by laying out a comprehensive military / economic / diplomatic strategy to hunt them down and defeat them.
She just addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and she was brilliant and strong.
Watch out ISIS — murdering bastards — we’re coming after you fascist terrorists. Justice will be done.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
Is at the CFR website here.
Is Here
for the links.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…we do all realize that “declares war” in this headline is a rhetorical device since as a private citizen she can’t actually declare war, right?:)
Look people we all know Hillary Clinton dodged sniper fire in Bosnia so we can expect a complete take down of ISIS any day now!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
up your aspiration — ignorant troll !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Whoa! What happened to civility?
I think he was responding to “thebaker”, there’s history there.
Wasn’t this Martin O’Malley’s thing? She does a good job picking up what other candidates score points on and running with it.
Strongly disagree. History has shown that vicious middle eastern dictators, if nothing else, bring some semblance of stability.
My biggest issue, and the sneaky most important one:
“guys, guys, you need to stop fighting your enemy and start fighting ours, instead.” Turkey expanding it’s role as a true regional power is going to be a lynchpin to this in the long term. Don’t forget: the grandparents of current Turkish leadership were the stewards of the whole region. They fell with the other multi-ethnic empires of days gone by, but it wasn’t allll that long ago. But to tell them that they need to ignore the Kurds and fight ISIS is a losing argument. Kurds want Kurdistan, Turkey doesn’t. Granted, Turkey would probably prefer a Kurdistan to a Caliphate, sometimes you need to take your enemies on one at a time.
One more thing:
How much worse does it have to get before we start saying there is something intrinsically wrong with Islam, or certain significant sects within it? Salafi Jihadism is not a small-time family from Topeka protesting funerals. Wahabism is the defacto religious creed in Saudi Arabia and it’s one civil rights violation after another. There are sects of Christianity (I’m looking at you, FLDS) that we find sickening – and Islamic analogs of these extremists run entire countries in the middle east.
As much as they chant death to america and are abrasive, I think propping up Iran, whom are more moderate in their Islam (by comparison), respectful of history and culture, and possessing of a cultural mantle of regional responsibility, is the right thing to do.
Actually, I wonder whether John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other eager bombers who were all set to destroy the Assad regime in Syria haven’t rethought that. At this point, we can be grateful at the Obama Administration’s restraint. I doubt very much that the Kurds would have been excited about having to retake Damascus from ISIS if the U.S. had gone in and created yet another lovely power vacuum.
*
Russian and Iranian policy in Syria makes some kind of sense: Support the Syrian State. It’s a thing. It actually exists.
American policy seems to be to support some political tendency in Syria (moderate, not sectarian, eager for representative democracy, etc.) that is just plain indetectable. It’s not even possible to define what the success of that policy would look like. (“Suddenly one morning, all the faction leaders woke up and said to themselves, ‘Hey! let’s stop fighting! Let’s have free and fair elections.’ ‘Good idea.’ ‘Let’s do it quick before Jimmy Carter passes away.’ ‘Good idea! I’ll get Atlanta on the line now.'”)
If we made out objectives
A. A Syrian State under Assad
B. Establishing Kurdistan
C. Destroying the organizational and infra-structure of ISIS
Then we would have goals that are achievable with outcomes we could measure success by. The idea of arming “rebels” because they want “democracy” is naive. By standards of their culture, “democracy” could be voting in a rigged election for your dictator every few years.
We should have just minded our own business. While I am sincerely grateful Obama didn’t level Assad, his arming and training of “moderate” rebels is a passive version of the same nation-building mentality that GWB had. Let’s not do either!
The difficulty is the large swath of Sunni Arabs who live in eastern Syria and western Iraq. The Bush Administration’s Iraqi monster is a sectarian horror that is, at best, unkind to its Sunni citizens. (Christopher, take note: it was elected!) The problem with extricating U.S. troops from Iraq was that these Sunnis didn’t want to be part of Iraq. The Assad regime, sort of the mirror image of the old Iraq regime (Alawite minority ruling Sunni majority vs Sunni minority ruling Shiite majority), has become hostile to Sunnis as well.
So it’s perfectly conceivable that the U.S. or some coalition can destroy ISIL, but then ISIL is going to have a successor state. It’d be good to figure out what that should be.
The boundary between Syria and Iraq, after all, was a post-World War I invention. It’s the boundary between the British protectorate and the French. No one living there had a say.
…I never said an elected government is automatically a perfect one. (Is ours?) It is still the way toward peace and legitimacy. Free and fair elections is just one, albeit very necessary, side to the democratic coin. The other side, just as necessary, is the protection and value of basic human and civil rights even for minorities or those on the losing side of said elections. In either case it is the government we need to work with and should not try to overthrow, though it may be worth considering because of the history you cite to facilitate some of that self-determination by redrawing boundaries to more realistically reflect the population. Even then there are going to be minority communities because no geographic/demographic correlation is perfect and they need to enjoy equality in whatever polity they end up residing.
The current Iraqi government has not only paved the way toward war and illegitimacy but it has opened new lanes, provided street lighting, and taken down the toll booths. If what you’re advocating were remotely right, they’d at least be gradually improving.
They aren’t.
How does what you’re saying differ from Wolfowitz, Krystal, and the other neo-cons? What is the model state here that convinces us you’re right? Egypt? Kuwait? Iran?
…and if at first we don’t succeed try again. Just powers are derived from the consent of the governed – last I checked that was a self-evident truth. Our own country would not exist without a willingness to stand up for that and while it is hardly easy the USA has pretty much lost it’s whole raison d’etre if we do not at least try. The Neo-cons are too willing to initiate by force and then not willing to do the hard work of winning the peace (though sometimes I wonder if it is our side to which the latter applies as well). Europe has largely transitioned from centuries of despotism and theocracy to democracy so there is no reason others can’t. Following WWII we helped with that, but now seem unwilling or unable to do so. I would argue there have in fact been improvements in some of those nations even if it sometimes feels like two steps forward, one step back. At very least we need to stop actively supporting efforts to quash democracy, or overthrow elected regimes.
I don’t think you’re racist – it’s pretty ingrained in our mentality.
Consent has many forms. (WHO SCORED LAST NIGHT GUYS? I NEED YOUR CONSENT FORMS!) I would argue that for much of history, the autocratic hereditary monarchies of Europe had the consent of the governed. At different points, that consent was lost and different governments emerged.
For much of that time there was neither a good way to measure public opinion nor much that could be practically done about it. I don’t see why it is inherently Anglo-centric.
they don’t have the same values as we do. they are not objective. Even the idea that “all men are created equal” is a subjective value we hold as inheritors to the VERY anglo-european enlightenment.
Democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. All religions and cultures have standards for treating others with some level of dignity at least in theory, and choosing one’s destiny and human rights are essential for that. Promotion of democracy is definitely in our interest and I continue to believe in the interest of others as well. I know of no group of people now or in the past who enjoys being oppressed.
Like in Yugoslavia, right?
When we got involved in Yugoslavia there was clearly not a commitment to democracy on their part as the Serbians were set on oppressing others in their midst. This notion came straight from my international politics classes in college. I can think of no historical instance where two functioning democracies actually went to war with each other. The closest example might be the War of 1812, but as you point out in your comment below ours was still a work in progress at best as was the UK’s.
How would you characterize the extended conflict between Ireland and England during the 20th century?
The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland never engaged in armed conflict between their militaries, though I did hear or read at one point that Ireland was upset enough with the UK that it considered joining the Axis in WWII. “Troubles” was an apt term.
There are cases when democracies just channel the worst instincts of the people – we don’t always get to excuse them on account of being non-functioning democracies.
For example, Israel is a democracy. Then why the anti-Palestinian sentiments seen in Israel’s prime minister and some of those around him?
You can say in response that Israel is a non-functioning democracy, because many Palestinians don’t have political rights.
But the US itself does not afford political rights to millions of illegals. If Israel is a non-functioning democracy, then neither is the US a functioning democracy.
The concept of a functioning democracy thus becomes vacuous… Contradiction!!! This proves mathematically that the premise, Israel a non-functioning democracy, is false.
It is a functioning democracy, with all its trappings, separation of powers, elections, courts, etc.
Not picking particularly on Israel for this – because, as stated, the US has its own problems, and exhibits the same type of problem – specifically, a large class of residents who are not afforded civil rights.
Charles Lipson, it’s lead proponent, was my Intro to IR professor and he and I had real arguments over this. Basically, if you define democracy as “liberal democracy with universal suffrage” than you are looking at the Second World War going forward, and that is a terribly small test sample and there may be other reasons and factors to explain it. I also brought up the Lebanon War, but he argued, despite being a Bush supporter and believe in the Cedar Revolution that it was a nascent democracy and a rogue state for harboring Hezbollah-even though they arguably fit that definition.
Lebanon also fought in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and was arguably a democracy at that point.
What is DPT? I can’t see anywhere above where it or something it could stand for was used. Please advise.
n/t
…and Israel was just forming as a state. Wars for independence are in a bit of a different category. For example, we fought for our own independence from a mother country arguably the freest in the world at the time, but it was still preventing us from self-determination and exercise of certain rights, so that’s a knock against its democratic record.
You’re telling us respect for human rights or a peaceful nature doesn’t come until democracy which equals respect for human rights and a peaceful nature.
Did you know that members of the Tautology Society are members fo the Tautology Society?
It works best if both manifest more or less simultaneously. Both are necessary, but neither sufficient without the other.
I think you miss how this “universal” principle arrived at our shores. In the early 19th century, universal male suffrage — even universal white male suffrage — was regarded as a quite dangerous invitation to mob rule or to rule by the unworthy.
The idea of magically getting Middle Eastern countries to traverse a few centuries of Western political experience in the space of a few years is unreasonable.
But then again, there’ no need to answer you since you have no concrete examples of this working. You just have “principles”.
On the limits of American power
I hate pulling academic rank, but for crying out loud I have a degree and a teaching license in history! Just because I don’t give a whole dissertation on western political thought and history in the context of a blog comment doesn’t mean I’m not aware of these things. I am getting so sick and tired of being held to what I feel is an impossibly high standard in this context and being on the receiving end of needless history lectures. Of course we did not go overnight from absolute tyranny to absolute democracy. It could be easily argued we still haven’t perfected it in some ways. However, the principles to which we aspire WERE in place from the getgo and there is no reason others necessarily have to take as long as we did now that we and others have shown the way. Just a century ago much of Europe was still undemocratic and within my lifetime the eastern half was, but the transition has in fact been pretty quick and painless in most cases. Yes, I do have principles, but it’s disappointing to learn other Americans don’t.
I don’t see this exchange as asserting that American’s don’t have principles. I think the suggestion is, instead, that the principles we American’s hold to be universal are not necessary accepted by the ME.
Even with your credentials, your other commentary here (perhaps accidentally) seemed to ignore the five centuries of experience in England, between the Magna Carta and the US Declaration of Independence, that provided the context for that latter document.
The ME has no such tradition.
Further, many Americans still reject the extension of the right to vote to women, and ethic minorities. They may profess homage to it, but act very differently when it comes down to actually making it happen. The current GOP agitation for voterID and against “illegal immigrants” is rooted in a xenophobic desire to suppress minority vote (where “minority” is generally “different from me”). The GOP obsession with denying women access to contraception and abortion, and the explicit willingness to block ALL access to health care for women who depend on Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, has the effect of suppressing their vote — women who are desperate because they are sick, pregnant, or dealing with unwanted babies are much less likely to participate in our political system.
The dissonance I experience in your commentary, at least on this thread, is the dissonance between what you must know based on your credentials and what you write here about imposing “representative democracy” on cultures that currently lack the prerequisites that make representative democracy work.
…is once one political culture takes several centuries other don’t necessarily have to, plus impose is a bit strong of a word. It must be a goal we encourage and work toward without deliberately propping up its antithesis.
My first principle is no more American deaths in avoidable wars of choice. I would argue anyone who values democracy promotion over that first principle is unfit to be President. Which may include people I respect and nominally agree with like you or Secretary Clinton.
Even the neocons like Bolton and Kagan are admitting we won’t see a democratic Syria anytime soon, as did Secretary Clinton to her credit. Hate Nixon and Kissinger all you want, normalizing relations with China was the right move. Surely it has decreased our chances of going to war, and it formally severed them from the Soviet Union contributing to their isolation and eventual defeat. No one was under any illusions that would democratize the nation. It’s never been done before at the point of a bayonet. Germany and Japan had democratic histories and an elite commercial class willing to play ball with the Allies during their post-war transitions. I can’t think of a counter example that doesn’t stretchy the definitions of democracy.
I believe the best approach is a balance between the four schools. I support the UN, NATO, and genocide prevention. That’s Wilsonian. We should go to war to protect us, our allies, our interests, and yes humanitarian values of war is the only choice left to stop a Rwanda and there is a realistic exit strategy. That’s Hamiltonian. But we must be realists at all times, mindful of the limits of our power. I agree with democracy promotion as a values export-leading by the power of our example rather than the example of our power as President Clinton eloquently put it in his 2004 convention speech. That’s Jeffersonian. And when we go toner we go in hard and all in and ask the entire public to contribute. That’s Jacksonian.
Anything less than that balance is a half hearted half measure that results in quagmires and preventable deaths. You put a realistic proposal on the table to take out Assad, ISIL and ensure a democratic government rules a territorially contiguous Syria I’m all ears. I strongly suspect such a plan works in books or movies and not real life, short of a WWII effort most Americans are too selfish to undertake.
Sometimes things get so bad that remaining neutral essentially sides with the oppressor. I agree opening China was a good thing (though I don’t like that we traded away recognition of Taiwan) and have always said we should have diplomatic relations with every nation we are not at war with. I like your paragraph about a balance of schools. Didn’t realize Japan had any democratic traditions before (I’m much less up on my oriental history.) and Germany had Weimar but we all know how that turned out. I do, however cite Germany and Japan as examples of how we can turn countries around, but you are absolutely right that it cannot be half-hearted.
From Wikipedia:
Furthermore, one of the things that destroyed the Second International Socialist movement during World War One was the pro-war sentiments of its rank and file, when nationalism trumped class solidarity. Popular sentiment in Europe accelerated the rush to war in 1914.
And insofar as U.S. democratic traditions promote avoidance of war, consider the Mexican and Spanish-American wars…
I’m not sure the German Empire, Mexico of the 1840s, or Spain of the 1890s would be listed as free countries if Freedom House were around during those periods. Germany was the creation of Iron Chancellor von Bismarck and by WWI the Kaiser had reasserted a lot of personal rule. Mexico was essentially under the military dictatorship of Santa Anna. Spain had forced alternation between two parties and elections were heavily manipulated. Keep in mind my claim (which I learned in my college classes, political science being another one of my degrees, rather than pulled out of my sleeve) is not that US democracy prevents us from going to war – it clearly doesn’t. What I’m saying is two fully functioning democracies do not go to war with each other. Sometimes you have to go beyond theory to practice. There are a number of countries whose constitutions claim to provide for elections and rights, but in reality don’t really do either.
Let me try to explain the points I was trying to make:
1.) The pre-WWI German Empire was democratic to the point that public opinion had to be taken into consideration. Like it or not, in 1914 the German public enthusiastically backed the war. (As did the French, British, Italians, etc.)
2.) Public opinion in Europe was so nationalistic that war fever trumped class solidarity even among Socialist internationalists.
…and as to the matter of wars of choice (a separate issue):
3.) American electorates have known to enthusiastically support wars of choice for the sole purpose of conquest. The governmental structures of Mexico and Spain at the time are irrelevant (although the latter’s was a major component to US pro-war propaganda).
And as for fully functioning democracies almost going to war, consider the Trent Affair, when the U.S. and Great Britain almost went to war in 1861.
Having said all that, the issue at hand is whether democracy building by force of arms is desirable. Thus this final quote:
– John Quincy Adams, 1821
…if we were in fact the “well-wisher to the freedom of all”, but my argument has been all along that too often we haven’t even met that threshhold (much it seems to our ultimate detriment), but once we are involved democracy is the desired outcome. Notice I have not advocated, for example, invading North Korea for the sole purpose of installing a democracy, but I’m also pretty sure we are not actively propping up the current regime. I still say hypocrisy is what comes back to bite us.
As for DPT just as a matter of interest here is a list of supposed democracies at war, though I’m not sure I agree with all the analysis.
Imposing democracy by force has all kinds of consequences, mostly foreseeable. Americans don’t have the stomach for long-term occupations.
In the case of North Korea (I know that’s a straw man, but I can’t resist.), the adverse results of taking on a homicidal nutcase who has nukes is pretty obvious.
It’s a little difficult to impose democratic pluralism at the point of a bayonet; and frankly, my concerns are more about the military and geopolitical consequences than any thing else.
For that reason, my preference is to do what’s necessary to create a working co-belligerency, destroy ISIS, and let the Turks, Kurds, and Iranians sort out the rest. Given that this is essentially a war with Islamic heretics, any credible occupation would have to be all-Muslim, preferably with a credible Sunni component.
That said, SOCOM is of necessity going to be busy for the next few decades…
…that I think we are approaching the point where we will not have much choice on the matter of taking very forceful action against ISIS, though we already are taking more than GOP candidates want to give Obama credit for.
This is patently untrue.
Maybe the thing to remember is that human societies, like other societies of primates, tend to start off being hierarchical and tribal. It’s the default position. Anything as counter-hierarchical as parliamentary or representative government with civil rights and equality before the law takes a substantial amount of culture to overcome our “factory settings”. The principles available “from the getgo” are tribal loyalty, hierarchy, and submission to authority.
…then I guess I really am being unclear. I was talking about from the founding of the United States. The Declaration sets forth our original principles of consent of the governed, etc. I was commenting specifically on American principles.
The Founders (thank God) were hard-headed realists:
– Federalist Paper No. 10
…specifically for the purpose of advancing ratification of a document more democratic than just about anything that existed at the time. I’m as quick as anyone to point out that we are a republic and not a democracy, for which I am glad, but he was referring to a more direct form of democracy which he equated with mob rule.
And:
– Federalist Paper No. 1
I’m only half-way through Ms. Clinton’s hour-long address, so perhaps my questions are answered in the second half. I also am referencing some perspectives and questions raised by a Colin Powell in a FrontLine piece.
I first want to cite a striking Abraham Lincoln quote offered by Mr. Powell:
I like this perspective more than the oft-cited “Pottery Barn rule” (sometimes also called the “K-Mart Rule”). We are not talking about bits of broken merchandise. We are talking about the lives of men, women, and children, and about entire societies and cultures. We did not break some merchandise in 2003, and afterwards. We committed immoral, evil acts. While I hear and use the phrase “scourge of God” metaphorically, the result is the same.
What is now unfolding in the ME is the scourge of God, in this case visited on us and the world for what WE — the United States of America — visited upon the Middle East for DECADES, including our indefensible invasion of Iraq in 2003. The simultaneous war crimes committed by the prior administration and ignored by all of us afterwards (apparently in hopes that their impact would somehow dissolve away without effect) are part of that scourge that WE visited on the Middle East.
Here are some questions, framed by Mr. Powell in this and other pieces, that I think should be answered before America hurtles further down this path to war against ISIS:
1. What is the political objective we seek? Is it:
– important?
– clearly defined and understood?
– attainable?
2. Will military force achieve the political objective?
3. What is the exit strategy?
– How do we know when the contemplated war is won (or lost)?
– How do we extract our military when the contemplated war is over?
4. How might our intervention change the political objective? Mr. Powell writes, in the above piece, “How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?”
I have not, so far, heard answers to these questions. I am as appalled and nauseated by the actions of ISIS terrorists as anyone. I am not yet convinced that our contemplated actions will accomplish anything except worsening an already abysmal situation.
Do we put the current hostage attack going on in Mali in with the middle east objectives?
I read the whole piece and came away impressed. I think she has identified the key ways to move forward. Jim Webb said regarding Syria, don’t get into a 5 sided fight. Now that one of those sides has brought it’s barbarism to NATO soil, it is time to fight back and wipe that side out. It’s foolhardy to think we can do this and take out Assad.
Clinton made it very clear, there is no way to militarily defeat Assad. Not without risk of a world war, with Russian and Iranian boots on the ground embedded with what’s left of Syria’s military.
So let’s turn those 4 sides against ISIL, let’s turn the Turks against ISIL, lets turn the Gulf state against ISIL, and let’s get all of NATO and the Arab League against ISIL. I trust that Clinton has the coalition building skills, credibility with the Russians, and Iranians to get this done.
Syria was always a fiction created by Western powers, it would be foolish to waste Western lives to salvage this fiction. Let’s create ethnic enclaves like we did in Yugoslavia, and create the space for peace and governance to prevail.
Clinton Sheds Progressive Façade with Bold Rightward Lurch
So tell me again about how truly progressive Clinton is, and how it’s not just a PR game that she’s going to abandon as soon as she doesn’t have a challenge from the Left.
She has not favored single-payer ever as far as I know so she’s not shedding anything there. She’s been a bit more hawkish all along too. The only people who don’t see her as reasonably progressive are the Democratic equivalent of Tea Party purists. Put her up next to anyone the GOP is likely to nominate, even the relatively reasonable ones, and she will look like the progressive candidate in a hurry. A comprehensive look at the Vote-Smart or On The Issues website will demonstrate how firmly planted she really is on the left. So on the one hand, yes she is absolutely progressive; OTOH that’s not exactly my priority either.
Really? This is how you convince people to support your favorite — by equating them with the Tea Party? Once again, you insult me and all the reasonable Progressives who don’t hold Clinton in the same high esteem you do.
It isn’t about purity; it’s about which candidate’s positions are going to make life better for Americans. That’s the essence of Progressivism, as I see it. Throwing our weight around in the ME and keeping the insurance industry rolling in dough do absolutely nothing to make my life any better. If those things make yours better, maybe you can explain how.
He has also backed the air war, more special forces, and preceded Clinton in calling on Arab partners to contribute the bulk of the boots on the ground. He supports defeating ISIL in its entirety. As well they both should. This isn’t Saddam-this is a real threat to American lives and the homeland that we have to take far more seriously in the wake of Paris. As an ancillary reason for adopting a strong stance-failure to be tough enough on ISIL proper will also enable the xenophobic arguments of the far right to gain credence. Pacifism isn’t an option when dealing with this foe.
As for single payer, if it failed in Vermont, I don’t see the conditions where it succeeds anytime soon in the US. Bernie hasn’t given any specifics on how he will get a program past the Republican Congress when Obama couldn’t even get a public option past a Democratic one. He isn’t interested in specifics, since his is campaign is an education cause rather than a serious campaign for the presidency.
Which is fine, he is serving the same role Ron Paul did in the GOP in making a once fringe ideology respectable to the majority of a mainstream party. The majority of Democrats now look at social democracy favorably, and his speech this week-which has gotten wide press and wide praise from a variety of unlikely outlets-has hopefully revived the spirit of Debs, Thomas and Harrington and put to bed the fourth column guilt by association comparison with totalitarian communism once and for all. For that, I will be eternally grateful and will reward my second favorite Senator (after our Liz Warren of course!) with my primary vote.
I have little patience for people making strong Democrats who are not all the way to the left out to be DINOs or faux-progressives. HRC IS absolutely progressive and I even disagree with her about single-payer, but I also don’t like cutting off my nose to spite my face. Besides, you were critical first and I just hit back. I don’t believe you have or ever will see me initiate a criticism against Sanders or anyone else. I also don’t necessarily prioritize what will make MY life better over the greatest good for the greatest number when it comes to security, values, and preparedness.
I agree that ISIS terrorists need to be stopped.
I’m all for “security”, in the sense of taking reasonable and effective steps to stop ISIS terrorist attacks from happening here. I’m all for “values”, at least when it comes to maintaining American values in America.
It’s the “preparedness” that I take issue with, especially in the context of maintaining American values in America. So far, “preparedness” has been an excuse for shredding American values along with our constitutional protections in a flood of mob tyranny.
Mass surveillance, the militarization of our police, the casual acceptance of uniformed and armed military presence at gatherings like the fireworks on the Esplanade — all are examples of “preparedness” whose harm to ourselves and our values far outweighs whatever benefits they accrue, if any.
I haven’t heard Bernie Sanders say he was going to raise taxes on anyone except the very wealthy, so I’m curious about the context of Ms. Clinton’s cited remarks. I’m far more concerned about who will end up paying for all this “security” and “preparedness” that we’re supposed to ratchet up in this “war on ISIS terrorists”.
I’ll make a prediction, though. The big advantage to both Republicans and Democrats alike of having a really awful terrible evil enemy like “ISIS terrorists” is that it stirs up the masses to “protect ourselves” from the “invading Muslim horde”. And the big advantage to stirring up the masses that way is that it distracts attention from actually taking actual money from the wealthiest 1% and redistributing it to the rest of the us.
Those who control our media and our government are VERY GOOD at finding creating ways for the very wealthy to protect and expand their wealth, while making the rest of us WANT whatever it is they come up with.
I’m not denying that ISIS is awful. I am, however, noticing how convenient it is that the result of a successful “war on ISIS terrorism” is almost certainly going to be more wealth for the very wealthy, even less wealth for the rest of us, and virtually NO CHANGE to the level of ACTUAL security from terrorism — in the world or at home.
All of our candidates have been tough on ISIL, while being equally forceful in denouncing the wealthy and denouncing the bald racism against Mexicans and Muslims the other side is engaging in, even its so called moderate or establishment candidates. Bernie has been especially morally forceful linking these refugees to the members of his family killed in the Holocaust while
Clinton has successfully argued these nakedly racist appeals will make us less safe. Even O’Malley has gotten in the best line against Trump by calling him a ‘carnival barker’ though I’d start calling him a racist uncle.
I don’t see candidates tripping over themselves to adopt Republican sounding positions on security like we saw in 2004. I don’t see them running away from supporting gay rights, healthcare reform, or taxing the wealthy. They aren’t running away from immigration reform, gun control, fighting climate change, or protecting civil rights for African Americans even from police brutality. Even the leftist in 2004, Dean, was calling on reforming affirmative action and appealing to NRA voters with Confederate flags on their pickups. This is probably the most left wing field the party has fielded in quite some time, and we owe it to Bernie Sanders for making it that way.
…my use of the term preparedness. I wasn’t referring to out preparedness to respond to threats, though that is certainly important. I was referring to an individual’s preparedness to take on the role of President, a factor which I think disagreements on what she might do notwithstanding favors Clinton hands down.
By insulting a large segment of the Progressive wing of your own party. This was your response to my criticism of your candidate. You’ve done this before, and it doesn’t get any less offensive with repetition. I am puzzled by the philosophy that “[n]ever will see me initiate a criticism against Sanders or anyone else,” yet has no problem throwing slurs at people who are ostensibly your allies. These slurs are not “truth” they are opinion, and it’s nasty.
The cult of personality that you and laRicchia have going for the Clintons is at odds with my goal of electing people who are dedicated to improving the lot of ordinary citizens.
…phrases like “rightward lurch” or “progressive facade” when referring to HRC. Neither is accurate and at least as divisive as Tea Party epithets. I am absolutely confident that if HRC were to take any one of those online surveys where you answer policy preference questions and are scored on the left-right spectrum she would land comfortably on the left. Maybe not as far as Sanders to be sure, but when you say that anyone not as far left as you would like is to the right, then yes, it is virtually indistinguishable from those who attack capable and still very conservative officials for not being pure enough. I don’t think Fred and I are engaged in any greater a cult of personality than passionate supporters of any other candidate might be.
I could probably parse the twisted syntax in your comment, but I don’t think it would be worth the effort. I’ll just say I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
I think Christopher is making a fairly reasonable argument. Here’s what I hear him saying:
1. Phrases like “rightward lurch” and “progressive facade” are also examples of “nasty opinion”.
2. The two phrases in (1) are false when applied to HRC, at least to the extent that they can be measured through instruments like a response to policy-preference surveys. While Mr. Sanders may be more radical than Ms. Clinton in such surveys, each is dramatically separated from any of the GOP candidates on the same measure.
3. He and Fred are within the envelope of acceptable cheerleading for their chosen candidate, at least for this site.
I worry about the apparent eagerness of ALL our candidates to go to war against ISIS terrorists. I am old enough and cynical enough to notice how frequently “war” breaks out during an election season when the powers that be encounter an unruly electorate making threatening noises about taking back wealth (and power).
None of us participating in this thread ought to be the target of our attacks. It is those who support Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or any of the other GOP clowns — in spite of their flagrant lies — that ought to be in the crosshairs of our political gunsights.
…but definitely unhelpful.
My “nasty opinion” was an effort to invoke kirth’s earlier comment: “These slurs are not “truth” they are opinion, and it’s nasty.”
It seems to me, from here, that the two of you had a “full, candid and frank exchange of views”. I think the characterization of some of that as “nasty opinion” came from kirth, and it appears to me that your response was to correctly observe that similarly unfriendly phrases also came from kirth.
From where I sit, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton each has aspects and stances that frustrate me, and each has aspects and stances that inspire me.
Regarding the “rightward lurch” of Ms. Clinton regarding ISIS terrorists, she is joined by Mr. Sanders in that stance. It seems to me that it is precisely BECAUSE she is so much more persuasive, convincing, and — well — presidential in her statement that her posture provokes a visceral response like “rightward lurch”. Mr. Sanders takes a pretty much identical stance, and is so ineffective that nobody pays much attention to him.
My original comment contained criticism of candidate Clinton. Christopher’s response was to slur people critical of Clinton — including me — as “equivalent of Tea Party purists.” I did not criticize Christopher until he made it personal. That’s where the nasty came from. Please don’t blame me for that. Christopher apparently cannot countenance any criticism of Clinton without personal attacks, even while boasting that he will never do it, and I called him on it.
I do believe that calling HRC “right” or claiming she is not progressive is unreasonable and inaccurate, but there are ways to simply say you disagree with this or that policy (which as I mentioned I do regarding single-payer) without exaggerating her place on the political spectrum. I stick to defending my candidate without smearing others; I ask you to do the same.
Yes, if you consider her current positions. If you look at the totality of her career and say she is not progressive, the claim is both reasonable and accurate (unless, of course, we have vastly different definitions of what “progressive” means).
I do in fact take the totality of her record as provided by such sites as On The Issues or Vote Smart and see her as firmly in the progressive camp, going back to being First Lady where at least by reputation she was more liberal than her husband and her husband was comfortably left of center himself. Not a radical to be sure, but definitely progressive.
Yeah, it seems like we just disagree about the definition of progressive.
She’s firmly in the mainstream Democrat camp, which I believe only barely overlaps with being a progressive.
As far as Bill Clinton being comfortably left of center – no. Not with NAFTA, de-regulation of Wall St, a huge expansion of the Prison Industrial Complex and mass incarceration, Welfare “reform,” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA, and looking the other way at African genocide being such large parts of his legacy. He was very effective and did (or at least oversaw) some great things, but he also moved the Democratic party sharply to the right. He’s only comfortably left of center when compared to the Republicans who have become unhinged and moved exponentially to the right.
I simply disagree with your characterization of Bill Clinton.
America moved sharply to the right, starting in 1980. In my view, Mr. Clinton was astoundingly successful at limiting, halting, or in some cases reversing that direction — while simultaneously presiding over two terms of constantly-improving economic conditions for all of us.
Bill Clinton himself agrees that he and we blundered in our handling of the African genocide. I don’t share your characterization of the other changes.
Had Bill Clinton been eligible to run in 2000, I am absolutely convinced that he would have defeated George W. Bush (or any other GOP candidate). I am equally convinced that we would NOT have reacted so hysterically to 9/11, and we would NOT have invaded Iraq in 2003.
Had Mr. Clinton been able to run in 2004, I am convinced that we would NOT have had either the crash of 2008 or the Great Recession that followed it.
In any case, Bill Clinton is NOT eligible to run. Hillary Clinton is very different from her husband, and has persuaded me that she is more likely to be able to either maximize progressive gains or minimize progressive losses if elected in 2016 given the Congress that she will almost certainly face.
While I agree that Bernie Sanders articulates the progressive agenda more clearly and forcefully than either of the other two candidates, my perception is that he is woefully unprepared for and therefore unable to weather the relentlessly withering attacks that any Democrat will face from the Congress elected in 2016. He is similarly unprepared for and therefore unable to handle the immediate foreign policy challenges that will face whoever is elected in 2016.
In my view, attacking the accomplishments of the Bill Clinton administration from 1992 to 2000 is counterproductive to making real progress towards the progress agenda today.
I think you’re seriously overrating Bill Clinton’s record. If not for the great economy, which is another thing people overstate the Clinton Administration’s contribution to (it was a lot of luck to be on the right side of a business cycle and a unique time for the boom in a giant sector, although with a lot of competency to not completely eff things up or squander it on dangerous tax cuts), he would not be remembered as kindly. Being followed by one of the worst Presidents ever also helped him look much better.
What I cited are large and important parts of his legacy, which were not progressive in the slightest, and many are things his wife is having to back away from now.
Maybe Clinton would have avoided the crash of 2008, but that doesn’t mean his team didn’t create the new system that made such a crash much more likely.
I think there is a strong argument that Hillary would be more effective than Sanders, but no one knows for sure. You’ve extrapolated from some public appearances that he is unprepared to deal with Congress, but his nearly 30-year career in Congress as a collaborative and effective legislator belies that assumption. He also has not faced anywhere near the same level of vitriol that Clinton has, and if the only way forward is through extensive use of executive power, trusting Clinton with that worries me. In terms of foreign policy, I agree that Sanders does not have near the same level of experience. Clinton’s experience, however, is not particularly comforting when it comes to issues related to use of force. She has also made much more serious blunders – like voting for the Iraq war (which, like Bill Clinton’s apologies for his response to genocide in Africa, are hard to accept and move on from, let alone give someone a promotion). Experience is important, but her experience is often not great. Dick Cheney had a wealth of experience and gravitas on foreign policy, but he was also wrong pretty much all the time.
Yes, but I was responding to an allegation I find to be absurd. What may be more counterproductive, however, is longing with nostalgia for the Clinton administration. There was competency is not completely effing things up, but from a policy perspective, the Clinton years were often a nightmare for the progressive agenda.
Even compared to the current one I sometimes miss him. His better economy was no accident, having begun his term with stimulus and budgeting that set us on the right path. Millions of new jobs, stock market up, inflation down, unemployment down, country mostly at peace. I’ll take that record any time. He was much better than just not as bad as his successor. Then again, I was more centrist then than I am now and it sounds like not as left as you today either.
Unfortunately, the only comparisons for me are to Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama. Reagan was effective in the wrong direction, Bush was meh, and Bush II was an unmitigated disaster. In terms of policy direction, however, Clinton was still less progressive than Nixon.
Again, I think you are overstating Clinton’s ability (or any president’s) to create a good economy, and also understating some of the potential damage his administration helped usher in with de-regulation.
For long-term impact, I think much of what Clinton did (as I mentioned above) was pretty bad, especially on trade, de-regulation, and criminal justice.
It will be interesting to see how history judges Clinton compared to Obama.
FMLA is great, but Obamacare is a long-term game changer, and one that we desperately need to build upon.