That‘s certainly how the GOP convention seemed to me, though maybe I’m just too “sensitive.” But this certainly was a different convention from the GOP convention at which I was a member of the Pennsylvania delegation (indeed, the youngest member of any delegation) in 1980. That the was the Party of Jack Kemp. This is the Party of Zel Miller (!).
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
No, you are not too sensitive. You are just blind to
the fact that the Democratic Party is now amoral, that
it has no moral compass (I gather that they want to
appease Saddam Hussein rather than ousting him), that it
has nothing good to offer to the common people, that
it dashes a lot of hopes for the common people, that
it cares a lot about keeping its power in the government
than truly representing the common people, and so on.
Oh boy, I am beginning to sound like Zell Miller.
The GOP, of course, is far from perfect and is never an
angel but it is definitely a better devil than the
Democratic Party.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
You do realize, Joseph, that not one thing you said about the Democratic party is true, right? That is all right wing propaganda, and not true. In some cases, it is the precise opposite of the truth. Remarkable.
And no, I’m not a Democrat (or a Republican), but I do grow weary of both sides using propaganda instead of facts to paint their side as the savior and the other side as the devil. In an election cycle when a man who dodged the draft can paint a solider who showed decisive leadership abilities as an indecisive weakling, you know you have stepped into Orwell’s world. Sad.
It is too bad Mr. Krugman doesn’t confine his articles to discussion of economic issues. He is insightful on those topics. This article is just good old fashioned, low brow Republican bashing. The irony of Mr. Krugman’s ad hominem, animus-laced attack is rich, given the topic of the article. Notice how the piece is devoid of actual quotes from the convention, save one from Democrat Zell Miller– a quote which Mr. Krugman mischaracterizes as suggesting opposition to President Bush equates to treason. The only other point referencing the convention itself is the one about those stupid purple heart band aids which were passed out by one person until the RNC found out and put a stop to it.
If Mr. Krugman truly believes that a significant number of Republicans (i) know in their heart that they are wrong and an unspecified other group (presumably Democrats) are right or (ii) hate America, then he should seek professional help. The absurdity of these remarks speak for themselves. If you cannot see that, I fear you are wearing blinders.
With minor exceptions, the Republican convention had a simple message, which was repeated over and over and over: America will do better fighting the war on terror (or whatever you prefer to call it) with Bush as president than it will with a wishy washy left winger like Senator Kerry in the White House. Polls show President Bush’s strongest support comes on this topic, so the Republicans chose to push the “rally around the flag” strategy for the entire convention. You can dispute all aspects of that message. You can rightly point out that some of the attacks on Senator Kerry were of questionable validity. You can lambaste the Republicans for focusing much of the convention on negative attacks on Senator Kerry while presenting no vision for the next four years until a laundry list given by President Bush the last night of the convention. There are plenty of legitimate bases to attack the Republican convention and the Bush campaign. Suggesting that the convention was hate filled is not one of them. An objective observer could conclude that the convention was a thinly disguised attempt to equate support for the President with patriotism. But if you felt hate, it was your own hate for Republicans or President Bush, not hate coming from the convention. Many of the left enjoy complaining that the right won’t have a debate on the issues, but prefers to spend its energy attacking Senator Kerry’s character. Physician, heal thyself.
Unfortunately negative politics has two well-known effects:
Get past that, and maybe we’ll talk about something good.
PS, both sides have taken part. I don’t remember how many Democrats (such as Glen Miller — the astronaut) I read last night comparing Bush to Hitler. Remember the corrolary to Godwin’s law (paraphrased): when people stop debating and start ranting, Hitler will become part of the conversation.
The message of the Republicans is that Bush is a better leader in the absurdly named war on terror. That Bush has screwed up every step of the way, just about, seems not to be noticed. That America’s infrastructure is just as vulnerable is ignored. That terrorism around the globe is increasing is ignored. That Afghanistan is going back under Taliban control is ignored. Nope, all of that is ignored while people hold up Bush as a paragon of leadership in the war against terrorists. It’s laughable. No way to know how Kerry would be, or Gore would have been. But it’s hard to imagine how anyone could have been worse than Bush. All he seems to be good at is the broad stroke designed to make people think things are better than they are. In other words, propaganda. In that, they are experts.
This election isn’t so much about which direction the United States should be going but about where the United States is. The Republicans think they are fighting for the survival of the greatest country in the world (the United States) and that without the leadership of the United States the world will descend into chaos and destruction.
The Democrats are in a difficult position. If they agree with the Republican world view then questioning the Republican agenda amounts to promoting the destruction of the world. On the other hand, Americans have such a self-centered view of themselves that any attempt to disagree with the Republican world view will seriously offend most Americans.
Suppose, for example, that the Democrats pointed out that the United States made the top 20 in most metrics that measure the quality of life in a country (freedom of speech, education, standard of living, etc.). Most Americans would be baffled at the suggestion that the United States isn’t number one in everthing.
Or suppose that the Democrats pointed out that shooting poor people in a jungle with automatic weapons in one’s early twenties doesn’t really have any bearing on whether one is qualified to be president of the United States. Most “veterans” would be outraged at the suggestion that one could care enough about the United States to be president without having been in the military.
Or suppose that the Democrats pointed out that Americans wouldn’t like it if Russia unilaterally occupied Iran or if China unilaterally occupied North Korea on “humanitarian” grounds. Americans would say, well of course we wouldn’t like it because we are good and Russia and China are bad.
Or suppose that the Democrats suggested that terrorism that originates in the Middle East is more about a struggle for control of the two things of value in the Middle East (oil and ethnic identity/history) than about “hating our freedom”. Most Americans would have no idea what the Democrats were talking about.
And if the Democrats even dared to think that 9/11 didn’t actually put America, as a whole, at risk and that even if the United States did implode on itself as a result of some terrorist attack then the rest of the world would go on just fine. All Americans would be so outraged that the Democrats wouldn’t even get on the ballot.
So the Democrats have a choice – lie about the greatness of the United States or lose the election. As the say, the nice thing about having purpose is that when you’re unhappy at least there’s a reason for it.
It is interesting how “negative politics” has been redefined to mean “making any negative comments about your political opponent in any way” rather than “making negative comments about your political opponent’s character.”
There is a difference between maligning your opponent’s actions, decisions, ideas, etc and maligning his character, motives, etc.
In any reasonable world, stating negatives based on facts (which we can objectively measure) would be separated from stating negatives based on motives/character (which we have absolutely no way of confirming).
How else can we have an argument between/among political opponents if we are not allowed to argue why we disagree with the ideas of our opponents.
Hate of an action or idea is much different than hate of a person…and if we are not allowed to hate ideas or actions which we think cause harm to ourselves and others, then what?
Wes: The Republicans feel they are fighting for the survival of the greatest set of ideals around which to form a country – without which many parts of the world already have already descended to chaos and destruction. Most people I know believe that the US is flawed yet it is our ideals and our continual struggle to achieve them that makes the US great.
There is a struggle in the world between freedom and slavery/totalitarianism. That is where the “greatness” of the US comes from. So you are right in one respect: Democrats realize that if they do not support this greatness of the US, then they will lose, and deservedly so.
Sorry, the infantile death rate is of course not 7 for 10 000 as I wrote, but sad enough 7 for 1000.
On the subject of “American” ideals.
There is a balance that must be struck between anarchy and totalitarianism. On one hand “freedom” is being allowed to do what you want but on the other hand it is letting people you don’t like do things that you don’t want them to be doing.
There is also a balance that must be struck between individuality and community. While you should be able to work for your own benefit, it is also important to give back to your community.
For Americans to assume that only the balance that the United States has chosen is valid is spectacularly arrogant.
And while many populations suffer under corrupt governments, more often than not these governments came to power as a result of countries like the United States supporting the interests of their corporations over the interests of the populations.
Larry, you must not have watched the Dem convention. It was just as full of bashing as the Republican one. Carter, Kennedy, Sharpton, and Kerry were unafraid to bash Republicans. Even Bill Clinton got in a bunch of digs that were over the top.
Don’t be such a wuss. “Negativity” is one of the natural effects of a competitive political system. A “peaceful” democratic system is either a corrupt one or an inept one.
To Nate,
You may disagree with my view about the Democratic Party
but believe me, the Democratic Party is not as it was many
years ago. Democratic Party has corrupted itself with
lust for power and money and strongly dislikes to empower
the common people. But then, GOP is not much different
from Democratic Party in respect to power and money.
Both parties are just like the devils that employ every
cunning way to deceive and rob the common people but overall,
I have to say that GOP behaves somewhat a little better
than the Democratic Party.
Finally, I am registered as non-partisan (read: independent).
We are in good company. 🙂
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Joseph,
I appreciate your follow-up. I actually agree that the Democratic party has sold out and is now Republican-lite in many respects. What I meant is that of course they have a plan for Americans, and a plan for economics and so on. You may not like their plans, but they certainly do have them. However, putting that aside, here is what I think:
Both sides are political, putting rhetoric and propaganda ahead of truth. Both Bush and Kerry are Skull and Bones types, wealthy, used to privilege. So what is the key difference to me between the two? Their team. With Bush you get the neo-Cons calling the shots, overriding Mr. Compassionate Conservative, Uniter-not-Divider. With Kerry, who knows? But I find it hard to believe he will bring on board a more extreme group of idealogues. So while I won’t quibble with your view that the Republicans may offer more to you than the Democrats in general (you are welcome to that opinion), I feel this year there is a more critical choice than usual to be made. When the U.S. is being turned into an aggressor military nation (no, not for the first time, but still), it’s time for the population to step in and say, Hey, wait a minute! At least justify it! The Bush team cannot, and so out they go.
Joseph,
I appreciate your follow-up. I actually agree that the Democratic party has sold out and is now Republican-lite in many respects. What I meant is that of course they have a plan for Americans, and a plan for economics and so on. You may not like their plans, but they certainly do have them. However, putting that aside, here is what I think:
Both sides are political, putting rhetoric and propaganda ahead of truth. Both Bush and Kerry are Skull and Bones types, wealthy, used to privilege. So what is the key difference to me between the two? Their team. With Bush you get the neo-Cons calling the shots, overriding Mr. Compassionate Conservative, Uniter-not-Divider. With Kerry, who knows? But I find it hard to believe he will bring on board a more extreme group of idealogues. So while I won’t quibble with your view that the Republicans may offer more to you than the Democrats in general (you are welcome to that opinion), I feel this year there is a more critical choice than usual to be made. When the U.S. is being turned into an aggressor military nation (no, not for the first time, but still), it’s time for the population to step in and say, Hey, wait a minute! At least justify it! The Bush team cannot, and so out they go.
Wes (and Nate, and others):
“Well, let’s just give up and plead guilty. Yes, we Americans really do intend that eventually the entire world will be governed under the same kind of system we live under.
“You know, the terrible system in which people can say what they think, vote for whatever candidate seems least obnoxious to them, choose their profession freely, marry whom they want, travel wherever they please, buy whatever they can afford (or get someone else to finance), watch TV and read books without anyone forbidding them, and change religions whenever they want and freely offer their religion to others who might also want to change.
“Aren’t we awful?
“Well, yes. We’re the nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion whether he believes in it or not.”
(http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-04-28-1.html
Gosh, I sure miss Judge Posner already.
The Bush team has plenty of “justification” for the Iraq operation, haven’t you been listening? We had reports from trusted sources that Saddam had nucular, chemical and biological weapons programs. Common sense told us that if he had chemical weapons to use on the Kurds in the 1980’s, he must still have them now; and since it had been so long since then, he must have increased his stockpile to large amounts. Saddam tried to kill Daddy Bush. Saddam met with Al Qaeda officers and had correspondence with them, they both hate us so they must have conspired together in some way on terrorism. Saddam refused to let UN weapons inspectors have unfettered access to his military installations. Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists. The Bush team thinks they had plenty of justification.
The problem is, the Republicans want to fight for a world where the United States remains the dominant world power and is able to dictate terms to the rest of the world. We were able to lord it over the “free” world in the Cold War by threatening them that if the other countries didn’t dance to our tune, the Communists would take them over. That threat is useless now, and so we’re casting about for some other stick to beat recalcitrant governments over the head with. The Republicans have seized on terrorism, which has been around since forever and is a perfect villain; anonymous bands of roving fanatics that can strike anywhere, anytime, and have no permanent bases. You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists! Work with us, give us favorable trade terms, agree to our policies, or you’re with the terrorists! No, we can’t tell you when the terrorists will be gone and you can have your sovereignty back; they are faceless and unidentifiable, you just never know where they’ll turn up next! But don’t challenge our right to pursue whatever policy we want, because that means you’re supporting terrorism! It’s laughable if it weren’t so serious, because we still do have the resources to do tremendous damage to the world. We are pursuing a strategy of “it’s better to be feared than loved” and I think that’s a corruption of what this country is supposed to stand for.
Right now the Republicans are viewing-with-alarm Kerry’s college-days opinions that we should only commit our military forces if requested/permitted to do so by the United Nations. How dare he, how un-American to suggest that we give up our sovereign right to pursue whatever action we feel is in our national interests! In fact, the Republicans now view the United Nations as a failed experiment that was probably doomed from the start. The world is full of bad actors and we simply can’t trust a bunch of foreigners to look out for our interests. Therefore our national security depends on being able to take on everyone in the world who might conceivably wish us ill at once and whip them all. We can’t allow them to interfere with our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! We must have the most powerful military in the world and we cannot allow any other nation to rival us. If that means reinstating the draft and bankrupting our economy on military expenditures, so be it!
The Republicans are taking us down the wrong track. They are taking us ever further towards a militarized, might-makes-right police state. They have no respect for foreign governments that even hint of disagreeing with our policies, nor even for our own citizens who feel the same way (love it or leave it!). It’s not the America I signed up for.
Max, all the things you cite are true, but they are only part of the story.
It’s not a bad thing to promote our form of government as the most equitable in history. It is a bad thing to do so at gunpoint by kicking over the current regime (no matter how illegitimate and barbaric!) and insisting that our way is the only way. Explain please how this is different from what the Soviets did in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and every other country they took over. “But we’re the good guys” is not an answer!
It’s not a bad thing to support freedom of the press. It is a bad thing to say you’re all about freedom of the press while closing down newspapers that fail to support the party line (even those that blatantly call for terrorist overthrow of the government).
It’s not a bad thing to allow people to vote for whatever candidate they want. It is a bad thing to totally control who those candidates are and reject those you don’t want to see possibly winning.
It’s not a bad thing to support religious tolerance. It is a bad thing to promote religious tolerance only so long as Judeo-Christianity remains on top.
Jardinero1, I enjoyed Judge Posner’s visit as well but these are also important issues. I’m sure we’ll discuss copyright issues extensively in other topics.
Just to be sure I’m not taken incorrectly:
As an example, in Iraq we wish to remove Al Sadr from the picture because he wants to seize power without a popular vote (but with followers, yes), murder rivals, and summarily punish criminals as defined by him.
We, on the other hand, have formed an Iraqi delegation to write a constitution, with the input of Iraqi leaders, that will be voted on by Iraqi citizens as a self-imposed contract. The elected Iraqi government will determine what criminals are (criminal law in Iraq will not be defined by the US). We aren’t using tanks to force citizens to think what they want or say what they please (the large number of peaceful demostrations are proof of that). We only have our tanks chasing the Al Sadrs out there.
The reason we have had such success in South Korea and Japan is that we used our power there mainly for “keeping the peace” (imposing democracy on those who would derail it), and let the Japanese and South Koreans handle the other issues that a communist country demands it be allowed to manage as well (eg., the economy). Yes, we have pumped money into the economy as well, but our money alone hasn’t made Japan’s economy second to only ours. Stability and Japanese ingenuity has done that.
With many permanent U.S. military bases being built in Iraq, with the U.S. armed forces settling in to that country for years if not decades, with the provisional government being kept in place at the end of a gun, it can hardly be said that democracy is being installed there. Democracy is the charade, but it is not what the Bush team wants. This is no surprise, but a continuation of U.S. policy for many decades.
The U.S. does NOT want democracy spread around the world. Instead they want cooperative governments that play ball the U.S. way, and if that happens to be a democracy, that’s fine, good for the boys back home to read about and all that. But if that government that plays ball is totalitarian instead, that’s cool too. We’ll just sell it back home as a democracy and never look back. The local people are being tortured and killed by government death squads? Too bad, they’re playing ball with us and that’s paramount.
That’s the reality of U.S. foreign policy. If your government happens to fall into democracy and opposes the U.S., you get trouble from the U.S. and learn to hate it. If your government happens to fall into totalitarianism but plays ball with the U.S., you get no trouble from the U.S. but your life is hell, and you learn to hate the U.S. Only if your country happpens to fall into democracy AND does what the U.S. wants, your life is happy and you learn to love the U.S.
Do what we say, and no one gets hurt. The essense of U.S. foreign policy. Oh, but back home we paint it as liberation and democracy.
Like a lawyer:
Would you care to explain where I’m wrong?
Historically did Germany, France, South Korea, Japan want us there? Yes, overall. Does Iraq want us in their country? No, overall. That’s the difference.
It’s one thing to go into a vanquished foe’s country and offer to help them rebuild and stay protected against future enemies from without – as long as they want us to do so. It’s entirely another thing to start the war in the first place, and then refuse to leave when the people want you out so bad they are willing to kill and get killed to make their point. When I see French or German suicide bombers attacking U.S. bases in their country, let’s talk.
I’ll give you France and South Korea wanted us in their countries, but Germany and Japan sure didn’t (to begin with).
And if Iraq, overall, doesn’t want us in, why is the violence localized to the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad? There is no fighting in Kurdish-controlled parts, and no fighting in Shi’ite areas (aside from Baghdad). Most abductions that make the news are orchestrated by foreigners. Fighting is localized to Sunni areas and symbolic Baghdad.
My point, by the way, is that democracy isn’t “imposed.” “That’s it, I’m holding a gun to your head so you choose the kind of government you want.” It just doesn’t work.
Our troops are in Iraq only to prevent people from imposing their personal (totalitarian) governments. If they want to run for election, and be chosen to lead, they are free to do so. When you recognize the difference, let’s talk.
I agree that democracy cannot be enforced by a gun. I just don’t think that the U.S. will achieve democracy in Iraq. I think we are in for years of misery (on both sides) ahead, for the lessons of Vietnam were not learned by the NeoCons. You cannot impose your will on a sovereign nation and hope for success. The only question becomes when do you give up, and how many soldiers have to die before you do.
Germany and Japan attacked us first, btw. A key difference here.
On the subject of imposing democracy:
Even though it involved basically the same players, the effort to impose democracy on Germany after WWI had a dramatically different outcome than after WWII.
In the efforts to impose democracy on Japan and Germany after WWII, the presence of US troops was also perceived to serve the role of protecting them against China and Russia, respectively.
In Iraq, the United States is going to have a hard time resisting the temptation to exert influence on Iraq’s oil which is going to look a lot like the reparations Germany was forced to pay after WWI and the presence of US troops in Iraq is unlikely to be seen by Iraqis as protecting them and, in fact, it may be seen as an attempt to protect Israel which will hardly score points with the average Iraqi.
The issue, then, is the implementation. I’m interested in watching it pan out as well, although I think the US’s track record is pretty good. The UN has had nearly ten years to get Bosnia up and running, and they aren’t much ahead of where Iraq is after one year.
I agree, the implementation is the key, and we’ll all find out in due time out this one plays out. I also agree that in rebuilding, the US track record is pretty good, and it’s something as an American I am proud of. Yes, I have slammed some American actions in this thread, but that’s because I want my country to do better, and when they do better I applaud it.
But the approach the NeoCons have been taking has a bad track record, where there is a track record at all. I fear for the mistakes they have been making. I only hope they take that most American of traits to heart: Learn from your mistakes, change, and keep moving but in a better direction. I would be more confident of this possibility if they didn’t seem so ideologically stubborn in the face of a growing disaster. When you are convinced that God is on your side, it can be impossible to get you to face the facts, and that’s true whether you worship a Christian God or a Muslim one, sadly.
I’m probably more in favor of the international community taking action against regimes that violate human rights than most Republicans but, coming from a scientific background, I think it needs to be done in a more studied and systematic manner than a leader of a country with a powerful military getting a “gut feeling” that it’s the right thing to do.
If, after the invasion, conclusive evidence was found that Iraq was stockpiling WMD in preparation for an invasion of the United States then I would have supported the invasion. Or if the United Nations adopted studied uniform and systematic standards for taking action against regimes that violated human rights and the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the application of those standards then I would have supported it.
As it is, it may turn out that invading Iraq was the right decision. My objections come mainly from the methods used to reach the decision.
The truth hurts.
Organised religion is a way of shielding yourself from truth.
It saves you having to think. [which feels a bit like work]
It saves you making mistakes [because God intends everthing, right?]
It saves you having to look any further for explantions.
They call this faith.
It requires no proof.
It rots the soul.
The self styled president of the world G W bush, like the bishops of the dark ages, constantly reassures us that god is speaking through him as he slaughters and smirks and loots.
I could hardly believe my ears as dubya’s cronies lectured us [the rest of the world] on the need for separation of church and state in Iraq.
I do not despise america. There are many, many positive things about your country but when fail to rid yourselves of the cynical theocracy that has swamped all reason in your administration then you make yourselves little better than the taliban.
“�Well, yes. We�re the nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion whether he believes in it or not.�
“(http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-04-28-1.html
� posted by Max Lybbert on Sep 7 04 at 8:23 AM”
Well, if by, “We�re the nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion whether he believes in it or not.�, you mean that we are the nightmare of this iteration of the Republican Party, you are precisely accurate.
On the other hand, if by, “We�re the nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion whether he believes in it or not.�, you mean that the United States (led by Mr. bush and his cronies) )is, “…he nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion whether he believes in it or not.�, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the question.. And that is sad to the point of trajedy.
The original post was about the face of hate. What I’ve been reading is dialog in which each side is trying to convince the other of the brilliance & veracity of their argument in the hope that the other side will capitulate. Not gonna happen. But I wonder why only one wrote about the hate. Perhaps because it is difficult to look at and even more difficult to see.
I’m new to this blog. But the impression I had from the convention was the hate; so powerful it was visceral. And not just from Zel, although that was probably the most raw. I saw the hate not just inside the hall, but outside in the faces of the police rounding up those who dared to protest. When I read Prof. Lessig’s post, I was stunned to see someone else had noticed it, too.
I also saw the face of hatred in the president, behind his sweet smile. He smiles while sending National Guard units to die in Iraq. He smiles as he cuts their pay and benefits. He smiles while he extends their stay in Iraq. He smiles when he refuses to consider staying the death penalty. He smiles while he looks you right in the eye and lies.
Perhaps all this hatred is the hatred of ‘the other.’ They know they are right and cannot understand why everyone does not agree with them. Since the other does not join their beliefs, they must be marginalized. Hatred is a convenient tool to use.
Contrast this with the face of that immigrant father, holding up the picture of his son who died in Iraq. The anguish that twisted his face as he said to the camera, “My son died for my right to speak. I paid for this with his life.” (That quote may not be verbatim, but it is what stayed with me.)
Then there was the face of Sen. John McCain, who had been kicked in the cajones by those standing beside him. Still, he spoke to a people assembled before him, whom he hoped could save his beloved republican party. I know I’m projecting here, but it’s the only justification I could come up with for what happened to a genuinely decent man. That was the saddest thing I saw at the convention.
I mean that the US is the nightmare of those that “will not be dissuaded from their violence by any surrender less extreme than the imposition of Islam and shari’a law on the kaffir West,” and who, are “fundamentally weak militarily, economically, and, in the long run, ideologically[, and have, through the] near mastery of terrorism and asymmetrical warfare necessitated that we mobilize as if we were in fact fighting a great empire.” I have no problem with laws based on shared morals, since all laws are. Even the tax code tries to determine who, morally, should pay the largest portion of the government’s budget (see “Trickle Down,” and, btw, I don’t agree with Card on this point). However, there is a tragedy of those who have formed their own sacred religion of “politically correct” without realizing it, because they refuse to deal rationally with Gentiles who have any other belief.
Oops, I let myself get dragged into the wrong fight. What I meant by the Card quote (“We�re the nightmare of the ideologues who think every other person should be forced to live by the precepts of their religion”) was that there is a fundamental difference between the Western democratic governments, and theocratic dictators.
I meant that Muqtada al-Saddr wishes to derail popular elections in Iraq because he is terrified of popular elections. The US has used force, and has killed people just as al-Saddr has, but for a fundamentally different reason — to allow the people to vote for whom they wish to follow.
So, yes, we Westerners expect the world to one day choose its leaders, and we believe any other system is inheirently unfair. But, that was clear from the original post.
As for the claim that Bush has ignored the separation between church and state, I have to disagree. Without a set of morals (“killing people is bad, freedom of speech is good”), law quickly becomes nothing but a cost-benefit analysis. That, I think, would be the real crime.
The First Amendment prohibits favoring a particular religious view (or anti-religious view) over others, but recognizes that morals will always be present in law. All laws are based on morals. Traffic laws are based on the morality of putting others at risk through careless driving. Campaign finance laws are based on the morality of allowing rich people a bigger influence on politics. Environmental laws are based on the morality of destroying the environment.
We have several laws — other than the stem-cell research funding rule — that limit what people can do in research. In fact, for years the same people currently pushing for embryo harvesting were loudly opposed to animal testing of medicine and cosmetics. For some reason it is immoral to kill dogs (usually gathered from the pound) in search of a cure for cancer or heart disease, but completely moral to destroy human embryos for cures to the same diseases.
On another note, if it is immoral to force atheists to attend religious schools, why is it moral to force religious students to attend agnostic schools? I understand the problem with funding completely religious education (the kind of education that made Martin Luther King a “doctor,” for instance), but what is wrong with studying economics at a religious college? Why should the government’s student aid programs discourage students from going to any religious school for non-religious study?