In my continuing series on things that confuse me, I decided to begin with an article in today's New York Times, "Partisan Divide on Iraq Exceeds Split on Vietnam." Basically, three-quarters of Republicans think we did the right thing in invading Iraq, the same percentage of Democrats think we were wrong, and independents have been sliced in half — which must have been very painful. (It would have been nicer to just have them move to one side of the room or the other...but you know pollsters.)
This is a bad thing — not the slicing of independents -- say many wise people and members of both parties. "They worry about the long-term consequences of such bitter partisan polarization and its effect on the longstanding tradition — although one often honored in the breach — that foreign policy is built on bipartisan trust and consensus."
Let's face it, when someone as conservative as former Senator John Danforth (R-MO) weighs in on the side of reason, somebody ought to pay attention. “The old idea that politics stops at the water’s edge is no longer with us, and I think we’ve lost something as a result,” said John C. Danforth, also former ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush. Even Senator Richard J. Durbin, (D-IL) said, “There used to be some unwritten rules when it came to foreign policy.”
Oddly, this violent divide does not apply across the spectrum of foreign policy issues, so there must be something special about Iraq. Oh, the Times has experts on both sides trying to explain it, but it's a lot of politico-babble. They don't get it either.Why am I confused...or more confused than normally? (And I admit an anti-administration bias on this one.) First, Republicans confuse me because:
- The administration lied to us about the necessity and timing of the war. You can love Bush and still say, "Hey, George, come on, admit the WMD thing was a ploy to start and end of the war prior to the elections. It's okay. We'll still respect you in the morning.
- The administration didn't even listen to its own military and foreign policy experts on winning the peace, which is why things continue to deteriorate four years later. And they're still not listening. Does someone need a hearing aid?
- Look, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld aren't stupid people. They saw the reports on how tough it was going to be to win the peace. What happened, enquiring minds want to know? What made them so dense?
- They still talk about one Iraq as if it wasn't a made-up country sharply divided along sectarian lines.
- And why won't Republicans say, "You know what, I love the Republican party and I love Dubya, but oy vey, vat a mess they made in Iraq?" Would it kill them? Call me naive, but I'd have a lot more respect for them if they just admitted a Republican can make a mistake. Hell, lots of Democrats have made mistakes. In fact, there's a Wall of Shame at the Democratic National Committee. It's an honor to be included.
- Last I heard, Republicans and especially conservatives wanted government out of our lives...smaller government...more accountability. Why aren't they worried about the massive internal spying of American citizens going on? You think you're immune? And you call me naive.
- Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects. Don't Republicans want corruption out of government? Well, the Times did it again on the front page. I'm confused. Why aren't you pissed that the administration is still lying and deceiving you?
- This has nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't be in Iraq, or whether Bush is a good or bad man/president. It has to do with what I thought were your core values.
- Don't we (Democrats) realize that Osama "I gonna kick your butt" bin Laden was praying for the U.S. to invade Iraq because he didn't think we'd have the balls to stick it out? We can't leave now. We (meaning the U.S.) certainly could do a better job, but even though everyone hates us, I'd rather be hated than seen as a toothless tiger. It's a bad world out there.
- What are we, a bunch of whatever animal it is that eats its young? Or in this case, old. Joe Lieberman is now the canary in the mines for the Dems. Are we going to be as stupid as the Republicans and have purity tests so only the most liberal can win office? Whoa. Smart thinking — let's alienate anyone who might be a centrist.
- Why have we forgotten that the Democrats are the party that can't agree on anything — with a tent so big even Ronald Reagan was once a member? In diversity lies stength. In uniformity lies death — not to mention boredom. Out of the debates and disagreements comes, eventually, a common ground that more people can relate to. So why are we trying to kill that and become Tom "Don't You Hire A Democrat" Delay?
- There are terrifying similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, but they are mostly military blunders and stupidity. There is no similarity in terms of intent or purpose.
- When it comes to foreign policy, you try to keep the fight inside the house; to the rest of the word, you present a united front. (Of course it would help if Bush would consult with Congress once in a while...but that's a whole other issue.) If we Dems are responsible for "losing Iraq," not only is the party toast, but them weirdo Islamic radicals are going to be dancing in the streets for years. "America: Talk Big And Carry A Little Schtick."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sterfish
I just want to say that I enjoyed your piece. Now, I must depart before the usual suspects invade the thread. Cheers.
2 - gonzo marx
usual suspect here...
i'm not Confused, Mark me boyo...
i got the industrial strength chipper shredder, and the handi-cam...
i say we start by putting them in feet first and podcasting the expressions on their faces until the miserable pigfuckers from both sides get their shit together and get some fuckign Work done...
but i'm silly like that
Excelsior?
3 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo still persists in his delusion that government doing their jobs would be BETTER for us than government doing little or nothing and wasting their time on idiotic photo-op constitutional amendments that will never pass.
I did like the article, though Mark.
From what I've seen a lot of Republicans are dissatisfied with the way things have gone in Iraq, but the reason they're not giving much ground on it is that they're so offended by the behavior of the left that they don't want to give them an ounce of support or satisfaction. I've heard GOPers express exactly that position.
People are firmly convinced that there's almost nothing Bush could do which would be as bad as what would come out of the Democrats if they got into power. Maybe with the next two elections we'll get a chance to see if that's true. The rise of the radical left in the Democratic party has really scared a lot of folks. It's the only reason many of us are willing to put up with the pure fuckheads on the extreme right.
Dave
4 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
Im curious Dave, who are these radical left people? who in the democratic party is voting for them? what is it about them that makes them radical left? Why do we only here the term radical left?... the alliteration in "radical right" sounds better. Looking back at the past two Democratic Pres. Candidates, neither was particularly liberal, and both had long careers in the government so even if they were radical left they werent exactly rising out of no where. As for that other "radical left" massachusetts senator, he's been in office forever.
5 - Dave Nalle
I don't know that anyone's voting for them yet, PETI, but who they are is easy. Take a look at Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org. All you need to do is look at what's happening to Lieberman in Connecticut. The Soros crowd is taking over - the sociali$ts and the radical 'progressives'. They think they're taking power and saying so, and the right believes them, even if the moderates of the Democratic party haven't figured it out yet.
And Kennedy isn't radical left. He's a good old fashioned New England liberal. Despite all his flaws I respect him for his integrity. Let's see how long he lasts.
Dave
6 - Hoggle
Gonzo still persists in his delusion
I don't know about the rest of you, but this looks to me like a personal attack, and from the politics editor no less. A respect for other people's opinions is not necessary, but their right to have opinions must be respected.
How do I complain when the management are the ones breaking the rules?
This applies to GWB as well. Bush has no respect for US democracy and the rule of law, as his propensity for signing statements bears out. Iraq was evidence that he has no respect for international democracy and the rule of law, as embodied by the UN. Admitting one display of that attitude would intensify the demands for the other display to be admitted and the offending behaviour would then have to cease.
7 - Mark Edward Manning
Dave Nalle is right in his assessment of the anti-war crowd alienating those who simply thought an invasion of Iraq would be a mistake. It was fine to take that position - that we'd have our hands fuller than we ever did with Saddam - but it brought out the anti-American loonies, the anti-globalization crowd, the anti-Semites ...
Yeah, Iraq's a bit of a mess, but let's finish the job. Vietnam was a disaster because the gov't held back until some last-ditch desperate attempts that Nixon tried, and also because the troops received NO support and felt terribly demoralized. So the government (under both Johnson and Nixon) and the people failed our troops in that war. We haven't even lost a quarter of the lives that were lost in Vietnam yet, so any reference to Vietnam is pure hyperbole, but we must be careful not to repeat the social stigmas that Vietnam opened up.
And, besides, now may not have been the time to invade Iraq and Saddam may have been containable - again, let me emphasize may - but his son Uday, who would have without a doubt been his successor, was double the tyrant and psychopath that Saddam was. We would have had some serious work cut out for us with an Iraq under his control, I guarantee you. So, with regard to Iraq, we were fucked if we did - but equally fucked if we didn't. So we did - and let's just shut up about it, give the troops every bit of support they need and get the damn job done.
8 - Mark Schannon
Sterfish--thanks...the usuals have showed up, and I, for one, am happy to see them, LOL.
Hoggle--haven't seen you around much, but that was not a personal attack by Dave, although it probably appeared to be one. You need to know the long history of Gonzo, Dave, me, and a bunch of others. We jump on each other all the time, but, underneath that is a deep respect for solid intellects (if Gonzo would only learn the Queen's English, it'd be easier to prove that) and rational thinking.
Everyone has to read this article from today's Washington Post How the Brain Helps Paritans Admit No Grey.
I've written about the power of the unconscious before, but this explains why it's so hard, as Gonzo wants, to make good use of the industrial strength chipper shredder, and the handi-cam.
It depends on those of us who are reasonable, rational, and sane (see my insane rantings about Israel to see how well that applies to me.) to bring about civil discourse.
We're doomed.
By the way, Dave's right about the radical left borrowing Newt's and Tom Delay's playbook on how to turn your party into extremists. It's a very bad thing for us Dems. I may not be wild about Leiberman...but what's happening to him is absurd.
Let's face it, extremists on both sides are being bad boys and girls, and we can't kill them. That'd violate their constitutional rights, damn it.
In Decaf Veritas
9 - Clavos
Mark, I enjoyed your article, but partisanship usually trumps good sense, so I'm afraid it'll mostly fall on deaf ears.
The WaPo article you linked to pretty much confirms that.
That said, I'm impressed that most of the prior comments in this thread are from the most reasonable and intelligent partisans on BC, so maybe we can get it all together someday.
Utinam!
10 - Dave Nalle
I'm afraid I'm not as impressed with the WaPo article. What it basically says is that Democrats react negatively to Bush and Republicans react negatively to Kerry. Did we not already know this? It didn't take biometric testing for most of us to figure it out. It doesn't really explain the whys and wherefores of more complicated and irrational partisanship.
We haven't even lost a quarter of the lives that were lost in Vietnam yet, so any reference to Vietnam is pure hyperbole, but we must be careful not to repeat the social stigmas that Vietnam opened up.
A quarter? We've barely lost a 20th of the number of men we lost in Vietnam. Our total casualties since the start of the war are less than the yearly average in Vietnam. But still the outraged comparisons are inevitable, and it insults the memory of Vietnam when they're made, and raises a lot of hackles. I know it bothers me when ignorant people make comparisons like that for partisan purposes. I don't object to those who oppose the war. I object to those who lie and misrepresent to push that agenda.
And, besides, now may not have been the time to invade Iraq and Saddam may have been containable - again, let me emphasize may - but his son Uday, who would have without a doubt been his successor, was double the tyrant and psychopath that Saddam was. We would have had some serious work cut out for us with an Iraq under his control, I guarantee you.
Of course, if we hadn't invaded Saddam certainly would have stayed in power for 20 more years before Uday took over, at which point some smart general might have shot Uday in the back of the head and replaced him. A better option which the invasion ruled out.
On the Lieberman issue, I think it's important to note that a lot of the other moderate democrats of yesteryear - the moderate guys who one could have confidence in - are already gone. That whole generation of older, traditional democrats has retired or died out except for a few dinosaurs. Plus the religious democrats and the war democrats have all gone over to the GOP (much to my regret). That's made the party smaller and more extreme than it was 30 years ago.
Dave
11 - Mark Schannon
Dave,
What the Post article failed to emphasize, I think, is that most of these behaviors and attitudes occur at the unconscious level, and that we have very little access to our unconscious. There are very powerful, new theories about how people take in and process information, form judgments, opinions, values, attitudes, even behaviors--all unconsciously.
It's not surprising that people would react that way...what's powerful is that we're understanding the brain functions that determine how we act--whether we want to or not. If you're interested, I can send you loads of articles or recommend books on this stuff...I've been engrossed in for the past few years because it directly affects my business.
In Decaf Veritas
12 - Mark Schannon
Clavos...I don't get it. I expected a lot more ranting and raving...but maybe you're right. There could be hope for rational discourse...even without Gonzo's instruments of torture...nah!
In Decaf Veritas
13 - Peter J
Back in #3 Dave, ,
I agree that Kerry would probably be as fucked up as Bush, I don't believe he could begin to live up to his promises since he wouldn't remember them one day to the next but when he talks you just want him to shut the fuck up. I don't believe he knows what he said 5 minutes after he said it. I don't like him but I don't wanna kick his ass. He's just one of those guys who's insignificant enough to ignore.
There's just this thing that Bush has , that fuckin smirk, that goddam swagger, his lean off to one leg when he's standing and the way he fills a chair , like a drunken whore , when he's sitting. He reeks of that 'spoiled rich frat boy' persona. I don't like him a lot.
And somehow (and I'm not making an accusation, just an observation) way down deep, I sometime get that if he wasn't in office that Sept 11 would just be 3 days before my birthday, just like the old days..
Remember that Bin Ladin wanted to kill daddy, didn't like him, probably didn't like jr. either.
Ya just neva know.
14 - Dave Nalle
But wouldn't you rather have a couple of beers with Bush than with Kerry?
Dave
15 - Peter J
Probably be a lot more fun to goof on, especially when he's got a buzz on, He's so clueless.
Kerry would get his feelings hurt and sulk.
I'd like to sit at the bar with both of them, I think I could start WWIII.
16 - Baronius
Peter, the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, after GHW Bush left office.
17 - Mark Schannon
Dave,
Gimme a break. I'd rather have a beer with what's her name, the conservative chick who's always bashing liberals than Bush or Kerry. Come to think of it, I'd rather break the beer glass and eat the shards than drink with either of them.
Yuk.
In Jameson Veritas
18 - Dave Nalle
Go you mean the creepy blonde (Coulter) or the cute oriental (Malkin). If the former, you're a sick puppy. If the later I'll agree.
Dave
19 - Nancy
I suspect that a lot of the more moderate voters of both parties have done what I've done & foresworn their party affiliation & re-registered as Independents, thereby leaving the parties proper to the malignant sway of the extremists on both ends. Any numbers on significant changes in party affiliation among voters out there to support that suspicion?
As for getting rid of Hussein & sons, I still think it could have been done if the proper parties had been approached, and to hell with hoity-toity US laws about not engaging in assassinations. What bullshit. It would have saved us a lot of lives as well as resources.
20 - Mark Schannon
Dave, you've just now realized I'm a sick puppy. I don't know this Malkin person off hand, although I just flew back from SF & boy are my hands tired and my brain blown by boooze. But I'd still take Coulter over Bush or what's his name. call me crazy...i won't disagree
In Alcohol Veritas
21 - Jet in Columbus
All right; now either that's a typo, or Dave Nalle's been possessed by the ghost of Yoda?
22 - Jet in Columbus
I just realized something, I've been away and someone didn't put me back on the schedule, when is my night to be the sick puppy?
Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet
23 - Mark Schannon
Jet, from one drunk to a sick puppy, what the fuck are you talking about? I thought I understood Dave's post even though I didn't know who he was talking about. Now I'm thoroughly confused and can barely see the screen.
Not nice to fool with people in weakened conditions.
In something someting]=
24 - Jet in Columbus
Go you sorry I came, Intrude here not?
25 - Clavos
Jet, You messin' wit da man, now.