Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2008

What This Election Is About

Filed under: General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 7:04 am



The Democrat party is the party of hope.

The Republican party is the party of fear.

Democrats say: “I hope the terrorists don’t attack us!”

Republicans say: “To hell with that. I want them to fear us.”

54 Responses to “What This Election Is About”

  1. Yeah, I know: I’m just being a demagogue, huh?

    Anyway, now that I have gotten that off my chest, go enjoy E.J. Dionne mocking the notion that Islamist extremism is the transcendant challenge of the 21st Century. (Via Beldar.)

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  2. Are you on drugs?

    stef (acdc78)

  3. Hope is the thing with feathers
    That perches in the soul,
    And sings the tune–without the words,
    And never stops at all …

    I have seen several things with feathers myself, about halfway through a bottle of homemade grappa mostly.

    nk (798403)

  4. Are you really hoping the terrorists do attack?

    chris (1a5917)

  5. Republicans say: “To hell with that. I want them to fear us.”

    That’s why I vote Republican. Sadly, I’m not sure they still stand for this.

    Kevin (3efe14)

  6. You manly Republicans are so much manlier than us girly-man Democrats.

    Please, Republi-Men! Save us from hairy Arab menace!

    You wanna know how to fight terrorism? Don’t be afraid. There: you win.

    I the War on Terror a long time ago.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  7. Levi, I’m not afraid…

    I just don’t want them to attack us again…I want them to leave us (read that either way-us, or U.S.) alone…

    But, they didn’t, and they say they won’t…

    I believe them….sorry you don’t…

    reff (bff229)

  8. I agree with Patterico’s initial post. If you panty-waists like Leviticus and stef can’t stand confidence and opposing wrong with more than wet pants and words, I suggest you go to a country that has surrendered to Islamofascism or full blown Communism/Socialism.

    PCD (c378fd)

  9. Disgusting article. I would call it intellectually dishonest if I though the author was doing it intentionally. As is, I’ll just say that he’s a fool who has no business writing arguments of any kind.

    Joe M. (5d215f)

  10. You wanna know how to fight terrorism? Don’t be afraid. There: you win.

    Yeah that approach is working real well for Israelis, or Danes, or Parisians or Brits.

    Leviticus

    When 6 million Israelis are wiped off the face of the planet I afraid you will have won.

    syn (eb1ff1)

  11. Levi missed a verb. I’m guessing that it wasn’t “ignored,” “lost” or “gave up on.”

    Regarding this assertion:

    You wanna know how to fight terrorism? Don’t be afraid. There: you win.

    I’m pretty sure that the Airmen at Khobar towers, the embassy workers in Dar es Salaam and Tanzania and the brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald weren’t afraid. It’s pretty hard to argue that they “won” though… Do you want to maybe re-think your criteria for ‘winning’?

    carlitos (2bcbb9)

  12. er, Dar es Salaam IN Tanzania…

    carlitos (2bcbb9)

  13. “If you panty-waists like Leviticus and stef can’t stand confidence and opposing wrong with more than wet pants and words, I suggest you go to a country that has surrendered to Islamofascism or full blown Communism/Socialism.”

    – PCD

    Fuck off, soldier. The difference between my opposition of wrong and yours is that mine is honest enough to include the actions of my own country. I love America, but I don’t deify it.

    This is a stupid, inflammatory post, and I fell for it. Way to go, Pat. Were you the kind of kid that put two bugs in a jar and shook it until they started tearing into each other?

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  14. Levi reminds me of those fools of the 40’s that whirled about on a pivot to the latest talking points from the ComIntern re Fascism.

    You wonder just what it will take (if anything) to get their attention that there actually is a problem other than the rheatoric of their BDS.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  15. Levi…

    You don’t deify America…but you aren’t willing to protect it, either…

    There, you win….

    reff (bff229)

  16. Who am I to tell anyone not to be rude and grumpy? But for those who don’t want to be rude and grumpy …. Safe for work (if you don’t crank up the volume.)

    nk (798403)

  17. mocking the notion that Islamist extremism is the transcendant challenge of the 21st Century.

    Not so transcendent as to trump the pressing need to protect telecoms from lawsuits, mind you. But transcendent nonetheless.

    Vergil (444e9b)

  18. You know, Vergil, I pay the mortgage and shovel the snow off my driveway too. Whatchoo talking about, Willis Vergil?

    nk (798403)

  19. “Who am I to tell anyone not to be rude and grumpy?”

    – nk

    There’s a time to be grumpy, even if there isn’t a time to be rude (and there isn’t: my apologies, PCD).

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  20. If Leviticus lived in the 30s, he’d be bitching about Franco, but not volunteering for the Abraham Lincoln brigades to fight him.

    PCD (c378fd)

  21. The left has this short-term view thing going on. Remember Keynes’ “in the long term everybody’s dead” thing?

    Now it’s the clash of civilizations. Yes, over the next five years, it’s ridiculous to think that radical Islam could “win” in any realistic way.

    Just like it would have been inane to think, when the Pharoah of Egypt declared the King of Hattusha a “great king,” that Hattusha could fall.

    Never heard of Hattusha? That’s okay, most people haven’t.

    Some of us take the long view, that’s all.

    http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

    Merovign (4744a2)

  22. Am I to assume that you’re an active duty member of the armed forces, PCD? You’d be amazed at how many non-military conservatives are eager to call liberals cowards, yet lack any sort of service themselves…

    Leviticus (0b9d78)

  23. Shorter Levi:

    “PCD you Chickenhawk”

    Scott Jacobs (3c07ad)

  24. Scott: Exactly.

    I think it’s warranted. If he’s active-duty, he’ll say so, and that’ll be fine. If not, well…

    You know what they say: If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  25. So basicly, you have no actual defense for what he said, so you figured name-calling was the way to go.

    Wish I were surprised…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  26. If he’s active-duty, he’ll say so, and that’ll be fine. If not, well…

    he’s welcome at Berkeley and Toledo any time.

    If you’re in uniform, you’re a baby-killer. If you’re not, you’re a chickenhawk. To the self-indulgent, spoiled brats of the left.

    nk (798403)

  27. Am I to assume that you’re an active duty member of the armed forces, PCD? You’d be amazed at how many non-military conservatives are eager to call liberals cowards, yet lack any sort of service themselves…

    Oh goody! The Chickenhawk Meme!

    The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

    The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

    If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

    Paul (236e0e)

  28. Oops! Here’s the link.

    Paul (236e0e)

  29. Paul, your critique of the chickenhawk meme would seem to me to apply just as well to comments of the sort in comment #20.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  30. So what’s your MOS, Leviticus?

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  31. FDR: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
    Bush: We have nothing but fear.

    That’s why FDR won his war.
    Scared people make mistakes.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  32. Dionne’s article didn’t strike me as “mocking” at all. He posed some hard questions, and they deserve an answer, not just a label that begs those questions:

    McCain makes his claim even stronger when he uses the phrase “21st century.” Does he mean that in the year 2100, Americans will look back and say that everything else that happened in the century paled in comparison with the war against terrorism? . . .

    For conservatives, there is something peculiar about turning Islamic extremism into a mighty ideological force with the power to overrun the world. It’s odd that so many take seriously Osama bin Laden’s lunatic claims that he will build a new caliphate. (And, by the way, exactly what did the Iraq war contribute to the fight against terrorism?)

    A reasoned argument, and it deserves an equally reasoned response — not this degenerating thread of ideological insults. Can we have a serious discussion, please?

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  33. I’m surprised by your comment, Bradley. Allow me to respond to one small portion of Dionne’s statements:

    “For conservatives, there is something peculiar about turning Islamic extremism into a mighty ideological force with the power to overrun the world. It’s odd that so many take seriously Osama bin Laden’s lunatic claims that he will build a new caliphate.”

    I agree it is unlikely the world will be transformed into a Muslim caliphate, but it is a fact that there are at least 57 Muslim-avowed or aligned nations in the world (not counting the world’s newest nation, Kosovo). There are also another dozen or so nations and organizations that support their goals. I’m glad Osama bin Laden’s “lunatic” goals don’t bother you or Mr. Dionne. I bet the leaders of these nations are glad, too.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  34. This election is about Republican cronies keeping all their sweet deals or Democrats taking money and contracts away from them and giving it to Democrat cronies…either way with the rest of us hoping that enough Republicans will go to jail to stem the non-stop scamfest currently going on in D.C. or that the Dems will sling a little of their spoils our way in the form of tax breaks or college loans or grant funding etc.

    Terrorists? Defeat? Huh? I thought we already won that war right? Can we stop giving Halliburton all our money yet?

    EdWood (bb22df)

  35. In the near and middle term, I’m not nearly as worried about bin Ladin’s goal to transform the world into a Muslim caliphate succeeding as I am (1) the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, millions, and tens of millions of Americans and other free people that he and his ilk would gleefully kill to try to bring about his goals, and (2) the consequential cowering that is likely to be induced through threats of such violence and the resulting intimidation (see, e.g., Spain after the 3/11/04 Madrid train station bombings by al Qaeda).

    During the Cold War, Americans went to bed at night with the disturbing knowledge that there was some chance — let’s call it a probability measured by a zero, a decimal point, and a few more zeroes before the first non-zero number — that every major American city and every major military and industrial installation could be the subject of a Soviet first strike while we slept. We’ve traded that particular Cold War for one in which not so many simultaneous targets are at risk, but the number of zeroes in the probability figure is much, much smaller, and the chances of our own nuclear arsenal deterring our enemies is vanishingly small. This is, in my view, a trade into more risk, not less. Dionne pretends that the new risk is sufficiently small that other issues — how “alienated” Latin American neighbors are, for example — are more important. This is a very dangerous, naive, fantasy that, unfortunately, is the premise of modern Democratic foreign policy (with the conspicuous clear-eyed exception of Joe Lieberman).

    Beldar (3df1f4)

  36. Thanks to Beldar and DRJ for saying in much better worlds what I was thinking about in my post #7 to Levi…

    reff (99666d)

  37. (with the conspicuous clear-eyed exception of Joe Lieberman).

    Which would be why his own party did it’s best to oust him…

    And failed.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  38. Bush: We must fight terrorism wherever we find it.
    Progressives: The only thing we have to fear is Bush himself.

    That’s why progressives are idiots.
    Progressives can’t be trusted with national security.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  39. DRJ,

    I’m glad Osama bin Laden’s “lunatic” goals don’t bother you or Mr. Dionne. I bet the leaders of these nations are glad, too.

    That’s rude.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  40. “Does he mean that in the year 2100, Americans will look back and say that everything else that happened in the century paled in comparison with the war against terrorism?”

    There’s not a bit of smug mocking in that statement by Dionne that I can see Bradley. Try again.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  41. Levi,

    I was deliberately demagogic with this post, but Dionne’s piece inspired that in me somehow.

    He doesn’t think we’re looking at a real threat. I do.

    Many Democrats, judging from the rhetoric of many of them, agree with him.

    Patterico (466e43)

  42. daleyrocks,

    You are correct that Dionnne’s question has a flavor of mocking, but it’s still a legitimate point. Eight years into this century, it’s extremely arrogant to say that anything is its transcendent challenge. That applies to terrorism, global warming, or anything else.

    Dionne certainly isn’t arguing that terrorism isn’t a real threat. He’s saying McCain is making unsupported, exaggerated statements about terrorism that just defy common sense. He’s saying that McCain is so focused on the terrorism issue that other important issues are being neglected:

    “Presumably, he’s saying that Islamic extremism is more important than everything else — the rise of China and India as global powers, growing resistance to American influence in Europe, the weakening of America’s global economic position, the disorder and poverty in large parts of Africa, the alienation of significant parts of Latin America from the United States. Is it in our national interest for all these issues to take a back seat to terrorism?”

    Dionne also made the annoying point to the pro-Iraq war forces that they still haven’t explained just how the war has thwarted anti-American terrorism. I can think of much better uses for the hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people, such as improved internal security and monitoring of external threats. We could have that fence along the Mexican border, better funding for the FBI and CIA, guarding of likely internal attack targets, etc. And we could also fund development of solar power, nuclear power and other alternatives to foreign oil. We hear a lot now about how the “surge” is successful, but that’s wildly premature. We will only know if the “surge” is a success after the troops are gone. Of course, we can only hope in the meantime that some other threat doesn’t materialize, such as from Chavez or from Mr. Polonium. I think such wishful thinking is a poor alternative to avoiding draining overcommitment, like U.S. made in Vietnam and the Soviets made in Afghanistan.

    Choices on terrorism are not a yes or no, but must represent a juggling act of priorities.

    I appreciate Patterico’s statement that he was being deliberately demagogic – but do we really need that? Making a strawman of Dionne may have been fun, but it isn’t helpful to understand alternatives. There are plenty of demagogic people on the left who play the mirror image role, as we have seen in this thread and with groups such Code Pinko.

    Serious, non-demagogic discussion is at a premium because it is so rare. Let’s increase the supply.

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  43. Bradley – I think Dionne must be just waking up from a long slumber if he is only himself just recognizing the emergence of China and India as economic powers and the concommittant weakening of the U.S.’s position as a global economic power, attempts to limit dependence on foregn oil stymied by the democrats, gtowing resistance to American influence in Europe which is being reversed as we speak, and alienation of Latin America which has been going on for years.

    Dionne is merely throwing out standard leftist talking points 101 and as such doesn’t deserve seriousness. There is absolutely nothing new in his piece unless I am missing something.

    Please point it out.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  44. in response to #32 Beldar…

    I don’t want to depress you, but the threat that russian missiles pose to you has not gone away. They never stopped pointing their multiple warheads at your city, and they have continued to develop new and deadlier missiles – like the Topol rs12, which doesn’t travel in an arc like a conventional nuclear missile but can be steered in flight, rendering anti-missile defence systems useless.

    Osama Bin Laden, although a homicidal lunatic, is still just an old man on dialysis in a cave. He might want to kill millions, but he can’t. Even though 9/11 was dramatic, and all the more so for being broadcast live on tv, the chances that you are going to die at the hand of bin laden are so infintessimally small as to be negligible.
    The most effective response to 9/11 was also one of the cheapest – fitting locks to aircraft doors. That single act has at a stroke stopped the chance of anyone hijacking a plane to fly it into a target on the ground.
    Everything else since then, apart from improvements to intelligence gathering, has not made you any safer. The world has plenty of lunatics in it who are willing to die, it always has and it always will. There were homicidal assassins in roman times and there will be in 2000 years time. You can’t kill every last man jack one of them.
    My advice to you is to get your existential threats in order. Bin Laden ranks right down somewhere below being struck by lightning. The russian missiles are somewhere nearer the top.

    chris (1a5917)

  45. #44, Chris says:

    Bin Laden ranks right down somewhere below being struck by lightning.

    Individually, this may be true in a country of 350 Million people, but that is not the same as saying that Islamic militants still wish to attack us in furtherance of their goals. This is a real threat that must be dealt with, the best tactics need to be argued about.

    Strategically, though, I still see the rise of China as the major threat to our continued existence as a major economic and military power. China has the resources, demographics, population and will to dominate the 21st Century, with the result that our standard of living could decline significantly. That along with growing entitlements and national debt, neither of which are being dealt with, could well lead to our simply not having the money to defend ourselves anymore. Being strong requires an effective military force, but an effective military force requires money and a strong economy first (consider what happened to Russia’s military when it’s economy fell apart).

    I read yesterday something to be considered. From the Year 1 to about 1820, China and India were the biggest economies in the world. Britain changed this in the 19th Century with the Industrial Revolution, which we took over in the 20th. China and India are on a fast track to take the lead back in the 21st.

    I do think that the threat of Islamic militants is not on a par with this.

    JayHub (0a6237)

  46. Bradley J. Fikes,

    I’m surprised you felt my comment was rude. That was not my intention and I apologize. I don’t mean to offend anyone with my comments, let alone someone as nice as you. Unfortunately, I’m now at a loss to know what I can say that you won’t find offensive, so I’ll leave this conversation.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  47. DRJ,

    I often make statements that others take the wrong way. Electrons don’t work as well as conversations. So let’s forget about this.

    Bradley J. Fikes (a18ddc)

  48. Don’t you dare, DRJ…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  49. Fine with me, Bradley. And Scott, I just meant I’d leave this particular conversation.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  50. Everything else since then, apart from improvements to intelligence gathering, has not made you any safer. The world has plenty of lunatics in it who are willing to die, it always has and it always will. There were homicidal assassins in roman times and there will be in 2000 years time. You can’t kill every last man jack one of them.

    My worry isn’t terrorists per se; you’re right that terrorists will always be with us. My worry is terrorists backed by the power of a government, or, more precisely, my worry is governments able to wage war without retribution through use of terrorist proxies. It’s probably not an existential threat to us, but I’d still rather not have Tel Aviv or Tehran vanish in a nuclear fireball.

    With regard to defending the country, playing defense is a suckers game, as we are affected by what happens overseas. You think playing defensive would prevent hostile regimes from economically crippling us by tripling the price of oil? Also, do you think more effective homeland security would pass either party in congress or the approval of civil liberties advocates?

    The only method for long term safety is to persuade or force other countries to stop supporting terrorists and hold them responsible if they do not. This will require a mixture of diplomacy, sanctions, and military force.

    Civilis (12abff)

  51. China and India are on a fast track to take the lead back in the 21st.

    I do think that the threat of Islamic militants is not on a par with this.

    India taking the lead shouldn’t be a worry — it’s another democracy formed out of a British colony. China, however. . .

    Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4)

  52. “If you’re in uniform, you’re a baby-killer.”

    – nk

    I’ve never said that, never implied that, and don’t believe that, and you know it. Military service is a selfless, honorable profession. That said, why is it unreasonable for me to ask PCD (who called me a “panty-waist”) whether or not he’s served in the military? Seems fair…

    I mean, where do (some of) you guys get off? You assume that your way is the only way, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a coward. Real mature attitude, that (although I know the whole “Chickenhawk” label is a sore point for Scott…)

    “I was deliberately demagogic with this post, but Dionne’s piece inspired that in me somehow.
    He doesn’t think we’re looking at a real threat. I do.
    Many Democrats, judging from the rhetoric of many of them, agree with him.”

    – Patterico

    I understand where you’re coming from, but why is your default response to paint all leftists as cowards? I know you (probably) don’t actually believe that, but your demagoguery brings the worst in some of your commentators; they perceive that your words lend credence to their half-baked accusations of limp-wristed liberal defeatism.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  53. “The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger.”

    – From Paul’s post

    Apparently, Paul is opposed to ad hominems. I wonder what he thinks of:

    “If you panty-waists like Leviticus and stef can’t stand confidence and opposing wrong with more than wet pants and words, I suggest you go to a country that has surrendered to Islamofascism or full blown Communism/Socialism.”

    – PCD

    Since all my arguments are baseless and rooted in anti-American cowardice, and seeing as I’m a Stalinist Communist Leninist Islamofascist Communist Surrenderist chickenshit, I’m gonna resort to more ad hominems and nickname Paul “Tunnel Visionary”.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  54. “they have continued to develop new and deadlier missiles – like the Topol rs12, which doesn’t travel in an arc like a conventional nuclear missile but can be steered in flight, rendering anti-missile defence systems useless.”

    New? Yes. Deadlier? Not at all.

    You don’t get something for nothing, and the over-hyped new capability of the Topol comes at the cost of destuctive payload. For the defense that means a ‘virtual kill’ — the equivalent of shooting Topol warheads down without the defense even having to fire a shot, because the extra warheads that a Topol could have carried were sacrificed for the Topol maneuvering capability. It is a far far better thing for the United States that enormous throw-weight multi-warheaded ICBM like the SS-18 are being replaced with the much smaller single-warhead Topol.

    The point about the ability of the Topol to evaid missile defenses is ridiculously academic anyway, since the Russians have hundreds of ICBM and there are only a dozen or so American ABM.

    Brad (1c5847)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1041 secs.