I Hear War Drums
Do you?
I was young in the leadup to the Iraq war, but today’s political climate still feels familiar. The Western press puppets the war line by presenting a crazy and irrelevant war quote-of-the-week by a tinpot dictator and refuses to be critical about the actual threat presented by said tinpot dictator. Israel, having set its mouthpieces a’drumming over the past few weeks, runs war exercises in the Red Sea to prepare for the inevitable saturation bombing. The witch once referred to as the “militaristic school-marm” by Bill Kauffman promises to go to war for our friends (Israel), our interests (oil), and our people, presumably in that order.
All of this, courtesy of our peace President.
Yet the mainstream right, despite their penchant for “enemy of my enemy…” illogic, doesn’t seem to to have anything to say about Obama’s bellicose posturing. If they were consistent, they would be talking about how great Hillary is and how they were wrong about Obama’s foreign policy plans. If they were at least partially-cognizant, they would take a look at themselves and wonder curiously why this oft-repeated staple of conservative foreign policy, “a strong national defense,” is interpreted the same by those with liberal values and socialistic economic policies.
Instead we are treated to the worst-case scenario. The right will continue to claim Obama is insufficiently aggressive in dealing with Iran, and once the bombs do begin to drop, we can only presume the body counts won’t be high enough.
What a false and impoverished political dichotomy.
And what do you recommend, Pat?
What do I recommend for what, WIlliam? For dealing with Iran or for a more ideal political environment?
I was thinking dealing Iran, apropos to your posting, but if you wish to wax poetic on your ideal political environment, by all means indulge me.
I’d deal with Iran the same way I would any other leader with no army, navy or airforce. I wouldn’t do anything. i’d bring every single soldier in the Middle East home, secure the borders, control immigration, protect AMERICA, and leave Iran alone.
As smarter men than I have pointed out, during the Cold War we stood up to the Soviets and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we fret day and night over a country with no means of attacking us and we’re ready to go to war. It’s insanity.
What do you do when Iran has nuclear weapons and decides to threaten its neighbors? This is increasingly likely considering the Obama administration’s refusal to deal responsibly with them. Or do we leave our tiny ally Israel to deal with Iran itself?
Iran is currently a police state of oppression that recently slaughtered its own citizens who dared dissent. They are reminiscent of the Nazi regime that used terror against its own citizens whilst propagating severe anti-Semitism.
I don’t know why you believe they don’t have an army. Last I checked, they fought Iraq in the 80s with something. They’ve also been killing our soldiers in Iraq with sophisticated weaponry.
Chance of an Iranian army invading the United States? Close to 0.
pb: Chance of an Iranian army invading the United States? Close to 0.
This is unimportant. Nuclear weapons – got that? NUCLEAR WEAPONS – are the game changer. Massive standing armies are, if you’ll excuse my colloquialism, so last century.
It’s an interesting question.
This is an age where a device that can fit into a suitcase could potentially do more damage than a massive army.
Pat, I’d actually be interested to hear your stance on what the US could (or should) do to prevent Iran from making some sort of nuclear device and handing it off to a third party to detonate in a city.
I hear the war drum. I am expecting and dreading a war with Iran. Our politicians are crazy and do not consider the day after the attack.
A couple of swift points, if I may.
There is nothing the United States can do, short of a land invasion, to disarm a nuclear weapons program. This is how the war party sold the Iraq adventure: they said that airsrikes/sanctions were insufficient to disarming the program that did not exist. . And now they say pre-emptive airstrikes are enough to disarm Iran. It makes no sense.
Will a nuclear Iran bully and intimidate its neighbors? You bet. But last time I checked, the United States was not a neighbor of Iran. If you believe we should be responsible for the security of the greater Middle East, then please, present your argument. But do not take it as a given, especially not in these parts of the internet, where you will be challenged.
During a war game simulation, Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force Colonel, had this to say about an Osirik style attack:
“Pre-emption is only a tactic that puts off the nuclear development,” Gardiner said after the exercise. “It cannot make it go away. Since our intelligence is so limited, we won’t even know what we achieved after an attack. If we set it back a year, what do we do a year later? A pre-emptive strike would carry low military risk but high strategic risk.” ”
The inescapable truth is that we don’t even know where all of Iran’s nuclear program is concentrated. The country is four times the size of Iraq. Many of the sites are most assuredly deeply buried and concealed. Our CIA is dysfunctional and inept. An attack on Iran will lead to increased attacks against our soldiers in Iraq and lead to further disruptions in the global economy. It may also boost nationalist zeal among Iranians and weaken reformists. None of these things bode well for the United States, or for Irans neighbors.
Patrick Ford and myself do not have the solution to Iran, nor to many of the worlds problems. But at least we are willing to be honest about that. People like William, on the other hand, simply hide behind vague rhetoric, like “Obama has failed to deal responsibly”, as if the adverb “responsibly” was some kind of position. If you want to get “serious” about Iran, then you must advocate a full ground invasion. Nobody in the military command wants this at all. So good luck.
Oh the neocons just can’t help but call any perceived threat a Nazi regime. Nice page from the playbook on banging the war drum. First dehumanize your enemy. Remember your just weeks old support of the brave Persians challenging that Nazi regime, how do you equate also supporting preemptive aerial bombardment that will obliterate that movement and their very lives?
Iran is currently a police state of oppression that recently slaughtered its own citizens who dared dissent. They are reminiscent of the Nazi regime that used terror against its own citizens whilst propagating severe anti-Semitism.–William P
These Iranian citizens are dissenting because they have perceived that the present regime has deviated from the pure principles of Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic revolution, whose stated goals it is to unfurl Islam across the world. They scarcely care about democracy and are quite satisfied with their being ruled by Ayatollahs and Sharia jurists. A possible way to dissuade them from developing nuclear weapons would be to couch this acquisition in terms of adherence to Islam and how such a military paradigm shift would impact their religion.
Why worry so much about Iran’s military strength in the region? After all, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has historically provided a strong regional counter-balance to any Iranian territorial ambitions. Oh wait…What? We overthrew him and now they have a regime friendly to Iran?!
Oh…nevermind.
Peace be with you.
1. WWII Germany had perhaps the most advanced military on earth, commanded by some of the best trained military minds of the time. Iran is flying Shah-era F-14′s and spends $6 billion/year on their military. That’s less than half what Israel spends, and less than we spend on defense in one WEEK.
2. This notion that a nation would focus years of engineering manpower to develop a nuclear weapon–and then ‘hand it off to a third party’ is ridiculous; put down the Ken Timmerman books people!
3. If Nation X performed regime change on Canada, for instance, and called us part of the Axis of Evil, wouldn’t we be intent in developing some kind of defense, including a nuclear one? Iraq’s experience showed that we attack folks without nukes, not those with nukes.
Neal says, “Will a nuclear Iran bully and intimidate its neighbors? You bet.”
And being that we live in a world which we can now traverse entirely in a day’s time through the marvel of aeronautics, regional problems don’t stay regional. Also, you’d think that Neal had never heard of ICBMs.
Or perhaps he does doesn’t have a problem with most of the world’s oil supply being under control of, yes, a Nazi-esque regime. (Why would Iranian leader deny the holocaust? It’s because they don’t consider the Final Solution to be complete; an incomplete attempt is not -the- Holocaust. They are aiming for the so-called real one.)
Pons, with all due respect: Give me a break. The uprisings were not from some reactionary coup looking to get back to the alleged purity of the revolution. Where has this ever been reported? They were mostly young students, under 30, sympathetic to Western values, who are tired of living under a brutal theocracy. The Shah was a progressive (in the non-communist sense) western-friendly dictator. The Iranians under the Shah enjoyed a high level of freedom. Carter should have continued to back him.
I don’t claim to have tactical answers – that would be absurd. I am stressing the importance of standing up for Israel, the regime’s detractors, and Western interests and ideals(pluralistic government, private property, freedom of conscience, press, and speech, a tolerant civil society) in general. Obama has done none of the above, hence his irresponsibility. Furthermore, “conservative” isolationists who are ambivalent towards the survival of Israel are potentially consigning the United States to complicity if Israel is attacked.
Nice try, though.
Chris-
Nobody, especially not me, is making the claim that the Iranian regime controls a modern Wehrmacht. It is their ideology, their political stucture and ethos, and m.o. that are Nazi-esque, not their military might. However, nuclear weapons could change all that. (Before I’m pounced on, the Soviets too aimed at world domination, but they weren’t suicidal.)
They don’t need to hand it off to a “third party.” They either must possess the means to deliver it, i.e., a missile, or send an agent on his (or her) way with a dirty bomb in a suitcase. Being that I pass by the construction site at the former WTC everyday, I’d rather not be taking this risk.
If Nation X called us part of an Axis of Evil, each and every American would have to decide whether this is a fair distinction. I think it would be ridiculous, personally. I say this as a supporter of Western civilization, which might make me unpopular among the self-described localists. The Iranian regime, with their secret police, political exectutions, violent smashing of protestors, and spirited anti-Semitism is a different story altogether.
Actually, 300 did a pretty good job of contrasting civilizational ideals, even if it’s dated
William P, you sound like a spoof of a neocon war hawk. Your posts read like neocon talking points 101. Are you spoofing? I am reluctant to answer you point for point because I think you may be playing us.
Red, you sound like someone who has no idea what to say in response to reasonable talking points.
I hope that Israel attacks a US ship in the Persian Gulf so that we can blame that attack on Iran so that we have justification to attack Iran. Israel justifiably attacked the USS Liberty and those sailors on that ship deserved to die. Why? Because Jews are on a higher lever than lowly gentiles as ordained by G-d.
As a true American and a believing Jewish Zionist, I am happy when Americans die for Israel.
Well, you know, “Israel Supporter,” it’s generally not the best idea for us as Jews to refer to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when attempting to understand theological concepts/the importance and meaning of Sinai … or, really anything at all.
But I haven’t really been hearing those “war drums” — I was under the impression the MSM was still freaking out about Michael Jackson and John/Kate/8.
On the other hand, I began to realize yesterday that 6 months ago, I was expecting Obama to undertake a noticeably different Iraq policy than his predecessor, but that now “indefinite” seems to have become the timeline for our military presence again.
The uprisings were not from some reactionary coup looking to get back to the alleged purity of the revolution. Where has this ever been reported? They were mostly young students, under 30, sympathetic to Western values, who are tired of living under a brutal theocracy. The Shah was a progressive (in the non-communist sense) western-friendly dictator. The Iranians under the Shah enjoyed a high level of freedom. Carter should have continued to back him.–William P.
By your own admission Muslims are motivated by a 7th century mentality, so why would any in their community embrace Western institutions with anything other than the coldest loathing? If Muslims are so eager to adopt Western mores, why are they not exuberant over the existence of Israel, which is a bastion of those values in the region? If these Iranian citizens were truly desirous of reform, would they not demand that reinstatement of the monarchy–a monarchy under which they “enjoyed a high level of freedom”? And, of course, Mousavi was not a former PM in this insidious regime against which he is now dissenting, right? Naturally, William, you will not hear this from the MSM and other outlets that see this ‘Green Revolution’ through the prism of American experience. Numerous have been our faults in the foreign policy arena because of a willingness to project our singular character into the bosoms of others and of rank historical ignorance.
Pons,
That is a one dimensional interpretation of history and present day conditions. Before I write anything else, let me announce again that I am certainly not, nor ever claimed to be, an expert in any way. I don’t even know enough country-specific history of the region to feel like I can very often offer a corrective. However, in this case I think I can… somewhat.
When I refer to a 7th century mindset, I am referring to the present state of Islam as espoused by the rabble rousing Imams and Mullahs. Across the Middle East, poor populations, under tyrannical rule, with little prospect for better themselves, find a certain pleasure in hearing how morally corrupt their richer earthly inhabitants, the Westerners, that is, are. This isn’t so hard to understand. It’s the old us vs. them.
The rulers of these despotic desert kingdoms (Saudi Arabia, “Palestine,” Iran, Egypt) find it politically useful to distract their despondent citizens with hatred directed toward foreigners. Like the Nazis did, they rail against the decadent commercial society, the Jews, the Christians, and when it is politically useful, other sects of Islam.
Unlike the Nazis, they do not have to develop an ethos based on paganism or Aryan superiority which to rally around. This was already done centuries beforehand. The warlord Prophet united the tribes of the Arabian subcontinent and elected himself Allah’s representative on earth. The Koran is a justification for submission – hence the name of the religion. It is not racist, and at times even displays some tolerance, though not respect, for people of the Book.
Here is where I will end my talk on the Koran. Much of Islamic history is an attempt to conquer Europe, obviously never successfully. But emerging into the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as the Church was reformed from the top down, Islam had no (and has no) institutions by which to “officially” alter its doctrines. The closest parallel to the Vatican in Islam is probably the famous theological school in Egypt (the name escapes me). Regardless of its name, it has been the intellectual trendsetter of Islamic theology for centuries. It is also where the modern Islamofascist ideology was first developed (for more information, see the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood).
There are, of course, great Arab accomplishments in science, philosophy, architecture, and literature. However, due to the institution-less nature of the religion, there was (and is) little ability to alter practices of tradition; and so its relation to secular authority (government) was never fundamentally altered. What had organically evolved were increasingly free kingdoms throughout the region, still Islamic in character but influenced heavily by Europe. Jordan and (formerly) Egypt serve as good examples.
Now I reach a point where my knowledge of history is blatantly lacking. I’ll do my best to summarize what I understand, though again I don’t claim any authority.
World War II and the Holocaust (notice I don’t have anything intelligent to say about World War I and the Middle East… need to read up on that) brought a countless number of Jews to English Palestine. This upset the local leaders in the area, particularly the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Husseini. An admirer of Hitler, he developed a working relationship with the Third Reich and was a special guest of the Fuehrer himself. In concert with the local Nazis, he terrorized the Jewish population in Israel. Later in the war, Himmler (SS mobster-in-chief) recruited thousands of willing Muslims into his Waffen SS. The connection is pretty obvious… the intense hatred of the Jewish people.
When Germany lost, many fanatical Muslims, now bona fide Nazis, found themselves indoctrinated with this hysterically anti-Semitic ideology that jived quite well with the traditional teachings of Islam. The Grand Mufti was (I believe) the uncle of Yasser Arafat. So it isn’t for nothing that I refer to these crackpot regimes as Nazi-esque.
The dangerous part of the Middle East is hatred of the Jewish people and the imperialistic ambitions of the Prophet and the Fuehrer: this is the connection between Fascism and Islam, or at least those Muslim demagogues who choose to exploit the ancient bias. When the political and military leaders of a region, however unpopular, share at least some assumptions with their billion or so subjects, and those assumptions are hateful and violent, it should be a concern for the world. So in my opinion, it is a good long term strategy to defang this threat. Not through mass murder, not through genocide, not through never ending war, but through strategic intervention and assimilation into the world economy.
Iran was under the secular rule of the Shah. The population was used to a high level of comfort and freedom, relative to the rest of the region. The revolution promised utopia and failed to deliver (big surprise). For 30 years the Persian economy has been stagnant and the society’s civil rights deteriorating. The people weren’t interested in Mousavi, per se, but in the living relatively better living conditions they enjoyed under him. He wasn’t as outspokenly anti-Western and so didn’t stir the animus of the West. Besides, the Mullahs run that place in the end…
Just one man’s opinion… and sorry for the poor exposition. I kind of do this on the fly and it shows.
William P:
This is unimportant. Nuclear weapons – got that? NUCLEAR WEAPONS – are the game changer. Massive standing armies are, if you’ll excuse my colloquialism, so last century.
You brought up armies in your response. Israel can take care of itself.
“There are, of course, great Arab accomplishments in science, philosophy, architecture, and literature”
In this Golden Age of Dar el Islam it was not the Arabs–who have their language and poesy as a contribution to the overarching Islamic culture–but Persians and Nestorian Christians who were noted for their intellectual attainments and who were indispensable in superintending the government. It is a fundamental distortion of the times by sycophants of Islam today who propound that their culture was formerly a repository of all that is glorious, the envy of all aesthetes, and would be so today were it not for having been subverted and perverted by retrograde jihadists, statist despots, or Western meddling. No, what we presently witness is not an artifice on the part of those incendiary imams (no fans of fascism, which they would dismiss as being un-Islamic) who “find it politically useful to distract their despondent citizens with hatred directed toward foreigners” but a recrudescence of the Mohammedan ethos that sent the mujahideen from the sands so many centuries ago.
I don’t get how Iran with nukes is a threat to any American. I can see if Mexico had nukes, but Iran?
It sounds like a lot of people have simply mixed up Israel’s national interests with our own. Too bad. A lot of American blood will be spilled because of it.
Pons,
Well that’s probably true. I meant to write “Muslim” rather than Arab, and was thinking of the language, rather than the race. I think I’ve said more than enough already, too.
There has to be something we can all agree on here, no? Maybe the fact that we’d all rather live in a free country than Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.?
Or maybe that our current president is embarking on a neo-New Deal which is going to collapse our already ailing economy, and could polish off our dollar?
How about we put aside our intra-partisan differences for a little bit and focus on winning the 2010 election in landslides?! Because cap and trade, national healthcare, “stimulus,” and soon amnesty are going to cause us all a world of pain!
Red Phillips,
“William P, you sound like a spoof of a neocon war hawk. Your posts read like neocon talking points 101. Are you spoofing? I am reluctant to answer you point for point because I think you may be playing us.”
Exactly what I thought. His “points” are so comical and contrived, it has to be some policy wonk spoofing us, to see how far we can be taken along the road to stupidity.
#
William P,
“Red, you sound like someone who has no idea what to say in response to reasonable talking points.”
You haven’t said anything reasonable on this thread, and if you have, then Goering’s quote about war is entirely reasonable
#
Israel Supporter,
“I hope that Israel attacks a US ship in the Persian Gulf so that we can blame that attack on Iran so that we have justification to attack Iran. Israel justifiably attacked the USS Liberty and those sailors on that ship deserved to die. Why? Because Jews are on a higher lever than lowly gentiles as ordained by G-d.
As a true American and a believing Jewish Zionist, I am happy when Americans die for Israel.”
No more or less serious than anything William P has said on this thread. I also wonder the smirk on his face upon reading such.
Pons: In this Golden Age of Dar el Islam it was not the Arabs–who have their language and poesy as a contribution to the overarching Islamic culture–but Persians and Nestorian Christians who were noted for their intellectual attainments and who were indispensable in superintending the government.
What about Ibn Rushd?
William P:
Why don’t your side ease up on the war mongering. That is was broke our party and our chances, not the Dems.
What about Ibn Rushd?–NPO
Ah, you’re right on that score. It was my aim to make the observation that it was fallacious to attribute the majority of Islamic erudition to Arab Muslims when in truth it was primarily Persians who were the thrust behind the reaching of an Islamic cultural apex. Ibn Khaldun observed this phenomenon thus: “It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs, thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farsi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar. Great jurists were Persians. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, ‘If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it’”. So, you are right about Arab Averroes as being a scholarly giant but at the same time there was a grander trend that fructified the Islamic Golden Age.
William, I have a very long track record of countering neocon interventionist talking points. It just that yours were such cartoonish caricatures, I thought you might be playing all of us. Didn’t want to take the bait and have you snickering at my wasted effort.
Too many comparisons to Hitler, must be some sort of satire or something.
Consider me a proud localist and conservative isolationist. Look what your glorious internationalism has reaped in the last 100 years. Listen to us, Israel is not the United States of America. In fact, Israel is not mentioned once in the Constitution, because it didn’t exist until the last 60 years.
It would be nice to rally together and oppose Obama’s rocket-chair to hell policies, but there’s a war on now for the conservative movement. The neocons must be purged out of conservative mainstream thought or there is absolutely no hope of the American people ever trusting the GOP to govern competently in any capacity.
Bunch of weirdos here who have proved their deep reserves of ignorance. You’d think there had never been a war the United States hadn’t started. Anyone is free to oppose war, but “Israel is not the United States” and “Iran is far away” do not pass as intelligent observations.
Then again, we are living in an age when Ron Paul has whipped up an army of ardently anti-Fedists, few who understand economics, much less monetary theory, and I’m unsurprised…. Is it that the Federal Reserve bankers plan and fund war? What Ron Paul books are you people reading, anyway? I happen to agree with much of what he says, but this ridiculous notion among his supporters that the Federal Reserve’s abolition will mean general peace and prosperity is pathetically ignorant. This coming from the “realists,” of course. (I am no fan of the Fed, btw.)
Jihadlizard, if this is the “war” for conservatism, the yahoos like you are going to lose. This must be the only place where Ron Paulies (i.e. laissez-faire supporters) and neo-Marxist “localists” can coalesce over the oh-so-principled anti-war stance. Happily, it is the 20 million or so talk radio listeners who will take back the party. It’s inevitable so you might as well get on bored now.
William P. how do you retake a party you already own! Are you going to just nominate another W., Palin = W. in a skirt, and run with the same platform from 2004 just screaming louder? Do you consider retaking the GOP driving away so-called moderates like Specter and giving the Dems a super-majority in the Senate allowing them free reign to pass socialized healthcare, cap and trade, and amnesty? Think strategically, not tactically.
I was a talk radio listener, a charter subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter, until I experienced the glories of the surge first hand, overseas while wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle. I have seen first hand in both Iraq and Afghanistan that our strategic aims for both are political fantasies, that is realism. And then I thought, after I came back, if these radio yahoos are so wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? I was a neocon and I saw the light, so I have hope that others will wake up to the sham we’re all living. The so-called 20 million radio listeners are not enough to keep the GOP from immolating itself into a regional party by driving out the rest of our fellow citizens.
Keep up the name calling and when you come back after next years’ elections crying why don’t the American people wake up, maybe you should ask yourself, why do we keep losing them? Humility and reflection are called for.
Thanks for the intellectual duel, God Bless.
Must we forever be seeing Hitler under every rock? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Hitler, Saddam Hussein was Hitler, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic – Hitlers every one.
The only way to be sure that none of Israel’s enemy’s obtain the bomb is to conquer and occupy every one till Kingdom Come. First Iraq, then (as Buchanan predicted on March 24, 2003) Iran and Syria. That would not be the end of it though (even if it were possible). We would then have to turn our attention to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and let’s not forget Hezbollah and Hamas. Are we done yet? Hmm. Then Libya and Egypt and Sudan.
Of course by the time we set our first foot in Iran, nuclear armed Pakistan (if not its gov’t then doubtless its military) is likely to fear that its days are numbered and sneak a few nukes out to use against the US and/or Israel.
The sad thing is that even after this apocalyptic blood-lust destroys the US economy and kills off the bloom of America’s youth, the neocon war hawks will have learned nothing.
The only solution I see is to ensure that he who votes for war, must fight. If the Perles, Kristols, and Feiths of the world were forced to pick up a gun (and not just a pen) then maybe they would no be so quick to call for the sacrifices of others in their own crusades.
Well, William P settled the issue of whether he is flamebaiting with the following statement in his most-recent post: “I happen to agree with much of what [Ron Paul] says…”
Let’s see…Willy Pete’s earlier posts clearly indicate that he disagrees with his foreign policy, and in the latest post Willy Pete derides Paul’s supporters’ anti-Fed stance. The pretend misunderstanding (i.e. flamebaiting) of Ron Paul is a dead giveaway. Nobody who is literate and familiar with conservatism (as Willy Pete clearly is) could have made those mistakes honestly.
Bravo for some time well wasted.
“Let’s see…Willy Pete’s earlier posts clearly indicate that he disagrees with his foreign policy, and in the latest post Willy Pete derides Paul’s supporters’ anti-Fed stance. The pretend misunderstanding (i.e. flamebaiting) of Ron Paul is a dead giveaway. Nobody who is literate and familiar with conservatism (as Willy Pete clearly is) could have made those mistakes honestly.”
No, I did not make any mistakes nor am I being coy. I disagree with Ron Paul on matters of foreign policy.
I agree that the Federal Reserve is a destructive institution and would prefer its abolition (though as a campaign issue it’s a non-starter). Now, I also observe that many of his supporters are completely illiterate in matters of economy. As an example, so-called “localists” – Marxists with a new label – who support Paul. They are schizophrenic and worthy of neglect.
“Now, I also observe that many of his supporters are completely illiterate in matters of economy. As an example, so-called “localists” – Marxists with a new label – who support Paul. They are schizophrenic and worthy of neglect.”
I wonder to whom William possibly could be referring here!
(I think I made quite clear that I’m not actually a Marxist, but nuance seems not to be something that Mr. P. has mastered. He also never offered evidence that I’m “completely illiterate in matters of economy.” I’m not sure that I’ve made many comments about my feelings respect the Fed, either, but that shouldn’t stop our artful adversary.)
You know, though, it’s virtually impossible to accept as credible someone whose public biography starts with the following:
“William P[redacted] became a registered Republican after September 11, 2001.”
9/11 didn’t change everything, as was once proclaimed, but it does seem to have changed at least one thing: “Yr either with us ‘r ‘ginst us, son!”
Yes, always the nuance. I mean, let’s nuance the hell out of nationalizing healthcare and the stimulus and protectionist tariffs and trade restrictions and, when politically expedient, good and evil.
That “nuance” word is always thrown at people in an attempt to characterize them as unsophisticated observers who cannot make it past black and white distinctions. If you were remotely capable to expounding your economic vision for localism, I’d ask you too. But I know (whether you realize it or not) it would be hopelessly contradtictory, and, again, result in the break down of the global division of labor. This is a pipe-dream, a potential killer of billions as food production would be massively curtailed, and therefore a stupid thing to advocate.
Forget nuance – stop tap dancing. Essence, not nuance, is what I am concerned with here. And essentially someone who promotes “localism,” (Rod Dreher comes to mind), is a neo-Marxian.
As for becoming a registered Republican after 9/11, is there something strange about waking up to political reality in the face of murderous attack? I stand by those words wholeheartedly.
William P., can you wake up to the political reality that we are wasting our most precious resource, our sons and daughters, on political fantasies in the desert? The localism many embrace is that espoused and described in The Next Conservatism. There has to be an intellectual counter-balance to our bi-partisan death clutch on globalism.
“So the next conservative movement is just this: a growing coalition of people who are committed to living differently. They share a common rejection of the popular culture, of a life based on wants and instant gratification, and of the ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness.”
Alright, then stay out of our politics! Geesh how do you expect to attract any modern person with t-h-i-s “armed cant”!?
And for the record, the authors are functional Marxists. I reject them wholly, confidently, and on defensible economic grounds.
William P:
And for the record, the authors are functional Marxists. I reject them wholly, confidently, and on defensible economic grounds
You’ve called me a Marxist, you’ve dubbed Dreher a neo-Marxian, and now you’ve called Mr. Lind and the late Mr. Weyrich “functional Marxists.”
Perhaps, afore you lash out once more and claim that another person on the right with whom you disagree adheres to the long-discredited teachings of Marx, you should view this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
William P.:
Yes, always the nuance. I mean, let’s nuance the hell out of nationalizing healthcare and the stimulus and protectionist tariffs and trade restrictions and, when politically expedient, good and evil.
That “nuance” word is always thrown at people in an attempt to characterize them as unsophisticated observers who cannot make it past black and white distinctions. If you were remotely capable to expounding your economic vision for localism, I’d ask you too. But I know (whether you realize it or not) it would be hopelessly contradtictory, and, again, result in the break down of the global division of labor. This is a pipe-dream, a potential killer of billions as food production would be massively curtailed, and therefore a stupid thing to advocate.
First, I don’t recall having tried to nuance nationalizing healthcare or any of the stimuli or bailouts that we’ve had to endure. I’m pretty sure that I took my roommate to the bar to celebrate the short-lived rejection of the first bailout. I’d also like to find (quasi-)localist solutions to our healthcare problems; I’m not sure that that works, but it strikes me as a better alternative than nationalization. But continue to fire errant volleys at will, if you so desire.
And I’m not sure that I’ve ever really spoken of tariffs; you’ve insisted that I’m a supporter of them because I’m a localist, but I’ve never made that claim explicit (I don’t think), and I’m actually quite torn over the matter of tariffs and other restrictions.
Now, as far as my noting your failure to appreciate nuances goes: It seems to me that I made quite clear that I am not a Marxist, but that I agree with some of the Marxist criticism of capitalism and sympathized with Mailer’s notion of thinking in the way of Marx to reach the ends envisioned by Burke.
Are you so obsessed with economics (rather than the First Principles and Permanent Things that are the bedrock of conservatism) as to think that I have an “economic vision” for localism? Really? I have ideas about how I think economics should work — that is, I believe in economics as if people mattered, which requires a small-is-beauty outlook —, but I have no grand vision, economic or otherwise. That is the thing of ideological thinkers, of adherents, whether “liberal” or “conservative”, of the doctrine of progress.
Incredibly condescending, Nathan. Unfortunately for you you’re not dealing with an untutored imbecile (although I’m beginning to believe I am). Fortunately, at least after reading this post you can consider yourself semi-literate in the ideas of Marx, and I won’t have to act dually as a debater and an educator.
Marxism is a German synthesis of ideas, combining thought from the disciplines of economics, philosophy, and spurious interpretations of history. The endgame for Marxists is Socialism – the simultaneous consummation of man’s achievement and the end of history. It is held together through a perversion of Hegel’s dialectic: dialectic materialism. What does this concept contend?
1) Society is an outgrowth of the tools employed in production. Therefore it follows that the plow and the cart created feudalism, the factory and the steam engine created capitalism, and the new tools of the future will lead to socialism. The dialectic is the interaction of society and the tools employed.
2) The superstructure of society – itself an outgrowth of the tools employed (what one may call capital goods) – leads to the creation of classes. The class one is born into shapes ones thoughts. It is impossible for one to think outside his class, and in fact communication between classes is impossible because one’s conception of truth is determined by class.
3) There are two classes: the proletariat, and the bourgeoisie; the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie. It always has been and always will be, until the eschaton – socialism. This exploitation grows increasingly more burdensome as society progresses from feudalism to capitalism, until finally the oppression is enough and the proletariat stage a revolution.
4) This revolution will establish socialism – it will socialize the means of production – the capital goods, the tools that determine the class structure. It necessarily entails an abolition of private property and the market system. This is the revolution our president is spearheading.
[I am not going to delve into the fallacies in Marxian economics, but if you are interested I would recommend reading about the labor theory of value (LTV) and the essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" by Ludwig von Mises.]
You say that Marx’s ideas are long-discredited. This is true, of course: they were discredited back in the 1800s. But that does not change the fact that the current president is a Marxist, like his mentor Saul Alinsky. It does not change the fact that the modern environmental movement is run by socialists. It does not change the fact that Keynesian economics – the doctrinal system of our universities -are sympathetic to socialism. It also does not change the fact that even our so-called free market financial press takes many of the Marxian assumptions in its writing.
Socialism is not longer just abstract and discredited; it is historically proved to be a system of slavery. This was predicted by many social theorists, including Tocqueville. In the end, the will of a nation’s citizenry must be directed by a central ego, or a small planning board.
Now, in direct and irreconcilable contrast to Socialism, to Marxism, is the free market system. Anyone who advocates government coercion to guide us sheep back to localism – agrarianism, so say the authors of that piece – is a functional Marxist. It necessary involves restricting our economic freedom (private property rights, that is), and the freedom of enterprise to engage in large scale profitable activity. If you contend that this idea of localism is in no way political, then why bother advocating it? Live your life on a kibbutz, on your own private property – just leave MINE alone.
A final thought, to wrap things up. The future does not belong to those who insist on returning to what they perceive as an uncorrupted past. Socialist authors and totalitarians alike agitate for the return to their own version of their idyllic bygone era. Change is one of the few certainties in life, and we should embrace it prudently. Progress is a good thing assuming we, as moral humans, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The authors of that piece and apparently all localists are really closer to advocating the static conditions of socialism than they realize.
This is why they’re neo-Marxists. They accept his terms of the debate. Disagree with me on what you will.
“Are you so obsessed with economics (rather than the First Principles and Permanent Things that are the bedrock of conservatism) as to think that I have an “economic vision” for localism?”
No, I am not “obsessed” with economics. I do understand them, however, and the limits they impose upon the aspirations of however-well-meaning politicians and pundits. You clearly have no idea what the point is in studying economics, do not understand the scope of its analysis, which is why you’re an ignoramus. Sorry! It’s not like you can’t change!