Containing Multitudes

[Sabra]

This article from The Atlantic Monthly just blew me away this morning. As a revoltingly-liberal Democrat born in 1950, ergo Baby Boomer to the core, Hillary Clinton has been worrying me for quite awhile. Yet I couldn't see Obama as the alternative. I guess that's because my crystal ball is out of commission and I can't see the future.

But I can see the present, and Sullivan's article gives tremendous perspective there, plus an insight that, at my age, I'm sure I would have missed. I hope you will all find it worthy of your time, as I did.

Pete, if Magi doesn't usually read these posts, will you please ask her to read this one. I'd like to chat with her about it in game and get her response. (Yours too of course.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, if Magi doesn't usually read these posts, will you please ask her to read this one.

Done.

As a member of both "those who fought in Vietnam" (and as volunteer at that), and "the peacenik atheist hippies", I often find these debates to be somewhat simplistic. And this article does devolve into an apologia for blogging about half way through. But there are some interesting points made, so thanks for the link.

--Pete

[Thenryb]

Hi,
Done.

As a member of both "those who fought in Vietnam" (and as volunteer at that), and "the peacenik atheist hippies", I often find these debates to be somewhat simplistic. And this article does devolve into an apologia for blogging about half way through. But there are some interesting points made, so thanks for the link.

--Pete

I hear you on that point. I was not a "peacenik atheist hippie" during that period and believed that much of that movement was a consequence of a combination of factors including the draft and the "coolness factor". I was also not in favor of the war although I did serve in the military during that period. During the late 60s, companies like Dow Chemical could hardly recruit on campuses because of what they manufactured. As soon as the economy began to sputter during the early 70s and the risk of being drafted subsided, students cut their hair, put on button down collar shirts and were more than happy to see the Dow recruiter. Notwithstanding Sullivan's simplistic division of students of the period into groups which excluded us, I found the article to be very interesting.

[kandrathe]

This article from The Atlantic Monthly just blew me away this morning. As a revoltingly-liberal Democrat born in 1950, ergo Baby Boomer to the core, Hillary Clinton has been worrying me for quite awhile. Yet I couldn't see Obama as the alternative. I guess that's because my crystal ball is out of commission and I can't see the future.

But I can see the present, and Sullivan's article gives tremendous perspective there, plus an insight that, at my age, I'm sure I would have missed. I hope you will all find it worthy of your time, as I did.

Pete, if Magi doesn't usually read these posts, will you please ask her to read this one. I'd like to chat with her about it in game and get her response. (Yours too of course.)

Interesting read. Thanks Sabra. I've been observing an interesting phenomenon on the Campus where I'm working lately. The kids are finding their own points of unity, and rejecting the perpetual squabbling of their elders. I think the best candidate for the youth would be one who shuns the squabbling, and steps up to a higher level of a unifying debate. For example, the multi-cultural groups are collectively joining with majority to jointly say it is time for healing, it is time to ask for/and to get an apology for past harms, it is time to look inward for dignity and respect, and it is time to move on from the cultural oppression of a victim mentality. Do people *really* like the intentional desecration of their national symbols, offices, flag, or pride? No, not by the people who hold those offices, or by those who willingly fling the crap upon them.

Maybe people are getting tired of being used, having every jangling nerve stepped upon, and every weak or strong emotion plucked upon to forward one group, or another's conflicting agenda's. It is a dangerous time for a society that has become numb to politics, to empty promises, and to neo-prophets of doom. I feel people might just vote for anyone who makes the right sounds, and differentiates themselves from the status quo. Germans didn't vote for Hitler as much as they voted against the democracy that kept them in poverty and shame.

[Nystul]

Sullivan seems to speak for a generation that I'm not sure he can be included in, not having lived on the American continent until his 20s. His viewpoints certainly have merit, but it may be a mistake to think that he has particular insight on Gen X as a collective. Of course, it is probably a mistake for anyone to speak on behalf of an entire generation. It's also pretty sad that these people have reached middle age, and are still waiting for their turn at bat. Obviously it has to be that way with respect to presidential candidates, but with respect to actual voters, these guys are old enough to have kids that are old enough to vote, and we treat them like the voice of the new generation. To the hip hop generation, guys like Sullivan are probably the old farts with their petty squabbles over irrelevant issues.

One thing I do get from Sullivan is the colossal failing of the GOP to accomplish anything of worth to their own constituents. He seems to support Obama only as the lesser of 3 evils, but more telling is that he supported Kerry as well. When a person who is a fiscal conservative and social moderate is supporting candidates like John Kerry, the supposed conservative party is really missing the ball somewhere in their handling of economic issues. And for social conservatives, they have accomplished little more than blowing smoke. That Kerry still managed to lose, and Hillary could be next, might make one question whether either major party is able to do anything right.

When Clinton was President and Republicans took over Congress, they played the role of obstructionists and our government literally did nothing except maintain the status quo for months at a time (even having no approved budget for the current fiscal year at one point). That was fiscal conservatism in a literal sense, and the country seemed to thrive for it.

[kandrathe]

When Clinton was President and Republicans took over Congress, they played the role of obstructionists and our government literally did nothing except maintain the status quo for months at a time (even having no approved budget for the current fiscal year at one point). That was fiscal conservatism in a literal sense, and the country seemed to thrive for it.

I think to some (me included -- depending on the issue), stalemate is preferable to any motion in the wrong direction. Last time I checked, the federal budget is still unbalanced, debt is soaring, Social Security is still on the road to bankruptcy, our borders are still as porous as cheese cloth, and the military is about 1/2 to 1/3 the size it really needs to be to adequately protect the free worlds democracies. We have failed or are losing on all the pseudo "feel-good" wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, and soon enough now the war on terror. There is plenty to do, just no one is willing to work on it lest they commit political suicide. I would suggest some day we should just skip the politicians and just get some good citizens in their to make some good decisions and get the job done.

[Occhidiangela]

I think to some (me included -- depending on the issue), stalemate is preferable to any motion in the wrong direction. Last time I checked, the federal budget is still unbalanced, debt is soaring, Social Security is still on the road to bankruptcy, our borders are still as porous as cheese cloth, and the military is about 1/2 to 1/3 the size it really needs to be to adequately protect the free worlds democracies. We have failed or are losing on all the pseudo "feel-good" wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, and soon enough now the war on terror. There is plenty to do, just no one is willing to work on it lest they commit political suicide. I would suggest some day we should just skip the politicians and just get some good citizens in their to make some good decisions and get the job done.

If Obama can talk John Edwards into running as his VP, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I'll vote for Romney.

Two people I won't vote for are Hillary and Giuliani. The last thing the US needs in a president is a New York clique approved lap dog. That is what both of those people are.

Occhi

[Artega]

If Obama can talk John Edwards into running as his VP, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I'll vote for Romney.

Two people I won't vote for are Hillary and Giuliani. The last thing the US needs in a president is a New York clique approved lap dog. That is what both of those people are.

Occhi

I'm voting for whoever will take votes away from Clinton and Giuliani. For me, it's Obama. He seems like a pretty good guy, and what I've read of his books is pretty cool.

[kandrathe]

If Obama can talk John Edwards into running as his VP, I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I'll vote for Romney.

Two people I won't vote for are Hillary and Giuliani. The last thing the US needs in a president is a New York clique approved lap dog. That is what both of those people are.

Occhi

I would too. But, Chuck Norris has indicated that I should vote for Mike Huckabee.

Of course, Chuck has his own to do list if he were elected President;

• Require members of Congress to work out on the Total Gym 15 minutes each day – or else they can't vote on anything.<>
  
• Cut spending by dismissing the Secret Service, at least for my eight years in office (why would I need them?).<>
  
• Resurrect Bruce Lee and appoint him head of homeland security (OK, the CIA and FBI too).<>
  
• Give a presidential pardon to … no one, ever. Baretta was right in the '70s, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. Don't do it!"<>
  
• Turn the Rose Garden into a new fighting ring for the World Combat League, in which liberals and conservatives will fight for legislative leadership and priority. (For fun, Saturday night fights will feature a recurring bout between Hannity and Colmes). "American Idol" already told me they will provide the entertainment.<>
  
• Require Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to personally pay for national, comprehensive medical coverage for every American (or meet me in the Rose Garden).<>
  
• Increase jobs in America by sending ninja teams to sabotage and steal them back from other countries.<>
  
• Tattoo an American flag with the words, "In God we trust," on the forehead of every atheist. <>
  
• Give a tax credit to anyone naming their children Walker or Texas Ranger (excluding Will Farrell).<>
  
• Resolve the Iraq war by bringing all of our military personnel home immediately, then going over there by myself for "martial arts negotiations."<>
  
• Hang Saddam Hussein (Whoops – scratch that – already did it undercover).<>
  
• Convey my plan for world peace to the United Nations: taking the governor of California with me on our "kick butt and ask questions later" USO world tour.<>
  
• Give every new military enlistee abroad a copy of my upcoming new book, "The Threat of Justice," with the words, "Arnold and I will be back to pump you up!" above my autograph.<>
  
• Bring on Donald Trump as my apprentice. When my presidential term is complete and he has obtained his black belt, or whichever comes first, he can buy the White House and of course rename it (to, what else, "The Trump House").<>
  
• Create new immigration legislation: to deport all liberals (then force them to listen to Bill O' Reilly every day for five years, at which point they may return).<>
  
• Ask producer Mark Barnett to film "Survivor – Camp David," where world leaders will meet annually, for an all-out cage-fighting championship. The winner will take home $1,000,000 in Disney Dollars, good in Europe or America.<>
  
• Send an autographed photo of me and my horse (no dogs in my White House) to everyone who commits to read my new WorldNetDaily "presidential column" and blast a blog who dares to disagree with me.<>
  
• Complete the plan to bring Tony Blair to the U.S. as my vice president.<>
  
• Expose the real WMDs – my fists and feet.<>
  
• Replace Letterman, Leno or Conan once monthly, since stand-up comedy is what most governmental officials do anyway.<>
  
• Ask Al Gore to provide me with a special governmental study on the connection between spotted owl extinction and global warming. (I'm pretty sure Michael Moore will film the docudrama).<>
  
• Help Rosie transition from "The View" to the pew – it might help her get over that anger problem. If the pew doesn't work, she can spar Trump in the Rose Garden.<>
  
• First and foremost, however, my greatest priorities will be to …
  Personally smoke out bin Laden by myself and round-house kick him all the way back to America, where my United Fighting Arts Federation will handle the justice issues.<>
  
• Make all Chuck Norris facts come true (well, not quite all of them – I'm a happily, married man!)<>
  [st]
  Seriously. I'm not sure that I like anyone in the field. I don't like the positions of Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Edwards, McCain, or even Ron Paul.

[Thecla]

The last thing the US needs in a president is a New York clique approved lap dog. That is what both of those people are.

Especially since the last Texas clique approved lap dog has done so well for the country.;)

[kandrathe]

Especially since the last Texas clique approved lap dog has done so well for the country.;)

No, we just need a good 'ol red necked boy from Arkansas. Wait! How about an actor from Hollywood? Or... Maybe it's time for an Alaskan.

[Roland]

Otherwise, I'll vote for Romney.

Romney is MA equivalent of Giuliani. I doubt you'll find ANY MA resident willing to vote for him, except maybe the staunchest, craziest, hardcore Republicans around. I'd take McCain over Romney or Giuliani any day.

[kandrathe]

Romney is MA equivalent of Giuliani. I doubt you'll find ANY MA resident willing to vote for him, except maybe the staunchest, craziest, hardcore Republicans around. I'd take McCain over Romney or Giuliani any day.

We need a candidate that is strong on border security... I don't want to have to learn Canadian.

[Swiss Mercenary]

We need a candidate that is strong on border security... I don't want to have to learn Canadian.

Guess we'll just get our Christmas lists filled directly by China, then.

[kandrathe]

Guess we'll just get our Christmas lists filled directly by China, then.

Aren't they?

[Swiss Mercenary]

Aren't they?

You ought to be happy that you're at least getting a cut.

[Lissa]

Romney is MA equivalent of Giuliani. I doubt you'll find ANY MA resident willing to vote for him, except maybe the staunchest, craziest, hardcore Republicans around. I'd take McCain over Romney or Giuliani any day.

I wouldn't vote for McCain now even though he was one of my senators. He's become too much like Bush in his foreign policy and we definitely need a change on that level. Overall, I'm not too happy with most of the Republic front runners cause they all seem like they want to be a bigger and badder George W Bush on foreign policy and that's bad IMO.

If Colin Powell decided to come out of retirement and actually run for President, he would get my vote in a heart beat (considering what has been leaked on his thoughts and feelings of the Bush presidency).

[kandrathe]

You ought to be happy that you're at least getting a cut.

My elves speak Mandarin!

[kandrathe]

I wouldn't vote for McCain now even though he was one of my senators. He's become too much like Bush in his foreign policy and we definitely need a change on that level. Overall, I'm not too happy with most of the Republic front runners cause they all seem like they want to be a bigger and badder George W Bush on foreign policy and that's bad IMO.

If Colin Powell decided to come out of retirement and actually run for President, he would get my vote in a heart beat (considering what has been leaked on his thoughts and feelings of the Bush presidency).

I think whether from D's or R's, the bluster of tough foreign policy is easier done from the arm chair and harder when done with consideration of the lives and limbs of soldiers, police and innocent civilians and their widows and orphans. The currency is blood, so we better be real sure that we are getting our monies worth. Were I a soldier, I would want my leaders to soberly be sure they were expending my blood for a very good cause. I think Bush knows and believes he is getting something for this, he knows it is very unpopular, and he knew before he ever did it that it would be very unpopular. He did it anyway, because you don't always get to do the popular thing when you are responsible for leading the free world. I don't think he knew how hard it would be to secure the peace in Iraq, but hindsight being 20/20, I think they would have sent in an additional 100,000 troops like all the retired generals on CNN said they needed.

Should we play the war card? Not unless we must and have exhausted all other options, but to take it out of the deck would be worse. I don't like it, but we have progressively evolved into the role of world police force now. We took out Saddam, and now we live with a weak Iraq in the heart of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Sauds who would all fight it out to carve Iraq all up. Civil war would just be a start of the conflict drawing in regional powers and then we'd all be back there to stabilize the world economy yet again. You can't easily suck that Gulf War back in the bottle. I think if we left too soon, it would be like Detroit without any cops.

[Lissa]

I think whether from D's or R's, the bluster of tough foreign policy is easier done from the arm chair and harder when done with consideration of the lives and limbs of soldiers, police and innocent civilians and their widows and orphans. The currency is blood, so we better be real sure that we are getting our monies worth. Were I a soldier, I would want my leaders to soberly be sure they were expending my blood for a very good cause. I think Bush knows and believes he is getting something for this, he knows it is very unpopular, and he knew before he ever did it that it would be very unpopular. He did it anyway, because you don't always get to do the popular thing when you are responsible for leading the free world. I don't think he knew how hard it would be to secure the peace in Iraq, but hindsight being 20/20, I think they would have sent in an additional 100,000 troops like all the retired generals on CNN said they needed.

Should we play the war card? Not unless we must and have exhausted all other options, but to take it out of the deck would be worse. I don't like it, but we have progressively evolved into the role of world police force now. We took out Saddam, and now we live with a weak Iraq in the heart of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Sauds who would all fight it out to carve Iraq all up. Civil war would just be a start of the conflict drawing in regional powers and then we'd all be back there to stabilize the world economy yet again. You can't easily suck that Gulf War back in the bottle. I think if we left too soon, it would be like Detroit without any cops.

That's part of the problem, Bush and the Republicans are stacking the deck with the war card. They think that they rattle sabres and it will put people in line, but the actions of North Korea and Iran have shown that we can rattle sabres all we want, they'll still keep going about there business. Bush's actions, and the actions the Republican front runners are likely to take, will make the US look more like a paper tiger in the eyes of the tyrants of the world instead of trying to build solid concensus between free world leaders that some of those tyrants need to be dealt with.

We have missed so many golden opportunities to do the right thing in the last 20 years that it's no longer funny (and yes, I'm taking Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) with doing the right thing. Bush I should have finished the job with Saddam back in '91, but thought it better to leave him in power and not let Iran slip in to Iraq like it has now. Clinton should have dealt with Rwanda and should have dealt better with Balkans. Bush II should have let diplomacy run it's course as Saddam was already running scared, if the diplomatic arm had kept up instead of the chicken hawks having their way, Iraq would be a lot better shape now, likewise Iran might have been a bit more open and less beligerent, likewise NK if diplomatic pressure brought a conclusion to the situation, which it very likely would have looking back at things now. Likewise Bush II miscalculated and should have finished the deal with bin Laden, gone into the border region of Pakistan and cleaned it up (probably the whole of the country, but then things get screwy when you deal with a nuclear armed country) and gone after Iran where we truly would have been hailed as liberators by the general populous as the Iranians are just as oppressed, if not more so, than the Iraqis were under Saddam.

Simply put, we cannot continue down the road that Bush has started and that seems to be the road all the Republican canidates want to take. Going down that road is self destructive and we need to turn things around quick.