Balkinization: The Democratic policy agenda is shaped by the Democratic coalition-- and vice versa

Comments:

The 800 lbs wedge issue gorilla in the room is the war.

There is a sizable Dem constituency which wants to retreat now and the Dem win is only going to encourage them.

However, the new conservative Dems from Red districts are going to be very reluctant vote for a cut and run resolution and then attempt to defend their new districts in a presidential election year when all the GOP turns out.

Pelousi is trying mightily to finesse this issue. However, when asked by Brit Hume whether it was more important to win the war or to withdraw the troops, Pelousi revealingly replied: "This isn't a war to win, it is a problem to be solved."

(Seriously, has there been a Democrat leader since FDR which has used the words "win" and war" in the same sentence.)

Pelousi wants to press for a retreat but does she dare?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:55 PM

That seems like a smart list of priorities. Nevertheless, now that the Dems are the majority in the House and Senate they have much to lose by implementing lobbying and earmark reform. If they actually get something meaningful accomplished, go them. But, I won't be holding my breath.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 4:18 PM

Steve Teles has advice for Democrats about what to tackle first when they take over in January. His list includes (in this order):

lobbying reform

This could pass but whatever passes will be purely window dressing.

earmark reform

This will die in the Senate. Because bills are so difficult to pass in the Senate with the filibuster earmarks are how many laws get passed. Both sides use this method.

reform of the House Ethics Committee

The only "reform" of which I am aware would make it easier to start more investigations. If the Dems want to ensure that they lose in 2008, let them start a swarm of investigations. Ask the GOP about 1998...

immigration reform

This could be a very interesting issue. Here the President and most Dems are on the same page.

The GOP is being really stupid going anti immigrant. Demographics is destiny. As in the EU, the leftists in this country are not reproducing enough to maintain their numbers and will actually start dying off with the boomers. The Dems only hope of staying viable as a party is to bring in new groups. Hispanic and asian immigrants are just the ticket.

allowing the government to negotiate drug prices in Medicare Part D

This will probably pass. However, I hope the GOP can limit the scope of this bill. By "negotiating," the Dems really mean price controls ala Canada. Right now, we are the only country producing new drugs in a major way. That R&D is being paid for by those high drug prices.

Once governments start "negotiating" with drug companies, that R&D money vanishes and the new wonder drugs stop coming. Germany used to be a major new drug producer. Ever since price controls went into effect, the Germans do not put out any significant new drugs.

How many future saved lives and enhanced quality of life are we willing to lose by lowering to cost of drugs now?

an increase in the minimum wage

This will pass quickly. Every state minimum wage initiative has passed. The idea is exceedingly dumb, but very popular. Most voters don't know any of the tens of thousands of unskilled teens and adults in rural areas of the inner city who the higher minimum waqe will price out of the labor market.

implementing the remaining recommendations of the 9-11 commission.

This will probably pass.

If the Dems are looking for ways not to offend, the above ideas is safe stuff for the most part. However, all those conservative Dems were not elected to pass this stuff and it will not change the next election.

If the GOP is smart, they will return back into their 1994 playbook, make the deficit the issue and propose a balanced budget based on slowing the growth of government. That will put all those newly elected Dems from Red districts on the spot when it comes time to vote. It will also bring back all those folks like me who have been in a slow simmer at the sight of the GOP spending like a gang of drunken Dems.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:42 PM

I'm not sure the Dems have to push aside issues like the torture bill or the FISA bill. I do think they have to move incrementally. For example, they could eliminate the habeas stripping provision from the torture bill. That got 48 votes, many from Republicans, when the bill passed, so the political cover is there. Similar approaches might work on other issues.

I notice that Teles left out voting issues. Regulation of robo calls would be popular, as would reforms like longer poll hours, paper trail requirements, vote by mail, etc. I'd treat these issues as essential to ensuring a high Dem turnout in future elections.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:04 PM

One of the by-products of the 2006 elections in the United States is that it is likely that the Democrats will hold the Bush administration back from starting any more wars. This buys us the time to look at the problem in more general terms.

There are two basic ideas about the infrastructure of the world: one, that we can call egalitarian, thinks that we should all be equal to one another; the other, that we can call elitist, thinks that we should be stratified so that an elite stratum has power over everyone else. ("Power" is the ability to make someone do something they do not want to do.)

Each of these are divided into variations: the elitists vary according to what they believe should be the justification for elite status (e.g., physical strength, money, weapons, rank in the bureaucracy, etc.); and the egalitarians vary in the way they would organize an infrastructure. But in many ways it doesn't matter what the basis of the elite status is, only that it exists or doesn't exist.

There are no egalitarian societies. There are societies, that we can call "authoritarian", in which one's power is determined by one's rank in the group (or in the bureaucracy of a larger society). These groups or societies existed at a primitive level in history or in relatively small enclaves in the world of the present.

There are also societies that more or less are, or claim the intent to be, in a transition from an authoritarian to an egalitarian society. We can refer to people who agree with this aim to be "progressive". People who feel that we should reverse the degree of egalitarianism we have attained, and go back to an authoritarian style of society can be called "reactionary"; and people who believe that we should stop the transition at the status quo can be called "conservative".

Western Civilization, during the period from 1500 to 1950, was progressive in that the basis of status made the transition from the force majure of a post-Roman warlord, either personally or by inheritance, to money. The way it progressed was that a layer of the lower middle class used technology to accumulate money and used that to buy into the establishment. This went through layers of traders and bankers, colonial planters, and industrial entrepreneurs. They were certified by wars: the planters by the American Revolution and the Industrialists by the American civil war.

The Industrialists were supplanted by their clerks and mechanics, who created an industrial bureaucracy that allowed them to take control. The wars and economic crises of the early 20th century left the bureaucracy the winner of what Fortune Magazine called the "Managerial Revolution". We are in the post-revolutionary period when status is based partly on money and partly on rank in a bureaucracy, so that bureaucrats have to display their status by the conspicuous use of scarce resources.

This is inconsistent with egalitarianism in a grossly obvious way. Because the bureaucrats do not understand the situation they continue to advertise Western Civilization as a place where upward mobility is not only possible but universal. At the same time they have no problem with using force to keep the scarce resources that are the signifier of status out of the hands of the non-elite. The non-elite, both within Western Civilization and outside of it, understand that they are being excluded from the upward mobility that Western Civilization promises but cannot deliver, and are frustrated.

This gives non-elite intellectuals the power to organize the resentment of the non-elite into a kind of low-level guerilla warfare that the elite call "terrorism". The only response that the elite can make without giving up their status is to try to eliminate the leadership of the guerillas. This is futile, because, as long as the global society is not egalitarian, there will always be massive populations of non-elite and frustrated non-elite intellectuals who need to vent their frustration against the elite.

The crisis is that there does not seem to be a way to make the transition between Western Civilization (and the various versions of Authoritarian societies that fill the rest of global civilization) and a society that is egalitarian on a global basis. This may be because nobody is looking for the transition or because it doesn't exist.

If there is no gradual transition the alternative is to destroy Western Civilization and start over in such a way that egalitarianism is "built in" to the successor civilization from the beginning. We don't even know how to do that, but it is possible that the trauma associated with the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization will stimulate us to figure it out.

There is a lot of intellectual power available that is not being devoted to anything that is useful to the human species. It is possible that if only a few percent of that potential intellectual power were devoted to this problem a solution might be found.

At any rate it makes it worth while laying out the constraints that such a solution would have, and that will be duscussed in future essays. This essay will be posted in [http://socevol.karleklund.net]. The theory it is based on is found in earlier essays on that blog and at [http://we.karleklund.net].

# posted by

Karl Eklund : 10:42 PM

Karl,

That's pretty random, very flawed, and makes little sense when parsed out.

A few easy points here.

First, your use of "authoritarian" is confused. You are basically arguing that any elitist society is necessarily authoritarian and that an egalitarian society is not. Well, unfortunately for you, history bears out that as societies strive for egalitarianism, authoritarianism is necessary to bring about the leveling of society. (I am assuming you mean egalitarianism as something more than "equal under the law.") The reason is that people are inherently unequal in regards to intelligence, skills, physical traits, etc. As such, any equality beyond, equality under the law, must necessarily upend the natural order. (I'm not saying that is good or bad). My point is the only way you can bring about your much heralded egalitairian society is through the very authoritarianism that you decry.

Further, I find it very odd that you say Western Civilization's progressivism ended in the 1950s. If anything, the past few decades have brought about greater wealth and prosperity for a greater number of people than at anytime in our history. Now, this wealth creation has hardly been equal, but its scale and scope far exceeds anything in the past. Why should people care so much about the percent they get of the pie, if the pie is constantly getting bigger - the benefit of all?

I find this statement of yours interesting, "If there is no gradual transition the alternative is to destroy Western Civilization and start over in such a way that egalitarianism is "built in" to the successor civilization from the beginning."
Yes, let's do that. We can call it the "Greatest Leap Forward!" You remind me of my old political philosophy prof who kept arguing for Communism. "Communism has never been tried!" he would protest. The Communism of Marx, maybe not. But history has been instructive. The greatest attempts at forced equality have only been the most miserable failures.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 12:05 AM

Karl said:
This gives non-elite intellectuals the power to organize the resentment of the non-elite into a kind of low-level guerilla warfare that the elite call "terrorism". The only response that the elite can make without giving up their status is to try to eliminate the leadership of the guerillas. This is futile, because, as long as the global society is not egalitarian, there will always be massive populations of non-elite and frustrated non-elite intellectuals who need to vent their frustration against the elite.

This claim of futility makes me think of Pareto. One aspect of his theory of the elite is the notion that the elite recruits emergent leaders of the lower strata. This allows the elite to resupply its brain trust, while preventing oppositional forces from having effective leadership.

But then, Pareto dismisses the idea that revolution or "transition" ever achieves the results called for by the revolutionaries. So probably he wouldn't be your "go to guy" for discussing either the merits of destroying Western Civilization or egalitarian societies.

The largest problem I see with your proposal is the idea that Western Civilization is the fount of inequality. Certainly Western nations are among the richest, and I know firsthand the exploitation involved in maintaining the wealth of such nations, as well as the frustration felt by the exploited.

However, inequality and hierarchy existed on every continent long before Western Civilization came upon the scene, so any attempt to make a society that is "egalitarian on a global basis" is going to have to find ways of altering the historically contingent indices of social value used within a multitude of groups to produce a single universal set of indices by which equality can be confirmed.

Humble said: My point is the only way you can bring about your much heralded egalitairian society is through the very authoritarianism that you decry.

I never pegged you for a Stalinist! Is that really the only way?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 3:17 AM

Jojo,

I wouldn't consider myself confused (of course, who would? :).

On our first point, we agree, so no confusion there.

As to your second point, I never stated or meant to imply that every person's wealth and/or power directly correlates to their intelligence or skills. Nevertheless, in a rather meritocractic society as ours, there is a rough correlation between the two. Your point recognizes the relationship between social and natural inequalitiy. I don't think anyone would argue the relationship is perfect. So, no confusion there either.

As to your last point, I may have not stated my own position clearly. I said or meant to say that if everyone's slice of the pie is a certain percent, everyone benefits when the pie grows. I didn't say it is okay if those on the bottom get a smaller piece of a growing pie.

If we take as you say, other values into consideration, then you have unintentionally and deftly illustrated why trying to create such equality is a fool's errand. The mere fact that people place values so differently in their own value hierarchy shows the impossibility of planning a system that accomodates them. The best thing we have is a rather free system that allows people to chose which values to pursue. Now, this may lead to inequality in power or wealth, but that is the necessary cost. It is impossible to determine the proper trade-off between wealth/power and those other values because the subjective worth of these is impossible to judge except by each individual person. Hence, the argument for our current system. People know what they want. Allow them the freedom to pursue it. (getting a bit off-track)

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 10:40 AM

PMS,

I'm confused. I'm hardly a Stalinist. Maybe a Leninist, but that's a different story.

Are you being coy is some way? Or am I missing something -- being sick and on meds makes my already dull brain even worse.

My point to Karl was that he tries to seperate authoritarianism and egalitarianism into "bad" and "good" respectively. My point was that to bring about his egalitarianism, the only way to make it work in the manner he desires is through authoritarianism. Been there, done that, some 100 million dead have the t-shirt.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 10:46 AM

the only way to make it work in the manner he desires is through authoritarianism

It's an old Jeff Foxworthy joke:

"If you believe that authoritarian government is a necessary first step towards a communistic or egalitarian society, you just might be a Stalinist."

I think arguing that hierarchy is a necessary precondition of heterarchical sociopoltiical structures is a bit silly.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 2:21 PM

Bart, or anyone, I'd be interested in some sort of authoritative list of who these "conservative democrats" are. I understand there are guys like Bob Casey who are pro-choice and guys like Jim Webb who came from the Reagan Administration and (from what I know) is pretty fiscally conservative, and Jon Tester. But take that in the context of the broader political package they make up and they are unmistakably Democrats to the core on a vast swath of issues.

Tester, for example, opposes much of the Patriot Act, wants raise the minimum wage and wants to promote stem cell research and affordable health care.

I don't doubt that there are new Democrats conservative on certain issues, but they universally were liberal alternates to those they defeated and the "conservative" element seems to me really overblown.

# posted by

josef : 4:24 PM

Jojo,

You are getting into the differences between positive and negative liberty.

Isaiah Berlin provides a nice refutation. Unfortunately, I can't find an online version to post the relevant text from. Oh well, if you can read it though, its a beautiful counterargument.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 4:38 PM

I'm referring to his "Two Concepts of Liberty" essay.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 4:39 PM

Good post. Restoring confidence in our pluralistic liberal democracy takes all precedence, notwithstanding many other legislative aims I find almost a critical.

But if our government is unsound, those other aims will be of small importance anyway. Restoring checks-and-balances, human rights, ethics, Geneva conventions, habeas corpus, and the "other" matters of supreme importance must take precedence.

Once they are restored, we can work for a better tomorrow. Without them, tomorrow won't really matter. We'll have become what the Terrorist wanted. We came too close for comfort. I hope we learned that lesson.

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:19 PM

The Gay Species said...

Restoring checks-and-balances, human rights, ethics, Geneva conventions, habeas corpus, and the "other" matters of supreme importance must take precedence.

Once they are restored, we can work for a better tomorrow. Without them, tomorrow won't really matter. We'll have become what the Terrorist wanted.

How exactly do you figure that Mr. Bush's policies are what the terrorist wants when our enemies are telling you just the opposite.

Today the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq hailed the victory of Democrats in our elections as a "reasonable" choice. This was rapidly followed by the Supreme Leader of Iran calling the defeat of Bush by the Democrats as a victory for Iran.

Does it give any of you Dems even the slightest pause as to why our nation's mortal enemy al Qaeda finds your foreign policy to be "reasonable" and Iran considers those policies to be a victory for its Islamic fascist state?

I am deadly serious about this. These statements are not a GOP campaign attack ad. They are direct quotes from our enemies.

You Dems are no longer in the minority and are in a position to help set policy. Do you really want to set a policy which the enemy finds "reasonable" and a "victory?"

Its time for some serious soul searching.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:33 PM

BD: How exactly do you figure that Mr. Bush's policies are what the terrorist wants when our enemies are telling you just the opposite?

Because our enemies are telling us the opposite.

Say what you will about how "you Dems" cuddle up to the terrorists, but at least "those Dems" don't take cold-blooded killers at their word. Terrorists will say whatever causes the greatest domestic strife, as is their wont, but I wouldn't base foreign policy on press releases from "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Furthermore, given the recent move away from "stay the course" and the wise decision of Jim Baker to wait until after the election to say how we plans to get us out of the mess, I have a feeling the GOP would have endorsed the same overall strategy that the Dems will end up advocating.

But, to indulge you, if we're to take terrorists at their word, what do you make of things like this?:

A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape.

The terrorists obviously want us to stay in Iraq!

You go do some soul searching if you like, but I've already done enough to know that I refuse to play Lamb Chop to my enemy's Shari Lewis.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 11:10 PM

Bart, there's no mystery about it: George Bush is the best weapon Al Qaeda has. They say such things to incite fools like you.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 2:33 AM

I think we should keep Bart as our troll pet. Taking Qaeda at their word... next thing you know Bart wants to negotiate with them. That will teach those treasonous democrats!

# posted by

Anne : 5:06 AM

"Those who will give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

A line by another terrorist loving liberal.

# posted by

Anne : 5:09 AM

"Bart" DePalma is a slow learner (and I don't think it worthwhile to help him here either):

However, the new conservative Dems from Red districts are going to be very reluctant vote for a cut and run resolution and then attempt to defend their new districts in a presidential election year when all the GOP turns out.

If the war is still going on two years from now, the Republicans are in for a heap'o'trouble.

The best that Dubya can do is pull out, and pretend this was his idea and not something forced on him by an irate country. But he won't. He lives in a different reality.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:17 AM

"Bart" DePalma said:

If the Dems want to ensure that they lose in 2008, let them start a swarm of investigations. Ask the GOP about 1998...

Typo. Let me fix that:

"If the Dems want to ensure that they lose in 2008, let them start a swarm of investigations. Ask the GOP about 1992 onwards..."

But at least "Bart" is owning up to the fact that the Republican witch-hunts were a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing".... Progress of a sort.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:21 AM

"Bart" DePalma is clueless:

If the GOP is smart, they will return back into their 1994 playbook, make the deficit the issue...

No. Most sentient people know that Clinton balanced the budget and gave us the first surpluses in decades. And they know that it is the Republicans as the sole party in gummint that have been looting the treasury and spending of stoopid things like useless wars and have managed to drive the debt up into the stratosphere since 2000. Why would any thinking person trust the Republicans? Why would this actic work, absent forced massive national administration of Rohypnol?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:26 AM

PMS_Chicago said...

But, to indulge you, if we're to take terrorists at their word, what do you make of things like this?:

A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

Mr. Bush is their mortal enemy. They are celebrating his loss in the elections.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape.

The terrorists obviously want us to stay in Iraq!

My friend, reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.

Therefore, calling the Dem foreign policy "reasonable" in order to get the US electorate to reject it would have only been useful before the elections, not afterward.

In contrast, taunting the United States about staying in Iraq so Iraq could kill more of our troops dovetails exactly with what the CNN International and the EU media have been telling them would cause the Dems to "redeploy" out of Iraq.

This is not all that complicated.

al Qaeda hardly wants the US to stay in Iraq. They have admitted to losing 4000 in Iraq. Almost none of our casualties come from al Qaeda. As a result, intelligence is finding that al Qaeda is having a hard time recruiting for Iraq...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/
la-fg-iraqafghan25oct25,1,2283772.story

In fact, al Qaeda appears to be falling back from Afghanistan/Pakistan at well...

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?
StoryID=20061109-112649-8783r

Thus, we get back to the question begged by the enemy statements which you refuse to answer - why our nation's mortal enemy al Qaeda finds your foreign policy to be "reasonable" and Iran considers those policies to be a victory for its Islamic fascist state?

This is a critical question now that the Dems are in a position o power to form foreign policy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:30 AM

Anne said...

...another terrorist loving liberal.

Let us get past the name calling. Unless you Dems are admitting to loving the enemy, I am not going to assume that and I am not accusing you of that.

Let's get back to the question begged by the enemy- what part of your foreign policy do they find reasonable?

What end result in Iraq does the enemy desire which dovetails with your foreign policy so you can correct that element because we both know that you would not knowingly give aid and comfort to al Qaeda?

This is not an unimportant question. We are at war. Thousands of our citizens have died. Are you capable of giving an honest answer?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:36 AM

"Bart" DePalma got his "talking points" fax:

[PMS_Chicago]: But, to indulge you, if we're to take terrorists at their word, what do you make of things like this?:

"A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed."

["Bart"]: Mr. Bush is their mortal enemy. They are celebrating his loss in the elections.

"'We haven't had enough of your blood yet,' taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape."

[PMS_Chicago]: The terrorists obviously want us to stay in Iraq!

My friend, reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.

Glenn Greenwald addresses the stoopidity of this persistent RW meme here.

"Bart", never one to let anybody's objections get in teh way of his spouting of RW "talking points", will of course forge on. "We're waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the damn fool...." -- P.S.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:34 AM

"Bart" DePalma:

Thousands of our citizens have died.

We've noticed. Because of numbnuts like "Bart" and Dubya.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:38 AM

Wooaaa, I go away for a bit, and upon my return, the whole playground is in ruins.

Doesn't anyone want to talk about Karl's essay?

Or, do you all like beating up on Bart too much.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 11:37 AM

Saying that Democratic policy is wrong because it is something the terrorists support is fallacious--a "classic" reductio ad Binladenum.

You also make a misstep when you talk about reverse psychology. You suggest something like the following:

1. Reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.
2. The elections are over, so the target can't change course.
3. Therefore, it wasn't reverse psychology.

The problem is that you assume the terrorists want to influence the elections. I would argue that they would prefer by far to influence our foreign policy towards the Muslim world, not the results of a midterm election.

Run it again:

1. Reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.
2. American foreign policy is always subject to change.
3. Reverse psychology is useful.

Obviously there's more to it all than that, but I wanted to warn you about your argument's structure.

Even if we take them at their word, and we believe that the terrorists are generally elated that the Democrats have won Congress, what you have yet to demonstrate is that Democratic approaches to Iraq will deviate significantly from the course recommended by the Iraq Study group--which the GOP is likely to have followed. (I can't believe you've already forgotten the "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq" talking point!)

What happens if they follow the Baker Institute recommendations which, from that bit which has leaked out, have been focused on withdrawing forces from Iraq, leaving military advisors embedded in Iraqi units, and encouraging regional powers to manage peacekeeping duties? Would you call that a "retreat"? Would you call it a retreat if the Republicans had maintained control over Congress?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 11:47 AM

vePMS_Chicago said...

Saying that Democratic policy is wrong because it is something the terrorists support is fallacious--a "classic" reductio ad Binladenum.

How so? When parties engage in warfare, they each generally are trying to achieve objectives through the force of arms.

Do you deny that both al Qaeda and Iran share the objective of having the United States withdraw from Iraq? Then Afghanistan?

You also make a misstep when you talk about reverse psychology. You suggest something like the following:

1. Reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.
2. The elections are over, so the target can't change course.
3. Therefore, it wasn't reverse psychology.

The problem is that you assume the terrorists want to influence the elections.

No, I do not. I was rebutting your implication that the enemy was engaging in some sort of reverse psychology in celebrating the Dems victory.

I took the enemy at his word because reverse psychology makes no sense.

I would argue that they would prefer by far to influence our foreign policy towards the Muslim world, not the results of a midterm election.

To the extent that the enemy was threatening to cause more casualties to our troops, I agree.

bin Laden has repeatedly stated that he views the United States as a "weak horse" who will cut and run from a fight if it suffers any casualties. His models are Vietnam and Somalia.

The media has reported to the enemy as various Dems have claimed that our military casualties are in vain, the war is lost and we must retreat from Iraq.

The Dems have won the election and now are in a position to influence policy.

Thus, the enemy tells you he intends to kill more troops to push your buttons and achieve his objective of causing the US to withdraw.

Even if we take them at their word, and we believe that the terrorists are generally elated that the Democrats have won Congress, what you have yet to demonstrate is that Democratic approaches to Iraq will deviate significantly from the course recommended by the Iraq Study group--which the GOP is likely to have followed.

You are falsely assuming that the Iraq Study Group will call for some variation of the Dem "redeployment" argument. There is no evidence the group is calling for retreat. All the leaks to date have rejected that speculation.

The enemy certainly does not assume that Mr. Bush intends to retreat, thus the celebration that his party lost the elections.

(I can't believe you've already forgotten the "Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq" talking point!)

This wasn't my talking point. However, I would agree that the Dems have no plan at all for winning the war. Indeed, Mrs. Pelousi rejected the option of winning with war in a recent interview with Brit Hume.

To the extent that the Dems have a plan, the left wishes to withdraw immediately as they did in Vietnam and Somalia, while the moderates like Webb are calling for diplomacy with Syria and Iran leading to an eventual withdrawal of our troops.

What happens if they follow the Baker Institute recommendations which, from that bit which has leaked out, have been focused on withdrawing forces from Iraq, leaving military advisors embedded in Iraqi units, and encouraging regional powers to manage peacekeeping duties? Would you call that a "retreat"? Would you call it a retreat if the Republicans had maintained control over Congress?

I have no idea what the Baker Commission will come up with.

IMHO, I would increase the number of Iraqi troops as requested by the government of Iraq, embed our troops with the Iraqis to train them up and continue to turn over the country to their units.

I would withdraw our troops gradually as Iraqi troops take over as we had for the past year until the enemy started attacking Baghdad before our elections (which was probably done purposefully to affect our elections).

I would not concern myself too much with the sectarian killings of civilians. Only the Iraqis can solve that problem and these killings are not a threat to the survival of the democratically elected government there. We never promised the Iraqis to be their police force. We should not get involved in trying to stop these killings and allow the enemy more shots at our troops.

The end game should leave about a division plus in Iraq along with counter terror special ops forces to keep an eye on al Qaeda, Syria and Iran. We surely cannot do this from "over the horizon" in Okinawa as called for by Murtha.

The war waged by the Islamic fascists against our nation is not going to end any time soon. Our best chance at eliminating the root causes of this fascism is to ensure that the Iraqi and Afghan democracies continue and provide an alternative to the despotisms in the region. This should be our highest objective because failure to achieve that objective will be catastrophic and extend the war well past our generation.

I would strongly commend Mark Steyn's book America Alone for your reading. Steyn is a little over the top in many of his conclusions, but he is one of the few who is paying attention to the demography of Islamic Fascism.

Islam is one of the few societies actually expanding demographically, not only in the Middle East but also in Europe. At the same time, the European natives are dying off because they are only reproducing at about 1.3 children per couple when 2.1 children are needed to simply maintain a population. Thus, time is on the side of Islam as they demographically conquer Europe where force of arms failed last millennium.

What the United States needs to concerned about is what path Islam takes. Will it be fundamentalist fascism or will Islam adopt some variation of the western social political model. Islam appears to be able to adopt the latter in the United States melting pot, but fascism is flourishing in the EU. Steyn gives many every day examples of this extremely disturbing trend which are not being reported widely over here in the States.

Thus, we are truly engaged in a battle of civilizations in which we must triumph. Steyn is a bit of a doomsday peddler and already considers Europe to be lost. I am a bit more of an optimist. However, only if we stay engaged in the Middle East and defeat this fascism.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:21 PM

To add to "toecracker's" incredulity:

Comic Dennis Miller, not known for being a loon previously, was defending torture on Fox on the rationale that if someone has vital information, then any measure is justified to try to extract it. Premise granted.

But that was his entire argument. Where's the rest of the matter? Like empirical evidence that torture almost always fails, or worse, misleads? Or, that torture practiced encourages the practice, which leads to more torture, but not more information? Or military dudes who oppose torture for this reason, and who should know better than the rest of us the stakes? Or the "civility" and "humanitarian" counter-arguments that some "ends" do not justify those "means?" Etc?

It's not the first premise that begs incredulity, it's everything else he left out! Granted he had at least one viable premise, which is more than some Republicans have shown, but when has myopia reached critical mass to exclude "the rest of the matter?"

So, I suggest, it's not just flagrant lies and deceit, which should be obvious problems in their own right, it's the constipated thinking that only reaches the first floor in a 90-storey highrise! What about the other 89-stories? Aren't they relevant to the building? Apparently not to these folk. That is just as incredulous!

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:17 PM

"Bart" DePalma "out-thinks" himself:

"'We haven't had enough of your blood yet,' taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape."

[PMS_Chicago]: The terrorists obviously want us to stay in Iraq!

["Bart"]: My friend, reverse psychology is only useful if the target can change course.

So, "Bart"'s claim here is that this wasn't an example of "reverse psychology". Ergo, the terrorist really do want us to stay. The obvious follow-on conclusion to this is that Dubya's doing precisely what the terrorists want him to do.

"Bart" confirms this later down:

No, I do not. I was rebutting your implication that the enemy was engaging in some sort of reverse psychology in celebrating the Dems victory.

I took the enemy at his word because reverse psychology makes no sense.

Of course, what PMS_Chicago and others (such as Glenn) have said is that it is utterly hypocritical and dishonest of the RW foamer brigade to have engaged in this "You're suggesting doing just what the Terra-ists want, wah-wah-waaauuggh!" complaining they undisputably have been doing (including Mr. DePalma), and then refuse to apply the same standards to themselves.

Why do you hate America so much, "Bart" (and Dubya)?

Busted.

That issue being (hopefully) put to bed, I'd note that on a higher level, there's plenty of "psychology" between "forward" and "reverse" ... there's egging people on to get them to over-react, there's attacking their morale, there's ridiculing them in front of their friends, etc.. Not to mention, no one person's a spokesman for their entire group, and not all speakers are methodical, effective, knowledgeable or even rational.

Therein lies the fallacy of chiding anyone for "doing what the terrorists want", and -- as I think PMS_Chicago, Glenn, and I would agree -- the only party that has engaged in this dodgy tactic in earnest is the Republicans and their sycophants (like "Bart").

Hopefully, with this, we'll see the last of such dishonest rhetoric around here.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:05 PM

"Bart" DePalma makes up 'history':

To the extent that the Dems have a plan, the left wishes to withdraw immediately as they did in Vietnam and Somalia,...

Not true of Vietnam. That's just a outright lie. It was Nixon that had the "secret plan for ending the war", but didn't quite manage to do even that with any competence. Yes, the leftists wanted us out of Vietan ASAP (but had no power to do that), but they were right. Dragging it out achieved nothing.

As for Somalia, it was under criticism and pressure from Republicans that Clinton ended involvement there. Dat's da troot!

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:20 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

The enemy certainly does not assume that Mr. Bush intends to retreat, thus the celebration that his party lost the elections.

Oh, the enemy was celebrating because Dubya's a "major league a__hole" ("bigtime"), and they're happy he got his tushy spanked hard. But, as "Bart" seems to acknowledge above, that doesn't mean they're in the least unhappy (as they claimed in the quote PMS_Chicago put forth) that Dubya's going to stay in Iraq. To think that follows is a non-sequitur. Or stoopidity. Or mendaciousness. Or all three, take your pick...

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:27 PM

PMS Chicago said...

Even if we take them at their word, and we believe that the terrorists are generally elated that the Democrats have won Congress...

The enemy is being crystal clear. al Qaeda is taunting the United States because it believes it has won in Iraq after this election:

"We haven’t had enough of your blood yet.”

“Come down to the battlefield, you coward,”

“The victory day has come faster than we expected,” he says. “Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away.”

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/
11/10/iraq.main/

This needs no translation. The enemy is crowing that the United State is "incapable of fighting" and will "run away" giving victory to al Qeada in Iraq.

The only question is whether the enemy is correct in their analysis of our elections.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:44 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

I would not concern myself too much with the sectarian killings of civilians. Only the Iraqis can solve that problem and these killings are not a threat to the survival of the democratically elected government there.

Translation from Republican into English: "They're just a bunch of towel-heads. Who gives a sh*t?"

As for his comment that "these killings are not a threat to the survival of the democratically elected government there", that's so ignerrent as to be risible.

But if this is indeed what "Bart" thinks, WTF are we doing there?!?!? Over a hundred soldiers died in October (I remember "Bart"'s gloating on Unclaimed Territory a while back that the 31 in March, 2006 was just the beginning of an inevitable downward slope), and November is stacking up to be not much better, with some 26 dead so far and the month only a third over.... But I digress. That's U.S. casualties, and once again, who gives a damn about those f*^%ing Ay-rabs....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:45 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Our best chance at eliminating the root causes of this fascism is to ensure that the Iraqi and Afghan democracies continue and provide an alternative to the despotisms in the region.

What a crock. Insisting that we need Iraq as a base to keep an eye on Iran and Syria, "Bart" neglects the fact that Iran has elections (and has had such for longer that Iraq ... or Saudia Arabia), and that the Dubya maladministration probably helped Ahmedinejad win the last time around by backing the more U.S.-complaisant opponent.

But maybe "Bart" is learning. As we saw on Nov. 7th, if you're "Bart", sometimes the folks you most fear and hate get the most votes....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:57 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

I would strongly commend Mark Steyn's book America Alone for your reading. Steyn is a little over the top in many of his conclusions, but he is one of the few who is paying attention to the demography of Islamic Fascism.

Islam is one of the few societies actually expanding demographically, not only in the Middle East but also in Europe. At the same time, the European natives are dying off because they are only reproducing at about 1.3 children per couple when 2.1 children are needed to simply maintain a population. Thus, time is on the side of Islam as they demographically conquer Europe where force of arms failed last millennium.

Yeah, born a Mooslim, always a raghead, just like you're born a nigra, you're always a n.....

Ask "Bart" what his KK... -- um, sorry, let's go for the more discreet "CCC" -- membership number is.....

Good to see "Bart" show his 'good side' around here. Kind of puts the perspective on things, I'd say.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:04 PM

BD: To the extent that the Dems have a plan, the left wishes to withdraw immediately as they did in Vietnam and Somalia, while the moderates like Webb are calling for diplomacy with Syria and Iran leading to an eventual withdrawal of our troops.

It will be very interesting to see what the Iraq Study Group recommends. It's also interesting to note that your plan involves withdrawing, too--again, I'm not sure I understand the semantic trick that allows you to call Democratic plans for withdrawal "retreat" and Republican plans for withdrawal "victory."

Just as a parting barb on this thread, wouldn't you agree that the only war the Republicans have managed and won was the Civil War?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 9:22 AM

PMS_Chicago said...

BD: To the extent that the Dems have a plan, the left wishes to withdraw immediately as they did in Vietnam and Somalia, while the moderates like Webb are calling for diplomacy with Syria and Iran leading to an eventual withdrawal of our troops.

I see you do not deny this statement.

It will be very interesting to see what the Iraq Study Group recommends.

I agree. Perhaps minds wiser than I can come up with an alternative to simply putting more Iraqi troops on the ground and then allowing them to work it out politically.

It's also interesting to note that your plan involves withdrawing, too--again, I'm not sure I understand the semantic trick that allows you to call Democratic plans for withdrawal "retreat" and Republican plans for withdrawal "victory."

There is a far greater difference than semantics here.

We have achieved nearly all of our prewar objectives. The only objective left, and it is an important one, is to establish a self sufficient Iraqi military which can protect the new democratic government and continue the war against al Qaeda. It is only as that final objective is secured one province at a time do I call for our troops to draw down and then my end game will have some troops remaining there for the foreseeable future as we did during the Cold War.

Conversely, the Murtha wing of the party has wrongly stated that the US military has lost the war in Iraq and they want to withdraw the entire military ASAP to avoid further casualties no matter what mess we leave behind.

This is the difference between bringing the troops home after winning the war and retreating in surrender to the enemy.

Just as a parting barb on this thread, wouldn't you agree that the only war the Republicans have managed and won was the Civil War?

Do you really want get into the subject of which party starts the most wars?

Anyway, the GOP was in charge when the US won the Civil War, the western Indian Wars, the Spanish American War, the Philippines Moro rebellion, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, the Afghan War and the Iraq War.

Our military has won every war under both parties apart from two - Korea and Vietnam. In both cases, guess which party started and declined to finish each conflict? In both cases, after the polis had lost faith in winning the war under Dem leadership, a GOP president has to attempt to clean up the mess left behind with no chance of salvaging victory.

Once we have voted to send troop into harms way and they have paid the price of sweat and blood, there is no acceptable outcome but victory - NONE. The alternative of failure is a betrayal of those sacrifices.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:13 PM

Only then, he argues, should the Dems talk about Social Security and Iraq...

Are you insane? Iraq is the raging fire in the middle of the room! It's not a third rail to avoid, its the reason the Dems made the sweeps they did! If they delay addressing the country's clear agenda in favor of their own, they will be following the path of the traitor Gray Davis, and earn the same political ire from those who have - for now - trusted them.

On the other hand, if Dems can succeed in creating a clear and reasonable strategy with regard to Iraq, voters like me would be more open to approving their agenda. This is called "doing your job" which results in "reaping the rewards of your labor" -- a strategy that is unknown to political consultants.

As for 'bart", his unsound arguments are the political version of "do you still beat your wife". I am amazed that anyone responds to such simple-minded baiting. The truth is that there aren't just two ways to respond to Iraq, as his kind likes to believe.

Iraq is now a complicated, gummed-up mess. The new Congress will have to answer the questions that the old congress failed to ask in order to untangle things. Questions like, "Why are we there, what is our objective? What other tools are available to achieve this objective? How will we know when that objective has been reached, or when it has been irretrievably lost? What can we do to reinforce those results we deem successful over time?"

This means Congress and the American people will have to abandon the narrow idealogic views that have driven discussion of the war so far. If the Dems even appear to 'back-burner' the Iraq issue while advancing their agenda, would be the biggest mistake they could ever make and I think will cost them their future.

# posted by

Anonymous : 2:47 PM

Adam:

what is the deal between "bart" and anne? did y'all have some kind of acrimonious break-up? and why is "bart" in quotes? is that an alias of some sort?

I suspect you mean "Arne", not "Anne". "Anne" is another correspondent here.

As for my dealing with "Bart" (the reason for the quotes is that it is a nickname; his real name is something else), I offered him a deal: If he limits himself to one factual or logical error per post, I'll limit my responses to one as well. He is one of the most dishonest and intellectually lazy denizens of the blogosphere; were he simply unedjoomakated, I'd cut his errors some slack, but he's not. He's smart enough to recognise these errors (particularly when they're pointed out to him by respondents), but he's on a mission, and such things as facts aren't going to get in the way. Such mendacity, particulaly in the vestments of some kind of legal authority, must be addressed. Say, did you know that he "served" as a "criminal prosecutor"? Says so on his web site. But from all indications, what this consisted of was a stint geting the Chinese takeout while interning as a law student at the Florida Office of the State Attorney. See the problem here? Hey, I bet he's lectured enough people to call himself a perfesser too!

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:16 AM