February 22, 2006
Disappointments...
I'm very disappointed in the manner in which a number of conservatives have opposed the ports transfer. Partly because they aren't very interested in facts, and don't feel compelled to present much in the way of evidence to back up their assertions. But even more, it's the ungenerous flavor of their discourse that I don't like.
Even if--let us stipulate for the sake of argument--that it's true that the deal is a security risk to our ports. None of the anti-Dubai crowd has suggested in any way that we should do anything else to encourage the friendship of the United Arab Emirates, or to reward them or thank them for the help they have given us, or to compensate them for the loss of this deal. They have nothing generous or warm-hearted to offer. No alternative plan to extend the hand of friendship to these people. They only think about us. OUR security is all-important, the rest of the world is uninteresting and uninspiring.
This is particularly galling to me, because it's similar to the cold-hearted selfishness that seems to me to be the chief characteristic of today's leftists...
Dennis the Peasant is even harsher in his judgment than I am...
...I am afraid we are coming to the moment of the Great Divide within the Conservative Movement. It is increasingly apparent to me that a substantial number of ‘Conservatives’ have never shared the noble impulse of President Bush’s vision of a democratic, secular and prosperous Muslim world. Instead, that has been co-opted by those whose vision begins and ends with the application of brute force, and who have come to the belief that subjugation or destruction are the only option available to us when dealing with the 'Other'... Our final solution, as it were...
Well, probably it was always thus. I don't think this is a "Great Divide," because we were always divided. Think back to the Cold War. Back then there were conservatives who dreamed of liberating the oppressed victims of socialism, and other conservatives who just hated commies, and cared only for our safety. That's just basic human nature. Not many people are going to sign on for a noble and idealistic (but difficult) cause at any time.
And it IS a "noble impulse." And one that has deep roots in conservative culture. The idea of fighting communism by promoting democracy was more-or-less invented within the Reagan Administration, and applied with great success. And many of the same people are still working in the same cause, this time against the Islamists. (They are labeled "Neocons." And no, they are not running things, and weren't in Reagan's time either. We just use them.)
After 9/11 a lot of people signed on for war against Saddam or the Taliban. But that doesn't mean they signed on for years of patient effort to make these people friends and equals...Nuh uh. I think a lot of people on the right never actually "got" the idea. Probably thought it was just happy talk, fit to be ignored.
I'm in the camp of the idealists and dreamers. And I'm very disappointed in that section of conservatives that has never been warm-hearted about Bush's vision for the Moslem world and other needy parts of the globe. Hey, I rather like those people of the Middle East, and Central Asia, though I only get to meet them vicariously via the Internet. (And yes I'm perfectly aware that the Islamic world, especially the Arab world, has LOTS of pathologies and horrible flaws and shortcomings. But think this is a difference of degree, and not of kind.)
And if we conservatives of America and the Anglosphere don't try to build a better world, who else is going to do it? Leftists? Europeans? It is to laugh.
Posted by John Weidner at February 22, 2006 09:24 PMYou make several good points. The one I want to address is your concern that many conservatives just don't "get it". While you live and work in San Francisco and are surrounded by liberals, I work in the business/finance world (for most of my career in a red state) and have always been surrounded by Republicans.
I am often very disillusioned by my Republican friends. In fact, though it kills me to say it, most of them kind of resemble the caricature that Democrats like to draw of Republicans.
They tend to be very unconcerned with things that do not directly impact their lives. Thus they like lower taxes because they don't like paying them, which is fine, I don't begrudge them that, but don't think for a minute that they are passionate about lower marginal tax rates being necessary to promote economic growth.
When it comes to foreign policy most are quasi "America-first" types, and while they are more or less sympathetic to free trade they don't really think its all that important.
They certainly aren't isolationists but that is mostly because they don't want to see the third world "boil over" and affect us in any way. I really don't think they much care whether conditions there truly improve (mostly because they instinctively think its foolish to think it ever will) and they definitely are not interested in spending time, money and lives on such pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
Regarding Iraq specifically I think they largely supported it because in the wake of 9/11 they thought a strong show of force was necessary. They thought Iraq would go much like Afghanistan – over soon and our enemies would learn how quickly we could dispatch of them.
I know I'm painting with a broad brush, but this is all from my personal experience with several people I know. I think the kind of thinking above represents a very big chunk of the Republican party, but it is easy for us to miss them because these are not people who spend a lot of time reading blogs.
Sorry for the long post – just needed to get that off my chest.
Amen, John, amen.
I'm not in this camp because I like folks like Bush or Jean Schmidt (my congresswoman) or DeWine or Voinovich (my senators) - ick ick ick! I despise most of their fears and proscriptions and policies and posturing - but they're the ones who will support the efforts to bring freedom to the people of the Middle East (and Central Asia), and that's what I'm for. To the extent that they make that possible, I'm with them, and to the extent that they act on their xenophobia, I'm agin' 'em...when either party's primary argument is, "but don't you see, these are Arabs we're talking about," it turns my stomach, whether it's Michael Savage, or the guy he's interviewing, Chuck Schumer.
And seeing these folks who talked a good game about spreading liberty and prosperity, now reduced to cringing balls of fear over the thought that we might end up actually dealing with Arabs in important stuff - not just driving the taxi, but running global businesses - it's disheartening. Not unexpected, but disheartening.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at February 23, 2006 08:24 AMAmen, guys. And don't even get me started on suburban Republicans and school vouchers.
Come to think about it, I probably feel (fairly) comfortable around SF liberals, because in their style, in their flavor, they are still idealists. It's only when you discuss any specific policy, that you discover that they have become fearful reactionaries with hearts of stone.
Posted by: John Weidner at February 23, 2006 11:01 AMJohn, you've touched on something that resides very deep in my psyche. Without question I feel more comfortable among my liberal friends than I do among my conservative friends - as long as politics do not come up.
Again, just speaking from my own experience, my liberal friends really do have very good intentions. In many ways they simply are better people than many of the conservatives that I know - less cynical, more empathetic, more fun-loving.
If I ever had a problem I'm sure I would first turn to one of my liberal friends for help (unless, of course, the problem had something to do with math or engineering.)
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at February 23, 2006 12:07 PM
