Open ThreadI blame Sarah Palin and John McCain for attacking ACORN. It's time for me to pay for the server and the rent. And, as you can see, I have no ads sold again. In fact, Blogads sent me an email to tell me that the recession is hitting them hard. And that means that I am about to be hit hard. Anything you donate will go to making sure there is at least a glimmer of Christmas cheer around here. Thanks in advance.
 In Brief 12.01.08 How Dare They!It seems some conservatives are a wee upset that Obama memorabilia is being sold to his supporters, like (oh MY Gawd!) a commemorative plate. It's even being advertised on Television! Here's a typical reaction from a conservative blogger who finds the whole thing profoundly upsetting: This bears a disturbing resemblance to the sort of dear leader worship we see in totalitarian countries. Its scary. Its dangerous. It has no place in a free society. Here's the ad, by the way that they find so disturbing: Personally I think that ad is more than a little cheesy and reminds me of far too many late night commercials for this or that piece of [expletive deleted] memorializing this or that "important historical" event. I don't plan to buy the Obama plate, but I can't see that it is any more or less objectionable to all the George W. Bush memorabilia we've seen over the last eight years. Like the 24 Karat Bush Commemorative Coin. Or the just released 2008 Bush White House Christmas tree ornament. Or the Bush Presidential paperweight. Or cufflinks. Or the Bush sculpture bust. And as for tacky, well, has anything surpassed the Bush Commander-in-Codpiece action figure? Why there's even an entire online store devoted to Bush memorabilia (I especially like the "W" golf balls). Still, I wouldn't suggest that people who bought such items were deifying George Bush or perpetrating a "dangerous cult of personality." I'd just say it's a free country and they can waste their money on tasteless, stupid junk if they want to. No, what I truly found offensive was all the 9/11 tragedy memorabilia. Compared to those disgusting examples of crass commercialism, an Obama commemorative plate controversy seems just -- well -- moranic.
 The GOP Crack-UpDo you want to know why the Christian conservatives eventually cracked-up the GOP coalition? Look no further than this: Shocking as it might be to some, conservatism did not start with Ronald Reagan. There is a rich and varied library of postwar writing by men such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet, who were part of the traditionalist conservative school. Traditionalist conservatives focused on questions of cultural and social health; libertarian conservatives were more concerned about the economy and the overweening state. The two tribes sometimes fought bitterly, but they eventually reconciled and established what has been for nearly half a century a successful political partnership. Times change. Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Imagine that. The Christian conservative movement thinks we have 'too much individual freedom'. That might explain their muteness when George W. Bush's administration began spying on us without warrants, detaining people without charging them, and torturing people in our custody. It helps explain why they applauded when Terri Schiavo became a political football and why they were unconcerned when the government began violating basic principles of open and transparent government. After all, the real threat to 'conservative interests' is not too much government power, but too little. How could such a philosophy long co-exist with the libertarian and small government wings of the Republican Party? The coalition has broken up, and I don't think it will be put back together.
 Foreign Policy RealismThe announcement of Obama's national security team is being praised as a return of foreign policy realism. A couple of news items today show just how unrealistic our foreign policy has been.
First, Roger Cohen in the New York Times takes note of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's conversion:
What Olmert, who appears on the verge of indictment for fraud, did say in his “soul searching on behalf of the nation of Israel” was that he had made “mistakes” as a former right-wing hard-liner and that military power will not deliver his 60-year-old country from existential anguish.
“We could contend with any of our enemies or against all our enemies combined and win,” Olmert said. “The question that I ask myself is, what happens when we win? First of all, we’d have to pay a painful price. And after we paid the price, what would we say to them? ‘Let’s talk.’ ”
Olmert is now convinced of the need to settle with the Palestinians and Syria through giving up parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The fact such views come from a former Likudnik is a measure of how the political ground has shifted in Israel ahead of elections early next year.
I think Olmert’s words should be emblazoned on the wall of Hillary Clinton’s eighth-floor State Department office: “We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage elsewhere — without this, there will be no peace.”
Asked if this included a compromise on Jerusalem, Olmert said, “Including Jerusalem.” And our Glorious Leader, George Dubya, who is not comfortable with introspection, sounded a bit wistful in a Good Morning America interview:
[Bush] also admitted he was "unprepared" for a war in Iraq that has gone on to claim thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
"I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess," Bush tells ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview to be broadcast tonight, and said he didn't know if he'd have gone to war if he didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"That is a do-over that I can't do," Bush said.
He said incorrect intelligence about Saddam Hussein's arsenal was the "biggest regret of all the presidency."
"I think I was unprepared for war," Bush remarked. "In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack,'" he said. "In other words, I didn't anticipate war." Bush has previously said that he regretted the use of the phrases "Bring 'em on" and "Dead or Alive" after 9/11.
Here we have some of the hardest of right-wing hard liners taking back their words and actions that they were defined by. The words and actions which many in America and Israel thought made them "strong" leaders. These are not supporters of Bush and Olmert--this is Bush and Olmert themselves reversing what they said and did just a couple of short years ago.
What do we learn from these examples? That this is a repudiation of right-wing foreign policy ideology and of leaders that think withholding diplomatic efforts and spraying bombs will accomplish any kind of serious, lasting peace. Negotiation, diplomacy, and a two-state solution in Israel always were sane and necessary means and objectives.
Also, I've learned that people in uncertain times foolishly get behind the leader who talks and acts in the most unequivocal fashion. Then, both the people who elect those leaders and the very leaders themselves regret it later. What appears to be foreign policy "strength" at a quick, nervous glance is too often emotionally driven and/or poorly-thought-out and/or a knee-jerk reaction and/or an overuse of force.
This is a critical lesson. The next time we face a crisis, let's remind ourselves that no one eats Freedom Fries anymore.
|
