Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is kind of funny because if there is no negative from among Republicans about Bush, it’s “Republican lockstep”. If there is open criticism some of the time, it’s “eroding support among Republicans for Bush”. The media, wearing their binary partisan colors on their sleeve, make plainly known what their sentiment is, but certainly not in an unbiased way.

Ciggy, one of the key strengths of the GOP is that “Republican lockstep” - the ability to unite behind a candidate. The Dems have always had a harder time of that, with more infighting.

That’s why it’s so unusual to hear Republicans vocally criticizing Bush in public.

Ciggy: If the normal state of affairs is republican lockstep, and that fades to be replaced by open criticism from within his own party, isn’t it accurate to call that eroded support? Clearly the ones criticizing him are no longer inclined to, which means his support base has eroded.

The idea that not being in lockstep as a party is a good thing, as it encourages real growth rather than just upholding the party line come what may, is a separate issue from reporting the absense of republican lockstep as wavering support. The former is a value judgement, the latter is just an evaluation of the facts.

It’s actually not the least bit unusual or surprising to hear Republicans criticizing Bush. The left just loves to posit this reality in which conservatives are brain-washed brownshirts raising stiff-armed salutes to the Republican Reich (while they, of course, are just independent free-thinkers who put truth above party). Then they can act surprised by any criticism or discord among conservatives. You can almost hear them saying: “What’s this, fascists disagreeing with their fuhrer?”

I’ve been criticizing Bush right and left over the last month; I’ve wanted him to quit apologizing in a futile attempt to placate a leftist major media which is out of touch with most thinking Americans, quit cozying up to corrupt UN functionaries who’ve used their oil-for-food bribe money from Saddam to market anti-Americanism. I’ve been VERY angry at these failures. But vote for anybody but Bush? Especially when that somebody is lil’ johnny kerry? I don’t think so.

Jarin,
“The idea that not being in lockstep as a party is a good thing, as it encourages real growth rather than just upholding the party line come what may, is a separate issue from reporting the absense of republican lockstep as wavering support. The former is a value judgement, the latter is just an evaluation of the facts.”

That still sounds like ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ to me. Looking at the GOP from the outisde in, would we non-Republicans respect that party more if there were no dissent at all? I firmly believe the leftward faction of the binary fanatical hysterical non-thinking ONE official party in America would simply call them automatons for their efforts at party unity. But that, that has a lot to do with their fanaticism, their hysteria, and their non-thinking binary partisan factionalism, than anything else.

Martin,
“quit cozying up to corrupt UN functionaries who’ve used their oil-for-food bribe money from Saddam to market anti-Americanism.”

The thing about corrupt UN functionaries is that it makes for great sport to put them in the line of fire with fanatical Muslims. In Somalia, General George S. Patton would have seemed like a pacifist hippy next to the UN mandarins in-country after the Habr Gidr tribe offed a few of their high muckety mucks in their lavish taxpayer-funded palaces. Of course, they wanted AMERICA to do their dirty work for them, but thanks to an American general who wasn’t authorized any armor, there was no choice but to have to put blue-hatters in the alleyways to convert their pants into outhouses for a few hours rescuing the Rangers. What goes around “do indeed” come around.

The true colors of the UN were shown in Rwanda. That that body could be considered “legitimate” by any thinking person after such a total collapse of the organization’s ability to carry out its stated mission, is simply a testament that the world at large has gone mad and is so desperate for a true rule of law that they’ll paint anything at ALL with the broad brush of legal “legitimacy” if given half the chance.

But why let the UN meddle in Iraq? Because, quite simply, the UN is 3rd on Al Qaeda’s list of enemies, and we need it to bump up to #1. What better way to do it than to have Coffee Inane bumble around and screw the pooch there, and get his cocktail party buddies killed in terrorist incidents? The poetic justice of it all is beyond the ability of mere adjectives to describe.

Alas, it’s a comedic opportunity that Bush will probably mishandle.

Folks, you talk about the U.N. as if it were a useless and pointless organization simply because it has had a few failures and has some corrupt elements within its ranks.

May I remind you of the U.S. and Viet Nam, also, of our pork spending mortgaging the future generations quality of life, Cheney’s ties to Haliburton, Bush’s ties to the bin Laden family, oil industries and Enron CEO. If an organization should be dismantled on the sole basis that it fails to live up to its ideals, that it fails in some of its efforts, that it has some corrupt elements within its ranks, then I suggest we begin dismantling the U.S. right along with the U.N.

We are dealing with very large beauracracies here and huge international agendas, some failures and some corruption is inevitable. How those organizations respond to the discovery of its failures and corrupt elements should be a large determinant in whether that organization should be discontinued or deemed irrelevant at best.

David, the problems with the UN are not simply abuses out of line with the system, they are systemic. How are we to expect that an orgnization on which China has full veto power will be a force for human rights? Like I have said before, thats like having a business ethics counsel with Ken Lay have full veto power…

Having said that, I do not advocate withdrawl from the UN. We need an organization like the UN, or at least what it should have been. I would prefer that it be radically changed, removing or at least giving less power positions to countries without elected leadership. Any such plan would be very complex and far otuside of my scope of knowledge, but something needs to change because the UN was a great idea that has turned very sour indeed.

Misha, people felt that way about the USSR’s veto power thirty years ago. There’s a reason for it. It keeps them in the game.

Misha, thank you for the response. We agree, the U.S. should not withdraw from the U.N. nor the ideals it was founded upon.

We disgree however on your point regarding China as an example of what is wrong with the U.N. Keeping Russia and China isolated due to their cultural, economic and political differences was the most dangerous option possible back in the 70’s. For all of my disdain of Richard Nixon, he will forever have my respect for his foresight and political wisdom regarding China. Nixon realized that it was far more in America’s interests to have China engaged with the rest of the world economically, and geopolitically as a partner facing a global future, than to keep China an enemy and isolated from the rest of the world. For to have gone this latter route would have forced China to take steps necessary to its growth and development, militarily instead of diplomatically and economically in the world market place.

In terms of capitalism, mixed ecomomy, human rights and rule of democratic law, China is a very young child. Lacking the centuries of experience with such ideas as the west now has, it will take positions in the U.N. that will be frustrating to nations such as ours, in very much the same way my daughter’s lack of experience and judgement lead her Mom and I to frustration in trying to grow her up faster than she is able to.

As parents we remind each other of the patience that is prerequisite to being good parents, and that our daughter must do the best she can with the limited experience and knowledge she has at 13, and suffer the inadequacies of her own decisions in order to grow into an adult capable of self-teaching, capable of learning from her mistakes and errors, and capable holding herself responsible for her own decisions. We suffer the consequences of her juvenile decisions almost as much as she does. Such is the relationship between the West and China.

It is ethnocentric bias to expect China to mirror our society, especially with the immensely long and rich culture and philosophical history it has. It is prejudiced in my opinion, to expect China, a Buddhist nation with a philosophy about life and death, society and the individual, which is substantially different from that of the West in a number of ways, to abandon its culture and wisdom to accomodate a short-sighted and here and now oriented West which to the Chinese, appears to lack the ability to view things on a long time line, or to consistently apply long term effort and strategy to problems which simply cannot be remedied in a 4 year election cycle, or even one generation.

Our own history of transition from agricultural, to industrial, to technologically based society is replete with horrendous human rights abuses, like slavery, segregation, and ethnocentric internment of our own citizens based on race. It is not reasonable in my opinion, to demand that China adopt American methodologies and norms to suit America. China will adopt western methodology and norms to the extent that such changes foster and fulfill the long term interests of China, its people, and its future. We would do no less were we in their shoes.

David- I have to say on all the issues we disagree on, your position on China is the most confusing to me. Its not like they are nascent democracy with some major problems that should be corrected over time- they are a (often brutal) dictatorship, pure and simple. from your previous posts I assume you think they are a somewhat benevolent dictatorship (which I totally disagree with), but they are a dictatorship nonetheless.

I dont expect or want every country to be just like the US, and we have many problems in our country (heck, my opinions of the problems in this country are probably as yours, because of my view of abortion). Nevertheless, I do think that the only mandate a ruler can have to make laws is by an election of the people. Without an election, a “leader” is nothing more than a glorified thug or mob-boss- to me, thats what the “leaders” of China are.

David,
“May I remind you of the U.S. and Viet Nam, also, of our pork spending mortgaging the future generations quality of life, Cheney’s ties to Haliburton, Bush’s ties to the bin Laden family, oil industries and Enron CEO.”

Tu Quoque fallacy aside, I would say that U.S. efforts to mitigate the pain and suffering caused by Turd World dictators by far outstrips anything the U.N. has ever done in that direction. We may be picky in which ones we’ll annihilate (and sometimes using demons to fight other demons), but at least we do execute plans to get the job done, rather than sit back and hand-wring about it and accomplish absolutely nothing the way the U.N. does oh so well.

I have not called for a “dismantling” of the U.N. I think the U.N. should be lured into a peacekeeping operation in Iraq in order to punish it for its lackadaisical attitude. Make them think it’s a great honor and they’ll be in charge and overseeing “democratization” and whammo, terrorists eat their lunch. It will be beautiful.

Misha,
“I would prefer that it be radically changed, removing or at least giving less power positions to countries without elected leadership.”

That is ideal, but not pragmatically possible.

David,
“the same way my daughter’s lack of experience and judgement lead her Mom and I to frustration in trying to grow her up faster than she is able to.”

China is one of the most ancient of cultures, and its problems deal more with tradition than an ersatz “lack of experience”. It’s more along the lines of the difficulty in “teaching an old dog new tricks”. Not even Mao could accomplish that with his “cultural revolution”.

“It is prejudiced in my opinion, to expect China, a Buddhist nation with a philosophy about life and death, society and the individual, which is substantially different from that of the West in a number of ways, to abandon its culture and wisdom to accomodate a short-sighted and here and now oriented West”

Tell that to American unions angry at dirt-cheap Chinese wages (or slave labor in many of their factories). The left is not on the same page with the left on this matter, apparently. However, from my perspective, I think the American unions have a point. “Culture” is a weak defense for slavery, and in a global market, slavery in one area enslaves all by some degrees (due to lowering the bar for wages and working conditions).

Misha, it might be helpful to look into the structure and process of how China’s leaders are chosen. They have a people’s Congress, and it is not irrelevant. Their ‘politburo’ bears only passing resemblance to that of the USSR.

As much as you abhor their dictatorial elements, their system of government yield’s benefits along with detriments that our system cannot replicate. Their leadership is ‘appointed’ partly on acceptability by the People’s Congress but also on a candidate’s adherence to criteria of long term applied programs to solve huge and systemic problems within China - like wealth distribution - over population - and job creation with the huge migration of 10’s of millions of people from isolated sustenance farming communities to more industrialized bases of local economy, and capitalism.

The fact is our system of democracy would utterly fail in China at this time, for no other reason than the education level of the majority of China’s population is insufficient to provide an informed and deliberative consent. That situation is changing and education is one of China’s highest priorities.

I am not defending China’s underlying premises for their government’s constructs on philosophical or ethical grounds. I am however, very pragmatic in assessing and understanding that China has problems which could not possibly be solved by a democracy - for the very same reasons the U.S. cannot solve its energy dependence or waste management or environmental problems using democracy. These problems continue to worsen with each election cycle in our democracy, and that is because our democracy has systemic problems which prevent informed, deliberative concensus by the majority of voters on how to effectively address these problems.

There is no perfect form of government - and each government that currently exists on earth carries with it huge inefficencies, conflicts, and incapacities which are systemic. China nor the U.S. governments are exempted from these sociological phenomena. China’s government is and has been responding more and more to the will of the people, but primarily on a regional basis, where regionally unique problems and solutions achive public concensus.

China is far more diverse than the U.S. in almost everyway. Efficiency in dealing with regional problems depends very much on central government abstaining from false notions that what is good for one region like Hong Kong will be good for the huge number of diverse and different other regions of China. The capitalism currently enjoyed in Hong Kong would utterly destroy quality of life in some of the sustenance based remote farming communities, where the simple costs of transporting their products would bankrupt their production efforts from the start.

Like all incumbent power, China does not want another revolution. Mao demonstrated that where and when the people’s will is frustrated on a sustained and prolonged basis, revolution is inevitable. Thus, China’s government which is perceived by their people to be dictatorial only in part, centralized only in part, knows very keenly that maintaining power depends directly upon fulfilling some of the most important concerns and concensus views of what should be done by the majority of people, Region by Region.

Bush attempted to cram 200 years of democracy building in our own country into one year in Iraq and he has failed. Now, all Bush wants is a face-saving way out of Iraq. China is like a ship 3 times the size of the Titanic. When it changes course, it must do so very slowly by our measures of change. The truth is, the greatest threat to America’s future status as world leader economically is China, but, not China’s command economy or dictatorial structures. No.

The greatest threat comes from China’s reforms currently underway which in time will produce a far more democratized and capitalist based nation where regional strengths and assets are not hampered by centralized constraints which ignore regional uniqueness and strengths. In other words, the more democratized and capitalist China becomes, the greater its threat to supplanting the U.S. as the greatest economic power on the planet. The Chinese politicians however are far wiser than to follow typical American reasoning which dictates that if a little of something is good, a gross abundance of it must be tremendously better. The Chinese culture affords Chinese leaders the wisdom of knowing that good things are good only in proper amounts and at the appropriate times. Thus, a rush to capitalism and democracy across the geographic area known as China would be an American solution which the Chinese are far wiser enough to realize would be complete folly.

Ciggy, my reply to your comments is pretty much covered in my response to Misha above. Thanks for joining the debate on this issue. Something tells me we are no longer in Kansas, though, as this topic of China bears little on the subject of this article. I may bring forth an article on U.S.-Sino relationship in terms of November’s election outcome, so we have a more germane place to debate the China issue.

David,
“The Chinese culture affords Chinese leaders the wisdom of knowing that good things are good only in proper amounts and at the appropriate times.”

Yes, yes, yes, everything Chinese is wise, and everything American is stupid. I hear these lines time after time after time. It’s the typical white American fear that almond shaped eyes afford a person advanced IQ (analogous to other fears exhibited by Michael Moore about blacks). And perhaps there IS a “wisdom” to slavery. If you’re the slave-master that can be rationalized, with sufficient amounts of Buddhism, I suppose.

Change the subject—is that also from Buddhism?

Ciggy said: “Yes, yes, yes, everything Chinese is wise, and everything American is stupid. “

You really believe that, Ciggy? I had more respect for your ability to be rational prior to that remark.

When one hears a line time after time after time, there is usually a good reason for it having such legs. Wonder what that could be, eh? Kind of like the pledge of allegiance, one hears it time after time and for good reason. True of most phrases that survive time and distance from their creation.

Can you really not distinguish between a person’s I.Q. and their cultural background and their culture’s wisdom and knowledge. So much of what America is based on comes directly from the ancient Greeks around 300 B.C. and the Romans from 400 B.C. to about 400 A.D. That cultural wisdom is what gives a society a great deal of its strength and ability to survive. It is parochial at the very least to defend one’s own culture and fail to recognize the merits of another’s which has sustained it for thousands of years longer than one’s own culture.

I understand how and why people denigrate what they don’t understand to cover up for their ignorance, it is a natural behavioral defense mechanism, but to flaunt it in public forums seems to be a new trend.

You guys can debate on whether China is good or bad all you want, but I’m here in SE Asia, and I can tell you that all the countries in this region are looking to China as an economic and political leader. China is filling a power vacuum left empty by Bush’s preoccupation in the Middle East.

I think the U.N. should be lured into a peacekeeping operation in Iraq in order to punish it for its lackadaisical attitude.

Which of the 191 UN member delegates are you referring to? Which countries in particular do you want to pledge military forces? Are you including the US and Great Britain in your plan?

I still don’t understand why people refer to the UN as an entity that does stuff by itself. Despite rumors of black helicopters, it doesn’t have troops of its own. It’s a forum for airing and resolving global problems, and it relies on it’s member nations, especially the more powerful nations, to set the agenda and lead any actions the body decides upon. Traditionally, the US has set the agenda and provided the force and leadership in UN actions.

Ciggy, since Negroponte isn’t going to float your plan, would you be happier seeing a Chinese led peacekeeping force taking over in Iraq? They definitely have the ability to put more troops in there than we have, and they wouldn’t be squeemish about shooting up mosques, either. Of course that means we’d be ceding them military control of the region.

Remer,
“When one hears a line time after time after time, there is usually a good reason for it”

Or it could just be the Big Lie theory.

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/skeptic/arguments.html#repetition

“Can you really not distinguish between a person’s I.Q. and their cultural background and their culture’s wisdom and knowledge.”

I can distinguish between Buddhist teachings and advocacy for slavery, and I’d hoped your intellect were subtle enough to follow the path I was trying to pave for you in that direction.

Ascribing “wisdom” to an entire culture, without tempering it in light of the faults exhibited by the very human people that comprise it, is a form of cultural chauvinism that is not uniquely practiced by military jingoists. I’m seeing it right here before my eyes. There is a spectrum, and facets which reach to the highest highs and the lowest lows, by some coincidence, because that’s what people themselves do.

American Pundit,
“Which of the 191 UN member delegates are you referring to? Which countries in particular do you want to pledge military forces? Are you including the US and Great Britain in your plan?”

The squeakiest wheels, screaming the most loudly today that the U.N. must take charge in Iraq, they should be the first to send peacekeeping forces. With authority comes responsibility, and vice versa. If France wants to administer the transitional government, fine. Let France send troops and we’ll even assure them everything is “safe” for them, and get out of there while the gettin’s good. And then pop popcorn for the fireworks which will ensue. They’ll have flashbacks of Algeria, that is, those of them with the capability to remember history.

“Ciggy, since Negroponte isn’t going to float your plan, would you be happier seeing a Chinese led peacekeeping force taking over in Iraq?”

That would be almost too good to be true. Not since Russia’s conflict in Afghanistan has more accumulated Karma been expiated by two more deserving groups against each other.

Muj versus the New People’s Army. Somewhat like Trump versus Rush Limbaugh, wouldn’t you say?

“they wouldn’t be squeemish about shooting up mosques, either.”

Perfect. The non-squeamish versus the non-squeamish, and the propaganda becomes zero sum as well. At the very least, that portion of Europe under the hypnotic gaze of Bechtel’s puppets in the EU could then be stymied from protesting against the killing of terrorists.

“Of course that means we’d be ceding them military control of the region.”

Yes, and “military control” has given us SO MANY strategic advantages thus far. This side of the case rests.

Ciggy, so you are saying that it is inappropriate to speak of American wisdom or strength based on the rule of law without also speaking of its environmental degradation, civil rights attrocities, or failures of its justice system? I don’t think that is a reasonable position. Talking of a nation’s cultural wisdom or knowledge does not assert or imply perfection, nor does it imply validity over other cultures with different wisdom and knowledge. The point was made that China was a infant nation with regard to capitalism or human rights based on the rule of law. So, I fail to see where your allusions that I regard all that is Chinese as wise and everything American, stupid, come from.

Clever way to avoid discussing the wisdom of Chinese positions on the current events of their nation, though. Their economy has been outgrowing and outpacing ours for years now, and while we and the rest of the world were experiencing recession, the Chinese economy dropped to paltry 8.2% GDP from its previous lofty rates.

Population growth is the most serious threat to the integrity of the Chinese nation as well as to the people themselves. The Chinese leadership is dealing with it. Not very humane to enforce reproductive limits on families by western standards, but, then, invading another nation under false pretext killing thousands upon thousands of people to gain strategic military and political dominance in another part of the world is not very humane to a host of other peoples and nations around the world.

What individual leaders do does not negate the cultural wisdom of their nation, especially, when the leaders actions are opposed by huge segments of their population. For Bush, invading Iraq was pragmatic and necessary, in no less degree than the Chinese leadership’s decision to enforce population growth reduction.

My position has always been that nations with disparate cultural and historical differences cannot be held to each other’s same value systems or judged fairly regarding internal domestic policies. It is just as unfair for the Chinese to view America’s myopic focus on short term ends and rewards as a threat, as it is for American’s to view the Chinese focus on leadership adherence to long term ends and rewards, which btw, is maintained by the politburo in conjuction with the People’s Congress. Too easily and frequently, people reflexively judge different as “bad”. This is a very dangerous method of acquiring concensus.

Well said, Amer. Pundit:

I still don’t understand why people refer to the UN as an entity that does stuff by itself. Despite rumors of black helicopters, it doesn’t have troops of its own. It’s a forum for airing and resolving global problems, and it relies on it’s member nations, especially the more powerful nations, to set the agenda and lead any actions the body decides upon. Traditionally, the US has set the agenda and provided the force and leadership in UN actions.

I wonder if those opposed to the U.N. would have us return our troops to Haiti which the U.N. just relieved us from?

Haha! Ciggy, that’s a pretty good argument. Unfortunately, no one at the UN is screaming for UN control or volunteering UN troops. As far as I can tell, they just want a timetable for US withdrawal. :)

We’ve gone back & forth on the UN before. I think you know I was just trying to make the point that luring the UN “into a peacekeeping operation in Iraq in order to punish it for its lackadaisical attitude” is just not the way the organization works. It would be amusing, though. Wouldn’t it?

Ciggy - “Yes, yes, yes, everything Chinese is wise, and everything American is stupid. I hear these lines time after time after time.”

I’m sorry to interrupt, but where, exactly, do you hear this time after time after time? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News? Ann Coulter? I don’t think that Al Franken will go on a rampage of this flavor. Did I miss this one? “Yes, I was at a cocktail party last weekend, and two Brandeis professors cornered me and were whooping it up over how stupid Rock ‘n’ Roll was, the insipidness of TV, and how great it would be once Sears Tower had a picture of Chairman Mao’s face on it.” That happens to me all the time.

Ciggy - “The squeakiest wheels, screaming the most loudly today that the U.N. must take charge in Iraq, they should be the first to send peacekeeping forces.”

That would be George Bush, wouldn’t it?

Do you know why they “want America to do their dirty work”? It’s because America benefits most from UN cover. The United Nations is a nice way for the U.S. to put an international face on overt U.S. actions, like Gulf War I. Just like taxing the rich at a higher rate than poor people. The rich benefit more from the results of American government than poor people do. Pay your fair share.

John,
“I’m sorry to interrupt, but where, exactly, do you hear this time after time after time? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News? Ann Coulter?”

My liberal friends, actually. They will glom onto absolutely any philosophical New Age trend if it can be plausibly attached to some vestige of Asiatic culture, as if being Asiatic were some imprimatur of superiority. They talk of how superior the Asian mind-set is because they see things as all part of a whole, rather than separate things. This is all well and good if the sum total of everything were all you would want to contemplate at all times, but to throw away the capability of logic to say “non-A is not equal to A”, has its drawbacks as well.

There is a time for Zen, and a time for Logic.

“America benefits most from UN cover. The United Nations is a nice way for the U.S. to put an international face on overt U.S. actions, like Gulf War I.”

Silly me, I thought it was Kuwaitis who benefitted the most from Gulf War I. Should I also train my mind to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, at the behest of George Soros?

www.republicansforkerry04.org