Third Party & Independents: Archives

FDR and Hitler are bad examples. The presidency Bush’s most resembles so far is Abraham Lincoln’s.

Before the howling starts on the left, let me say that I’m not making value judgments right now—there are always more differences than similarities when you make these kinds of comparisons. But based on the many Civil War histories and Lincoln biographies I’ve read, it’s uncanny how many similarities there are.

*Lincoln was a war-time president during times of deep cultural divisions.

*Lincoln was routinely accused of starting an unjust and unnecessary war (even by a lot of Northerners—and was often viciously criticized—guess where?—on the editorial page of the New York Times).

*Both were deeply resented for abridgements of the press and civil liberties (Lincoln suspended Habeas Courpus and on several occasions actually had reporters clapped in irons.)

*Both were accused of starting a war based on “false pretenses”; even to this day, many still maintain that Lincoln’s stand against slavery was just PR and he was actually fighting for the moneyed interests of Northern industrialists (sound like Haliburton, eh?)

* Both were mocked and caricatured in Europe for being “unsophisticated” and uncultured Americans; even in the US, Lincoln was parodied by Northern elites for his supposed lack of refinement.

* And this is just weird—Lincoln was said to be a terrible public speaker. He was roundly criticized in all the papers for his delivery of the Gettysburg Address—which was supposedly mumbled, incoherent and shorter than the gathered crowd had been excpecting from the President on such a solemn occasion! Not until it was published, did it achieve the reputation it has today.

* Both men were commonly caricatured in cartoons as monkeys. Bush, we know, as a “smirking chimp,” and Lincoln as a long-armed “ape” with deep hollow eyes and a stooped, uneven walk.

* Both men were challenged in their second campaigns by military heroes because the opposition party thought they would have the best chance in a time in war (George McClellan in Lincoln’s case), and both were disparraged during the campaign for having questionable military service (Lincoln only served a short time in an irregular militia during the Black Hawk wars—and it was alleged during the campaign that he ran from a battle!).

Anyhow, as I was saying, I don’t intend this to be partisan and agree that there’s always more differences than similarities in these things. I just find the similiarties that are there kinda interesting.

I agree with both Martin and Bob, to a point.

FDR did not exactly invade a foreign nation that did not pose a threat to the U.S.

Yes, he prompted Japan and Germany to declare war/ attack us by cutting off oil to Japan, while perhaps provocative, not exactly an invasion….but Japan had invaded China, and Germany declared war on us along with the invasions in europe. I think it was fairly clear, if not domestically popular, that the Axis was a threat to U.S. interests.

While Lincoln was divisive, in a divisive time..I don’t think Bush’s situation compares much with Lincoln’s. I agree that Lincoln is sometimes overated because he served during the civil war.
Did Lincoln precipitate the war? Slavery, while an issue that Lincoln approached pragmatically, was driving the North’s outrage. Yes, economic and political dominance were the issues at the heart of the cessession of the South. Lincoln saw his role as preventing the Balkanization, to use a more modern term, of the U.S. Frankly, the U.S. was on a course to war irregardless who was elected. The civil war had it’s roots with Jefferson and the formation of America and was bound to happen at some point.

I agree with the thrust of the argumant that all four subverted their constitutional powers, and trounced civil rights and at some point were potentially threats too, but only Bush and Hitler drummed up invasions over phony propoganda.

The Hitler comparison is totally off the wall (I love that expression, and have no idea what it might mean).

If your point is that both used propaganda during a war, you can say the same thing about any leader at any time in any conflict. Whether Bush’s propaganda is false or not—well that is still very debatable. I think Bush’es public rationales for war are either correct, or if mistaken, based on the same mistakes also made by a great many other credible sources (ie. Clinton).

How in the world can you compare Hilter, whose motives were expansionist and genocidal, to Bush? It makes no sense, and I suggest that you’re reading too many ANSWER and Moveon newsletters. Also, Bush wears a cowboy hat and Hitler wore leiderhosen. Wise up.

I don’t see an FDR similarity, nor a Hitler similarity, but I do see a Linconln similarity but only to a point:

If the South, after the war, featured vicious uprisings by blacks who generally did not want the North to “liberate” them, and the Union’s troubles with the South transformed into troubles with the “liberated” erstwhile slaves who had a deeper hatred for the Union than they did for the southern plantation owners, that could lend greater plausibility to the comparison.

But the recognition by the right wing that we’re sending carpetbaggers to Iraq, and a General Sherman is buring a modern-day Atlanta, is a level of self-deprecation I’d never expect from them.

Lincoln is a good analogy but since most Americans only get the sugary sweet version of history served up by high schools I didn’t use it. Few modern Americans realize that constitutionally there were no good arguments for a war. The reasons for war were mostly moral, political and very bitterly argued. The civil war was hardly the great crusade to end slavery portrayed in high school history books. The reasons were so varied that to this day there is no clear consensus. (At least not that I can determine. If you have a good link on this subject post it.)

WWII however still has a lot of veterans still around.

One of the reasons Hitler gave for invading Poland was to “free” the Germanic people in Poland and to regain the territories awarded Poland in the Versaille Treaty. (Just as we are “freeing” the Iraqis.)

One of the reasons Hitler gave for invading Poland was to “free” the Germanic people in Poland and to regain the territories awarded Poland in the Versaille Treaty.

Ah yes, Hitler actually argued that the Polish government wasn’t legitimate because it wasn’t a democracy. The more things change…

Of course it is silly to compare Bush to a genocidal dictator, but I think that these tiny parallels can be illuminating.

He used the same logic, prior to invading Poland, to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia.

“February 20, 1938 Hitler demanded self-determination for Germans in Austria and Czechoslovakia.”

http://www.worldhistory.com/hitler.htm

Almost sends chills up your spine, doesn’t it?

Ciggy said:

“If the South, after the war, featured vicious uprisings by blacks who generally did not want the North to “liberate” them, and the Union’s troubles with the South transformed into troubles with the “liberated” erstwhile slaves who had a deeper hatred for the Union than they did for the southern plantation owners, that could lend greater plausibility to the comparison.”

Actually, the comparison does hold up to a point. There were huge problems when the slaves, who had hitherto relied for material sustanance on the plantations, were suddenly forced to wander the countryside without property or means. There was rioting, looting, bloodshed—sound a little like Iraq? Many Northerners (as freed slaves began to appear in their cites) rued Emancipation, and I’ve even seen bitter statments by freed slaves to the effect that they were better off in slavery than free. At least then their basic needs were met (sounds like Iraqi nostlagia for Saddam, doesnt it?).

Freedom, then or now, is a messy business and things don’t change for the better overnight. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better—not an argument, in my opinion, to keep either tyranny or slavery in place.

It just goes to show that when people are ‘oppressed’ elsewhere in the world, the correct way to address that is by offering assistance when or IF the oppressed rise up in rebellion against their oppressors.

But then, the whole “liberation” argument for Iraq was the fall-back position, for dealing with the failure to discover a true WMD threat Saddam might have posed to us. It’s reminiscent of the old Maxwell Smart character saying, “would you believe…” as each of his excuses or ideas or claims get knocked off a list.

Come to think of it, Maxwell Smart is the best analogy I could imagine drawing up for the Bush administration. “Heart” in the right place, and trying, but every effort in any direction merely results in disaster, in comedic pathos. And for Bush there is no Agent 99. ;)

Martin:
“There were huge problems when the slaves, who had hitherto relied for material sustanance on the plantations, were suddenly forced to wander the countryside without property or means. There was rioting, looting, bloodshed—sound a little like Iraq?”

It does indeed.

“Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better—not an argument, in my opinion, to keep either tyranny or slavery in place.”

One huge difference is that the southern U.S. WAS, after all, the U.S. The federal troops were reclaiming that which had broken away, so there is a certain justification in that which can never be shared by an Iraq invasion. I would say that for nations outside the U.S. and its present territories, “oppressed” people need to own their own struggle for freedom, need to be in charge of it, and while we may HELP (as we did in Afghanistan when the Taliban were the “freedom fighters”), it runs counter to American core values to impose American will on a people, even if said will is the furtherance of their potential civil liberties.

We need to be more like LaFayette, less like… well, Hitler (when it comes to thin excuses for territorial grabs).

Ciggy, I am reminded of how we threw off King George telling us how we had to live under his dominion, and in our struggle for independence and rights we believed were our own, we received assistance from France. France did not endeavor to replace King George in return for their help, nor force its help upon us.

You and I agree entirely, that the struggle for independence and autonomous government in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqi’s. After transfer of power to an interim government in two months, I fully expect our obligation in Iraq is over, unless by popular mandate, the Iraqi people ask for our help. And if that occurs, we should provide only the help they ask for and only to the extent that we can afford to provide it.

Then you’re on the same page as the Bush administration, David. Everything you said in your last paragraph is official US policy.

We can assume that once the handover is made, the Iraqi authorities will make exactly those requests—for us to remain until the security situation is improved enough that they can manage themselves, and to provide certain logistical and material support in the interum.

Ciggy said:

“[O]ppressed” people need to own their own struggle for freedom, need to be in charge of it, and while we may HELP (as we did in Afghanistan when the Taliban were the “freedom fighters”), it runs counter to American core values to impose American will on a people, even if said will is the furtherance of their potential civil liberties.”

In that’s your position, then what do we do when those oppressed peoples DO try to rise up—as they did repeatedly have done in Iraq—only to see their resistance end in torture chambers and mass graves? What if the Japanese had never bombed Pearl Harbor and drawn us into World War II? Should we have sat by and watched Hitler exterminate all who resisted him, or who belonged to races he didn’t like, because they were incapable of mounting an effective defense by themselves? The French Resistance was no more effective—probably less so—than the opposition mounted in Iraq by the Kurds, but D-Day happened anyway.

Also (and this is a digression from my main point), you say that the South was after all part of the US, so the war was justified. But they certainly didn’t think they were part of the US, now did they? That was the whole point of the war.
We went ahead, despite what you think our “core values” might be, and imposed our will on them. We did the same thing to Germany. We did the same thing in Kosovo. We did the same thing in Korea—the list goes on. We’ve intervened on behalf of the oppressed so many times now that I question whether not doing so really is part of our “core values” in the way you suggest.

Back to Herr Hitler are we?

Martin’s last comment is almost exactly what I was going to say. He left out a few things though.

The left lied about this war. They said this was all about the oil. All about imperialism. All about occupying countries and a new American empire.

I find it amusing that when the Bush administration sets a transition date of June 30th liberals come crawling out of the woodwork to say ‘that’s too soon!’ Too soon to hand over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi’s? Wait a minute. I thought you’re position was that Bush was wrong because we’re going to colonize this place? I thought the liberal line was that we were there forever? No?

Not only that but Kerry is calling for the government of Iraq to be handed over to the UN! An organization that took millions of dollars of kickbacks and bribes… let’s not forget the administration fees too… which were ostensibly to feed the children of Iraq under harsh UN sanctions so that we could ‘contain’ Saddam. Basically we put an entire nation in prison to contain it’s dictator. Very liberal.

On the one hand Kerry says…

The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. -wa post

Thanks mostly to Kerry and the democratic party, the extremists now know that they can succeed. If they only keep up what they’re doing, perhaps attacks in Iraq will become Madrid for America.

Case in point, “Iraq is a failure…”

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says the war in Iraq is a failure and a shake-up is needed to end the Bush administration’s mistakes and incompetence.

Kerry made the comments Wednesday in Orlando. The sharp critique sparked more Republican criticism that the Democrat is making the war a political issue. Kerry told A.P. Radio that “arrogance has lost America respect and influence in the world.” -nbc6

Another case in point, the US is as bad as Saddam Hussein. (i.e. -we have no moral standing to win.)

“Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.”

Ensign believes Kennedy crossed the line with his comments and called on Kennedy to retract them immediately. “To express disappointment or anger over what has occurred at Abu Ghraib prison is one thing. To put American servicemen and women in the same category as one of the most evil and bloodthirsty regimes in modern history is reprehensible.” -krnv.com

In short Bush is just like every other historical leader who had a sizable enemy at home working to destroy morale, weaken resolve, and impune and discredit the troops and the war.

ERIC,
(Please Read)
Now, In some regards I agree with your last paragraph but there is a reason for our DISTRUST (distrust is exactly what it is). We had attacks on our home soil, Bush in retalliation went off to fight in afghanistan to bring down the Taliban which were harboring terrorists. We support that many of us.

Then a claim came across the bow that Saddam was tied into Al Qaida somehow. We said clearly and proved sufficiently they weren’t (Scott Ritter etc.).
2>They claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction. Okaaay so we said let’s get the inspectors back in there to get more data. Bush said that no they were not going to. We asked why, they had no answer and began the military build up in the gulf with British forces.

Then congress gave them the lunch ticket to go to war. And as the war progressed there were no weapons of mass destruction nor any Al Qaida ties.

Why you ask is there DISTRUST? Why the cynicism?

Eric this is turning into a money pit. I agree, how long were we intending to keep Iraq in a containment situation? I concur, but this “democracy” if ever assembled will be short-lived until we have to go in again and again and again for potentially the next 10 to 15 years atleast. None of these religious factions want anything short of a theocratic state and we are leaving Iraq’s democracy in their hands.

Al Sistani won’t even meet with us and yet he’s a partner. The Suni’s are yearning for their old reign under the Brits. And both sides want the entire cake not just a slice. Not to mention all of these little tribal cliques that don’t get along.

SEcondly there is the press factor which is two thirds entertainment and has to gain viewership by pandering to the lowest of common attention spans. They want problems why because problems pay the bills. All the sway they have is largely very influential and done for reasons other than presenting a sound inflection into what is going on with policy and affairs of the state of Iraq.

24 hours news actually sways the opinions Or atleast either thinks it does ‘or’ we see it and think(assume) it is an accurate reflection of us. Which it is to some extent by proxy of interpretation, I don’t know but there is a margin of inaccuracy and yet an effect.

As you know many opinions are formed by these stations and the “problem in the center” formats.

Again this post is in response to your last paragraph.

Eric wrote: “In short Bush is just like every other historical leader who had a sizable enemy at home working to destroy morale, weaken resolve, and impune and discredit the troops and the war.”

In Hitler’s case they were collectively referred to as “the resistance”. How unpatriotic of them to appose the Third Reich.

Viva le Resistance!

Interesting side note: One group was called The White Rose.

“This group of students organized by Hans Scholl at the University in Munich prepared and clandestinely distributed leaflets throughout Germany in 1942-43 until their arrest, trial and execution.”

Now that was a gutsy bunch of kids.

http://www.thirdreich.net/Resistance.html

Martin,
“what do we do when those oppressed peoples DO try to rise up—as they did repeatedly have done in Iraq—only to see their resistance end in torture chambers and mass graves?”

Obviously during those previous uprisings, if they asked for help, previous U.S. administrations did not provide it. I would be interested to know why that liberation, which wasn’t so important during Poppy Bush’s watch, became worth 1000 some-odd American lives and hundreds of billions of $$$, on Junior Bush’s watch. It smacks quite a bit of “We have always been at war with Eurasia”, 1984-style, to me.

“Should we have sat by and watched Hitler exterminate all who resisted him, or who belonged to races he didn’t like, because they were incapable of mounting an effective defense by themselves?”

If people fighting him were too stupid to ask for our help, then yes. Again, apply the LaFayette standard. You supply help where asked for (and needed), and yet let the freedom fighters own their own struggle to the extent possible. France did not set up an “interim French government” in the American colonies after King George was gone.

“you say that the South was after all part of the US, so the war was justified. But they certainly didn’t think they were part of the US, now did they? That was the whole point of the war.”

The argument for U.S. Federal domination of the American South is on more solid ground than the one for U.S. Federal domination of Iraq. I stand by that contrast. I’m not saying the southern U.S. domination was 100% legal or moral, but at least it’s less ridiculous than an attempt to colonize a foreign land under the VERY thin veil of “liberating” them.

“We’ve intervened on behalf of the oppressed so many times now that I question whether not doing so really is part of our ‘core values’ in the way you suggest.”

The core values requirement is that the oppressed actually want our help. Plain as that. The Kosovars didn’t say “go away NATO, this is our fight.” If they did, I’d have been just as critical of that action.

Skunkbud, there’s an interesting twist to the Saddam/Terrorist link. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the goal of the Zarqawi group funded by Saddam was to attack ISRAEL. Not the U.S., not Dick Cheney’s duck hunting camp, not Tony Blair’s hydrangea garden, not even any Spanish bullfighters, but ISRAEL. So why is the protection of Israel worth hundreds of billions of $$$ and a thousand or so American lives? What has Israel done for us lately?

Skunkbud,

I am not asking why there is distrust. I am well versed in the reasons liberals list for having distrust. That distrust extends to healthcare, the medicare bill, tax cuts, kyoto protocol… name the policy and the distrust is there.

The real left is not concerned with America winning. In fact it seems imperative to them that we lose so that Bush and his policies are discredited. That is the point of that paragraph.

The left appears to be moving further to the left. Closer to the ANSWER, anti-globalist, anti-capitalist, anti-american rhetoric. That is if Moveon.org is any indication.

Do you know that every major anti-war rally here in the US was organized by avowed Marxists? i.e. ANSWER.

Ted Kennedy’s recent comments coupled with his closeness to Kerry’s campaign, as well as the constant refrain about how this is an unwinnable vietnam II-style quagmire, spinning out of control, when it’s nothing of the sort, says alot about the outlook and motives of the left.

Eric, part of what you’re describing is actually manipulation of the liberal mainstream by some very clever aristocratic people who do want the Iraq war to persist, whatever the cost. They have been able to divert attention away from “stop the war” to “get international involvement”, and now the debate between so-called right and so-called left is no longer whether to even BE in Iraq, but simply HOW to be in Iraq.

Under that manipulated trance, of course the left will be focusing their anti-war sentiment on Bush as a person, where Bush himself acts as a lightning rod for all of that discontent and all of that angst felt by those who don’t like the thought of wasted lives and useless killing. Bush as a personal pariah allows the aristocracy to continue its agenda, with an outlet channel that can expiate all political opposition with a single election, duping people into thinking that if they just replace “tastes great” with “less filling”, everything will be alright.

The core liberal sentiment is to have nobody “lose”, because you don’t “lose” a conflict you’re not even IN. But the right wing is geared up by fears of “losing”, and the left wing is geared up by “anybody but Bush”. Thesis, antithesis, and the result is synthesis. The Hegelian dialectic, for those keeping notes at home. The synthesis being achieved by the aristocracy is continued colonization of the middle eastern oil regions, out-flanking Europe economically and installing a base of operations for further conquest. And a Puppet Kerry will be just as useful toward that end as a Puppet Bush, and when the left is put in the position of defending “their man”, they will be forced into a pro-war position by default. And the right’s own pro-war tendancies will keep them marching onward to Pat Tillman deaths out of their own core bloodlust and fanatical patriotism. And then the Machine will REALLY be humming along. Left right left, like two feet marching on.

“We have always been at war with Eurasia.” —George Orwell, _1984_.

And a Puppet Kerry will be just as useful toward that end as a Puppet Bush, and when the left is put in the position of defending “their man”, they will be forced into a pro-war position by default.

Ciggy, that’s an interesting viewpoint, but ultimately untrue. Especially if Kerry can get his Energy Independence plan passed.

I hope your ideology is more flexible than the neo-cons. :)

And Orwell was British Empire. What’s the connection with the US?

Lee, IIRC from reading it, Kerry’s energy independance plan calls for independance after TEN YEARS. That’s ten years of oil conquest to continue in the mean time, and his rhetoric regarding Iraq shows no indication of reversing the current PNAC oil conquest and “geographic depth” strategy.

Orwell’s _1984_ dystopia is intentionally disconnected from a particular nation-state in order to show that its systemic archetype could arise anywhere, in any of them.

whats up

Hey Ciggy, that’s right. kerry’s plan calls for independence after ten years. But consumption will decline for each of those years. The price of owning a hostile OPEC country to supply a declining demand is not worth it.

While it’s part of the Bush administration’s energy strategy to station troops in Iraq indefinitely, you can bet that Kerry will pull a Nixonian “Peace with Honor” UNification move ASAP.

Hot potato!

Lee,
“The price of owning a hostile OPEC country to supply a declining demand is not worth it.”

It’s even LESS worth it when you realize that you got more production of out Saddam at the height of his power than even the best efforts of those Halliburton idiots who can’t keep the Basra pipeline flowing. There’s an element of that in Europe’s criticism of Bush, and on that score, they are 1000% spot on.

I’m just too impatient for oil indpendance to even be satisfied with Kerry’s timeline, but that is better than “jawbone OPEC” as an energy strategy.

“you can bet that Kerry will pull a Nixonian ‘Peace with Honor’ UNification move ASAP.”

If Kerry is Nixon to Bush’s Johnson, many things become clear, and many more things become very very scary. One wonders who’ll be the next Ford, and so on. History does, after all, repeat, unfortunately for how we never learn from it.

Ciggy, you are so right!

BTW, that 10 year phase out of foreign oil could have happened quicker if the Bush administration hadn’t spent the last four years suing states that enacted higher fuel efficiency standards.

And for fun, here’ an oil policy simulator. Enjoy!

I ran the simulator by the seat of my pants, and while I got the U.S. weaned off of dependance on oil from any Persian Gulf sources, I wasn’t able to reach my target of 60% import reduction by 2020.

After trying again with greater emphasis on alternative fuel vehicles, that did the trick.

Bush SUED states that were increasing fuel efficiency standards? Geeeeeeeez.

…look, here’s the thing. None of you are entirely accurate… Lincoln “started” the Civil War on the pretense of saving the Union, not freeing the slaves (although he probably wanted to free them anyway), and comparing Bush to Hitler is pretty ridiculous. Truth is, I can’t take a huge stand on the Bush thing because… I DON’T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!!! This is a minor problem for me, but a much bigger one for all you loud Liberals out there, yet you still seem to have strong opinions about it.. Stick to the facts, not a bunch of liberal-biased media crap. For example, ask yourself this question: What’s worse, a few hundred civilians and soldiers dead by U.S. actions, or tens of thousands dead from Saddam? I think it’s obvious… but which does the media make seem worse? The U.S. actions. So please, STICK TO THE FACTS. If you need someone to politically criticize, take someone who really deserves. You people, liberals and conservatives alike, are all so busy going out of your way and bending the truth to criticize Americans when there are TRUE problems to be discussed!!! I don’t understand… by the way, if you’re going to be pompous enough to say the phrase “THRUST of an argument”, at least spell argument right (not argumant). Also, the original poster is an idiot.