Chris Bowers thinks that Democrats should abandon the "war on terrorism." He's right that framing the stuggle against radical Islamic fundamentalism in that way evokes conservative tropes, and is therefore in some respect detrimental to us if it is not in some way reframed, and he's surely right that the phrase itself is illogical in that it's impossible to actually wipe out "terrorism," which is a technique as old as the hills which can never be eliminated -- as long as there are asymmetrical conflicts, terrorism will be utilized.
But the problem is that "the war on terrorism" is an immensely evocative and intuitively understandable phrase, even though it doesn't make any literal sense at all. People hear it, and they know what it means, or think they do, and they're instinctively supportive of it. So unless you can come up with another way to frame the conflict which has the same power and apparent authority, it's both useless and foolhardy -- and politically dangerous to Democrats and liberals -- tilting at that particular windmill.
And even more than that, the reason that Chris is close to 180 degrees wrong about this, is that he isn't simply urging that we abandon the specific framing of the struggle, he's urging that we abandon the struggle itself, and that is a terrible idea on almost every level. It ignores the reality that there are indeed people out there who are bent on harming us both at home and away, that they're fairly well-organized, have a great deal of support from ordinary people in the Islamic world (or at least an unwillingness to step in and stop them), they've got money and manpower, and, overall, they've been pretty damn effective at achieving their immediate goals, if not their overall one. Their existence is not a conservative fairy tale (regardless that they've made them the boogey men of our age), they're real and they're dangerous to us.
The scale and the scope of the danger can certainly be discussed, and should be, and the most effective steps to be taken to protect ourselves as well (we can all agree that Bush's actions have had exactly the opposite effect), but it's ridiculous at this point in time, a mere three years after 9/11, to argue that there is no danger and that Democrats should deny the need for us to protect ourselves, a legitimate, and perhaps primary, function of the government.
Ridiculous and terribly, terribly dangerous politically, because an insistence on the Democrats taking such a position will not gain us one vote that we don't already have. It will also, inevitably, split the liberal/Democratic coalition (so carefully built up in opposition to Bush) right down the middle, destroying it and perhaps sinking the party for the foreseeable future.
I'm at a loss for why Chris, who wrote so well on the need for expanding that coalition, thinks this is a good idea. Where, I wonder, does he think that the people this new strategy is supposed to attract are going to come from? There's little or no indication that there's a signficant pacifist presence out there that isn't already aligned (loosely or not, it really doesn't matter so much when push comes to shove) with the center-left coalition. It's the same argument I hear from people who think that Kerry should have been presented himself as a forthright liberal and come out strongly against the war in Iraq: one of my correspondants feels that there are enough "moderate anti-war Republicans" that their defection away from Bush would have made a significant difference, but I just don't see it. (The rump of the moderate wing of the GOP is so stunted and so localized -- in the Northeast, primarily -- that it's silly to think that the small percentage of them who are anti-war would have made any difference at all, in either the popuilar vote or, more importantly, in the Electoral College.)
I understand, I believe, that Chris writes from a strong moral conviction, and that there is a great attraction for all liberals in taking an anti-war position. I hate to be so crass as to counter with strategic and tactical political considerations, but it's still true that his idea presents serious dangers to the party and the coalition, to the extent that if it becomes a strong meme within in and gathers momentum it can cause considerable damage even if (as is probably inevitable) it is never adopted. Internal conflict, and fracturing, is bound to result.
I have great regard for the folks at Daily Kos and MyDD who are hell-bent on using the power of the "netroots" to reform the Democratic party, but in doing so, they've taken a step from being mere citizens to being citizen/politicians. There's nothing wrong, and everything right, with that, but in becoming a politician, one has to start taking into consideration more factors than one's own personal views and preferences, because politics is the art of the possible and exists only within the realm of the possible. Once one loses sight of that, one is poised for failure -- not the failure of losing by 3 states, 3 million votes and 2.46%, but the failure of losing by 49 states, 18 million votes and 23.15% of the voters.
That we lost such an important election makes it inevitable, and necessary, that we shake up the party and make it better than it is, which is why I'm in favor of structural, operational, procedural and personnel reform [like this or this], but for Chris to propose an idea such as this one might make one think that the loss was a huge one, not in its importance (it was indeed huge in that sense), but in the margin of defeat. It was certainly not that kind of loss at all, it was a narrow victory for Bush at best. For that reason, we don't need sweeping philosophical changes, we just need to make the party work better.
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.
