Roger and Me
I’m as gay as the next guy, which in Roger’s case means not too much. I don’t think anybody is holding their breath for my views of gay marriage. In a nutshell, my attitude is if it makes you happy, sure why not. You have the right to be as miserable as everyone else. (Joke, Honey!)
One way to get there is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Why should the state be called upon to approve or disapprove of marriage? Of course, there is a bread and butter dimension — spousal rights where public benefits and family wealth are concerned. I’m no lawyer, but I imagine civil union legislation in principle could solve any problem in this vein that you could think of. It even allows for financial bestiality and polygamy. If you want to leave your estate to Fido, or to six common-law spouses, what’s the harm? The only limit implied by comprehensive civil union rights is that a continuing state approval for certain types of marriage puts a social stigma on the rest, and social stigmas can have real effects, including economic.
Of course Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to gays, women, and free-thinkers. But if you are any of those in the U.S., by far the more immediate threat comes from Christian fundamentalists and the Catholic Church. (Jewish fundamentalists are as intolerant as anyone, but as a rule, in the U.S. at least, they tend to mind their own business.)
Could there possibly be any doubt about it? Who is blocking civil union legislation, much less gay marriage? Who is narrowing access to abortion and birth control? Who wants to make it more difficult for women to get out of bad marriages? Who wants to put the Flintstones in textbooks on evolution? What is the deal with Bill O’Reilly babbling about Christmas and the venerable Anti-Defamation League? Really! We’ve even had famous conservative Dinesh D’Souza claim that 9-11 was due to the libertarian evolution of American culture. In other words, DD says 9-11 was Roger’s fault.
I doubt that any of this is really the bee in Roger’s bonnet.
I think two words not found in the column are really the most important: the Jews. Now I’m as concerned about them (us) as anybody because I’m in the fold. The fact that I don’t practice the religion has always been irrelevant in the history of anti-semitic persecution, as every Jew knows. I can relate because my relatives feel exactly the same as Roger: ideologically speaking, ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
In a nutshell, that’s the so-called global war on terror: an itchy trigger finger. It stems partly from fear of the liquidation of the Jewish State, a fear that I share.
The culture war — on behalf of the Enlightenment — is a different matter. It has two fronts, one with Islamic fundamentalists, another right here at home. At home, thankfully for the most part it isn’t a shooting war, but the threat in the form of bad public policy is greater.
The limitations of the culture war framework lie in the fact that the Islamicists have other beefs with the U.S. — political ones. Recognizing them does not mean they hold water, or that it is necessary to compromise on them. But politics is undeniably in the mix.
The Islamicists can’t do anything about what Americans do in America. Their interests in Muslim nations are more amenable to some kind of action. But here the cliche that all politics is local comes into play. Political interests are usually local or national. Palestinians want the Jews to go away. They don’t want to follow them to America, or elsewhere. There has never been an episode of Palestinian terrorism in America, even though Israel has no more staunch ally than the U.S. Iraqis want the U.S. out. Enemies of the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikdoms would like an end to U.S. support, without which these regimes would be severely weakened. But granting their immediate objectives, how many would “follow us home”? I reckon not nearly as many as are energized by the U.S. presence close to where they live. Most terrorism is over there, not over here.
The dream of international communism was always a fantasy. So too with the “Caliphate.” Many may be captivated by this fantasy, but many more I wager would be content with much more limited objectives: Israel out of Lebanon and the West Bank; no U.S. support for absolutist Muslim monarchies; U.S. out of Iraq.
The implication is that there is no “war on terror.” Rather, there are a host of peoples with assorted grievances against the U.S., with different motives, objectives, levels of intensity, and resources. Iraq itself has proven much more complicated than most anticipated. That goes several times over for the Islam world writ large.
The war on terror concept is really a marketing campaign for a blank check. By sweeping all U.S. adversaries under the same rug, you implicitly grant a license for military adventurism and abrogation of civil liberties. Ours not to reason why. It’s all terror, and the harder we hit back the better. This is not smart.
Hysteria ill behooves the world of resentment, conflict, and opportunity that the U.S. confronts. The actual use of massive military power is way overrated. Iraq certainly attests to that. We have enemies who have gone to ground, but rooting them out is first and foremost political. It depends on gathering intelligence, building international institutions, forging alliances, and deft use of a scalpal, not a chainsaw.
The domestic politics of this has been clearly demonstrated. Sentiment among those who populate the most likely targets of terrorism swings least towards the rhetoric of the GWOT. So too with the cultural enemies of Islamicism. New York City, San Francisco, and the District of Columbia have decisively rejected hysteria in the voting booths. They see no cultural threat from Islam. They vote for Democrats. The current Jewish mayor of New York advised us all to “get a life,” rather than exaggerate purported terror plots.
Critics of the war on terror are as angry about terrorist depredations as anyone. In fact, before 9-11 you could find many more critics of, say, the Saudi monarchy, on the left than elsewhere.
If you’re stricken by blood lust, your best bet is to catch the next Mel Gibson movie.
Max B. Sawicky is an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. He has worked in the Office of State and Local Finance of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. He is a member of the National Board of Americans for Democratic Action and serves on the editorial advisory board of Working USA. He is a frequent contributor to TPM Cafe. Sawicky’s page can be found at Max Speak, You Listen!
Max is simply ignorant. He schould read JihadWatch and DhimmiWatch more frequently.
Moreover, he schould look what is brewing up in Western Europe, where islamists and multiculuralist work together, and how the islamists are taking control over the mosques, schools and local authorities, and promoting THEIR agenda, that is obviously not democratic, like imposing the sharia law.
He also schould keep in mind, that one-third assaults on gays in UK were prepareted by Muslims. I don’t know exact figures, but in Holland there were news about the same phenomenon.
He also is focusing on terrorism, but not on ideological threat. Europe is a good example, that suicide bombers are only the tip of an iceberg. Terrorism is only one of the means to spread islamism, subjugate non-Muslims and promote sharia. ONE of MANY, got it?
BTW: Mr. Max, are really beliving, that Israel is still occuping any part of Lebanon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Security_Zone#Withdrawal Could you be more consistent with the facts?
And what about the Hizb’allah? They want to destroy Israel, regardless of its policy towards Palestinians. They dont want to “liberate” anyone. And yea, they are homophobic as hell!
Max Sawicky perfers Communism in one state.
The dream of international communism was always a fantasy.
I seem to recall in the 80s many nations living under communism. Are you saying it was all but a dream?
Right up front, when Max uses the word “threat” in comparing the actions of Christan fundamentalists and Roman Catholics to Muslim extremists, I wrote him off. Though I have disagreed with his columns on economics, I have enjoyed them and found them provoking. But anyone who even dances near the idea that opposing civil unions for gays is comparable to executions by the morality police in Islamic states is being dishonest with either himself, or with us.
Mr. Sawicky, the use of the word threat is either an unfair manipulation on your part, or evidence of serious self-deception.
I don’t know who Max Sawicky is but if this is the kind of logic generated in left wing think tanks, our nation is in deep peril.
How clever and blithely dismissive he is. So tolerant, so educated, so informed.
He is a fool and dangerously delusional. Communism was a fantasy. Christians are the greatest threat. Terrorism is a silly notion of the unwashed masses.
This idiots opinions are unworthy of a posting on this website and I am dismayed by the increasingly leftward drift of Pajamas Medias writers and topic selection.
The assassination of Robert Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan, and later, the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane in NY –both at the hands of disaffected Palestinian immigrants to the USA– may or may not be properly characterized as “terrorism”, but they certainly were examples of Palestinian grievances following us home.
No Palestinian terrorism in the United States? Tell that to Robert Kennedy who was murdered by the Jordanian Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan because of the Senator’s support of Israel.
I had never heard of Max Sawicky either. Is he real? He writes like a troll. I have heard of Roger Simon, however. (Again, a troll)
Mr jonas, I feel to publish the writings of a Leftist like Mr Sawicky is a public service. By their words you shall know them.
“The dream of international communism was always a fantasy. So too with the “Caliphate.”"
Max Sawicky represents the center position of today’s Democratic Party. He is not a lonely voice in the wilderness! This is why someone like Rudy Giuliani must become our next president. God help us if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House.
“The dream of international communism was always a fantasy.” For Max Sawicky maybe. Not for the fifty million or so murdered by Mao. Sawicky can’t be serious. Is this article a parody?
“Is this article a parody?”
No, it is not. This piece is not written in a tounge in cheek manner. I am familiar with Max Sawicky and other self hating Americanism who comprise the center of today’s Democratic Party. These people truly believe that the United States may be the greatest threat to world peace. We are the one’s responsible for Islamic nihilism. Our so-called unilateralism and arrogance is the cause of most of our current troubles.
Everyone should read Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson. The president was murdered by a hard core Marxist. However, America’s moral “sickness” essentially got the blame. We, for all practical purposes, were responsible for JFK’s assassination. The Democrats have not been the same since. Many, if not most of them, are self hating Americans.
Responses, and thanks for visiting:
Doktor — My piece is about the U.S. I’ll leave to not-crazy Europeans an analysis of their own situations. You say I ignore the ideological threat. I did not: in the U.S. it comes from Christian fundies and Catholics. Penetration of the U.S. by Islam is minimal, but there is nothing wrong with people taking it up. Conflating Islam with subjugation of non-Muslims is bigotry, pure and simple. Israel is not in Lebanon, but they wrecked the country twice in the past 25 years. Hezbollah is a adversary of Israel’s, I would say mostly limited to defending Lebanon and sympathizing with the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. It is not an “existential threat” to Israel, and no threat at all to the U.S.
Jacol — you’re stupid, but at least you’re concise.
mishu & Comedy Maven — the dream of international communism was for one world of communism. At least with the benefit of hindsight, we know it had no chance.
Asst Village Idiot — I didn’t compare civil union opposition to executions by morality police (in nations supported by the U.S., by the way). I said cultural oppression of the sort Roger decries in the U.S. is not coming from Muslims, and not likely to, unless they ally with the Fundies.
WJ — Your paraphrase of my words is so devoid of accuracy that there is really nothing to argue with. You refute yourself with: “Leftward drift of Pajamas Medias.” LOL.
cultivate & Louis S — The exceptions prove the rule.
David T — Me the ‘center’? I should be so lucky.
According to Max: “Hezbollah is a adversary of Israel’s, I would say mostly limited to defending Lebanon and sympathizing with the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians.”
In other words, in Max’s world view, assassinating its Prime Minister and other elected officials is a defense of Lebanon.
‘Nuff said.
“David T — Me the ‘center’? I should be so lucky.”
You might perceive yourself to be left of center. The self hating American aspect, however, is the norm for today’s Democratic Party. George McGovern’s pacifist inclinations have subtly, but most assuredly, captured its heart and soul. “Blame America first” is now the unofficial doctrine of the Democrats.
“Conflating Islam with subjugation of non-Muslims is bigotry, pure and simple.”
Google the “dhimmi”, “Jizja” and “dhimmitude”.
“Hezbollah is a adversary of Israel’s, I would say mostly limited to defending Lebanon and sympathizing with the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians.”
Excuse me? This is a joke, right?
“The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns, wounding several civilians, as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. Of the seven Israeli soldiers in the two jeeps, two were wounded, three were killed, and two were seized and taken to Lebanon.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War)
Mr. Sawicky, your saying that communism was an fantasy, and nothing more, is simply a insult for me. Here is the reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Poland.
DT — equating criticism of U.S. foreign policy, typically the plaything of elites, with “self-hating” and “anti-Americanism” is too silly to rebut.
Dok — your recounting of the Lebanon affair is straight Israeli right-wing Zionist line, refuted far and wide.
I have not insulted you, unless you desire to be insulted. The context for my remark was the premise that communism would spread throughout the world. That was the fantasy, now obvious in light of communism’s failure to survive at all, let alone spread.
Mr. Sawicky, Not only are you delusional but apparently devoid of intellectual honesty.
So rather than paraphrase your rubbish I offer these quotes directly from your post.
#3rd paragraph…”by far the more immediate threat comes from Christian fundamentalists and the Catholic church.” I am not aware fo any Christian fanatics flying jets into buildings or planting bombs at subways or air ports.
7th paragraph …” In a nutshell that’s the so-called global war on terror; an itchy trigger finger. So the 14 month interval between 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq was what? A very long or persistent itch?
11th paragraph…”The dream of international communism was always a fantasy.” You might want to check with your liberal/left friends on this, they were pretty damn serious about Communism. And are still in love with Che, Castro , Mao ,Stalin, Marx and the long list of Communist mass murders you guys still worship.
12th paragraph…The implication is that there is no”war on terror” Did you think Osama Bin Laden and his fellow cave dwellers like living at high altitudes where the amenities are rather scarce?
Your arrogance and smug stupidity are a testament to the vacuity of the political left. Unable to be honest about their own words and objectives.
Max, your definition of Hezbollah is straight far left, anti-democratic, propaganda, refuted far and wide.
“Dok — your recounting of the Lebanon affair is straight Israeli right-wing Zionist line, refuted far and wide.”
I’am talking about 2006 war, and I had provided a article from Wikipedia. If you have more authoritative source, that is denying the fact of Hizb’allah’s provocation, please show me.
Maybe you should read what other Lebaneses are saying about this:
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1201.htm
Hizb’allah leader has admitted, that it was his order to abduct Israeli soldiers:
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1200.htm
So who had sparked this conflict? Huh?
Hizb’allah certainly DOESN’T represent the population of Lebanon as a whole. This organisation is an Iranian proxy, used for this country’s power-politics in Middle East. Got it?
DoktorNo,
Perhaps you should expand your “research” to include sites besides Wikipedia and the others you cited.
If Muslims and Muslim groups have gained ground in Europe, it is primarily because those nations have permitted Muslims the same rights to participate in political (democratic) processes. Just like in the USA where a group of wingnut fundamental Christians can get together to try to throw the teaching of evolution out of public schools.
You sound like a real bedwetter- unable to sleep at night because you know the Muslim hordes are busy sharpening their knives for their final assault on America. You must be delusions if you really believe that most Americans, whether Republican, Democrat, or other, would capitulate to any invasion and occupation by any outside group. That is a fairy tale.
Max Sawicky is a disgrace to this site.
Previously I have accused him of being a communist and a self loathing Jew — and recieved this non-denial rebuttal: “Into the breach, biotches! … You seem to see commies everywhere. Try some prune juice”
Today we’re treated to another dose of his decrepit thinking. His thoughts linger like reeking smoke hanging above a burning garbage dump. To peer into the smoldering ember of his mind you must cut through dense layers of thick and twisted phraseology. This is no pleasant task! If you’re able to hold your nose and penetrate through nonsense like: “Hysteria ill behooves the world of resentment, conflict, and opportunity that the U.S. confronts.” or nonsensical sentences such as “So too with the “Caliphate.” “, one finally learns that Max Sawicky believes that “The dream of international communism was always a fantasy.”
NEWS FLASH! :“The dream of international communism was always a fantasy” only to vile communists, jackasses, and self-loathing persons such as Max Sawicky. Everyone else sees communism exactly for what it is: A nightmarish totalitarian dystopia of mediocrity and despair.
After dismissing the threat the West faces from Islam, after excoriating religious Christians and Jews (especially those living in America), after engaging in the most horrendous moral equivalencies, Max states that “Critics of the war on terror are as angry about terrorist depredations as anyone. ” But who have we learned is to blame in Max’s cosmology? Who is he clearly most angry with?
Is Max angry with the Muslims who carry out all the terrorism? Is he angry with their vile creed of violence and “blood lust” and thievery enshrined in that disgusting war doctrine, the Koran?
No.
To self-loathing people like Max Sawicky it’s all about America and its citizenry — the citizens he slanders and defames with nearly every word he writes — the same citizens who join the military, and fight and die so he can spew his internal sewage onto the rest of us. To people like Max Sawicky, Naomi Klein, and Noam Chomsky WE are the problem — WE are responsible.
Carried to its logical conclusion — there would be no Islamic terrorism if it weren’t for all the horrible religious Christians and Jews of the world. In the minds of marxist haters like Max, Naomi, and Noam, either we are the exact equivalent of the Nazi Muslims, or even worse.
Dear Max: When those Jews and Christians start driving the car bombs and strapping on dynamite vests in their tens of thousands — when they start kidnapping the kids and chopping off heads because their priests tell them to do it — get back to me, OK? Until then, I’m so sorry, that your “fantasy” and “dream” of communism isn’t working out so well.
Perhaps it’s time for you to do some soul searching, Max. Or, if you think you lack a soul, then perhaps examine your consience – examine your most cherished beliefs. Perhaps we are not to blame for your life’s failures — perhaps it’s the badness of your ideas, their faultiness which makes your cosmology collapse every time? In a vernacular you should probably become familiar with, you suffer from some truly “stinkin’ thinkin’”.
And maybe it’s time to stop lashing out at the superb society that tolerates your rants with such benign equanimity. Consider some quite time. Again I invite you to move to that multicultural paradise of France, that wonderland you’ve praised so unsparingly in the recent past. They would positively LOVE you over there.
Sawicky has disgraced himself with this piece, which is essentially a shameful ad hominem attack on Simon. It is based on the nearly racist assumption that because Simon is a (I assume highly secular) Jew, he could not be strongly pro-Enlightenment, only pro-Israel. I notice that Simon has not yet replied, at least here. If I were he, I wouldn’t bother.
Dok — if you want to hijack this thread to defend Israel’s aqggression against Lebanon, go right ahead but don’t expect me to play along.
Marcelle — I actually posted a response to your first comment that got eaten, namely that it was well-taken; Hezbollah is interested in taking over Lebanon, not just defending it from Israel. (Though I would argue that its interest in ruling Lebanon, not to mention its very existence, is partly due to Israeli aggression.)
I made two basic points, which most comments avoid grappling with:
* The cultural threat in the U.S. to gays, women, etc. does not come from Islam, but from homegrown religious fanatics in the form of offensive public policy. No such threat comes from Islam.
* The GWOT generalizes over a very diverse bunch of characters, most of whom have no interest in forging a Caliphate to rule over the U.S.
When you can’t deal with the argument, a commenter on my site said, you attack the author, deny facts, or change the subject.
The subject is the bankruptcy of the “global war on terror” as a concept, and the implicit error of cultural reaction in the U.S. to Islam.
@Max:
“Dok — if you want to hijack this thread to defend Israel’s aqggression against Lebanon, go right ahead but don’t expect me to play along.”
So far I did’t said anything about Israeli policies. What I am saying, is that Hizb’allah is not a movement dedicated for national self-determination or defending particular country. If I am wrong, please prove this.
“The subject is the bankruptcy of the “global war on terror” as a concept, and the implicit error of cultural reaction in the U.S. to Islam.”
And jihad ideology is a myth? Islamic supremacism is a myth? Intimidating critics of islam and islamic groups (like CAIR) by lawsuits doesn’t exists? On PJM there were plenty articles about this.
This is the “scholarship” produced when the policy outcomes are carved in stone already. He’s trying to bootstrap facts into the theory.
Max Fantasy World:
“The Islamicists can’t do anything about what Americans do in America.”
Unless you count deternining what we can and can’t read, see or can’t see on TV. Then Islamists are already controlling the US.
Max’s use of facts never starts.
“The Islamicists can’t do anything about what Americans do in America.”
I invite Max to draw a picture of Mohammed and post it here on PJM.
the dream of international communism was for one world of communism. At least with the benefit of hindsight, we know it had no chance.
It didn’t have a chance because the U.S. and its allies stood vigilant against it for about 50 years. Many people gave their lives in the process. How can you dismiss that?
Islamists control our TV and reading? Wow, things are worse than I thought.
…forgot to include obnoxiously smug and dangerously self-deluded…
My bad.
Three points:
1)Stating that worldwide communism was just a fantasy, (as if that wipes away the untold horrors inflicted on those who happened to be living in that fantasyland), and concluding therefore that the Caliphate in not a threat, is mindbogglingly illogical to me. Millions of deaths, in pursuit of a “fantasy”, is not a threat?
2) Radical Islam in this country is not a threat to your lifestyle ONLY because their numbers here are low. As their numbers grow, so too will their ability to affect public policy as much as the Christians you appear to fear so much.
3) You make a good point about how we should not be living in a state of fear. But we should also not be living in a state of denial. How about we compromise and live in a state of heightened awareness.
Max – Could we step outside for a moment so that I could ask a few serious questions? I’d like to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
1. As I read it, you minimize an Islamicist “follow us home” threat to the U.S. by analogizing it to the “dream of international communism”. That was a “fantasy” that “had no chance”, demonstrated by the fact that “one world of communism” never happened.
Do you see the Soviet Union as having been unrealistically viewed as a threat to the U.S.?
2. Or are you suggesting that any “threat to the US” by the Soviets (and, by analogy, Islamicists) was really a “threat to US interests, wrongly defined”?
What “corrections to US interests” would have ended a Soviet threat?
3. From your piece, I take it that “correctly defining” US interests today would include “Israel out of Lebanon and the West Bank; no U.S. support for absolutist Muslim monarchies; U.S. out of Iraq.”
Are there any others worth citing?
Thanks sincerely.
You guys! Geez! How clueless can you be?
The “fantasies of Communism” Max is referring to are the long-ago discredited fantasies of Marxist “classless society” utopianism. He’s NOT saying that the Communist states that once existed were not all too real.
As for the fanatical ramblings of this or that Muslim jihadi, I believe these are things to keep an eye on, sure, but Max is right – I want to keep an eye on the Christian “jihadis” too. Just because they want to control us doesn’t mean they will anytime soon. No reason to wet our beds.
– another blast from the other side. Make of it what you will. There’s lots of us out there.
More –
Caroline K — your first point is right. Even a fantasy can do a lot of damage, so in that sense a fantasy can be a threat. I was obviously thinking of prospects for an Islamic fundamentalist victory, which I think are dim. On 2) it’s not obvious that radical Islam will or could grow in the U.S. to any point where it could affect policy; 3) Heightened awareness is good.
A100 — the sustainability of the Soviet system was obviously inflated. Nobody disputes that now. Its threat to the U.S. on a more mundane level I think was typically overstated to satisfy crass domestic political needs, as well as to justify U.S. interference in other countries’ affairs. 2) no, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. 3) best interests of the U.S. to me entails not supporting absolutism anywhere, pressuring Israel to get out of the West Bank, and getting out of Iraq (though I would support steps to help the Kurds protect their region).
It’s funny how the left keeps tossing around the “wet the bed” reference when talking about Islamic extremists, a group that has proven to be violent. At the same time, they are quite incontinent when dealing with people who simply don’t want to grant an entitlement to another group of people.
Boy…the level of vituperation here reminds me of the old days when the Trots and Maoists took down SDS. Now there was mudslinging. I’ll bet any of you older, but now neoconnish types remember those days, and the existential battle against “revisionism”…right? Hey, we miss you guys. Really.
As to A100, who at least asked questions somewhat germaine, I can give a couple of lefty pointers, just so you’ll be sharp when you debate the next islamo-commie-fascist you meet at the local watering hole. Views below are strictly mine. As you can see, Max can hold his own.
1)The threat to the US from the Soviet Union was consistently overrated, beginning in 1917. This continued well into the 80′s when official assessments of their military strength were consistently overblown. In fact, just for yucks, evidence shows Stalin seriously thought that the US and Britain would immediately fall into conflict after WWII, and entertained siding with the US against the British ‘imperialists’.
2.) The US could have saved a lot of people a lot of agony by siding with movements of national independence in the 3rd world right after WW2: Ho, Mao (questionable), Mossadeq, Arbenz, Castro, etc. We had the dough. We had the power. We blew it. But I guess it all comes down to actually defining “US vital interests”. I don’t see that task taken on much.
3.)We could end starvation on this planet without breaking a sweat…just for starters. Don’t ask me about Darfur. Maybe we should bomb that place too. Who knows?
Wait a minute, mishu. We’re not calling the Islamic extremists bedwetters – that we reserve for those who seem to us to have levels of fear of Islamic extremists far beyond what is necessary or reasonable. Sure they’re violent but so were the American militias of the 1990′s. Still losing sleep over them?
As for people who simply don’t want to entitle others, well, I may disagree with them (or not) but live in fear of them? I don’t think so.
The refutation, or at least a lot of material for a refutation, of Mr. Sawicky’s various charges against U.S. policies is on the same front page of PJM as Mr. Sawicky’s piece. It is a link, this link here:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html
bobbyP said,
“”. . . just so you’ll be sharp when you debate the next islamo-commie-fascist you meet at the local watering hole.. . .”"
Of course, that’s been a lot less fun since gramps and nanna stopped drinking.
Seriously, I appreciate your answer. I some do some public speaking overseas, and am often asked to articulate the range of views found in the US. Good to be sharp.
This made me laugh:
“…the sustainability of the Soviet system was obviously inflated. Nobody disputes that now.”
When the BusHitler Rethuglican of 25 years ago, Reagan, said that it was communism that was destined to end up on the ash heap of history, liberals couldn’t contain their astonishment at what an idiot he must be to believe such nonsense. Instead, they listened to such wise men as Lester Thurow, who wrote:
“Can economic command significantly… accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can… Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States.”
He wrote that in 1989. 1989!
Liberals spent most of the Cold War devoted to their anti-anti-Communism, opposing pretty much any measure to defeat the Soviet threat. (Nuclear freeze, anyone?) We were told how vibrant the Soviet Union was, and how we had to pursue peaceful co-existence. After engineering our defeat in Vietnam, they sat back and watched as the Soviets began to expand their influence into Africa and Central America. But of course, there was no actual threat. We simply had to get over that “inordinate fear of communism” that we were laboring under!
Then Reagan comes along with a philosophy toward the Cold War of “We win, they lose,” for which he is mocked mercilessly as a dunderhead by those oh so smart liberals. Sure enough, he wins.
Now, basking in the comfortable aftermath of a victory that they assured us was impossible, and whose achievement they did their best to prevent, folks like Mr. Sawicky assure us glibly that “the sustainability of the Soviet system was obviously inflated.” Yes, by people like you, whose every instinct about what to do about it was wrong. So forgive me if I don’t rush to accept your view of the nature of the latest “non-threat.”
Steve — Give Lester a break. According to Senator Moynihan, no softie in these matters, the CIA itself vastly overestimated the health of the Soviet system. I don’t know how you support your implied premise that liberals overstated more than conservatives.
I don’t buy the thesis that Reagan brought down the USSR. Indeed, if you think their system sucked, then it could have gone down by itself.
The problem with the “Cold War” is that it is hard to separate actions aimed at countering the Soviets from those that stifled genuine democratic aspirations. Hysteria then and now from our side is not good for democracy elsewhere, or here for that matter.
You can’t love liberty and be comfortable with the assorted criminals the U.S. government indulges in the name of the war on terror.
That so many of the commenters here choose ad hominem arguments (without factual support) as their only response says a lot about the right-wing mentality in this country.
That so many leftists commentators here (who can’t rationally support a single thing Max Sawicky says) resort to hollow meaningless attacks against “right-wing mentality” says a lot about left-wing mentality.