A diary over at dKos got me thinking about what it means to be a moderate, and what has happened to the whole idea of political moderation.
In 1964, five years before I was born, Barry Goldwater made an infamous and damaging comment at the Republican National Convention. He said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
Lyndon Johnson had a potent retort, “Extremism in the pursuit of the Presidency is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue.”
It’s a growing meme that the re-election of George W. Bush marks the final triumph of Goldwaterism. In many ways, I think this meme is a pile of crap. Goldwater was caricatured by the Democrats during the 1964 campaign, and his legacy has been similarly distorted and co-opted ever since. George Will actually had the temerity to say that Giuliani and Schwarzenegger’s 2004 convention speeches marked the return of ‘Goldwaterism’. George Will is a reliable idiot. Whether the current crop of Republicans owes anything to Goldwater’s political philosophy or not, the debate over moderation is alive and well.
Many of us are nostalgic for the days when moderation in the affairs of state was considered a virtue. We are not predisposed to be radical, intemperate, or overly partisan. And yet, that is exactly how we feel in the current political climate.
We feel marginalized, threatened, condescended to, angry, bitter, and in no mood for reaching for consensus. And we’re right to feel this way.
And that got me thinking about what it means to be a ‘moderate’. What does ‘moderate’ mean in a political context?
‘Moderate’ should mean that you believe in the two party system, that you think sanity lies near the center of both parties, and that the ideal government involves a broad cross-party center that does most of the work of building consensus, making compromises, and hammering out the details of legislation.
But we’ve lost that cross-party consensus, and while Iraq is not the only issue the blew it up, it was the biggest factor. In fact, longtime moderates like Biden and Kerry were swept up in the meat-grinder that destroyed moderation, and the validity of moderation. Once they realized that we were going to war in Iraq, they did the time-honored thing that moderates do. They tried to make the best of it. They tried to reach out to the UN, they tried to get Colin Powell to moderate and modulate the alienating rhetoric coming out of the White House and Pentagon. They tried to be patriots, in their own way. They were not rewarded.
The Bush administration ignored all the helpful advice that came from moderates in Congress, the State Department, the CIA, the salons of Washington and New York, and the pen of Tom Friedman. And the effect of this alienation was to destroy any consensus, or any middle, about what the ‘War on Terror’ means, why is should be fought, how it should be fought, or even whether it should be fought.
The fact that Iraq has been a complete disaster has had the effect of discrediting any moderates on the left who attempted to work on the ‘project’. And now, in return for their ill-fated cooperation on the biggest foreign policy initiative in two generations, they have been paid back with a list of nominees for our most important national security posts that most Democrats think should be in jail. Look at the list: Negroponte, Rice, Bolton, Chertoff, Gonzales, and Goss.
When a man like Dick Lugar tries to ram home a man like John Bolton, you know that there is no longer any room in the Republican Party for independent thought. They want to crush their opponents, humiliate them, irritate them…
Whatever Goldwater’s faults, this does not strike me as his legacy. His legacy, ironically, is that it is now we, on the left, that see no virtue in moderation. We see only resistance. We do not see ourselves as extremists, but our rhetoric is extreme. It is extreme because there is no longer any viable moderate center to appeal to.
Moderation is dead…for the time being. And Goldwater’s caricature is now the caricature of the left.
Do you even know what one is? In recent years, the US has shifted so far to the right that true moderates are regularly called extremists, far left fringe, and a variety of other labels intended to smear, to discredit, to dismiss.
An argument can be made that before any real adjustment can take place, it will be necessary to first splash a little cold water of reality on the situation.
Unqualified and categorical opposition to imperialism, to colonialism, to feudalism, by whatever name is not extremist.
Equal protection under the law is not extremist.
Requiring that ALL nations abide by international laws and conventions is not extremist.
The principle that a day’s labor should be at the very least, worth a day’s survival is not extremist.
That a nation should provide health care to all its citizens, without qualifiers or profiteering or exceptions is not extremist.
The recognition that a nation where only a small percentage of the population participate in the political process is not a democracy, nor is its government legitimately elected is not extremist.
Demanding the application and enforcement of a single universal standard of human rights is not extremist.
These are all moderate postitions, yet expression of support for any one of them will trigger a storm of invective, even by self-proclaimed “leftists,” who with an extraordinary feat of ledgerdemain, manage to twirl their ideology into a gnarled teratoid that would frighten the Gipper himself, and send Barry Goldwater screaming into the desert night.
It is time to de-program, time to call things by their real names, to reclaim the lost art of independent thought, and put that first muddy foot on the step that leads out of the pit, and from there, possibly to civilization.
Dammit Fatwa, I had to go look up ‘teratoid’, you monster…
All good points.
The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration considers the moderates in the GOP to be fringe radicals, and the moderates in the Democratic Party to be weak-willed dupes.
It’s the total lack of respect for the whole concept of bi-partisanship: in appointments, in judges, in foreign policy and relations, in crafting legislation…
that has been another contributing factor in destroying the functionality of the middle.
But Iraq is what lost the left-middle any credibility with the left.
and at the same time, none.
The defining elements of US policy, basically colonialism and feudalism, enjoy bipartisan support out the kazoo!
It would hardly be pragmatic for any Democratic politician to stand up and call for cessation of aggression and disarmament, and the couple of pols who have even suggested universal health care have been roundly denounced as “unelectable.”
If the Democrats advocated moderate positions, they would soon find themselves reduced to the status of “non-party” that is the fate of any effort to move the US toward the direction of a multi-party democracy, with significantly more than a quarter of the people participating.
That is the problem. I am no fan of Ralph Nader but he is correct in his assessment of the bifurcated American uniparty, where practical differences are largely cosmetic, and those who were at one time, theoretically, intended to be your servants are now essentially corporate lackeys. The feudal lords are their masters, not the serfs, yet the serfs continue to express shock and awe when this is demonstrated for them time after time.
Just another example: Any politician who does NOT endorse extrajudicial executions is unelectable. You will recall that both Howard Dean and John Kerry were obliged to denounce the principle of the rule of law in this manner to be considered as acceptable candidates for ceremonial figurehead.
Now in my opinion, such an endorsement ought to automatically disqualify the man from seeking public office anywhere in a place that has gone to the trouble of writing a constitution, even if they have installed it in the sumptuous bathroom of the White House’s west wing.
You can’t have bipartisanship without bi.
Nor can you call it a democratic government when you start out with the principle that there will be only two “real” parties, who spend their time debating whether the wetwork of invasions should be outsourced, and how much of it, and to whom.
I am not proud of many acts and policies of the US Government in our short history, but taken on balance, and in comparison with the the other governments around the world, I believe America has done more good than harm. More good than any other nation.
The problem, in my mind, is that the principles of self-determination, human rights, and representative government have basically prevailed in the world. I mean this in the sense that pretty much everyone sees the lack of these things, wherever there is such a lack, as a problem.
That means that the dirty work of American imperialism has finished its job, and it is time to turn the maintenence of these priciples over to the United Nations, or some other umbrella organization.
But American tycoons are not interested in taking this selfless step. And taking the step will not be painless, or without its own collateral damage. But it must be done, and voluntarily would be preferable.
Those things are seen as desirable because thanks to US dirty work, they are intimately acquainted with the lack.
Where we differ, I think is that you see the UN as an entity separate from the US.
I am of the view that it would be good to have such an entity, separate from the US.
Moderates were demonized by the Bush administration early after 9/11 as being unpatriotic. The unpatriotic label seemed to be Kerry’s most overwhelming fear during the campaign. Go back and examine his position on Iraq. He was afraid to go against the war and the hawks knew it and they exploited his fear.
The Bushies are an Administration of Fear and Loathing.
I swear I did not read your response before I wrote
that
moderates had to shift to respond to the extremist Bush Administration.
We must have been writing at the same time.
HIGH 5!
From where I stand your position is moderate. Taking into consideration that this country was founded on the extermination of a race of people for self profit, and the principles of freedom have very much to do with wealth as opposed to social freedom, not to mention the importation of another race as slaves, I think moderate takes on a different meaning. The Native Americans are isolated in “reservations”, corporate America is the American dream, and what were once the slaves are left to rot, marginalized and imprisoned as much as possible so that they will never be given opportunity to fulfill this dream.
On the other hand this country was also inhabited to get away from religious oppression, which was one of the few reasons that actually involved humanity and tolerance.
Why is it acceptable to the American voter not to have health care? Why is it becoming easier to marginalize unions? Why do we allow the system to benefit the ultra rich, who got where they are by using people – after all what is that to the majority. These are very simple questions, yet at the same time more complex than they should be. I would guess it’s because we are conditioned to believe that we (white voters) can attain a better place in society. Of course there is a very high percentage of us who realizes that this is not the way into the future, but I think for the most part moderation is the dream of Capitalism. And, yes, there was a time when our politicians were of a higher caliber, but I’m not so sure that it included the general population.
I disagree. If you spread the political beliefs of the population along a horizontal line, I suspect the plotted result would be an almost-perfect bell curve. Half left, half right, large bulge in the middle.
Post 9/11 we were as united as we were after Pearl Harbor. Good for us. But I think unlike those times, if we disagreed with BushCo on any issue post-towers we were portrayed as traitors, even if it had nothing to do with “The War on Terror!”. A well-constructed right-wing box – FEAR – and we walked right in and closed the door behind us.
But that box got opened in the last election (thank you Howard). To think that moderation is dead you have to believe that the 100 million people who voted were either “hard left” or “hard right”. I don’t.
The middle is still there, and hasn’t moved in five years. But the public perception is that the needle has pegged right. The perception is the left is extreme and inflexible. More accurate to say the right has jumped so far so fast it looks like we’re standing still by comparison.
People are starting to question, to push back, to say “yes, but have you seen/read”. On issues like Social Security. Or Abu Gonzales. And the economy, the energy bill, the “dirty air act”, and the war. Even though the far right & left still get the airplay, moderate views are bubbling up.
If you measure the distance along that horizon between Boxer & Frist the distance is vast. Not so Reid & Spector. Just because the “pundit nation” says Red & Blue doesn’t alter the fact that it’s Purple. We just need to remember that. (Wouldn’t hurt to stop painting with such a wide brush either).
sure I see what you are disagreeing with. Your post seems to be just another way of making my same point.
Moderation is dead…for the time being.
Sybil mentions this BBC documentary (infoclearinghouse has it), and so do I.
It’s about the power of nightmares — the fear of terrorist attacks — to sway the masses in a manipulation by those in leadership.
But we on the left have our own nightmares that can come to the fore. You know what those nightmares are, so I won’t list them here.
The thing is that when we’re operating from the heightened emotions and fears that come out of nightmares, we lose all capacity for moderation.
(Goldwater would be very dismayed by today’s Congress. He got along wonderfully with Democrats in the Senate, including my hero Warren Magnuson. And one of my other heroes, the three-time Republican governor of WA state, Daniel J. Evans, is now a pariah among the extreme right leaders of the GOP in WA state. )
but in your essay, you use some of the extremist language of the Bush administration. That is, the ficiton of the War on Terror. It is this very fiction that has allowed them to put in place their most extreme policies. Step back in your imagination and begin your essay at a time before the Bush administration began to manipulate the language to fit their goals. Not as far back as Goldwater, but back to pre-9/11 or pre-December 2000.
Examine the expression. “War on Terror.” First of all it is impossible to declare war on an abstract noun. Isolated bands of fanatics throughout the world using suicide bombers as their warriors randomly killing civilians and children do not constitute a cohesive network of terrorists coming under the banner of ‘Terror.’ They are isolated pockets of fanatics who kill randomly. There is no network.
The Bush administration’s war would more correctly be called “War to Protect Oil Resources.”
Did they intervene militarily in the Sudan? No.
Were civilians being murdered by fanatics? Yes.
Is there oil in the Sudan? Guess not.
The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.
In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.
It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.
Link
Your essay points out to me that the Bush administration is so extreme that the centre has to shift in order to respond to it. I think there is an element of despair in between the lines of your writing. Do not despair, moderation is not dead. I believe sanity will prevail.
Another point is that history shows that extremists often lead the way for the moderates as Malcom X led the way for Martin Luther King. That makes me less dismissive of them once I examine their motives. What I think are needed are heros who put the cause above their own ambitions and ego. Am I dreaming or will this nightmare continue?
It’s distribution, and who is making money, as well as the history of the Janjawid, is an interesting subject with which I won’t hijack this thread, but googling the subject can be most rewarding and informative.
I was wrong, Sudan has oil reserves.
AND that proves my point. Was it their oil reserves that silenced the Bush Administration on Sudan?
You have not responded to my main point that “War on Terror” is a fiction.
If the US was really protecting small nations from being terrorized then they would have intervened to protect civilians in the Sudan.
His remarks are applicable to anyone who suspects the systematic murder of a people. The same sentiment was relayed in March when Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D., N.J.) – cosponsor of the Darfur Accountability Act with Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) – spoke about Darfur on the Senate floor.
[Moderation is not dead, bi-partisanship is not dead.]
” ‘Never again’ is the rallying cry for all who believe that mankind must speak out against genocide,” he said. “Man’s horrific treatment of his fellow man cannot be tolerated. We have no right to stand by while human life is being taken.”
The measure calls for world involvement to stop the crisis in Sudan, where more than 180,000 been killed, and at least 2 million are displaced. Toledo Blade, May 7, 2005
but I keep hearing about it and plan to watch it soon.
Here is a basic fact: 9/11 was not a fiction. And even if we had done nothing in response but clean up the rubble, the cost in lives and treasure was staggering.
Who carried out the 9/11 plot is a question that was not adequately answered by the 9/11 commission. However, it does appear that al-Qaeda was behind it. With who’s assistance and foreknowledge is another question of critical importance, but not one we will soon have an answer to.
Now, the obvious follow up questions are:
Who/what is/was al-Qaeda?
And what is the threat level of a repeat performance?
And then finally, what, if anything, can be done to lesson the threat, if there is one?
These are all very complicated questions to answer, especially since we are lacking key pieces of information.
As for al-qaeda, it is/was an organization that was based in Afghanistan, that was used to train militants to fight in Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, and anywhere else that there was a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. How much assistance did they receive from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the United States? It’s a very difficult question to answer. They did receive support, but that doesn’t mean they took orders.
Al-qaeda also merged with al-Zawahiri’s group, known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad (in 1998). These two groups had different agendas. But they shared a common loathing of their respective US-supported puppet governments, in the House of Saud and Mubarak.
The growth of these terrorist groups is another hard thing to explain in simple terms. Yes, they received money and training from intelligence agencies. But they also drew their recruits from legitimately alienated and religiously indoctrinated youths. They really did hate their governments, and they really did resent our governments support for their oppression.
More complication.
In such a case, with so many unanswered questions, and so many levels of complexity, the simple things to do, is to stop supporting the house of Saud and Mubarak. But even this is immensely complicated, due to the legitimate energy and economic conerns of the world, not only America. Getting rid of the Sauds is not a simple feat to accomplish, and revolution in Arabia is not something the world is eager to witness.
In any case…
I probably haven’t cleared anything up at all.
But we do need to do whatever we can to prevent another attack as devastating as 9/11. And we are not doing anything productive in that regard that I can see.
Of course, of course.
Your post indicates the complexity of separate bands of fanatics throughout the world with differing goals. There have been terrorists in Ireland, Spain, Kashmir, etc. for years.
Even the term “al Qaeda” meaning “the camp” is a made-up term. Yes some jihadis were trained in Afghanistan under the extremist rule of the Taliban but for the WH to use that term to refer to every Islamic cell around the world is deliberately deceptive. The Bush administration has been largely successful in going from the term “War on Terror” some kind of global entity and interchanging it with “al Qaeda.” The two terms have blended in many peoples’ minds.
You have cleared up that you fully understand the complexity of terrorists acting in the world which means they all cannot be covered by the term “War on Terror.” A nation cannot wage a war on Terror. A nation cannot eliminate terror. It will always exist.
9/11 killed not only Americans but many other nationalities. So although it happened in the US it affected the entire world. From the beginning I believed that since it was a clandestine operation, prevention should also be clandestine. It was a failure of intelligence that allowed it to happen, therefore tons of money should have been poured into counter-terrorism intelligence. I’m with Richard A. Clark on this not Condaleeza Rice.
There has not been another terrorist attack in the US but the invasion of Iraq has spawned hundreds of Iraqi terrorists. As Bush keeps repeating “better to have the war on terror over there than over here.” What he is saying is, “there has not been an attack on US soil because we have taken the fight to their terrority.” That’s false because it was not Iraqis who attacked the on 9/11. You know all this of course. I’m mostly talking about the diabolical language of the Bush administration.
the word qaida means foundation, or base.
Not base, or camp.
But I don’t speak Arabic, so I am not 100% sure.
Etymology is my favourite. I’ll get back to you.
But wait, don’t go away. I found out what happened
to moderation. The Bush administration killed it.
Here from Salon.com
Thursday was Holocaust Remembrance Day, but while the world commemorated the millions of victims of the Nazis, Congress squandered an opportunity to address the ongoing genocide in Darfur. The House passed President Bush’s emergency $82 billion supplemental spending bill without several provisions from the Darfur Accountability Act that were supposed to be included. Introduced with strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, the act would have taken the strongest stance against the Khartoum regime’s continuing attacks on civilians since the unanimous passage of the Sudan Peace Act of 2002, in which Congress declared that “the acts of the Government of Sudan constitute genocide as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”
The bill would have taken further steps to increase economic sanctions, impose an arms embargo and freeze the assets of the ruling junta. It also would have given more intelligence, logistical and technical support to the meager African Union peacekeeping forces on the ground, and would have established a no-fly zone over Darfur. But the Bush administration had other plans for the Darfur Accountability Act. According to the American Prospect, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to several congressmen on April 25 pressuring them to significantly strip down the bill. (It did retain $50 million for the African Union troops and humanitarian aid.)[…]
also written Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, al-Qaeda, al-Qa’ida, al-Quaida, al-Qa’idah.
Qaeda is a verb meaning “to sit.”
(The Jamestown Foundation)
gives qaa`ida as: foundation, groundwork, basis, fundament, base (geom or mil), support, pedestal, chassis, undercarriage, precept, rule, principle, maxim, formula, method, manner, mode + several more synonyms.
Qaa`ida harbiyya (lit. ‘war base’) is a base of operations.
It comes from the verb qa`ad, which means: to sit.
(Findlaw)
So from the verb “to sit” it was used politically as “the base” during the Afghan/Russian conflict.
Today it has come to mean:
-an Islamic terrorist organization started in 1988 by Osama bin Laden to resist Soviet forces in Afghanistan and which seeks to purge Muslim countries of Western influence and establish fundamentalist Islamic rule; also written Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaida, al-Qaeda, al-Qa’ida, al-Quaida, al-Qa’idah.
(Websters New Millennium Dictionary.)
And the Bush administration uses it for Iraqi resistance and every terrorist in the Middle East, Egypt, Kashmir, Pakistan, Algeria etc.
BTW Arabic/English translation on the web is not free.
has changed. It has morphed.
Today Al Qaeda means anyone or anything that actively opposes or resists US policies.
Today, Al Qaeda is you.
You write dark poetry, DF.
We are ‘al qaeda’ because we resist the Bush administration.
BTW
Where is the president?
.
Would you believe in the Netherlands?
So you are all safe for tonight.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
You have cheered me up no end, Oui.
Does the dear leader get to see any of these
protests or is he shielded?
in other words
Do you have “Free Speech Zones” over there?
.
Jack Wood Laid to Rest in Margraten – Limburg
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
…to show Plutonium Page no sympathy. She goes to all that trouble to get married and everything to avoid wee Georgie and the ruddy man has followed her the the Netherlands. How cruel is that?
Well put: “Today Al Qaeda means anyone or anything that actively opposes or resists US policies.
Today, Al Qaeda is you.”
One only needs to listen the government operative fox news, to see this underlined.
the un-patriotic chant,
the accusations of you hating America chant,
the accusations of you hate the CIC, well duh, do ya think !!!
the suggestions of one moving to Canada or France, for a mere question of the agenda.
When is enough, ENOUGH !!
.
al-Qaeda Bases
AFRICA – Morocco, Algiers, Tunisia, Egypt, Somalia
EURO/ASIA – Bosnia, Chechnya
MIDDLE-EAST – Saudi Arabia, Yemen
ASIA – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines
SOUTH-AMERICA – Argentina
In most countries, a presence of cells and individuals who have been trained and/or indoctrinated through the training camps or religious madrasa. Their earnings through fraud, drugs, mobile phone scams and passport/ID forgery. An estimated 60-90,000 islamists have gone through the al-Qaeda training camps of Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Phillipines and Indonesia.
There has been an upsurge in trainees and supporters for al-Qaeda since 9-11. By participation of Osama Bin Laden in democratic elections in Indonesia, he would be elected president with ease. Bush and the US are seen worldwide as the greatest risk to increased warfare and bloodshed.
The push towards extremism by individuals in all western countries follow an identical pattern, whether it is in Buffalo (NY), Barcelona, Milan, Amsterdam, Hamburg or London. There are excellent al-Qaeda and terror specialists, who have written about the organization and its lethal acts of terror. Yesterday, I came across the August 6, 2001 PDB for GW Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Mind boggling that no urgent counter acts and policy had been set, after Januari 2001 inauguration.
Al-Qaeda INFO
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States – July 9, 2003
Rohan Gunaratna — The Rise and Decline of Al Qaeda
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
The post 9-11 trajectory of Al Qaeda operations demonstrate its staying power. With sustained US and allied action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al Qaeda has an infinite capacity to change its shape. In the coming months, Al Qaeda will fragment, decentralize, regroup in lawless zones of the world, work with like-minded groups, select a wider range of targets, focus on economic targets and population centers, and conduct most attacks in the global south. Although the group will be constrained from conducting coordinated simultaneous attacks against high profile, symbolic or strategic targets in the West, Al Qaeda together with its regional counterparts will attacks in Asia, Africa, Middle East, and even in Latin America, a region where it only has a limited presence. Despite the likely capture or death of its core and penultimate leaders, Al Qaeda’s anti-Western universal jihad ideology inculcated among the politicized and radicalized Muslims will sustain support for Al Qaeda. [my emphasis]
My agrument is that al Qaeda was always fragmented and decentralized and that the Bush administration describes it as a cohesive global network in order to terrorize the American people.
There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas, and who will use the techniques of mass terror – the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear.
But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
Wherever one looks for this al-Qaeda organisation, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the “sleeper cells” in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.
But the reason that no-one questions the illusion is because this nightmare enemy gives so many groups new power and influence in a cynical age – and not just politicians.
Those with the darkest imaginations have now become the most powerful.
In part one, the programme looked at the origins of the neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists in the 1950s.
The second part of the series examined how the radical Islamists and neo-conservatives came together to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
War on Terror as the war against those who would stand between key US business interests and their oil. And their gun money.
On the subject of genocide, if you want to know what “never again” really means, click here
I argue against using the phrase “War on Terror”
it is a Bush administration construct.
Deconstruct the phrase and what do you have?
Propaganda as weapon to induce fear in the population.
Paralyze the population with fear.
Paralyze political contenders with fear.
.
Thanks for link to daily genocide.
I do miss the 1m victims of the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1990.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
has declared the Sudan to be within its sphere of influence, Link, Link and there isn’t a thing we can do about it.
Extremist stupidity in U.S. foreign policy I can do without, I’ll settle for moderate stupidity.
Glad you brought this up again, Sybil. We’ll be squeaky wheels until everyone sees this documentary. (Great post too.)
Hey Susan,
Thanks for reading it.
This may be off topic (in a way it isn’t) but
remember your question about “Frontline?”
Here’s what I read today:
Picked it up at MediaChannel.org “Media is a Plural”
Sybil, is the Power of Nightmares a series on television, or a documentary I can rent? It sounds interesting.
documentary.
HERE IT IS:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
pass it on.
God you people are smart! Thanks for making me think a little deeper!
I can also argue about what someone termed as the tyrrany of evenhandedness.
by always feeling we should fight fair, we lose
and we have to remember that people are hurt when we lose
booman… you say, quite rightly, “They want to crush their opponents, humiliate them, irritate them…”
if that sounds in the least bit familiar, this quote from karl rove, taken from an interview with him by ron suskind in 2003, might help clear things up…
“We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!”
Ironically, my original tag line on this site was a portion of Goldwater’s quote. (“. . .moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”.) Because, as I see it, Rove and Co. have been very effective in annihilating the basic foundations of justice.
I consider myself a moderate, but more and more I’ve been leaning to the left because it seems like that’s the only way to achieve balance. It’s like the fat bully sitting on the teeter totter leaving the skinny kid up in the air. I could stay sitting in the middle, leaving the skinny kid up there ready to fall, or I could shift my weight to his side and help him out. Same reason I voted for Wellstone. I didn’t particularly agree with all his positions, but I felt the Senate needed his voice.
How can one be moderate when this extremist administration dismantles the constitution piece by piece? And silences the voices of our representatives? And sets things in motion for Dominionism? (And you all know the rest of the story. . .)
to see the difference in tone between this thread and the thread at dKos for the same diary.
It’s like we’re all on valium, or they all took speed. Heh.
That kinda sums up the difference between the two sites in general. “It’s like we’re all on valium” also leaves the door wide open for potential site taglines. :^)
.
Answer to Sybil upthread – GWB visits Margraten in Limburg!
Secret Service wanted to shut down about 50% of the Limburg province. Was unacceptable, in the end agreed to let GWB stay the night in beautiful small village of Valkenburg, near the Allied cemetery Margraten. I wrote about this in my recent diary: TODAY – Liberation Day – May 5th
I will provide some more INFO about the cemetery, created just inside the border with Germany near Aachen. During the 1944-45 battles moving eastward toward Berlin, the Allied rule is that the soldiers cannot be laid to rest in enemy territory.
In 1946 there were some 18,970 soldiers laid to rest in Margraten. Each grave has been adopted by a Dutch citizen, for a regular visit and to place flowers. Today there are some 8,000 graves left and the 3rd generation, the grandchildren of the Dutch take care of the task for regular visits. The stories broadcast today, interviews with the veterans who come to visit their comrades are heartbreaking still!
One special story was about Pvt. Jack Wood, an orphan 14 years old when he enlisted in 1943, and was shipped to Europe for the Great War. Jack was big for his age, and got his stepmother to promise not to reveal his age to the military. Jack Wood fought in the Ardennes, Belgium during the battle of the Bulge. That was in December 1944 when the Germans made one last attempt to cut through Belgium to reach the port of Antwerp, and deal the Allies a blow.
In spring 1945, Jack’s stepmother went to the Army to reveal his true age. Immediately, an order was sent to relieve Jack from his battle duties, now across the border in Germany. The order arrived one day too late. In Jack’s last fight, he was the first soldier to approach a German stronghold, when a white flag of surrender was waved. A sniper’s bullet ended his life. Jack Wood has his final restplace in Margraten, a beautiful countryside he helped liberate.
South-Limburg Gulp Valley
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Thank you.
.
Checked further info on 17th Airborne Division website, must have misunderstand last name, soldier was Pfc Jack Cook – recipient Silver Star.
Published diary about Margraten American Military Cemetery —
Jack Cook Laid to Rest in Margraten ¶ Bush’s visit to Limburg ¶ UPDATED
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Can I support the calls that you view “The Power of Nightmares”.
In real researched content, it outstrips many of the works of the other progressives.
“Moderation is dead…”
Thank god!
Maybe we can start moving forward again.
moderate (adj.) 1398, from L. moderatus, pp. of moderari,
“to regulate.”
mediocre (adj.) 1586, from Fr. médiocre,
“a middling condition.”
I was ready to make a long contrary rant about the article, but missed the window when anybody will still be reading it, so will limit myself to asking: What is the “moderate” position on evolution vs creationism?
I think that sums up my feelings about the myth of moderation and extremism. They’re handy fictions when one needs tools for creating artificial categories, but add no content beyond that. Real political dialog emerges from desire and idea, not from some pointer identifying chunks of an “extreme–moderate” or “leftist–rightie” spectrograph. (And what’s the extreme at the other end of the spectrum that has “extreme” at one end? “Moderation just don’t seem right does it?
Anyway, been hearing too much of this self-flagellation stuff lately among the so-called liberal/left side of things. For me, the one bright spot in the present dispensation is that I can now think “I’m right and they’re nuts” with no discomfort, for the first time in my life.
And BTW, it would also be good if the so-called liberal/left got over the romance of Goldwater. He was at least a character and a person of some character, but no political hero unless you favor the ol’ barefoot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen destiny for women, and all the other attitudes that go with that.
legitimate interests is valid, but not moderation between right and wrong as in your example of science versus idiocy.
Extremism does get rejected, but only if moderation is offered as an alternative. Many on the left have made extremists of themselves by classifying legitimate interests as “wrongs”. Like, for example, when the left ignores the interests of capital or the right of the individiual to be an idiot.
BushCo, being sociopathic, sees anything outside of their self interest as “wrong”. But they are able to attach otherwise sane groups of individuals to their suicide march by appearing to serve common interests and by making the political opposition appear equally extremist and incapable of reaching accomodation.
That is why Rove likes to irritate the left. To defeat them one should save the venom for when BushCo is wrong, and make deals elsewhere. And stick the knife in their backs at the first opportunity.