Why I'm a Democrat (Long)

[Nym90]

WARNING: this post may contain potentially offensive statements to those who constitute the fundamental core base of both parties. The views expressed here are the true beliefs of the author, and haven't been dressed up in any partisan spin or BS, and thus may not be safe to read for those who can't stand that sort of thing, and need your politics dressed up in partisan spin. Read at your own risk.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about politics lately. I must admit that a phone conversation with MarkDel the other day really opened my eyes as to why I’m a Democrat.

I really like Mark; he seems to be a genuinely nice guy, and he passionately believes in his principles, and has clear, logical reasons for supporting the party that he does. However, there is a key difference between Democrats and Republicans that was brought to my mind when thinking about our conversation. We seemed to fundamentally agree on a LOT of things, far more than I thought I would with such a staunch Republican. We don’t really have fundamental disagreements on most basic core principles. However, we take a far different view of who we feel are bigger threats to the American way of life, and thus, who we support seems to be based much more on who we are afraid of in the opposite party than by who we support within our own party.

Personally, the reason I am a Democrat is not so much because I like or agree with everything the Democrats say; there are a lot of flaws in our party: we pander too much to the African-American vote and the “cultural elite” crowd. This pandering is really doing far more harm than good in the long run, as it is turning off honest, hard-working, blue collar Americans who SHOULD be with us because of our views on economics, but which just don’t like us because we just seem to be so culturally out of touch with average middle America. But that’s an essay for another day.

No, the reason that I am a Democrat is because the two key core constituencies to which the Republicans pander the most heavily, and which really comprise their core base, just scare the living daylights out of me, namely big corporations and those who run them, and the religious right. Now, I know that the great majority of actual party members, mind you, are NOT members of either of these. I know a lot of you will say, “But Nym, don’t you see, that’s not the REAL Republican party”; I realize this, but it doesn’t matter, because these people are in charge. They run the Republican party, in my opinion. I will offer up ONE big reason as to why I feel this is true, and something that proves my point, I think; John McCain.

Why do so many Republicans have a visceral hatred for John McCain? He is actually quite conservative, if you look at his positions on the issues. In fact, he’s a solid conservative on EVERYTHING except two key things…but…those are the two things which are unacceptable for any real Republican to oppose (again, in the eyes of the party bosses, not in the eyes of members, who, for the most part, love McCain). He does not support the agenda of the wealthy and big corporations, and he does not support the agenda of the religious right. His failure to pander to these two crowds makes him unacceptable as a Republican.

Now, the Republicans will use McCain for political advantage whenever they can; they’ll trot him out at the convention, tout endorsements from him, etc. The Republicans have no shame at all in using McCain to help them politically; they aren’t dumb, and they know most Americans love McCain. However, when it comes to actually allowing someone like McCain to become the Republican nominee, which would have resulted in McCain reshaping the GOP in his image, well, we just can’t have that. We have to stop him at all costs. The reason the GOP base hated McCain is that he would have fundamentally changed the GOP into a different party, one that probably would have won almost every election, but which would no longer be controlled by big money and the religious right. Likewise, the reason the GOP LOVES Bush, even though as many on this board having pointed out, he’s not really all that conservative on some issues, is that at the end of the day, they know that he is 100% in agreement with the agenda of the wealthy and of the religious right. As long as he stays in good graces with those two groups, anything else he says or does is perfectly fine.

Now, you are probably thinking, what does this have to do with the conversation with MarkDel? Well, he made a VERY persuasive case for the war in Iraq to me. I must admit, I almost broke down and switched sides, and supported the war, when I was thinking about it after the fact. He made me realize that a lot of the reasons that Democrats give for opposing the war are BS. And I’ll admit that I’m as guilty as anyone in regurgitating some of this tired old propaganda; when the rigors of daily life press down on you, you sometimes forget to stop and THINK long and hard about the issues (often cause you don’t have time) and you just resort to parroting propaganda; admit it, we all do it sometimes, it’s much easier to allow our party spinmeisters to define our positions for us than actually thinking up our own positions. However, although I support the humanitarian mission of the war, and I support the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East, the REAL reason, in my heart of hearts, why I oppose the war is this: I don’t trust George W. Bush any farther than I can throw him.

Yes, folks, I just simply can’t bring myself to trust a man who is in the hip pocket of big corporations (especially big oil) and the religious right to lead our nation in such a fundamentally world-altering mission. Although I support the goals and ideals of the war, and the idea of remaking the Middle East, at the end of the day, I just think that a man who supports the agenda of big money powerbrokers who care only about profits rather than what’s good for the people in this country, the folks who would sell their own grandmother for $5 if they could,  and who supports the agenda of religious fundamentalists who seek to cram their religion down other people’s throats, just can’t possibly be going into this war with the noblest of intentions. There just has to be some ulterior motive here. It may be that we are going to war for the profit of big business (and we all know that war is good for businesses, especially those who produce the extremely expensive weapons that are used for war) and especially big oil, which clearly stands to benefit from the US-led liberation of a region which just happens to have most of the world’s oil reserves at its disposal. Or, it might be the religious right, who seeks to reform these unholy unbelievers and bring Christianity to them, so that they can be saved and go to heaven, because gee, they just don’t know what’s good for them, and they need to see the light (or else die). Either way, I don’t trust Bush to go to war for the good of the world; I am convinced that big corporations and/or the religious right are the ones who really want this war, and that they will use ANY reason (many of which are very good reasons really) to justify it.

So, in conclusion, the reason that I am a Democrat is because I see big corporations as a fundamental threat to the American ideal, namely that of equal opportunity. I strongly believe that ALL Americans should have an equal opportunity to be successful, regardless of their race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, handedness, preference in cheese, whether they prefer beer or hard liquor, etc. But most fundamentally of all, regardless of their class or family background, and that’s where big corporations are fundamentally anti-American, because they don’t promote the free market, they stifle it, and care only about profits. They don’t care one iota about average Americans; they only see them as pawns in a chess match, to be used in whatever way they see fit to make another dollar. And I feel strongly that the religious right is anti-American, because they seek to indoctrinate all of America in their religion, their way of life, because they are right and we are wrong, and they have a mission from God to reform us unbelievers, and if we can’t be reformed, well too bad, we’ll just go to Hell. But in the meantime, NOTHING should stand in the way of complete fundamentalist Christian control of the United States.
 
So folks, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. I realize that many of you are Republicans probably for the exact same reason, because you feel that the core constituencies of the Democratic base (leaders of the black community, the cultural elite, big labor) are larger threats to America than big money and the religious right. I disagree, and think that the GOP base is more anti-American than the Democratic base, flawed though the Democratic base may be. If only the 90% of Americans who don’t actually agree with either party’s base could come together to form a common-sense party, we could actually get somewhere in politics. But in the meantime, I’ll go with the lesser of two evils, because I see the base of the GOP as truly evil and anti-American.

Feel free to flame away (I know many of you will)…hopefully this will get some good discussion rolling…

[TeePee4Prez]

You were dead on about the pandering to African Americans.  I can't stand to see whites held to a MUCH higher standard then African Americans because of past discrimination.  For example, the Philly police force requires white applicants to have a much higher score than their African American counterparts.  That is not to say there should be some African Americans in some precincts because they better connect with certain neighborhoods and would command more respect than would a white cop.  This also applies to certain government jobs as well.  

Coming from a majority white area of Philadelphia, I can also smell some right-wing reactionism to the likes of John Street, Section 8 housing, and Affirmative Action.  There are a lot of people like myself who are leery of the GOP (except like you said John McCain), but too often associate the Democratic party with the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and John Street.  I know KeystonePhil is gonna fume at this, but the candidate I have at the bottom right of my signature, Melissa Brown, tried too hard to appeal to white voters in Northeast Philadelphia by saying Joe Hoeffel was a tool of John Street and Al Sharpton.  The sad thing is she came within 4 points of Joe Hoeffel.  

[Nym90]

Well said, Handzus. I agree, Democrats pander WAY too much to the black vote, because we are convinced that we need their votes in order to win. Well, if we actually stood up for what’s right, and came out and said that race-based AA is wrong, I think we’d gain far more votes in the middle than we’d lose on the left. Yes, some blacks would stay home from the polls in protest, but overall most blacks, especially poor blacks, would realize that the Democrats are still better for them overall then the Republicans, even if we don’t support race-based AA. We’d still get most of the black vote, plus gain the votes of many blue collar whites who look at issues like AA and conclude that the Democrats are out of touch and don’t understand the way the real world works. If we came out strongly for class-based AA, we would gain votes from poor and middle class whites, and keep the poor and middle class black vote as well, as they would still benefit from AA. Some rich blacks would probably switch to the Republicans, but overall we’d gain more than we’d lose. Race-based affirmative action denies equal opportunity to all, regardless of race, and that’s why I strongly oppose it. However, I strongly support class-based AA because I feel that poor people are at a fundamental disadvantage compared to the wealthy in gaining admission to good schools and getting good jobs, and that in order to provide equal opportunity, we have to give the poor a leg up.

As for McCain, I would trust him as President to lead the war in Iraq, because I would trust that he would not be beholden to the big oil companies or the religious right. He would truly be doing it for the good of the world; he’s already proven that he doesn’t care what big oil or the RR thinks, so he’d have no reason to care what they think about the war, either. He would have gotten elected in spite of their support, not because of it like Bush was, and thus would owe them nothing. The election of McCain as President would have meant the complete and utter destruction of both big money and the religious right as prominent forces in American politics, as the Republicans, having proven that they can win without them, would have no reason to care about them anymore. That’s why those groups strongly opposed McCain, because his election would have destroyed them as political forces, and left them powerless. For that reason alone, I may well have voted for McCain if he had been the GOP nominee; even though, overall, I would have agreed more with Gore on the issues, I would have trusted McCain to be a good president, and the destruction of the religious right and big money as political forces would have been worth it. If McCain had lost, those groups would have said “See, you need us to win, you better do what we say from now on,” and the Republicans would have fallen at their feet to kiss the ring once again.

[TeePee4Prez]

I work with a lot of African Americans.  I think we could abandon race based AA and still do well.  Don't take this as predjudice, but I feel most African Americans can see through the GOP's bullsh!t better than most whites.  They know the issues that matter to them most such as health care and jobs.  Whites buy into the jingoism and likeability too easily even though they shoto themselves in the foot.  Another factor as I eluded to before is the Republicans are trying too hard to pander to us (see Melissa Brown GOP Candidate for PA-13).      

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Great article!
You should get a blog you know.

[Nym90]

I'd get a blog, but I don't really have time to write such lengthy posts as this every day. I'd love to talk more about politics than I do, but alas, the real world beckons. I just was thinking about this a lot this past weekend, and felt the need to write.

[angus]

that was therapeutic, wasn't it?

I used to do that sort of schtick when I first started posting here.

Yeah, the RNC is owned by plutocrats who manipulate the feeble-minded using religion as a tool of fear.

and I have some beachfront property in Kansas I'm trying to unload, wanna buy?  let me know if you do.

I think you and I agree on quite a bit too, nym, but we vote for different candidates.  I guess ultimately we both think the DNC and the RNC are a bunch of jerks.  Just, who's the bigger jerk?  I say that leftist authoritarianism scares me ever so slightly more than right authoritarianism, at the moment.  

Aside from that, the only thing I'd really take issue with is your statement (well, your implication) that corporate interests are necessarily at odds with american ideals.  That computer you're typing on, the phone you're using, the flight you took to get to whereever you are now.  All those creature comforts were created under the banner of liberty and intellectual property rights.  Spend a little time in a Real leftist authoritarian environment, say the PRC, where intellectual property rights are non-existent and you may change your tune.  Then again, you may not.  Who knows?  But if the manipulation of fools using organized religion offends you, my friend, then you need to look no further than the DNC.  We ain't got the lock (yet!) on fooling fools using their religion.  How the hell do you think the DNC guarantees itself 90% of the black vote.  It's done through a careful admixture of racism and religion.  Take off your rose-colored glasses for a moment, nym, and read carefully.  Every single criticism you made of the RNC can be made about the DNC.  Be careful, you are far too intelligent and open-minded to buy into that Michael Moore garbage.  

Our only real difference is our level of commitment to US nationalism.  That's the truth, nym.  Other than that, you and I have very little philosophical difference.  I know this from your previous posts.  This is a grand old party and a big tent, you may find room here if you can let go of the general hostility toward toward George Bush.  True, he's been rented out by folks more clever than himself, but don't think that's not possible with your boy.

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

Thanks for an extremely intelligent and honest post. I actually have lots to add, but I can't right now since my daughter just threw a temper tantrum. But I wil be back in a few hours.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Nym90,

Thanks for an extremely intelligent and honest post. I actually have lots to add, but I can't right now since my daughter just threw a temper tantrum. But I wil be back in a few hours.

Hey your number of post is the year I get out of high school.

[dazzleman]

NYM90 -

I think you're way off base in saying that the religious right and corporations what "this war."  To which war are you referring - the war that started when we were attacked on Sept. 11?  That comment sounds like a far-left wing conspiracy theory.

It's much easier to believe that, or to believe that the president somehow caused this war, that it is to face the truth - that there are groups of people, largely Muslims from the middle east, that are organized and planning to kill us, and are willing to lose their lives to do it.

One reason I can't be a Democrat is that ever since Vietnam, Democrats have tended to blame America first for every problem in the world.  That continues even after we were attacked on Sept. 11.  I have absolutely no faith that any Democrat would be willing to take the steps necessary to make us more secure.

It is hard for me to share your dread of business since it is the backbone of our economy.  I am a part of the business world, as are most Americans.  I have had far more negative experiences with unions than I have had with businesses, and unions are the staple of the Democratic party.  Unions act to protect the workers that produce the least, and punish those who produce the most.

Other elements of the Democratic base are absolutely anathema to me.  NOW is a perfect example of a hate organization, as is the NAACP.  The black "leadership" for the most part is hideous.  And I don't like to be lectured to about politics by drug-addicted screwed up Hollywood "stars" whose own lives are a disaster, and who have large amounts of money that came very easily to them.

As I look back over the past 40 years, I see few issues on which the Democrats were right.  Democrats legislated the father out of poor, particularly black, families, with devastating results.  Democrats backed forced busing that led to the flight of the middle class from the cities.  Democrats favored a soft policy toward the Soviet Union, that would have preserved it to this day.

Democrats love to tout Clinton's successes, but most of them were on issues in which he acquiesed in what the Republican Congress wanted.  He signed welfare reform only because he was advised he would lose the election if he vetoed it again.  His budget surplus was largely a product of the Republican Congress in 1997.  Meanwhile, he was too busy with his personal affairs to look after the country's defense.

[Nym90]

Angus--

An excellent post, and welcome back! Haven't seen you in a while. I trust that the honeymoon was a good one.

I agree, we don't disagree on much. I think that our personal experiences must have been different, thus leaving us with different impressions of who is worse.

It should be noted (as I reread my post, perhaps clarified) that I don't hate all corporations. I only hate those who choose to exploit the worker to make an extra buck. For example, moving factories overseas because it's cheaper. Do corporations really need to make as much profit as humanly possible, or could they actually be willing to sacrifice just a little bit of profits for the good of those who help them earn those profits? Corporations can't do it on their own; they need workers to provide the labor. I don't believe that people who are willing to work long, hard hours should be denied a good income. Everyone, regardless of their job choice, should be able to earn a living wage. That makes for a better society, when corporations are willing to give up a little in profits (corporate owners will still be quite rich, just not quite as rich) in order for everyone at the bottom to be a little better off.

I realize that Democrats are at least somewhat controlled by corporate interests too, though not nearly as much as Republicans. The GOP is clearly, overall, the party of big business.

I agree that left wing authoritarianism is quite bad, as well. I certainly don't support communism in any way, shape or form. People need an incentive to become entrepreneurs. I don't deny that the rich deserve to be rich, but we'd be better off if they were willing to give up just a little for the betterment of the common good. Notice, I don't support welfare, except as a temporary stopgap to help those in temporary need. But I do support the idea that everyone who works, no matter what their job, should earn a wage at which they can earn a living. Almost all societal ills are ultimately caused by poverty, which is caused by those who are wealthy being unwilling to settle for anything less than the absolute highest corporate profits possible. It's inevitable in an unregulated capitalistic system that the wealthy will eventually dominate over the poor, because the richer you are, the easier it is to earn money. Thus, no matter how hard the poor work, they can never hope to compete. The american dream should be that ANYONE, regardless of their background, can eventually become wealthy if they work hard enough. If corporations are allowed complete free reign (luckily they aren't in our system, but I feel that they still have waaay too much power) this is not possible. Corporations don't support a free market, they want to eventually establish a monopoly. The free market is what works best, and government regulation is necessary to ensure that the market remains free, and that equal OPPORTUNITY for all is maintained. I support that fundamental ideal above all: equal opportunity.

Dazzleman--

The social ills you atribute to liberalism are actually caused by poverty which is caused by corporations caring only about profits and not people. That's why parents have to work long, hard hours at low paying jobs in order to make ends meet, and yet they still can't, forcing them into crime ridden neighborhoods (the only ones they can afford) and thus creating problems for their kids, who have no mother available and a high crime, stressful environment in which education can't take place. Then they turn to gangs and crime of their own to give them a sense of family, which is missing at home because their parents can't afford a decent education (because it's too expensive) and can't afford to give their kids the time they need to be effective parents (because they have to work at low paying jobs, maybe two jobs, maybe ridiculous hours, just to have enough money to barely scrape by).

As far as the war, a few key points--

I'm referring to the war in Iraq, which I do not see as helping us in the war on terror. I do support the basic ideals of the war, but it's undeniable that a prolonged operation in the Middle East can only benefit big business and big oil, and also the religious right. Like I said, I don't trust Bush's leadership because he IS clearly a pawn of big business (on which issues has he disagreed with their interests?) The only long term solution to fighting terrorism is developing alternative energy sources so that we aren't dependent on oil anymore. Then we won't have to befriend dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. or Iraq in the 1980's. However, due to Bush's dependence on the oil industry and big business in general, he's no big fan of replacing oil with alternative energy sources.

As far as conspiracy theories, well, think about it. Name ONE issue in which the Republican party supports anything other than what would be in the best interests of the wealthy and big corporations. I can't think of ANY. The GOP is COMPLETELY beholden to corporate interests. You can argue that that's a good thing, that what's good for big business is always good for America, and I wouldn't say that it's always bad by a long shot, but overall, it's much more bad than good.

Regarding Clinton, you assume the worst possible motives at any and all ambiguities. You, like me with Bush, probably refuse to trust him, because you don't see him standing for the same things that you do. A lot of Republicans seem to have taken a similar view as me but in reverse, that even if what Clinton said sounded good, they didn't trust him at all, and thus it didn't matter, because he was only doing it for political advantage. I understand that, but I think that looking at Bush's positions, and the GOP in general, that the tie to big corporations is pretty obvious.

[Citizen James]

Reminds me of something Bill Mahr said once - it's a matter of who's special interests are less terrifying.  Both sides have groups they like to demonize - megacorporations from the left, lawyers from the right.  Both serve a real purpose in society, and both have several glaring examples of people abusing their positions.

For the time being, the far left has only a minor effect on the party - mostly on keeping up traditional catchphrases and the such.  Meanwhile the far right has a stranglehold on the national republican party - some moderates can still win in state races, especially if they have good name recognition - but the national party seems to be dominated by an unholy aliance between the neo-cons and the religious right.

I'm not saying Kerry is a total centrist, but he's a heck of a lot closer to the middle than Bush is.  I think we need to move back to the center of negotiation and comprimise, debate and loyal opposition; and I can see Kerry doing that.  With Bush I can only see more divisiveness - he even had unity after 9/11 (not his doing, but an effect of the events) and he squandered it for political opertunism.

If the Republcans can put up a real moderate in '08 I will give them serious consideration.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I don't think Democratic leaders pander too much to blacks and other minorities. I DO[/i] think the party leaders have since the mid-'90s pandered too much to upper-middle-class suburbanites who really are sort of a cultural elite. These well-off voters are usually Republicans because of their economic status, and by appealing to them the Democrats lose far more support on the economic left than they gain on the economic right.

People see that the Democrats have taken Republican positions on some issues, so they think, "Well, the Republicans are more genuine, so I think I'll vote Republican."

It's just like the time Coke changed its flavor in a poor attempt to mimic Pepsi even though Pepsi sold less soda than Coke.

The convention last week offered some hope that the Democrats are moving away from this failed strategy though.

[Nym90]

Also, Dazzleman, I do believe that Muslim fundamentalist extremists do want to kill us, and I absolutely support the concept of the war on terror. I just think that the BEST way to do it is reduce our dependence on oil, and I can't see any Republican being willing to do that. I also see Christian religious fundamentalists, while certainly not as bad as Islamic extremists, still sharing SOME of the same traits (wanting to force their religion down others' throats against their will). Christianity is certainly a much more peaceful religion than Islam, (one of many reasons why I'm a Christian myself) but no one has any right to force their beliefs on others at all. The religious right just reinforces the negative stereotype that the Middle East has of America. They want a holy war, and the religious right plays into their hands in that regard.

Also, as for unions, yes, they can go too far at times, for sure. But overall, strong unions are absolutely needed as a check against strong corporate power. Same thing with trial lawyers. Without heavy influence from these two groups, big business would have a complete domination of the market, and competition (which is the true lifeblood of America, a genuinely free market) would cease to exist.

[7,052,770]

Nym90,

Thanks for an extremely intelligent and honest post. I actually have lots to add, but I can't right now since my daughter just threw a temper tantrum. But I wil be back in a few hours.

Hey your number of post is the year I get out of high school.

I hope he's posted a bunch since you said that

[Beet]

This is a great thread, though someone overwhelming since it covers a huge area. But it should be interesting. Thanks for starting it, Nym.

Beginning with the Iraq war, I suppose Markdel's argument in favor of it was generally tied around the idea of remoulding the Middle East. I say this because you mentioned it, and because it is the only argument that can possibly justify the war.

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. It had no plans to attack the United States. Therefore, an attack on Iraq cannot be justified on the grounds of national security. While his government had contacts to terrorist organizations, these ties did not involve Iraq engaging in terrorism against the U.S. They also do not distinguish Iraq from the governments over a dozen other nations. And by far, it was not worth the vast resources and cost, both fiscally and morally, to break those ties, when those resources were desperately needed in the real challenges the U.S faces in the world. Conquering Iraq  increased the terrorist presence in Iraq, as well as killing about 10,000 people, many of them innocent civilians.

Violating U.N. resolutions was not a justification for attacking Iraq. I only bring this up because the debate was dominated around this issue in the winter of 2002-2003, when the actual decision making was being done. This entire debate was a farce, and deeply soured me to the war.

Saddam Hussein's human rights violations did justify an attack on Iraq, but not in the spring of 2003, because his vast mistreatment of his own people by and large did not occur during that time frame. They occured, by and large, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 may have justified military action to protect them, just as Sudan's genocide today justifies military action in the Sudan government. In 1991, Saddam's brutal suppression of the revolt in southern Iraq justified a military intervention to protect the Shias who had taken part in it. Military action will always be justified in a humanitarian crisis where the military cost of intervention will be lower than the cost of allowing the crisis to go unchecked. However, these calamities were not ongoing in the spring of 2003. The military cost of intervention far exceeded the benefits wrought, except perhaps in the full lifting of sanctions.

I should also say that the sanctions were not justified against Iraq. Though Saddam did not deserve to benefit from the lifting of sanctions, his people did. An endless regime of sanctions was perhaps the most cruel policy the international regime could have imposed on the Iraq people. It cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Now to the argument that the attack on Iraq will reshape the Middle East. First note that this is a utilitarian argument; the Iraqis and Americans who died in the war and continue to die in the aftermath will never see the "new" Middle East. They paid for this vision with their lives, and also against their will. However appealing such a vision may be, there will always be good, Christian people, who in their conscience cannot support it. I mention Dostoevsky.

Getting past this hurdle (which is possible, if you imagine killing Hitler), there are still a number of issues here. While theoretically, the establishment of a liberal democracy in the center of the region, if successful, will have a critical long-term impact on the region, its impact is moulded by the manner in which a new government is formed. This government will always be tied to the United States and the United States invasion. It will not be a indigenous government rising from the ashes of a just national humiliation, such as the postwar government of West Germany. It keeps no Emperor like Japan. It will be a government imposed upon by a war that was carried out without the sole possible justification (helping the Arabs with long-term nation building) as either its stated or credible reason. The 'credible' reason that was (and is) percieved is the self-interest of a nation that is at best indifferent, at worst hostile and dangerous, in the eyes of the Arabs. A nation that installed the government for its own reasons. Nation-building can work if the government being overthrown is the antithesis of some indigenous identity that will replace it, or if the action is truly and credibly justified as a response to some ongoing moral crisis (since ideas can form a new basis for a nation as well... but the ideas must be genuine). In Bosnia, there were the Bosnian muslims, and the genocide was something that the West credibly intervened on, on moral grounds. This is not the case in Iraq. Although there are the Kurds, it is an Iraqi state we are trying to build, not a Kurdish one. We neither recognize Kurdistan nor did we change its automonmous status. The antithesis to the Arab identity was not Saddam Hussein, but is the continuing Israeli occupation, and increasingly, not to small extent due to Bush's policies, the U.S. Ironically, while there is an element of hatred of domestic governments among the Arabs, Hussein's government was one of the least hated due to its strong defiance of Israel (of however questionable morality that defiance took its form in). The neo-con dream is to somehow export liberal democracy to the Middle East, but like angus mentions, it exists alongside nationalism, even in the U.S. In most countries, liberal democracy exists as a form giving expression to a cultural and national core. With the core against a liberal government, it is deprived of its most essential source of support as a democratic government. As a puppet government, fundamentally non-Arab, and even anti-Arab, it has no legitimacy within Iraq, let alone the Arab world. In the end, the neo-con dream, or more accurately the manner in which foreign policy was conducted by the neo-cons in general, has mired the U.S. in a deep, deep quagmire.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They occured, by and large, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

This was back in the days when Reagan and Mad Dog Bush supported Saddam (something Republicans now deny).

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

You know what, now that I think about it, it's definitely better that I discuss this with you on the phone. I'll give you a call later this week. For now, I will avoid the overall argument on why I think you're right about so many details, but still not seeing the big picture.

1. As for your "John McCain" comments, you are dead wrong. The reason I and so many other Republicans HATE him is because he's the biggest hypocrite on the entire planet. Have you ever heard of Charles Keating of the Savings & Loan fiasco and the so-called "Keating Five" Well, your buddy McCain was caught taking BRIBES early in his career, and that's why he became so obsessed with campaign finance reform as he tried to resolve his own GUILT. Below is a story from 1990 when the scandal was at its peak, and it was not yet known whether McCain would be impeached, indicted, or whatever, but in the end, it was swept under the carpet because it was a bi-partisan scandal. McCain is hypocritical scumbag...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/extra/running_john/soul.html

2. As for your hatred of large corporations, I completely understand your position. Many, not all, large corporations HINDER COMPETITION and I find that to be an affront to the Capitalist system that I love so much. I think you'll recall my thoughts on Wamart from several months ago. However, blaming the Republicans (or the Democrats) for the evils of large corporations is like blaming Ronald McDonald when your cheesburger tastes bad...it makes you feel better, but it achieves nothing and it is completely irrational. Both parties play this game and they have to, otherwise they will never get elected in today's media dominated society. Are Republicans more beholden to big corporations? Yes, slightly, but Democrats offset this by allowing the trial lawyers to BUTT RAPE society at every turn, and they also let the teacher's union turn our children into functional illiterates all in the name of political correctness.

2. As for your comments about "the Religious Right" they are just plain wrong...not only wrong, but so amazingly off base that they are beneath a person of your intellect. You talked to me for a long time and I explained to you my religious views when I used to work for the Republican Party, right? Well, I'm telling you that this amorphous concept known as the "Religious Right" is essentially a media creation, further propped up by the Left Wing who wish to demonize these people and scare the hell out of moderate voters like yourself. I can assure you that the "Religious Right" had almost NO POWER in the RNC when I was there. In fact, they actually are taken for granted by the Republicans much the way black voters are at times taken for granted by Democrats. And as for these people being "evil" and a threat to society...I actually used to think the same thing when I was young as I was an Atheist until less than a year ago...and you know what? I WAS WRONG...and not just wrong, but totally IGNORANT.  Like I'm sure is the case with you, I had just never spent any real time around these people. Yes, they are quick to judge you and they will try and convince you to alter your behavior on certain issues, but 99% of them do so in a non-offensive and non-violent manner. Quite frankly, most of them I have met really live the lives they aspire to and they are fine and decent people, no better and no worse than either of us.

But like I said, a phone conversation would be far more beneficial...to be honest, I thought I had "won you over" in our last conversation (LOL) so I was a little surprised by some of the anti-Right Wing statements you made in this thread. However, I'm glad you believe my case for the War in Iraq made sense.

[MarkDel]

They occured, by and large, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

This was back in the days when Reagan and Mad Dog Bush supported Saddam (something Republicans now deny).

Bandit,

With all due respect, this thread is the philosophical version of the Major Leagues...your Double-A stuff will not hold up at this level...LOL

[Bandit3 the Worker]

With all due respect, this thread is the philosophical version of the Major Leagues...your Double-A stuff will not hold up at this level...LOL

Were you even old enough to watch "The Electric Company" yet during the first election when I voted?

[Nym90]

A simple check of his profile would have shown that he's older than you are....

[Nym90]

Fabulous post, Beet, I agree almost 100%.

MarkDel, I have to go to bed now, but I'll be sure to respond to you tomorrow. I have many things to say as well but not enough time right now to make the post that I feel is justified. I'll say one quick thing, though; keep in mind that my criticism was of the GOP LEADERSHIP, not of its rank-and-file members, who, you'll notice, I admitted do not share these extreme beliefs. By no means am I painting you or others like you with that brush.

[MarkDel]

This is a great thread, though someone overwhelming since it covers a huge area. But it should be interesting. Thanks for starting it, Nym.

Beginning with the Iraq war, I suppose Markdel's argument in favor of it was generally tied around the idea of remoulding the Middle East. I say this because you mentioned it, and because it is the only argument that can possibly justify the war.

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. It had no plans to attack the United States. Therefore, an attack on Iraq cannot be justified on the grounds of national security. While his government had contacts to terrorist organizations, these ties did not involve Iraq engaging in terrorism against the U.S. They also do not distinguish Iraq from the governments over a dozen other nations. And by far, it was not worth the vast resources and cost, both fiscally and morally, to break those ties, when those resources were desperately needed in the real challenges the U.S faces in the world. Conquering Iraq  increased the terrorist presence in Iraq, as well as killing about 10,000 people, many of them innocent civilians.

Violating U.N. resolutions was not a justification for attacking Iraq. I only bring this up because the debate was dominated around this issue in the winter of 2002-2003, when the actual decision making was being done. This entire debate was a farce, and deeply soured me to the war.

Saddam Hussein's human rights violations did justify an attack on Iraq, but not in the spring of 2003, because his vast mistreatment of his own people by and large did not occur during that time frame. They occured, by and large, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 may have justified military action to protect them, just as Sudan's genocide today justifies military action in the Sudan government. In 1991, Saddam's brutal suppression of the revolt in southern Iraq justified a military intervention to protect the Shias who had taken part in it. Military action will always be justified in a humanitarian crisis where the military cost of intervention will be lower than the cost of allowing the crisis to go unchecked. However, these calamities were not ongoing in the spring of 2003. The military cost of intervention far exceeded the benefits wrought, except perhaps in the full lifting of sanctions.

I should also say that the sanctions were not justified against Iraq. Though Saddam did not deserve to benefit from the lifting of sanctions, his people did. An endless regime of sanctions was perhaps the most cruel policy the international regime could have imposed on the Iraq people. It cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Now to the argument that the attack on Iraq will reshape the Middle East. First note that this is a utilitarian argument; the Iraqis and Americans who died in the war and continue to die in the aftermath will never see the "new" Middle East. They paid for this vision with their lives, and also against their will. However appealing such a vision may be, there will always be good, Christian people, who in their conscience cannot support it. I mention Dostoevsky.

Getting past this hurdle (which is possible, if you imagine killing Hitler), there are still a number of issues here. While theoretically, the establishment of a liberal democracy in the center of the region, if successful, will have a critical long-term impact on the region, its impact is moulded by the manner in which a new government is formed. This government will always be tied to the United States and the United States invasion. It will not be a indigenous government rising from the ashes of a just national humiliation, such as the postwar government of West Germany. It keeps no Emperor like Japan. It will be a government imposed upon by a war that was carried out without the sole possible justification (helping the Arabs with long-term nation building) as either its stated or credible reason. The 'credible' reason that was (and is) percieved is the self-interest of a nation that is at best indifferent, at worst hostile and dangerous, in the eyes of the Arabs. A nation that installed the government for its own reasons. Nation-building can work if the government being overthrown is the antithesis of some indigenous identity that will replace it, or if the action is truly and credibly justified as a response to some ongoing moral crisis (since ideas can form a new basis for a nation as well... but the ideas must be genuine). In Bosnia, there were the Bosnian muslims, and the genocide was something that the West credibly intervened on, on moral grounds. This is not the case in Iraq. Although there are the Kurds, it is an Iraqi state we are trying to build, not a Kurdish one. We neither recognize Kurdistan nor did we change its automonmous status. The antithesis to the Arab identity was not Saddam Hussein, but is the continuing Israeli occupation, and increasingly, not to small extent due to Bush's policies, the U.S. Ironically, while there is an element of hatred of domestic governments among the Arabs, Hussein's government was one of the least hated due to its strong defiance of Israel (of however questionable morality that defiance took its form in). The neo-con dream is to somehow export liberal democracy to the Middle East, but like angus mentions, it exists alongside nationalism, even in the U.S. In most countries, liberal democracy exists as a form giving expression to a cultural and national core. With the core against a liberal government, it is deprived of its most essential source of support as a democratic government. As a puppet government, fundamentally non-Arab, and even anti-Arab, it has no legitimacy within Iraq, let alone the Arab world. In the end, the neo-con dream, or more accurately the manner in which foreign policy was conducted by the neo-cons in general, has mired the U.S. in a deep, deep quagmire.

Beet,

Mentally, I do not have the inclination to tackle this post of yours right now, but I will at a date in the near future. For now, I will say that you are close to my "war rationale" but you have already made one HUGE ERROR in your assessment. You said that because Iraq had no imminent plans for an attack on the US that a war with Iraq could not be justified on the grounds of National Security....that's DEAD WRONG. Events in 2003 or 2004 can and will have massive long term security implications for the United States, the West in general, and the Middle East for that matter.

Let me create a personalized analogy for you to illustrate my point...

1. You and I are philosophical enemies.

2. I have a history of starting fights with people and hurting them badly when I get a chance. Essentially, I'm a bully and a jerk, and completely irrational.

3. You are physically very tough, but don't like to fight by nature. But you could definitely beat me in a fair fight.

4.  You believe that I would do harm to you if given the chance, and that I would not fight fair, but would instead use weapons and anything else I could get my hands on. Many of your friends tell you that they think you're right, and everyone knows that a few years back, I beat a guy to death with a lead pipe, so I'm clearly dangerous.

5. Well, then I start taking verbal and physical slaps at you, it's relatively harmless, but it suggests that I might one day become bolder....especially when you're not looking and your guard is down.

6. So you do the responsible thing...you go to the Police and inform them of me as a potential threat.

7. But the police refuse to do anything...they tell you that you have no real proof, and even though I'm a despicable person who has harmed others and expressed an interest in harming you, I'm not an imminent threat...yet.

8. Worse yet, you begin to suspect that the Police are being paid off by ME and that they could care less if you get hurt because it doesn't impact them.

9. So you are not in immediate danger from me at this very moment, but you are almost certain that you will be in the future, and it may cost you your life when that time comes.

10. You have a choice....sit around and wait for the moment when I AM strong enough to kill you...or you kill me first. Hence you have the chance to enhance your long term security and stop a life-threatening problem before it occurs. What's it gonna be?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

A simple check of his profile would have shown that he's older than you are....

I know, but he acts like a 5-year-old.

[MarkDel]

A simple check of his profile would have shown that he's older than you are....

I know, but he acts like a 5-year-old.

LOL...that's rich...

Bandit, I must say, you are a national treasure...LOL...this board would be far less amusing without your rather unique perspective...LOL