Often when I walked onto the set of the West Wing some of my colleagues would greet me with a chanting of “Ron, Ron, the neo-con.” It was all done in fun but it had an edge.
Since speaking in support of George Bush at the 2004 Republican convention I’ve become increasingly disadmired by members of my profession as well as many others. As of this writing my family tells me they still love me. I believe them, but stay tuned, as another presidential cycle is upon us.
I find myself increasingly amused as folks extrapolate my support for the Bush Doctrine and our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan to how I feel about everything. When backed into a corner I often describe my politics, quite snarkily I admit, as a little bit to the right of the left of center.
As far as I can tell, my politics, with regard to American foreign policy and projection of American power haven’t changed very much from what they’ve always been—what I would call revolutionary liberalism. I have always resisted reactionaries from the left or right, Democrat or Republican. At the moment, the reactionary forces on the left, the Democratic netroots and their supporters—Mickey Colitis from the Daily Cuss, MoveOn.org and the Moores and Sheehans—are more fearful to me than the traditional reactionary forces of the extreme right. And the Democratic Party seems to be listening to them.
Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate only eight years ago, gave an extraordinary speech on national security last week that the mainstream media did not cover. It’s a shame. And it’s a shame the Democratic Party shunned Lieberman and tried to defeat him in a primary. They made it clear that there is no place for him in the party he’s dedicated his life to. I’m a Joe Lieberman Democrat.
JFK reportedly remarked, “sometimes the party asks too much.” He was referring to the deal his Democratic Party made with southern segregationists to maintain control of Congress. His words are as true now as they were then. Sometimes the party asks too much.
I count myself firmly in the tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy…and yes, Reagan and George W. Bush. “Go anywhere, bear any burden,” “try to do our best to make a world safe for democracy.” Our national mission, a worthy and ennobling one, is to expand freedom where we can. These are revolutionary goals very much in keeping with our Founders’ vision. They are hardly conservative, let alone neo-conservative goals.
My reactionary former colleagues and friends were quite content with the status quo with Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world. I was not. Revolutionary, not reactionary. My friends sound a bit racist when they insist on Arab-Muslim incapacities to expand freedoms and maintain their faith. I believe the Arab world will work its way to achieve this. I know that it will most likely come about through internal Arab-Muslim struggles and not via external pressures, but I believe we are uniquely capable of helping it along. Uniquely, because our Founding scriptures declare, “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.” Revolutionary, not reactionary.
Many people felt that the threat posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him. I disagreed and still do. Many of these people now feel that the threat of a nuclear Iran is more tolerable than the risk involved in making sure Iran doesn’t have such capabilities. I think they have it backwards. Many people feel reluctant to acknowledge that the “war on terror” is a real war. There is an unwillingness to identify the enemy, which is clearly a world-wide, malignant, metastatic Islamic jihadism, that will only be defeated ultimately with the Islamic world rising to reject the cancer. We cannot fight a war by pretending we’re not in one. This requires transformative, upset the apple cart thinking. It requires people who are revolutionary, not reactionary. As much as we might like, we cannot return to a pre-9/11 world.
The President is challenging the world with a new order. There is always passionate opposition to change. Have grievous mistakes been made? Yes. But just as Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan laid the foundations for fighting and prevailing in the Cold War, Bush has responded to 9/11 with a foreign policy revolution of similar magnitude: a reorganization of government institutions and appropriate legislation to meet the emerging threats.
Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.
I believe the President’s critics are profoundly mistaken. I believe they misunderstand how he’s trying to protect us. I believe they misunderstand the nature of the threat. I believe they misunderstand history. If they succeed in dismantling what President Bush has set in motion, the results may well be catastrophic and history will never forgive them.
George W. Bush: a revolutionary liberal internationalist? History may so decree. Let’s wait and see.
My philosophy, at the end of the day, bottom line, as they say: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but labels never hurt me.”
Ron I like you as a actor and now I like your politics. Thanks for making me comfortable in my conservative choices.
Ron,
Perhaps you could comment on the deafening silence of so-called Western Feminists on the appalling status of women in the Muslim world.
I cannot stand all these blind leftists who say we “Bush invaded Iraq.” If you know that little history you shouldn’t speak. We saved Kuwait from Saddam and as we were going in to get Saddam the democrats all said, “Stop’ so we did. That left the US occupying most of the North and most of the south no-fly-over zones. Then we had eight years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing. Bush has made the first move to get us OUT of Iraq. If we left it to the left we would be in Iraq guarding the no-fly-zones while the UN, Germany, France, and Russia all took graft from Saddam and the “oil for Food’ program while sending him strongly worded letters. Saddam had to meet the requirements of surrender. We gave him a dozen years and he refused to even try to meet the requirements of his surrender. He threw out the inspectors. Of course leftists deny this history because it doesn’t prove the US is the only evil in the whoooooole world!
This neo-con Silver was called a ‘dumbass’ because he admitted to be willing to make the same boneheaded mistake of invading a country who had nothing to do with 9/11. What is the quote about doing the same experiment over and over again and expecting different results? oh yeah, insanity
I must say you are an excellent example of all the right facts but none of the right conclusions. Your political / historical perspective is excellent; you and Lieberman, who represents Israel in our government, are the intellectual heirs of the first neocons, the Wilsonians….
And Wilson was the greatest disaster since Lincoln and held the #1 position until the shrub came along recently to challenge him. We’ll see if the shrub finally bests Wilson – It’ll be the first time in his sorry life he was the best at anything.
He’s certainly already beat out the Gipper…
Wilson meddled in someone else’s business and set off an unnecessary chain of disasters. Had he refrained, today Europe would almost certainly be a German dominated quasi-Federally united world power… Which is exactly what it is.
Wilson’s detour gave us Versailles, WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, the October Revolution, Stalin, the cold war… Iraq and the disaster of Israel.
And now you want another round based on your principles…
You are the enemy. I’ll take the people you want to roust and have rousted over you anytime – not because they are good but because you are evil.
You and your kind are the enemy. As long as you have a voice the Republic is in danger.
“Where is your outrage about Bush’s and Israel’s opposition to democracy among the Palestinians?”
What opposition? They’ve been trying to get the Pals to act like a liberal democracy for decades! Instead, they oppress each other and kill Israeilis. Then, when they elected a group dedicated to destroying Israel, people act as though we have to say “It’s okay to destroy Israel, since you were elected.”
If Mexico was asking for Texas back, and Mexican “resistance” groups were firing rockets into Houston and Dallas every day, would we just sit there and take it? If they elected a government whose avowed aim was the destruction of the United States, would we not impose sanctions?
Good points. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the Republicans have done during their time in power. However, a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and a rollback of the war on terror would be a victory for the radicals and reactionaries of the left, giving them the biggest infusion of political and cultural capital they’ve had since the sixties. I shudder to imagine what will happen to our country if these people believe their own violent rhetoric and intend to act on it if they get the chance. Until the Democrats eschew their foaming-at-the-mouth extreme left wing, I will continue to vote GOP.
BetterThanNoSn, thank you for doing such a good job in demonstrating the use of the ad hominem for our readers – and providing clarity on why it is such a poor argument. You don’t have to be Freud to realize that calling someone a ‘dumbass’ instead of debating the facts is usually an example of projection.
How wonderful to read your comments.
I am a Canadian who lives as you do,
under the umbrella of the conservatve thinkers and find I am
always labelled as the “crazy one”
for my strong belief in the conservative way of life.
I hesitate to mention my choice to
anyone with a univereity education
as they are the worst of them all
here.
Yes, it is the same in Canada
they are carefully taught and have
never tried to think through
the teaching, and they love to
say they are intelligent!
Stick with your ideas, pray for
the strength to be yourself and
then like me, take some time away
from the battle and then…out
to do battle again.
We have a great Prime Minister
right now, he conservative, smart,
young, and has a goal of bringing
unity to Canada. He has integrity
and we can go to bed at night knowing he is taking care of our
country. Blessed indeed.
He and President Bush have fun together and have a good relationship as we should with our
neaest neighbour.
Carole
How wonderful to read your comments.
I am a Canadian who lives as you do,
under the umbrella of the conservatve thinkers and find I am
always labelled as the “crazy one”
for my strong belief in the conservative way of life.
I hesitate to mention my choice to
anyone with a univereity education
as they are the worst of them all
here.
Yes, it is the same in Canada
they are carefully taught and have
never tried to think through
the teaching, and they love to
say they are intelligent!
Stick with your ideas, pray for
the strength to be yourself and
then like me, take some time away
from the battle and then…out
to do battle again.
We have a great Prime Minister
right now, he conservative, smart,
young, and has a goal of bringing
unity to Canada. He has integrity
and we can go to bed at night knowing he is taking care of our
country. Blessed indeed.
He and President Bush have fun together and have a good relationship as we should with our
neaest neighbour.
Carole
Wow,
You should run for president! You have common sense and guts.
just want to say, Good Stuff, Ron
Well done.
Your opinions have no more — and no less — meaning to me because of your profession. Your opinions stand on their own merits.
No wonder I have always enjoyed and admired Ron Silver and his work.
His character just comes through.
Nice post. You get “it”. I appreciate your opinion and steadfastness to the cause of common sense.
reminds me of an actress who upon discovering I was a Republican, retreated angrily and then later recanted saying that even though I was a Republican she still loved me. As though I had admitted I was a serial killer.
Great post, Ron, and I hope you’re right about believing that the Arab-Muslim world is capable of working its way to achieving freedoms while still maintaining their faith, because I’m not sure that’s possible. Unless there is a major overhaul of the religion, they will remain hopelessly in the dark ages.
As as actress in NYC I can relate, in 2002 for simply saying ‘I support the liberation of Iraqi people’ I was ostracised out of the the network. Up until 9/11/2001 I wasn’t political (didn’t even vote in the 2000 elections) however, I always thought of myself as a JFK liberal who believed America will bear any burden to defend Liberty from tyranny.
Just for saying “I support the liberation of Iraqi people” I became the ‘lone Republican’ or the ‘Bushie’; people whom I thought were friends stopped calling.
In 2004 I eventually left the theater world, the groupthink was tyrannical.
When I saw from the rooftop of my building the World Trade Center crumble to ash on 9/11/2001 I had no idea how deep was the level of hate-all things-America and the level of vicious anti-semitism was in our country.
I am a neo-con, a conservative, a Republican or whatever label is applied to those defending freedom’s shining light on the hill.
I will Never Forget:
“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.” (Reagan, 1967 the man who inspired the neo-conservative movement)
Thank you Mr. Silver for overcoming the tyranny of our times.
I remember you saying “Oh, those are our planes now”, as if they were enemies as long as GHWB controlled them. Do you remember? It was during Billary’s first inauguration party. You were standing outside, on camera, when the U.S.A.F. did a fly-by, looking angry that the jets were maybe being misused or that it was a waste of tax payers money – or some such. I am a Nam veteran and was spitting angry at you just then.
Now, I want to thank you for being a patriot and am happy to see you’ve grown and learned something about political maneuvering. Keep up your support for the troops.
How refreshing to read some common sense from Hollywood! Too bad that Cruise and others who are trying to cram their “lamb” mentality into our minds via the big screen won’t try out some of Mr. Silver’s “lion” thinking—for a change! They might actually make a few dollars, even!
Thank you, Mr. Silver, for your great blog—I look forward to reading it every few days and having my mind filled with a script that includes not only common sense, but optimism, intelligence and vision.
Ron, Since you describe yourself as a little bit right of left of center, may I suggest that you write a piece describing your feelings on an issue the left side of you agrees with (global warming, New Orleans reconstruction, privacy issues, income distribution) and see how quickly those adoring fans above abandon you.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-neo-con-extreme-moderate-how-about.html
Nineteen suicide bombers and their sponsors brought a great nation to live in irrational fear. In Bin Laden’s wildest dreams things could not have worked out so well for his cause.
By the way we were attacked by terrorists after 9/11. Doesn’t Anthrax count?
That said, you are an eloquent, if misguided, guy.
(And I LOVED the Gary Levy character
on “Rhoda.” One of the underrated characters in sitcom history.)
Ron,
If you believe in using military might to export democracy, where does it stop? Will we next invade Myanmar? North Korea? Pakistan? At what point does it behoove us to wait for the people of these nations to be ready to fight for themselves?
And in calling the current counterinsurgency operation in Iraq a part of the war on terrorism is to conflate the issues. Iraq never attacked us. There is no credible link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Iraq never posed a security risk to our nation.
I am a Reserve Soldier in the United States military. I believe in those men and women fighting for our country. Right now, our fighting men and women are in harm’s way, with no plan to win the peace, with no overarching goals, and with no cogent strategy guiding their sacrifice. If you want to support the troops, bring them home.
Well, if nothing else, Ron, you — and your ideological fluffers — share this much with the Prez. An only vague familiarity with the English language.
‘Disadmired.’ Heh.
(And in case Roger is still listening in? This does not make you a dumbass. Just easily dismissed. Which, for the record, is not the opposite of ‘missed.’)
Jim: You extracted a piece from my comment
Angel wrote: “In Iran, there is a rather metropolitan, well-educated populace. But, if we pro-actively strike at them to get at their President, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.” The left has been saying that about Iraq and Afghanistan, too. It hasn’t worked out that way, has it?
I don’t think the left said that about Afghanistan, except the hard-core anti-war crowd. I was concerned about the Taliban before 9/11 when they were blowing up Buddhist statues with dynamite to erase evidence of pre-Islamic history. And, when they wanted to pin pieces of yellow cloth to resident Hindus to “protect” them from non-Hindus(Muslims), I knew how dangerous they were and it would only be a matter of time before we clashed with them. If we engage the citizens of Iran, who are more inclined to rise up against their oppressors than their neighbors in Iraq and Afghanistan were, it would be a bold master stroke in foreign policy. It just seems to be more acceptable to bomb people into our camp.
joeyb,
I’m well aware of the propaganda tactics that were used to rally the country during WWII. But, what we’re seeing now with the expansion of government power and the exploitation of fear is astounding. I mean, do you think that if 9/11 never happpened that Giuliani would even have a shot? The only reason he does is exploitation of fear. I miss the country that I grew up in. I know some will say the Islamists are responsible for that. And, they may well be. But, the neo-cons are willing handmaidens in the rush to change America from the land of freedom to land of fear.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr Silver.
It’s quaint to think that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a tyrant and posed a threat to the region — both true — or that we wanted to bring democracy to Iraq — less true. But this war was never waged for democracy or freedom, but rather because of a deeply misguided economic ideology.
Neoliberalism — what you call “revolutionary liberalism” — and neoconservatism are like brothers from different mothers, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Both advocate using government/military intervention on behalf of multinational corporations. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing play out in Iraq.
I have been and remain a fan of your work and I share you’re concern for our security and your sense that there are times when the use of American military power is necessary. I think it was necessary in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.
However, when the Iraq war began, when opposition to it was no longer objectively useful, my antiwar position shifted to one of get it over with as soon as possible, with as few deaths as possible military and civilian but most of all, get it right. That hasn’t happened. And while I pray that it does, it may never happen because of the gross mismanagement of the initial invasion (not enough troops to even secure sites suspected of containing WMD for example so that many had been looted before they could be inspected) and occupation (do you remain a Rumsfeld supporter as well?).
The fact is we don’t yet know what’s going to become of Iraq. So it’s not yet possible to say it was worth it unless you want to take the position that no matter what happens, that will be better than Saddam. But before you get too settled into that position I would remind you that what followed Communist rule in Afghanistan was something even worse, anarchy, the Taliban and 9/11. And since we never committed our full power in rebuilding there in order to invade Iraq, it isn’t secure either.
So at the end of the day I’m not a fan of Bush. He’s been in over his head from the beginning (and as far as we can tell all of his life)and remains so. For example what do you make of his confessing puzzlement over the fact that the Iraqi Army was disbanded? Was this decision really taken without his direct input? To hear him tell it, it was. How could that happpen?
This President has put our country’s security at risk and created the pre-conditions for a regional war in the Persian Gulf, the minimal outcome of which, should it happen, is likely to be an interuption to the oil supply that may well produce the world’s worst economic dislocation since the Great Depression.
Ron-
As I said a few posts back, you are an eloquent guy.
(And one I respect- though perhaps only because you played a liberal on WW…)
It would be interesting to hear you address some of the more respectful and reasoned (and, IMO, irrefutable) points made by the folks here who have disagreed with you…
I disagee with the fundamentals of liberal internationalism, but the fact that Ron Silver understands the word makes me respect him greatly. This column shows hes educated, something that I haven’t seen expressed in the writings of many other actors.
Ron..I wrongfully feel such contempt at Hollywood/Left/Liberals of the world and know I should instead be praying for them and that some will see the light..so that they can help others like minded see the light. I’ve always felt like it was useless..that is until I realized it was doubting God’s power and how that was showing little faith in God’s promise to hear our prayers. God does hear our prayers. Then there are people like yourself that come along and give us all hope that your class, integrity, your sincere search for the truth, desire to support those who want to protect this great country..and most of all a great insight to give credit to a President who could have possibly saved this country from many a threat, unknown and unseen. That’s class deserving of an award in itself. I haven’t agreed with everything President Bush does..but I’ll always believe God gave us this President for that time and place in history..and for that I’ll always be greatful. Thanks and bravo for a well written article. I will always try to catch you whenever and wherever you show up on the tube/screen. Robin.
Mr. Silver, thank you for a thoughtful post. I have much to disagree with in it. It’s refreshing to not be called a “dhimmi” or whatever the insult d’jour is when reading a more conversative point of view.
I’m puzzled that “dumbass” is considered such a horrible invective, yet when another poster says, “I guess you had something up your a** and my di** in your mouth”, that’s apparently no problem. Guess intolerance isn’t just a lefty problem.
I’m also struck by all the references to JFK here. Didn’t JFK avert the Cuban missile crisis, rather than engage Castro in battle?
Ron,
Thanks for speaking your mind.
OnrampPodcast- instead of inviting Ron Silver to appear as a representative of ’25% who still support Bush’, why not try to find someone among the 11% who still support the Democrat congress?
Unless the search is just too difficult, of course…
This isn’t a board game, Ron. The military invasion of Iraq has created some two million refugees, killed an estimated 80,000 Iraqi civilians,and injured hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The invasion and occupation has instigated an Iraqi civil war and destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands are jobless and many are hungry. Meanwhile, U.S. casualties continue to mount unabated and the injured are left to cope on their own. Billions are spent each month to enrich corporate profiteers at taxpayer expense. The US knowingly invaded and occupies a country that posed and poses no threat to the United States. This continuing humanitarian horror is shameful. Your apologia only enables its perpetuation.
Mr. Silver,
I respect you, but when I read your statement, “My reactionary former colleagues and friends were quite content with the status quo with Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world. I was not,” I had to stop reading. Why? Because it’s a gross misrepresentation of the post 9/11 dynamic, if not downright false. I’m a liberal, I know many liberals, and I don’t know a one of us who was “quite content with the status quo w/ Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world.” I find it curious that people such as yourself, who seem to have contempt for those of us who were against the invasion, seem to always have a knack for misrepresenting that critical part of the history — and always to your own personal benefit. Quite frankly, I find that kind of conduct reprehensible, and morally dishonest. Thank you and good luck to you.
Reading this thread is like stepping into a time warp. Greenjeans says it well, so I won’t reiterate the details, but if you’re going to argue that the near-universally derided Bush Doctrine is still valid, you’re going to have to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the facts on the ground. Hell, even the President himself had to do this eventually. I’m not saying you should change your opinion and hew to the new consensus. Just that, if you’re going to make these arguments, you need to realize what you’re dealing with. It’s not just Hollywood liberals who are going to look at you like you’re crazy if you say the Iraq war was a good thing (and continue to tie it to “spreading democracy in the Middle East”, not to mention 9/11). It’s pretty much everyone. Circumstances demand you take a defensive stance – refusing to only makes you look absurd.
Joe Lieberman is the poster child for what is wrong with today’s Democratic Party. At the turn of the century Lieberman represented the bold new face of Democratic politics – a moderate reformer who rejected the corrupt influence-peddling that plagued both parties and who epitomized the centrist New Democratic policies of Bill Clinton. He was the antidote to the poisonous corruption epitomized by John Murtha’s infamous performance during the Abscam sting. Lieberman had the moral courage to stand up to Hollywood for selling junk to children and to his friend the president for letting down those who had looked up to him. He spoke optimistically of a new awakening in America in response to the excesses of cultural licentiousness and bitter partisanship that had split the country. He led the fight for campaign finance reform and a return to the strong, pro-American policies of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. These are the traits that earned him the admiration of his colleagues and a place on the 2000 Democratic presidential ticket.
Joe Lieberman was widely respected for his constant stand on these issues and on the growing threat in the Middle East, policies that he shared with Bill Clinton and with his moderate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He co-authored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by President Clinton. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks Lieberman provided a strong voice for bipartisan efforts to unify the nation and respond to the threat. In 2002 he co-sponsored, along with fellow Democratic senator Evan Bayh and Republicans John Warner and John McCain, the joint congressional resolution to authorize military action in Iraq.
Speaking for the House of Representatives, Democratic Congressman Richard Gephardt introduced the joint resolution with these words:
“…The first responsibility of our government is to protect the security of our nation and our citizens. …Every member of Congress must make their own decision on the level of threat posed by Iraq and what to do to respond to that threat. I’ve said many times to my caucus that each member should be guided by his or her own conscience, free from others trying to politicize the issue or questioning others’ motives. …We disagree on many domestic issues. But this is the most important thing that we do. This should not be about politics. We have to do what is right for the security of our nation and the safety of all Americans.”
Senators Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Kerry, Kohl, Reid, Rockefeller and Schumer all spoke and voted in support of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, along with 17 other Democratic senators and more than 80 Democratic congressmen. Six months later, when president Bush put their words into action, many of those who had spoken so earnestly in support of the resolution swiftly redeployed into the refuge of partisan politics, focusing their attention on the next presidential election. Meanwhile, by remaining true to his conscience and his word Joe Lieberman became a pariah, a turncoat, a running dog lackey of the Bush administration. Much the same could be said for Tony Blair.
Thank you, Ron, for your courage and for your willingness to speak truth to power.
Greenjeans :
This isn’t a board game, Ron. The military invasion of Iraq has created some two million refugees, killed an estimated 80,000 Iraqi civilians,and injured hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
“See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:“Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power”
Yeah, the world seems like a better place with your buddy Saddam there! Maybe you should move to Canada with Alec Baldwin!
“Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.”
That, Mr. Silver, is the type of insight-in-a-nutshell that will esteem you in opinion column circles in ways that more will soon come to appreciate. Nicely put. I will quote you often on this point.
As we have long ago left the age of reason, and entered the age of viscera, labels have become the sine qua non of the current political Areopagus. It allows for procrustean classification of individuals into manageable and targetable groups.
Unfortunately, we seldom select our labels, but have them assigned to us ad hoc by the interest group, or the interests of the individual at hand. I have been called everything from a rabid Nazi to a bleeding heart liberal. In doing so, the labeler is freed from the onerous tasks of reason and discussion, and can cling to their preconceived notions without critical challenge.
That is why labels are so valuable in our political zeitgeist. Politicians seem to find them particularly useful because they allow them to maintain a position without exposure to the inquisitive light of reason. Doing so would reveal their position is not based on the common good or a political philosophy, but instead on the acquisition and maintenance of power.
I think that government is made men, and when a government is populated by men driven by the quest for power, it has a transformative effect; the institution of government becomes an organism that act first in its own self interest and protects itself from within.
If I could choose my own label, I would like to be known as a “reso-con.” Reasoning, and reasonable, I try to think things through based on core beliefs and the information available. Conservative in that I agree with the Founding Fathers; suspect of government encroachment into the affairs of man, seeing the hard left as dangerous as the hard right in their grasp for control to my detriment.
If you think I’m wrong, make the case. Provide dispositive argument that will sway me. Don’t just slap me with a label and move on.
Mary; it’s not required to be willing to go and fight yourself to believe the fight is necessary, especially when we have an all volunteer armed force. To believe otherwise prohibits one from having beliefs on anything other than their own field of expertise. This is a favorite liberal stance that makes no sense whatsoever.
God bless me for getting it right.
Ron, there’s a book in there somewhere, and you are just the person to write it. I notice you are not on “Law & Order” hardly anymore; did you p— off Dick Wolfe?
Mr. Silver,
In spite of your maltreatment of Dr. Garret Macey, I am thilled to become a fan of yours in another category. Since you probably not moving to Georgia, if you ever choose to run for national office, you have my vote.
Thank you.
Lewis A. Morris
Cumming, GA
Someone mentioned below that not a single attack has been orchestrated by Islamic Jihadists against the U.S. since 9/11/2001.
The attacks occur daily, and are much more subtle. They strike at the core of financial prosperity, leveraging the hubris of the current administration.
In 2004, Osama Bin Laden said:
“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,”.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”
“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.
And so it goes.