Era of the Armed Liberal
This morning Michael Barone surveys the Democratic Party?s prospects (the link is to RCP).
This particular paragraph struck me:
In the New Republic, John Judis takes a longer view. Since the 1970s, he notes, Democrats have had little success expanding government. He blames this on international competition, the decline of private-sector unions and stronger business lobbyists. A revival of liberalism, he writes, “would probably require a national upheaval similar to what happened in the ’30s and ’60s. That could happen, but doesn’t appear imminent.”
I haven?t read the Judis article but I will (apparently the article requires a New Republic subscription).
But Mr. Judis’ national upheaval has already occurred?we call it 9/11.
9/11 marked the end of multi-cultural nostrums dear to the Democrat?s hard left. It marked the end of welfare states as we know them ?now the strategic game’s either globalize or die. The “die option” bifurcates: either shrink and die slowly, or submit to a fascist tyranny with borders closed by violence.
9/11 also marked the end of Vietnam as a political syndrome. Defeatism, cynicism, and anti-military anger don?t sell.
We have entered the Era of the Armed Liberal. The smartest Democrats know this. The next successful Democratic charge will ride a Truman-Jackson “defense Democrat” horse?and the candidate will be a populist. The candidate (he? she?) will damn the Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.
This New Defense Democrat will tick the ?peace activists,? but so what– many of them are hitting retirement age, in Chapel Hill, Austin, San Francisco, and Ann Arbor. (He/She may use the peaceniks in a Sister Souljah incident.) Can Hillary morph to a Defense Democrat and 21st century populist? No, she can?t, though she?d like to and she’s trying to. No matter what you think about the Clinton Administration?s record ?and there were positives as well as negatives?Hillary Clinton is too polarizing. The Rose Law Firm bills magical appearance tags her?and that?s the least of her baggage.
Barak Obama is a formidable talent– if had a solid military record he would be unstoppable,. Wesley Clark has a splendid military record but lacks Obama?s pizzazz. I don?t underestimate Tim Johnson, senator from South Dakota. I know he barely beat John Thune in 2002, but Johnson could position himself to make a prarie populist move. Johnson has a 32 year old son who is an Army staff sergeant and an Iraq war vet. Democratic strategists taking a truly long-term view should start combing returning National Guard brigades for talent ?Washington state, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, the contingent from Connecticut. And I think they will.
It?s a shame that the Democratic Party, one of the world?s two greatest political parties (ED: the Repubs are the other), remains quagmired in Vietnam. Perhaps the Iraqi election will give the Dems? armed liberals new leverage and credibility. In the truly ?longer view? that?s good for America and good for the world.
UPDATE: Comment 37 takes the special cake. A killer first sentence.
Perhaps the Iraqi election will give the Dems’ armed liberals new leverage and credibility. I suspect we’re going to have to let the mortician do that.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 3/14/2005 @ 10:40 am
Here’s how you know the Democrats do really know this stuff: it’s because their prospects really are this bleak that they are always hoping for a catastrophic failure in Iraq, in the economy ar anywhere else they can hope for it.
Comment by ZF — 3/14/2005 @ 12:57 pm
I’m a Democrat, but I’m not hoping for a catastrophic failure in Iraq or the economy. My only complaints about Iraq and President Bush’s handling of the war have been because it’s too important to screw it up with mistakes. Spreading democracy is a worthy goal and we’re seeing the beginning stages of that. I want a Democratic president (over today’s version of fiscally irresponsible Republicanism), but I know that it won’t happen, nor should it, until Democrats get serious about national security. It’s not going away and pretending it will only further marginalizes the party. Yes, there are Democrats hoping for those failures, but they’re only loud. Sanity will return. When is a good question, though.
Comment by Tony — 3/14/2005 @ 1:08 pm
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing. I doubt whether Democrats can make the pro-defense jump (Look at Joe Lieberman; there’s already a push to overthrow him in the next Dem primary); they can fake it when it’s popular, but it’s too fundamentally counter to their multi-culti moral relativist philospohical underpinnings, which have deep, deep roots in the way-left foundations and universities. I think instead they will simply continue to lose more and more seats to Republicans, and complain bitterly about how “jingoistic” Americans have become.
Comment by TallDave — 3/14/2005 @ 1:12 pm
” We have entered the Era of the Armed Liberal. The smartest Democrats know this. The next successful Democratic charge will ride a Truman-Jackson “defense Democrat” horse—and the candidate will be a populist. The candidate (he? she?) will damn the Republicans for fiscal irresponsibility.” Dunno Colonel, I think this mythical - and I chose that word deliberately- candidate will still have to run the gauntlet of moonbat anti-war lefties for at least the next two election nomination cycles and possibly longer (You ever notice how long those lefties live? Maybe bile is some life preserving miracle drug after all) before they stand a reasonable chance of getting the nomination. I certainly agree with your evaluation of Sen. Clinton and hope you paperclip this page so that four years from now when the sentiments you’re stating now will become “conventional” wisdom you can say “I told you so.”
Comment by Jim in Texas — 3/14/2005 @ 1:12 pm
That the peaceniks are reaching retirement age, hardly takes them out of the equation politically. If anything it makes them more likely to vote, to organize, to demonstrate….
Comment by doug b — 3/14/2005 @ 1:25 pm
“One of the world’s two greatest parties” - no, they’re not, and neither are the Republicans, because there is no such thing as a world election. Contrary to popular belief in both the us and much of the rest of the world, who is elected as President of the USA does not impinge enormously upon the vast majority of the rest of the world’s population. America is not the whole world, deal with this.
Comment by Steve — 3/14/2005 @ 1:26 pm
Steve, Steve, Steve…. just because you cannot deal with history when it moves against you doesn’t mean it doesn’t move. There’s a world election every day. So far all the rafts are heading this way.
Comment by Vanderleun — 3/14/2005 @ 1:39 pm
Gee, Steve, if the choice of US President doesn’t “impinge” on the rest of the world’s population, then why were so many of them spending so much time and effort trying to influence the US election?
Comment by Chad Irby — 3/14/2005 @ 1:44 pm
Sorry, Steve. What the Democratic or Republican Parties do has more effect on world affairs than most nations do. Don’t believe me? Go ask Saddam Hussein. Go ask Mikhail Gorbachev. Whoever controls the machinery of descison-making in Washington can sway the world… or just stay at home and let it go to hell without us. America isn’t the whole world; just the most important and most powerful single part of it.
Comment by DaveP. — 3/14/2005 @ 1:44 pm
The Democrats probably cannot make the transition to a pro-defense posture before the next election. The biggest problem is that the number one Armed Liberal is President Bush. Bush is using the military to push liberal democracy across the world. Bush is supporting the Ukranians and the Lebanese. While eschewing the isolationist impulse on the Right, Bush talks and walks like a Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, or John F. Kennedy. There is no solid ground for a pro-defense democrat to stand on, unless he wants to tactically support Bush’s agenda. And if he does that he cannot get the support of his party faithful in the primaries.
Comment by D.W. Eifert — 3/14/2005 @ 1:45 pm
> who is elected as President of the USA does not impinge enormously upon the vast majority of the rest of the world’s population. Maybe not the vast majority, but we sure did hear from a lot of non-Americans who thought that they should have some influence over the 2004 presidential elections. > America is not the whole world, deal with this. I wonder if Steve comes from one of the countries that relies on the US for its defense. If so, the polite response is to either start paying your own way or to say “thank you.” So, which country
Comment by Andy Freeman — 3/14/2005 @ 1:58 pm
The Democrat who fits that mold is a Southern one; an extremely rare breed. I agree with your assessment that this hypothetical Armed Liberal will come from the ranks of the Guard. I’d bet there is a Democrat or two in the ranks of the 1/69th. Zell Miller’s analysis of the state of the Democrat Party is even more devastating when you realize that the next Andy Jackson has already been cast aside by the New England and West Coast Elites. I’ve commented that the Democrat Party isn’t serious about the major issues of our time, and they haven’t been for a while, preferring instead to protect their rice bowl. Are they getting serious now? Perhaps, but with the leftward drag being put on the party by a vocal minority I can’t imagine it happening either soon or quickly. Which is a shame. Is there a brilliant field commander or charismatic populist out there that could form a centrist third party? I don’t know, but the time certainly feels right for one to emerge and for the Democrat Party as we know it today to become the next Whig Party.
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 3/14/2005 @ 2:17 pm
Factor in the reality that the Democratic Party empowers itself by having the right to abort voters out of existance, eventually the Democratic Party will cease to exist. Any political party which promotes the practice of aborting it’s future generation will simply cease to exist. In other words, how can you have “Armed Liberals” when you keep aborting your warriors?
Comment by susan — 3/14/2005 @ 2:20 pm
I dunno about Clark. In the last campaign he said things that were downright weird. I know he’a Rhodes Scholar and all, but I still think his ambition is ahead of his IQ.
Comment by Ted — 3/14/2005 @ 2:37 pm
One name - Joe Lieberman
Comment by Cap'n Dan — 3/14/2005 @ 2:39 pm
Not to be a cynical defeatist, but “defeatism, cynicism, and anti-military anger” sold very respectably last November, to the tune of something like 48% of the popular vote. The moonbats aren’t all aging, either; most of the loudest, spittle-shootingest ornaments of the Tourette’s Left are under 30. Those morons will be rolling their eyes around, snapping their stumpy little teeth, and howling lugubriously about one damn bunghole thing or another for the next forty years. But they’re even more narcissistic than their boomer parents and even less able to make a decent living, so the next generation of the breed won’t be large enough to trouble anybody. What worries me is when they get their hands on intellectual [sic] force multipliers like teaching jobs.
Comment by Erg — 3/14/2005 @ 2:41 pm
“I dunno about Clark.” Yeah, I agree Ted, there was a lot of rumors at the time he “retired” whether he was forced out by the Clinton camp, embarrassed about some of his statement or if he did some other unpardonable sin, such as “fraternization” (and I don’t mean in the “brotherly” sense) At the time he was “toying” with a presidential bid several senior retired Generals made some odd comments about “integrity.” “What goes TDY stays TDY” might be true, but you still don’t do anything stupid “in the shadow of the flagpole” There’s more to that that won’t come out unless he makes a serious bid for a major elective office.
Comment by Jim in Texas — 3/14/2005 @ 2:47 pm
While he’s been away from the Senate for some time, Sam Nunn of Georgia remains the Jackass Party’s knight in shining armor. Biden and Lieberman remain strong for a possible nomination, but don’t have what it takes to carry the general election.
Comment by Kevin L. Connors — 3/14/2005 @ 2:55 pm
The most likely to take this banner of the “armed liberal” is Harold Ford of Tennessee. He was for entering Iraq at about the same time as Joe Lieberman. He comes across as thoughtful, definitely not a “bomb thrower”. My guess is that he will see just how far the Democratic Party will let an African-American go. I fear it will hold him back, showing that Blacks still are taken for granted.
Comment by Neo — 3/14/2005 @ 3:18 pm
The problem the Democrats have is that their leadership and, oh, call it “center of energy” has been captured by a fundamentally anit-American coalition. These are Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “Blame American First Crowd” and they think America is what’s wrong with the world. The Terrorists would be nice, peace-loving folks if we didn’t “oppress” them. Tsunamis are caused (somehow) by the US Military. The US economy degrades the rest of the world simply by operating, so that stock brokers deserve a death sentence and association with war criminals just for showing up to work. Europe (i.e France) is much too sohpisticated for us, and rightly looks down their noses at “Yee haw!” which is all we have for a foreign policy. Etc. etc. etc. If the Democratic party doesn’t shovel that wing into the dustbin of history, they don’t have much longer as one of the two main parties.
Comment by (the other) John Hawkins — 3/14/2005 @ 3:40 pm
I agree completely with the statement that anti-military anger doesn’t sell - especially not in the post-9/11 era. During the DNC convention, a friend of mine at work (here in NYC) said “Why does Kerry have to talk about military stuff so much? We can’t we have a choice?” The answer? Not only is Commander-in-Chief one of the President’s express Constitutional duties, but we were in the middle of a war! On my blog, I tried to explain my belief in having a powerful military, but using it cautiously, with the would-be platform plank “Responsible Military Power.” A liberal site later accused me of “double-speak,” and I have a feeling that was the culprit. Oh well. One of my friends just got back home from his 2nd tour of duty in Iraq. Sometime I’ll sit down with him for an entire afternoon, and have him tell me everything he wants to about what it was like being over there. Then I’ll try to explain how strange it was being in New York City (where you’re either a pacifist or a neocon), and being a guy from a family with a lot of military folks, with a childhood friend over there, who was opposed to the war.
Comment by Thad Anderson — 3/14/2005 @ 3:45 pm
When any liberal ever mentions words like Defending America , War or God forbid …THORIES ON terrorism , I frankly run for cover, lock an load since I served this country as a Recon Marine for 6 real life years an know damn well better than to trust any of their off the wall THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS ! “”just”"look at liberal history dating back to WW 1 ,WW 2 KOREA AN OF COURSE NAM AN JUST MARCH TWO YEARS AGO, LIBERALS MARCHING IN LARGE NUMBERS TO KEEP SADDAM IN POWER ! I ALSO RECALL 16 TOP DEMS IN THE SENATE VOTING TO NOT GO TO WAR EVEN AFTER SADDAM TOOK OVER KAWAIT EVEN THOUGHT 11 ARAB AN MOSLEM SUPPORTED US THERE !
Comment by SAM — 3/14/2005 @ 3:46 pm
How likely is it that defense will be as singularly important in ‘08 as it was in ‘04? It would be a bad bet, historically speaking, to imagine that the country will be fixed on defense issues in ‘07-’08. We’re not up against the Wehrmacht or the Imperial Japanese Navy, A Democrat might not require much in the way of defense credentials to be elected if the deficit was not being substantially reduced and (more importantly) we were in a recession. It’s a bit immaterial anyway given that gerrymandering will protect the Republican legislative majority until ‘12 at minimum. If the Reps play their cards correctly in maintaining majorities at the state level through ‘10 then they will lock up legislative majorities through ‘22 - barring someone making as stupid a move as Bubba and Bubetta did in ‘93. And as Susan noted, the Dems have been flushing their majority away for thirty years now - those are potential votes lost forever.
Comment by Rick Ballard — 3/14/2005 @ 3:46 pm
I am a conservative Republican but I would seriously consider voting for Sam Nunn.
Comment by Chuck — 3/14/2005 @ 3:58 pm
The majority of the East and West coast elites will never accept a Southern Democrat nominee because their prejudices are too deeply ingrained. It’s socially unacceptable to make disparaging generalized remarks about blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and women, but making nasty statements about Southerners is perfectly ok, and even “cool” among some. Until the elites get over themselves and let go of the lies about us here in the South, they will continue to marginalize themselves out of power in this nation.
Comment by Tim — 3/14/2005 @ 4:06 pm
We have entered the Era of the Armed Liberal. The smartest Democrats know this. Yes, but there are all of six of them. The rest nominated and voted for Howard Dean. I agree with you that this is needed, but it’s not happening before 2008. As a swing voter, I’ll ack I tend to vote GOP (although their behavior since November has disgusted me sufficiently that I’m likely to vote libertarian, next time), but I am not anyone they can rely on. Had the Dems put forth a true middle-of-the-road candidate, such as, say, Lieberman (without really looking close at him since it never mattered) they could have conceivably won that race. Instead they did two idiotic things — put forth a *pair* of candidates who were to the LEFT of Ralph Nader and Michael Moore, and pushed for gay marriage. Not only did this galvanize the conservatives, but it also turned away some of the Dems themselves… And for what — it’s not like going “cool it, for now!” would have cost them any substantial votes.
Comment by Nick B — 3/14/2005 @ 4:07 pm
The moonbats aren’t all aging, either; most of the loudest, spittle-shootingest ornaments of the Tourette’s Left are under 30. Those morons will be rolling their eyes around, snapping their stumpy little teeth, and howling lugubriously about one damn bunghole thing or another for the next forty years. That is one of the finest pieces of prose I’ve ever read. I’ve never been to this blog before, but what with the fine discussion, and prose like that, I’m forced to bookmark this. My take on the subject at hand: The Dems have too many interest groups that are too anti-war for this “armed liberal” to get a nomination. I hope the change comes sooner rather than later, however, I can’t hardly recognize my fellow Repubs. They need some competition to whip them into shape.
Comment by Ron — 3/14/2005 @ 4:16 pm
Wes Clark seems too much like Coach Buzzcut from “Beavis and Butthead.” Wound just a little too tight to have his finger on ‘The Button.’ And the aging hippie peacenik baby boomers will remain a big voting bloc for another couple decades.
Comment by McClain — 3/14/2005 @ 5:10 pm
“9/11 marked the end of multi-cultural nostrums dear to the Democrat’s hard left. It marked the end of welfare states as we know them –now the strategic game’s either globalize or die. The “die option” bifurcates: either shrink and die slowly, or submit to a fascist tyranny with borders closed by violence.” Just because a country might wish to control its borders, to enforce the natural right of any nation to choose who it wants within its borders and who it does not, it is branded a fascist tyranny? Border security has to be enforced by violence, but so does every other law ever made by men. This is the kind of stupidity that leaves our future in jeopardy.
Comment by Jonathan Neill — 3/14/2005 @ 5:16 pm
Hillary Clinton too polarizing… my ass. Bush is considered by the dems to be an extremely polarizing figure, and he got re-elected. If it was a choice between Santorum and Hillary in 08 I’d be voting Hillary. I think whether Hillary would win or not would come down to republican opposition. If somehow the amendment got changed and Schwartzeneggar could run, he’d win. Or Giuliani. Maybe even McCain. But if the candidate was religious right, Hillary would be a sure thing.
Comment by taspundit — 3/14/2005 @ 5:22 pm
A thought bearing on the air of sheer unreality that pervades every official retro-Lib/Democrat utterance these days: As pollsters noted at the last two or so Democrat Conventions, virtually every delegate was on a “public service” (read bureaucratic) or a “public interest” (read tax-exempt non-profit) payroll. For practical purposes, not a single one had EVER functioned in the competitive private sector. This astounding imbalance has consequences far and wide: Your standard-issue Dem-Dem is not, and never has been, competitive; “success” in DD terms means credentialism, quotas, subsidized endeavor without a grain of incentive or accountablity other than that of lording it over seflike drones in “numbers odd and even”. Vision is not only absent, but deplored; goals, objectives of any kind are purposefully smeared out to avoid holding anyone responsible even by Dem standards. The upshot is a virtually Darwinian anti-selection process, whereby anyone with anything on the ball will not be merely asked, but forced, to leave, on grounds that completing projects on-time, on-budget, etc. discriminates against the majority who want no part of any actual accomplishment. This was all foreseen many, many moons ago, and in just these circumstances. But the Cassandras, as ever, were marginalized by lumpen fonctionierres who preferred eating society’s seed-corn, leaving Spring Plowing for the out-of-office peasants Dem-Dems so admire and slaughter. Am I too harsh?– I think it rots, but I also think that technology is making it unavoidably obvious. The next 36-year socio-cultural cycle is not due to come full-circle begore 2040, by which time one expects the current crop of Deans, Kennedys, Kerrys, and their ilk will have entered historical texts as case studies of how not to strut in the agora.
Comment by John Blake — 3/14/2005 @ 5:44 pm
Love the Wes Clark-Coach Buzzcut reference. You could also make a case for Howard Dean as Beavis’s alter-ego Cornholio.
Comment by Mike G. — 3/14/2005 @ 6:27 pm
A remarkable cast of fools, indeed. Presumptuous and a danger to all.
Comment by Bob in the hills — 3/14/2005 @ 7:39 pm
The Democratic Party as it’s currently configured is dead. There are only two choices: an internal rebellion where the less idiotarian take the party away from the loons, or a split that creates a new party and drags either the loons with it, or drags the “armed liberal” types with it. There is no way the current Democratic Party can disengage completely from the source of their current power - teacher’s unions, extreme left liberals, professional dissidents, and ivory tower loonies. The truth is, if there WERE a middle-ground party, hoards would flock to it from both the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties have problems - at the moment, the Republican party’s problems are being hidden by the continuation of a few people thinking, and coming up with at least a few good ideas. The Democratic Party merely reacts.
Comment by Old Patriot — 3/14/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Clearly none of you people are enlisted. Long before the Swift Boat Vets showed up I looked at John Kerry’s public career and said, “This is an extremely bad officer.” Getting out of smallboys in those days took an act of Congress; Kerry got his transfer immediately upon application. And no matter how heroic, nobody gets three citations for forgetting to duck unless his command authority is desperate to get him out of there, even if it meant getting him promoted — what Lawrence J. Peter (remember him?) referred to as “percussive sublimation.” And before you start recommending Wes Clark, I highly advise you to seek out some sergeants and junior officers from his last days. The stories aren’t pretty. The fact that the Democrats could, and did, put those two buttheads up and get all indignant when people don’t see them as War Heroes simply underscores their utter cluelessness about the military. And if that’s what they see as appealing to military people, well, sixty in ought-six and all that… Regards, Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — 3/14/2005 @ 7:49 pm
Jeepers, Ric, you know better than that! Define your targets just a hair better? I know that they teach that in Texas. Some of us _did_ have the opportunity to serve with the better class before our elevation. But I think that makes the point. While this generation of soldiers fighting in Iraq and elsewhere will produce some Democrats with warrior experiance, how many of the Vietnam Vet Class, who were Democrats, objected to a guy that made up shit out of whole cloth? And not just on a drinking binge…but in front of the whole world? Christmas in Cambodia, The Magic Hat, 5,000 _meters_ of fire belching shore line and only two measley hits. Whatever our rank we all knew “ticket-punchers”. That’s why the Democrat’s need the real deal. But most likely that individual has already left the Party. QM
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 3/14/2005 @ 10:00 pm
I was very glad to see this articulated so concisely: “9/11 also marked the end of Vietnam as a political syndrome. Defeatism, cynicism, and anti-military anger don’t sell.” I hope it is true, and becomes more so; I see signs of it in many places. Would that 9/11 had ended Vietnam as a psychological syndrome. I was an Army combat medic in 1967-68 and I only finally realized last year, thanks to Senator Kerry’s self-satirizing nostalgia for his own myth, that the worst thing I ever experienced was not any of the horrors of war, and there were some, but rather my homecoming and its aftermath, which was a years-long, lingering, and needless anguish. For good or ill, I will never forgive the collaborationist Leftists who attempted, with much success, to morally destroy a generation of this country’s best, in order to get at the government. And they have not gone anywhere, except into positions of influence in the media and the academy . . . and the U.S. Senate – natural habitats for has-been propagandists and deconstructionist adherents of afactual history. Their institutionalization of sedition-as-patriotism in the 70’s was a sin they cannot ever acknowledge, but only seek to defend ad nauseam, applying it over and over again to every new military situation and security crisis. There is no coming back from that kind of spiritual sickness without first acknowledging it, and that they can never do, because it is who they are. Patricides rather than patriots, they still seek the death of their overbearing martial parent, though they have been orphaned for two generations now, or perhaps were bastards in the first place – and never knew it. The Democratic Party will only recover after that generation, with its mindset, is fertilizer – perhaps in time for the 2016 elections.
Comment by John Boyle — 3/14/2005 @ 10:38 pm
The Middle Way Party… I must admit, it has a ring to it. I’d make the switch with scarcely a second thought. Illegal immigration, runaway new entitlement programs, rolling over on judicial apppointments for four years, backing off vouchers and playing footsie with Kennedy on the NCLB, an energy bill built by hogs at the trough, steel tariffs, $180 billion farm bill. All this with nose firmly pinched because national security leaves no choice. Is Big Government unstoppable? Perhaps, but wait until there’s no money left for anything other than paying grandma and grandpa’s retirement and health care costs. Remember: these fools believe that defense is “discretionary spending.”
Comment by PD Quig — 3/14/2005 @ 10:52 pm
Jeebus Rick, I think you nailed it. I myself had heard stories on CNN of all places about Wes Clark’s “hilarities” and didn’t think him qualified. I don’t think the Dems will change. No one in the Party is actually serious and knows stuff about Defense and Foreign policy, you have idiots like Rangel calling for a Draft and others actually thinking it’s needed. Dems don’t UNDERSTAND the military (Rick was 100% correct) and it’s because they fear and loathe it (sorry Hunter). In fact Thompson is pretty much the eternal mascot for the Party, much as they don’t like to admit it. If you ask me there’s an irrelevant Dem selected in 08, not Hillary, likely Gore or Kerry or even Dean, total immolation, and the effective end (sadly) of the Party while the Republicans split in 12 or so. Social liberals like McCain, Ahnuld, Guiliani, Romney, etc. vs. the social conservatives like DeLay or Frist.
Comment by Jim Rockford — 3/14/2005 @ 11:47 pm
“I think whether Hillary would win or not would come down to republican opposition. If somehow the amendment got changed and Schwartzeneggar could run, he’d win. Or Giuliani. Maybe even McCain. But if the candidate was religious right, Hillary would be a sure thing.” I disagree with the latter. The way Bush is perceived by his domestic enemies, he is the embodiment of the religious right. And still, he won the last presidential election. It’s as if he was this hard-right winger - from a certain perspective - but still the GOP base came out and got him elected. I submit, however, as many Republican voting critics have pointed out in the last few years, that he’s not particulary conservative. His track record as President is that of a very pro big-government administration. He’s done little to promote a social-conservative agenda either. Abortion is still legal, pornography is at the tip of your computer’s mouse, not to mention his “faith based initiatives” didn’t pann out. But, if this was 40 years ago, he’d be a Democrat, the way he’s governing. The sad part is, for political conservatives, that with all the hell the GOP is getting for this “conservative” president, there’s little to show for it, no roll-backs. Bush has sqandered the capital that the past 20 years of conservative movement success has given him. I hope he’s the last member of that family that the party nominates. If a real mean ‘ol “religious rightwinger nut” were to have been in Bush’s place, I don’t see how the posionous rhetoric against the party could be worse. And still the GOP would be in a good position to win elections in ‘08 and beyond.
Comment by A Reader — 3/15/2005 @ 12:34 am
“But an anti-partial birth abortion/ pro-adoption and pro-abstinence (keep abortion legal as last resort), with support for exporting democracy with strong army, even to Sudan and other strategically less important places, and raising taxes ONLY on “the rich” – such a Dem is formidable.” How much tax on the rich is enough? 90%? Does raising the already high taxes increase productivity, or create more wealth? You’re right to put the scare quotes around “the rich.” Socialists (ie. most Democrats) believe that a middle class family with both parents working at decent jobs are “rich.” As always with the left, the meanings of words float around, perhaps contrary to what those with common sense attach to them.
Comment by A Reader — 3/15/2005 @ 12:43 am
“The Middle Way Party… I must admit, it has a ring to it. I’d make the switch with scarcely a second thought. Illegal immigration, runaway new entitlement programs, rolling over on judicial apppointments for four years, backing off vouchers and playing footsie with Kennedy on the NCLB, an energy bill built by hogs at the trough, steel tariffs, $180 billion farm bill.” You think all that is Middle Way? It’s “far right.” You want to know what a Middle Way party would really look like? The status quo, more of the same. Either nationalizing medicine and education, or rolling back government, are the two main non-status quo options. And neither are centralist positions. The Democrat’s continued self-marginalization march Leftward is to be hailed. It finally allows the chance to reform government. The real election is in the Republican primaries.
Comment by A Reader — 3/15/2005 @ 1:29 am
Rick Ballard: “How likely is it that defense will be as singularly important in ‘08 as it was in ‘04? We’re not up against the Wehrmacht or the Imperial Japanese Navy” No, we’re only up against several generations of brainwashed religious fanaticism. I agree completely that many voters will not have defense foremost in their decission process come ‘08, but I certinly hope enough do. It’s easy to dismiss Defense’s senior leadership’s assesment that the GWOT will be lik ethe Cold War, an effort of decades and span generations in its final course as just a way to secure employment, but I believe that many of us who have witnessed the beginning of this war will quietly pass into the night long before our children or grandchildren see the end. Depite Rick’s implication that the Axis powers represented a more formidable opposition, WWII was concluded much quicker than the Cold War. The relative speed with which the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese Navy were crushed was purchased at the cost of the German and Japanese civilian population. Had we chosen a similar path in Iraq I have no doubt the “insurgency” could have been crushed in a matter of weeks. The political reality, though, is that in today’s world, despite the best efforts of the left to paint it otherwise, we choose not to indiscriminately deal out death in the manner of our grandfathers. And so, naturally, being careful takes time. It takes a lot longer than four of eight of even, probably, twenty years. And so, while Rick may feel otherwise, I pray enough of the public does keep national securty in mind come ‘08.
Comment by submandave — 3/15/2005 @ 9:19 am
Rick, I think you are on to something when you brought up illegal immigration. My state (Arizona) has been overrun, and I don’t see this president doing anything more to maintain the borders than Clinton did. The idea that you will lose the Hispanic vote if you crack down is stupid. Hispanics may be more sympathetic to Mexicans coming across, but that doesn’t mean that they are happy about this situation. Yes, the southwest may be trending Republican, but it can’t be taken to be a sure red-state thing by any means. Why patrolling and maintaining our borders isn’t considered a defense issue is beyond me, especially since we have had evidence that people of all nationalities are using our lax patrolling of our Canadian and Mexican borders to get into America.
Comment by Kory O — 3/15/2005 @ 11:54 am
AB-You’re right about commenter #37. Some good riffs also follow. Those got me wondering where enlisted people lie in the metaphorical essay, On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves, by Lt. Col. (Ret) Dave Grossman. On Blackfive’s posting of that essay, he anticipated concern about the wolf-sheep dog conundrum, as raised by a commenter who suggested a role for ‘goats’. The associations are numerous, as in savvy and aggressive (or grudging admiration of old ones?). But the concern for the defense and transmitting of ‘civilized values’ is old, but never out-dated (see Lee Harris’ book Civilization and Its Enemies). Somewhere I expect that someone has written about the misapplication of the relativistic physics paradigm to other realms, especially, social behavior. I wonder whether such realms (and defining standards) are simply not dense or accelerated enough for such a paradigm to be applicable or insightful. Cultural relativism, secular humanism, or spiral dynamics (or other fantasy ideologies?) aside, the question ‘What is worth dying for?’ remains a fundamental discriminator. The answer for many, if not most of us, by choice or default, is not final. But for some, whether soldiers or hijackers, it is. Until the party readdresses that choice in a meaningful and honorable manner, it surely will continue to be shrouded in a fog of exuberant narcissism.
Comment by Richard Meixner — 3/15/2005 @ 3:09 pm
[…] The armed fascists won’t go gently. A few days ago I put up a post cheekily titled “Era of the Armed Liberal.” The post wasn’t cheeky – it tried to look past the […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » The Millennium Era: After Iraq, will a bi-partisan foreign policy re-emerge? — 3/18/2005 @ 2:29 pm
“Armed liberal” is an oxymoron. To be armed it to take responsibility for one’s own safety. To be liberal is to insist that no one be armed, lest they learn to protect themselves without the liberal government-god. This is on the personal level. On the national level, anyone who can fight is automatically suspect; some are killed as the Branch Davidians were, others are merely demonized as “Nazi-boys”, as the NRA are. On the international level, liberalism either cowers in the corner, paying Danegeld and whimpering “Please don’t hurt me”, or bombs aspirin factories, tents, etc. in a pointless and useless manner. “Armed liberal” is an oxymoron. That’s reality, for you “reality-based” liberals.
Comment by Ixnay — 3/18/2005 @ 9:49 pm
Commenter 37 is right on the mark. Wesley Clark is universally despised within the military. His blatant grandstanding and seeking after mnoey with CNN during the Iraq conflict did not help his case. What the Armed Liberals or pro defences democrats can do however, is point out the smokescreen that is Donald Rumsfelds administration of the Pentagon and poke holes in it every chance they get. The administration has yet to realize that you cannot fight a war on several fronts and cut expenses and personnel. That’s where the democrats could make real hay, but first they need to jettison the homo and feminist segments of the party.
Comment by skippy-san — 3/30/2005 @ 7:38 pm
[…] Austin Bay Blog ” Era of the Armed Liberal […]
Pingback by Obama will NOT repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ « But As for Me! — 11/21/2008 @ 10:36 am