame the President and/or those better off simply doesn’t solve anything, in my opinion.
Duane,
‘Your “proof” of U.S. perfidy in the 9/11 terrorist attack led to a web site that seemed pretty far out there … The material I saw on the web site showed me nothing that made me give any credence to your claims that the U.S. Executive Branch allowed 9/11 to happen.”
The ‘web site’ was a weblink to an audio stream which makes the basic case. I have no idea what’s on the Rise4news website, I just use it for its archived stream of a lecture. Listen to the stream.
I am sorry your situation is not what you want it to be. But the President can only do so much. These are complex problems, and to SOLELY blame the President and/or those better off simply doesn’t solve anything, in my opinion
No… don’t worry about it… I’m used to snippy… Try growing up in my family if you don’t like snippy 🙂
I just think that the idea that Wall Street tells us how good the economy is is bullsh*t… Though people in the main cities may be good, it’s not here. And in many places.
I don’t blame dubya. I may not like him. I have certain words for Mr. Greenspan and members of congress, and my state congress… but this is one thing I can’t blame him for. Or Clinton, or even older dubya. Though I have a hankering to blame it on Ronnie.
Btw, it missed it on previous statement. When I said “democracy, right?” there was a sarcastic *snort* after that.
Travis
Karen,
I hope my last point clarified my position a bit.
but, really, a lot of the “little people” own stocks too.
And you talk about “the wealthy” a lot. Who exactly are you referring to? Anyone who makes above $30,000 (the median wage)? Or $50,000? There’s teachers in Montgomery County who make an average of $95,000 a year. Are they making too much?
My dad used to make two dollars an hour, but through hard work and sacrifice he was able to buy a home and now has his dream car, and those “stocks” you deride so much have helped him retire a little early and go on a cruise with my mom once in a while. Is that wrong?
Honestly, bashing “the rich” on a constant basis is just as bad as blaming immigrants for “taking jobs” or “welfare queens”. Class warfare is simplistic and solves nothing.
And you’ve referred more than once to “ordinary Americans”. I think of us all as EXTRAORDINARY Americans. We each have gifts to share if we so choose.
Blackjack Mulligan,
Thank you for your comments on Peter Jennings in regards to the 1994 elections. Was he an ášš or what?
Karen,
BTW, do you have any hardcore data that shows the jobs being created recently are all minimum wage jobs? Or are you making assumptions?
Jerome,
That info was in an article in the Seattle PI. I am sorry that I can’t remember the exact day. When I talk about the wealthy, I mean only those who don’t give back to the country that gave them so much. I used to live in Montgomery County, so I can tell you that there are a LOT of very selfish and self-serving people living on the main line. But, I have to give you this, I shouldn’t paint all the wealthy with one brush. There are plenty of philanthropic people out there. I’m more angry with the CEO’s with million dollar salaries that laugh all the way to the bank while the people that work for the companies have their retirements wiped out. And the stock market is not a barometer for the average person. And I’ve been saying for years that Alan Greenspan must go. We need a new paradigm directing the economy of this nation.
Also, when they talk about raising taxes on those who make more than $100,000 a year, I think that’s reasonable.
Me: The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you’d bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world’s only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help?
TWL: No, of course not, and that’s a legitimate argument on the side of me staying. I think you’ve misread me if you believe I’d be leaving for the sake of the country. If I leave, it will be for the sake of my family (esp. my daughter-to-be) and my own mental health, among other reasons. I’d just as soon not go into particulars here, however, as it’s a fairly upsetting thing to have to think about and I’d just as soon wait until I have to do so.
We’re finally reaching the crux of my difference with you (apart form the political viewpoint issues, which I can easily write off to reasonable people disagreeing over hard questions). I can imagine no circumstance in which I would consider defecting, none, zero, short of me being offered the British throne, and even then I’d probably try to turn the UK into States 51-54. I simply believe that it’s unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation. That is what I mean by “my country, right or wrong.” If it is wrong, it is my duty to do what I can to straighten it out. My own self-interest becomes a triviality.
Put simply, I wasn’t misreading your position, I was rejecting it out of hand. I don’t have any business asking about the particulars of your private life, and I won’t; I was just responding to what you’d posted earlier.
(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement “politics are cyclical” may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)
Is someone plotting a coup that I should know about? (Actually, forming a government-in-exile would be a legitimately patriotic reason to leave.) Seriously, is there anything behind these suspicions? Do you really know of any steps the Administration is taking to dismantle the republic? If you meant it less ominously as a prediction that the Republicans will be the stronger of the two major parties for the foreseeable future, I’m inclined to agree with you based on demographics. (The magic number is 14– the number of Congressional seats and their corresponding electoral votes that were reapportioned to Republican-leaning states due to the last census.) But we’re conservatives, not fascists.
There are plenty of philanthropic people out there. I’m more angry with the CEO’s with million dollar salaries that laugh all the way to the bank while the people that work for the companies have their retirements wiped out. And the stock market is not a barometer for the average person
Well, for 40% of the country it is…that’s how much of the country have money in mutual funds, the majority of which are stock based. Not to mention the many pension funds which are stock based as well….
That said, there’s something wrong when there is ample incentive given to capital holders, but little of it reaches workers, laborers and other rank and file folks. And I think that’s been happening, as we’ve seen rising productivity and increasing profits, but little change in wages.
Roger wrote:
**Well, for 40% of the country it is…that’s how much of the country have money in mutual funds, the majority of which are stock based. Not to mention the many pension funds which are stock based as well….**
I’ve got some money in a mutual fund. So does my wife. But I have to say, it’s not a lot of money, and neither of us would consider how well off we are (or are not) as anything remotely a function of what Wall Street does. But still, since we’ve got a couple of bucks stashed away, we’re part of that supposed 40%.
In other words, the number of people whose fortunes rise and fall in exact correspondence with Wall Street is highly inflated, IMO.
Rob
David:
We’re finally reaching the crux of my difference with you (apart form the political viewpoint issues, which I can easily write off to reasonable people disagreeing over hard questions). I can imagine no circumstance in which I would consider defecting, none, zero, short of me being offered the British throne, and even then I’d probably try to turn the UK into States 51-54. I simply believe that it’s unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation. That is what I mean by “my country, right or wrong.” If it is wrong, it is my duty to do what I can to straighten it out. My own self-interest becomes a triviality.
Obviously, that’s your right, though I suspect you’re putting it more extremely than actual circumstances might warrant. (That’s not meant to be a dig, BTW — more of a “who of us really knows what we’d do in extremis?” type of thing.) If you really mean that the interests of the state should overwhelm the interests of the individual, that’s an intriguingly socialist viewpoint for a conservative. 🙂
More seriously, I believe I am doing what I can to put right what I see going wrong, by speaking out in various fora, and in mobilizing for and/or contributing to causes that I see as fighting the good fight. I’m simply acknowledging the possibility that (1) it may not be enough, and (2) a situation could come where I have to do that from a greater distance. Just because I’d leave wouldn’t stop me from staying active, after all…
Put simply, I wasn’t misreading your position, I was rejecting it out of hand.
I still think saying “I will always support X” is logically equivalent to saying “therefore there’s no way X can do something I’ll contest”, but I think it’s probably best to agree to disagree on this point.
Me:
(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement “politics are cyclical” may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)
David:
Is someone plotting a coup that I should know about?
While I wouldn’t call it a coup, the combination of the Patriot Act, the moves towards Patriot II, the establishment of “free speech zones” (funny, I thought that was supposed to be the whole frickin’ country), and most recently the proposal for the “Constitution Restoration Act of 2004” (which would forbid the Supreme Court from taking cases involving things like Roy Moore’s 10-Commandments brouhaha) have all “conspired” to make me deeply, deeply uneasy. When people in power credit God for putting them there, it leads one to a lot of concern about whether they’d acknowledge the will of the people saying we DON’T want them there.
So, no, no concrete evidence for the suspicions … just a rather cold feeling in the pit of my secular, atheistic stomach. As with some of my other statements, I’d be perfectly happy to be wrong. The more that traditional conservatives speak out against the particularly peculiar form of it currently in vogue, the more comfortable I’d be.
TWL
Karen,
1.)Alan Greenspan must go? He is a huge reason the economy was so prosperous in the ’90s. And he did an incredible balancing act, seeing that unemplyment rates were lower than any credible economists believed could be achieved without corresponding inflation (the theory being if the job market is that in favor of the employee, employers have to pay higher wages and therefore raise prices, and it doesn’t matter if you make a ton more money if you have to pay $100 for a loaf of bread:)
2.) Many people do give back, and I feel they would give even more if they had more. For example, if i were to achieve my dream of breaking into the comic/screenplay business, and the money was rolling in, I would rather give a hard-working waitress a hndred dollar tip than give that money to the government.
David,
I have to agree with Tim on one point. The statement “I simply believe it’s unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation” does sound a bit socialist, even dictatorial.
As a free individual, you should have the choice – unless you’re a military deserter – to live wherever the heck you want to.
If someone like Tim decides to leave he will either
A) Find a place that makes him happier
B.) Be even more unhappy and either want to move back or someplace else.
People should live here because they WANT to. Not because they HAVE to. That’s sort of what the whole concept of a “free and open” society entails.
In other words, the number of people whose fortunes rise and fall in exact correspondence with Wall Street is highly inflated, IMO.
Hm? And your retirement is entirely cash and bond based? Unusual, though not unheard of….
Many people do give back, and I feel they would give even more if they had more. For example, if i were to achieve my dream of breaking into the comic/screenplay business, and the money was rolling in, I would rather give a hard-working waitress a hndred dollar tip than give that money to the government.
Heh. Professionally speaking, people don’t give until they’re ready to give. And they don’t THINK they’re ready to give (no matter the income level) until they’re in their mid to late 50s, when the career is at their peak and the kids are out of the house….
I’m not socialist or dictatorial, I’m a nationalist. I don’t see why it is really that bizarre for me as a conservative to find one specific thing (i.e. the American Republic) that I believe is more important than I am. One of the things that conservatives presumably want to conserve is the Constitution that guarantees the freest society the world has ever seen. There is nothing inconsistent in my taking the position that such a government is worth a sacrifice of our own petty self-interests. It’s one reason I took a $200,000 education and went to work as a state court prosecutor instead of in a high-paying corporate job like everyone I went to law school with; I find it more meaningful to make a contribution to my society. This is not all that different than the argument I made a while back when we were debating the morality of conscription. Nobody is suggesting we hunt down expatriates like draft dodgers; what I am saying is that loyalty to the country is the morally correct position that everyone should take.
And while I agree with Tim that we’re better off just agreeing to disagree, I still maintain that loyalty to the United States is not the same thing as slavish devotion to this or any other Administration. This is true even though it would take something truly bizarre, like the Democrats nominating Zell Miller for President, or Bush living up to Tim’s nightmares about failing to step down after losing, to get me to change parties. From the other side, I can’t see PAD voting Republican unless… um… I can’t see PAD voting Republican, but does that mean he was a drone in “lockstep agreement” with the government under Democratic administrations? Political parties are means to ends, and the Republican party tends to advance ends of which I approve. Political affiliation isn’t mindless adherence; for me it’s merely a recognition that the correlation between my views and the Republican party platform tends to be much closer than the correlation between my views and the Democratic party platform. I assume Tim and PAD make similar analyses when deciding to identify themselves as Democrats or liberals or whatever labels they choose to employ. I don’t always agree with Bush. I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. I wouldn’t have cut taxes so heavily in the midst of the recession he inherited from Clinton. But I agree with him much more than I did (and do) with Gore or Kerry. If Kerry wins in November, I will be almost as unhappy about the political state of the nation as Tim and PAD are right now. (“Almost” because we’ll probably still have the Congress.) But no matter how badly things go for the Republicans, I won’t give up on the Republic itself.
David,
Wow! That is one of the most eloquent and heartfelt posts I have read on this blog. Or anywhere, really.
Kudos.
Jerome
Hm? And your retirement is entirely cash and bond based? Unusual, though not unheard of….
No, what money we have in mutual funds is mostly in stocks. I’m just saying there’s not a lot there, and factors like job security and whether we’re getting raises or bonuses affect us (and our outlook on the economy) far more than our little 401k is doing. And I’d bet that that’s not unusual for a significant percent of the 40% of Americans who have mutual funds. Which (getting back to the point) undercuts the idea that becuase so many people have mutual funds, Wall Street’s economic health reflects the economic health of the individual — even many of those who DO own some stock.
Rob
David,
I’m not socialist or dictatorial, I’m a nationalist. I don’t see why it is really that bizarre for me as a conservative to find one specific thing (i.e. the American Republic) that I believe is more important than I am.
Well, I do hope you realize I was basically kidding with that quip.
I don’t think it’s particularly bizarre at all when you phrase it that way — it was more a matter of the completely absolutist phrasing you happened to use. There are certainly quite a few things I’d put above my own self-interests as a matter of course — the ideals of this nation being one of them, just as they apparently are for you. Expressing it so absolutely, though, always makes me a tad concerned regardless of what the sentiment in question is. (So I’m wary of absolutes. Sue me … oh, wait, you’re a lawyer. Strike that. 🙂 When you’re phrasing it at such an absolute level, you make it sound as though you’re willing to lay down your life in order to prevent the country from getting whatever the national equivalent is of a hangnail, and I don’t think that’s what you mean. (If you mean that the nation’s life or death is more important than your own, then I can at least meet you quite a ways down that line.)
In general, I’m not much of a nationalist — I tend to view nations much the same way you view political parties, as a means to an end — but I certainly agree that the Constitution and this nation’s ideals are well worth defending and well worth putting above routine self-interest. (I do bristle slightly at the assumption that all self-interests are “petty” and/or not “morally correct” positions, but only slightly.) As I’ve mentioned before, I’m much more of an internationalist — when taking a broad view, I personally tend to look more at what I think is best for our species or the planet than just the U.S., though those conditions are frequently pretty similar.
(As one who took a similarly expensive education and went into teaching high school, I completely understand the wish to give something back to the community rather than simply looking out for numero uno.)
And while I agree with Tim that we’re better off just agreeing to disagree, I still maintain that loyalty to the United States is not the same thing as slavish devotion to this or any other Administration.
I’m wondering if it’s simply an issue of terminology. If the government is taking an action you oppose, what action can you take that makes your disapproval clear while still “supporting the country”? How do you define that phrase? How do you oppose a decision or a policy without being accused of opposing the country?
This isn’t just an idle question: an awful lot of us who DID take up opposition to the war, for example, were routinely described as un-American verminous traitors by quite a few people on the conservative side of the aisle (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc., and then lots of the people who read or listen to them). I don’t think you’ve been doing the judging or the name-calling by any means, but I’m curious as to how exactly you define the term.
I certainly agree with you that it’s possible to respect, defend and support the ideals of the country while strongly opposing a particular party or a particular individual. I imagine we’ve all done that, albeit at different times. If that’s all you mean by “supporting the country”, then I’m totally with you, but not sure how you saw me as doing anything else.
This is turning into a rather intriguing philosophical discussion, I think!
TWL
You can’t be 70815 serious?!?