This was what I was talking about when I noted that the political discourse had changed so much during and after the Bush years. Advocating positions like the rule of law, accountability for government officials who break the law, limitations on executive power, civil liberties, protecting people from government spying and indefinite detention without due process, opposition to senseless wars, and opposition to government lying and corruption - these used to be considered neutral positions, not liberal or conservative.
What happened during the Bush years was simple. Supporters of President Bush stopped caring about these things - because President Bush was their guy. Turn the Justice Department into a political weapon filled with ideologues. . . whatever. Lie the country into a disastrous war . . . we still love you.
So naturally, the people who opposed these things all became "leftists," or even "far leftists."
Atrios is correct. We live in crazy times.
Joe H.
Posts
It Is Accomplished
8 years ago
3 comments:
I would say that each of the individual ideals that you mentioned (with exception to Senseless Wars, Vietnam being one such Senseless expedition endeavored by those on the left) are still neutral to this day. The only difference is that now both parties choose to break all of these rules instead of upholding them. Periods of one party rule present inherent dangers to our entire political system. Vietnam becomes the Iraq war, Tom DeLay becomes Christopher Dodd. It seems that through the course of History, mistakes (like the ones mentioned above) are continuously made. There is no feasible way to eliminate one-party rule in a free society, nor is there any way to eliminate corruption from the ranks of those who hold power. It would seem that the best measure of a party is not how well they avoid making mistakes, but how effective they are at cleaning them up.
By all accounts, Vietnam ended with thousands of American and millions of Vietnamese deaths, with no accomplishment of the original goal. Iraq has also had many casualties, but death rates are at all-time lows, and the Iraqi's have a maturing democracy. Tom Delay was removed from power, but Christopher Dodd is still the head of the Senate banking and finance committee. Go figure.
Now I know that you'll probably go into how George W. was a war criminal who supported all kinds of torture, illegal surveillance, etc., but you have to ask yourself why Obama and the Democrats haven't pursued any actions against him. They could be protecting national security interests, or they could be protecting themselves as willing accomplices to these acts that you have deemed as heinous. All I can say is that the only differences that separate the Left from the Right, are lack of self-accountability and better marketing.
Well said, Anonymous!
Anonymous,
You're damn right when you say I have to ask why Obama and the Democrats haven't pursued any actions against them? Their failure to do so is illegal and inexcuseable and is precisely what I'm talking about.
Democrats are not protecting national security by protecting Bush administration officials. Learning about the full extent of our past sins, which have now been "reprohibited" and stopped by Obama, will have little if any effect on national security, and that effect will most likely be positive (in the long run). Obama(correctly) believes that investigations and/or prosecutions will divide the nation and derail his political agenda.
However, Obama taking this view is very shortsighted. That was the point of my post (which you seemed to miss). There is ordinary predictable corruption (Tom Delay, John Murtha) and then there is coruption that threatens the type of nation that we are (torture, illegal spying, intentionally and directly undermining the institutions of democracy, such as the Justice Department).
The difference between 1973 and 2001-2008 is that Repubicans recognonized that Nixon's abuses of power could not be tolerated if America was to be preserved. However, by 2001, conservatives had become so devoted to their guys that they supported Bush no matter how radical and unamerican his actions were. As I said, Republicans stopped caring about torture, civil liberties, and other things of similar magnitude, solely to maintain their support of Bush.
Thus, anyone who still cares about these things (and there are many died in the wool political conservatives who do) are now deemed "leftists."
That's what I meant in my post. The debate has shifted from what kind of America do we want (Liberal v. conservative)?" to "do we want to be Americans anymore?"
Joe H.
Post a Comment