Couple of things (hold you over edition)
- Not that I'm terribly surprised by this, but Jeff Emmanuel continues to show his lack of political expertise by completing misreading the election results. It may not be a repudiation of the conservative ideology, but it's not exactly a reaffirmation in it when you elect old-school populists like Sheldon Whitehouse, Jon Tester and Sheldon Brown. He's joined by H.D. Lott, who spins the same, old tired line about Iraq ... you know, the one the voters overwhelmingly rejected just a few days ago.
- This is a shame. Ed Bradley was a great journalist, and he'll be sorely missed.
- I decided to share some of my thoughts about Ed Vaughan's newest crusade, which apparently consists of yelling at everyone.
- Matthew Yglesias wants to dispose of the myth of Karl Rove.
- Hillary is wise to, you know, point out the oddity of this particular editorial stance.
- This is a new feature from Blake Aued at 'In The Loop', and I think it's a darn fine idea. Lots of talk about roadkil last night.
- Additional hotel space is nice, but anyone else feel like Oconee County is legitimately 10 years away from morphing into Gwinnett County?
- I know we're only a few days removed from Election Day, but I try to gaze into the future.
- This is a shame. Ed Bradley was a great journalist, and he'll be sorely missed.
- I decided to share some of my thoughts about Ed Vaughan's newest crusade, which apparently consists of yelling at everyone.
- Matthew Yglesias wants to dispose of the myth of Karl Rove.
- Hillary is wise to, you know, point out the oddity of this particular editorial stance.
- This is a new feature from Blake Aued at 'In The Loop', and I think it's a darn fine idea. Lots of talk about roadkil last night.
- Additional hotel space is nice, but anyone else feel like Oconee County is legitimately 10 years away from morphing into Gwinnett County?
- I know we're only a few days removed from Election Day, but I try to gaze into the future.
posted by Jmac at 8:23 AM
5 Comments:
Emmanuel's point, as I understand it, is that the Repubs have repudiated conservative principles, as those were laid out in 1994. So, a lot of true conservatives stayed home, or voted for a third party, and in general the conservative base just isn't interested in propping up these charlatans any more.
That seems to be at least one plausible way of interpreting Tuesday's outcome. I mean, a LOT of conservative people I know and talk to seem to feel this way. It's how I myself feel, in large part.
I agree that it's odd for Emmanuel to claim that Tues. shouldn't be interpreted as a repudiation of the GOP, because, duh, everything else in his own column confirms that that's exactly what Tues. was. Emmanuel himself talks about how the Repubs abandoned conservative principles, showed a failure of leadership, etc. Well, so it sounds like the Republian Party has screwed the pooch then, and the voters made them pay for it.
But I agree with Emmanuel in that it is a bit too optimistic for progressives to interpret Tuesday as a repudiation of conservatism per se. I don't think that's what happened at all. A lot of conservatives have turned on the GOP, which is not a sign that conservatism is waning, just that the GOP has finally taken its conservative base for granted a few too many times.
Or something like that.
Anti-war candidates don't win. Ever.
Then God help us all, Dawg.
But exit and other polls (to whatever extent such can be trusted) do indicate a pretty strong sentiment among the population that the Iraq War is not going well. I agree with you that we can't just construe this as being against the war, full stop, but clearly Iraq as it happens to be has become an enormous millstone around W's (and the GOP's) neck.
The last anti-war candidate to win the White House was Woodrow Wilson ...
With all due respect dude, I do wonder if you've ever read a history book seeing how Wilson presided over bringing the U.S. into World War I, leading them to victory, and then worked hard to pass the Armistice in the U.S., only to be defeated by isolationist and pacificists from both parties in the late 1910s.
With regard to the election, when I have some free time I intend to offer me little ole two cents about what happened. I don't think it's a flat-out repudiation of the conservative ideology, but I also don't think it necessarily meant either party moved to the right.
An unpopular and mismanaged war, coupled with ethics problems by the ruling party led to the opposition party smartly targeting certain races and running good candidates.
JMac, as I recall (from a U.S. History class I took at the North Avenue Trade School, which makes this suspect I understand), Wilson ran on the pledge that he would not involve our sons in a foreign war. Then he reneged... So, it is accurate to say that he won on an anti-war platform. But he then subsequently acted against that platform.
And, I suppose we could say FDR did the same thing? Except that Pearl Harbor gave FDR more justification than the Lusitania or the Zimmerman Telegram gave Wilson.
"It's the people who complain about W's supposed encroachment on civil liberties who are truly guilty of never having cracked a history book. Bush pales in comparison to Wilson in that regard, who probably outstripped both Lincoln and FDR in terms of what he was willing to do to prevail in the armed conflict."
Well, this is a point I've made lots of times in the past, but not because I'm trying to get W off the hook. I want people to question the hagiography that is out there about Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. But you are right to note the similarities between what they did and what W does.
"He understood, in ways so few of ideological heirs do, that the first aim of war is to win it, and that the niceties of civil liberties are to be sorted out later, and if and only if you come out on top."
I could not disagree with this more, and I'm a conservative.
1. What is the point of winning the war, if you undermine all the things your society is supposed to "stand for" in the process? You won, but what's the reward?
2. It is Christianity that first gave us a robust theory of just war, but your comments here are undermining all the work that "conservatives" have done in the past. In war, our biggest temptation is to just "cut loose" and do whatever it takes to win. But civilized people should restrain themselves in war, just like we should restrain ourselves in all other endeavors.
3. I do agree with you that there are circumstances in which "civil liberties" as defined by contermporary liberals are not the most important thing to be kept in mind. But I think it is dangerous to suggest that the main thing in war is winning. The main thing should be to fight honorably, or else in a way you've already lost.
Post a Comment
<< Home