Special Report
Obama Is No Reagan: The Polish Lesson Ignored in Iran
Iranian cry for freedom received with miserable inadequacy by the White House.
Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
One need look no further than President Obama’s cautiously timid response to the demands of freedom from Iranians. Contrast this with Reagan’s response to similar demands from Poles in the 1980s and the miserable inadequacy of the Obama foreign policy is thrust into a stark and shameful relief.
When Reagan took office in January of 1981, Poland had been a Soviet satellite for almost four decades. The American foreign policy establishment had long since settled into an acceptance of moral equivalency between the United States and the Communists. The policy was acted out in a thousand different ways ranging from so-called “détente” (a relaxing of tensions) to a vast, arcane arms control process which over time had substituted the process itself instead of the unconditional victory of freedom as America’s chief foreign policy goal.
Reagan had campaigned on a completely different idea, a very old principle when dealing with an adversary. He phrased it this way to his first national security advisor, Richard Allen: “We win, they lose.” It was this goal that Reagan sought, and thus caused him to speak bluntly about America’s adversary in the Cold War. An “Evil Empire” is how he early-on famously described the Soviet Union, completely horrifying the Obama-like striped-pants set in the State Department and Establishment foreign policy circles. When the Soviet Ambassador made an early call on the new Reaganized State Department he was prevented from the cozy physical access to the building previous administrations had granted him. In times past he was driven into the basement garage and then rode a private elevator to the seventh floor, the location of the Secretary of State’s office. He was the only diplomat in all of Washington accorded this special privilege. The rest — some 150 ambassadors — had to be driven to the main entrance, walk through the State Department public lobby and take the public elevator. This practice ceased with the Soviet Ambassador’s very first visit to the newly Reaganized State Department.
Change was at hand, and the Ambassador — his limo driver forced to quite publicly back out of the garage and go around to the main entrance in full view of the press — was not happy.
One of the very first items that arose on Reagan’s watch was the rising demand for freedom from the Polish people. On January 21, his first full day in the Oval Office, word reached the White House that a young shipyard worker and union leader named Lech Walesa had informed the Communist government of Poland he had called a series of strikes in four Polish cities, beginning the next day. Within 24 hours hundreds of thousands of Poles in ten cities — not four — were publicly defying the Polish Communist dictator, General Wojciech Jaruzelski.
A fight for freedom was on — and Ronald Reagan had zero intention of standing on the sidelines.
“In my speeches and press conferences, I deliberately set out to say some frank things about the Russians, to let them know there were some new fellows in Washington who had a realistic view of what they were up to and weren’t going to let them keep it up.” At his very first press conference he answered a question about whether the Soviets could be trusted. “I said the answer to that question could be found in the writings of Soviet leaders: It had always been their philosophy that it was moral to lie or cheat…”
Liberals all over Washington paled. This, they insisted, was no way to conduct diplomacy. One just does not say these things in public. But Reagan had only just begun.
As Walesa and his fellow Poles demanded the most basic of human liberties, Moscow responded by sending troops on maneuvers along the Polish border, then installing a military government with instructions to stop Walesa in his tracks.
Distinctly unlike Obama’s reaction to the demonstrators filling the streets of Iran, Reagan looked at similar crowds in Poland and said the sight was “thrilling.” Said Reagan: “I wanted to be sure we did nothing to impede this process and everything we could to spur it along.”
And so he did. In a stiff note to Soviet boss Leonid Brezhnev, Reagan said that if the Russians kept up their thuggish response to Poland they “could forget any new nuclear arms agreement.” Gone too would be better trade relations, and in their place would be the “harshest possible economic sanctions” if they even thought of invading Poland as they had done with Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956.
The Russians responded. In December, Reagan later recalled, without warning they shut down the Polish borders, shut off communications with the outside world, arrested Walesa and his fellow leaders of Solidarity (the union Walesa led), and imposed martial law.
Almost immediately Reagan was told the stunning news that the Polish Ambassador to the United States and his wife wished to defect. Hesitating not a second, Reagan made certain that American authorities got to the Ambassador before the KGB and “spirited him away to a safe place.” Reagan wrote this in his diary at the time:
I took a stand that this may be the last chance in our lifetime to see a change in the Soviet Empire’s colonial policy re Eastern Europe. We should take a stand and tell them unless and until martial law is lifted in Poland, the prisoners were released and negotiations resumed between Walesa and the Polish government, we would quarantine the Soviets and Poland with no trade or communications across their borders. Also tell our NATO allies and others to join us in such sanctions or risk an estrangement from us. A TV speech is in the works.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (211) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/18/obama-is-no-reagan-the-polish
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 6.18.09 @ 1:57PM
I seem to recall this same faction only recently calling for preventive attacks on Iran. Are we supposed to believe that neoconservatives are now oh-so-concerned for the freedoms of the very same people they have time and again urged that we slaughter ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" sang decrepit neocon monkey-skeleton John McCain)?.
We will not fall for it again. Sorry. It seems no one has passed the word to these people that they are now irrelevant. Cry wolf too many times and you become justly ignored.
Why, you might ask, does America ignore neoconservative predictions of Iranian-launched nuclear war in the Middle East?
Because, they will answer, they took *seriously* neoconservative predictions of Iraqi mushroom clouds over Detroit. To the cost of four thousand dead American soldiers.
Now they know better.
Mac Skiba| 6.18.09 @ 2:36PM
Let's be honest hear there are a lot of differences between Poland and Iran. For one Poles were seeking to overthrow an entire system for a new one. In Iran, Moussavi's goal is not to overthrow the entire system, he has no problem with the current structure it's just he has a problem with the election. In Poland, Solidarity had a membership of 10 million that represented 80% of the workforce, in Iran though Moussavi has huge support, clearly the supporters don't have the same representation as Solidarity did. Lastly, the US during the cold war had allies that relied more on the US than they do today, they could not afford to annoy the US or they would be left vulnerable to the Kremlin, but today that reliance on American power is diminished, as much as we will threaten our allies which in the past were separated they now encompass the EU, a total of 27 states. Before you can threaten France or what have you to follow your lead, but if you do that today you will have most of Europe rally behind that threatened country and in the end your causing just as much harm to the US. These are different times. There are similarities but huge differences between the two movements.
Mac Skiba| 6.18.09 @ 2:38PM
@ Toddard your a retard, yes we say bomb bomb Iran because if they are getting a nuke we will bomb them however if they want to change course then we should support them... thats just common sense...
The truth Reagan the Retarded| 6.18.09 @ 3:14PM
Reagan aid to ‘contra’ rebels in Nicaragua
Reagan speaks about his proposal to send more than 14 million dollars worth of aid to the contra rebels who are trying to overthrow the Sandanista government in Nicaragua:"We have an obligation to be of help where we can,to freedom fighters and lovers of freedom and democracy from Afghanistan to Nicaragua".Journalist asks him if he is advocating the overthrow of the present government,Reagan says "Not if the present government were to turn round and say alright uncle,alright, Reagan flooded the streets of America, and destroyed the lives of the youth, and crippled the future of young Americans many who are in prison today who tried to stand up against Reagan crime against the people of America.
Anthony| 6.18.09 @ 3:44PM
While Mr. Skiba raises some good points, nonetheless, Mr Lord's basic comparison of Reagan to Obama is spot on. Obama is an elitist leftist, hence, he is a moral and intellectual coward. Obama shares none of the desires of the Iranian people. Their desires for freedom fall on deaf ears with the American and European Left, as we have seen during the cold war and the recent action is Iraq and Afghanistan. The Oil for Food scandal, with France, Germany, et al betraying America during the Iraq war, was history repeating itself. The European left did the same thing during the cold war.
Obama is a willing supplicant, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, the titular head of Islam. His sympathies lie with the mullahs and the clerics of Iran, not the Iranian people.
Obama distains America's freedoms, hence his race towards socialism, so why would he and the American left want freedom for the Iranians? If I may be so bold, Obama is creating his own caliphite here in the U.S. and plans on meeting up with radical Islam from the east. If you don't believe me read Mark Styne's great book, "America Alone". It's a view of coming attractions.
Chris... | 6.18.09 @ 4:39PM
Wow. This has flushed the zanies out, hasn't it? I must've missed the predections of Saddam nuking Detroit ( which has the largest Arab population of any major American metro area btw, thus making it a somewhat unlikely target for an Arab Nationalist). Nukes or no nukes, the Iranian theocracy has been a threat to the interests of the United States for a long, long time. A more moderate (sane) government in Tehran is in our interest, just as it's in the interest of the average Iranian. Not an ally, but someone we can do business with. Then the potential necessity of American military action goes away. YOU BLITHERING IDIOT !
Oldefarte| 6.18.09 @ 5:02PM
The pertenent difference between Reagan and Obama is that the former had guts, whereas the latter has none. Obama can't stand up to Wright, the UAW, gays, etc., so no semi-intelligent person should expect him to stand up to Iran [NK,etc]. Oh, as to SL's idiotic comment about 4000 dead US military members----they died for the thousands of Iraqies [and also for our 3000 civilians that died on 9/11/01,etc] who were exterminated by Sadaam after he invaded Kuwait and we drove him back to Iraq [SL is a moron] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Violence is not the solution| 6.18.09 @ 6:05PM
Oldefarte| 6.18.09 @ 5:02PM
It seems you like leaders who are senile, I agree Reagan had guts, but so does all living things, except plants.
All men are free to be who they want to be in my view even Homosexual, that is his right. You have your right to be hetrosexual, right. Who are you to dictate anothers life.
All fools on earth thinks violence is the answer to all problems of life, I bet if you met a man with a machine gun who demanded you hand over your wallet you would give him his wallet and a blow job to keep him sweet.
If you were so cleaver you would be in the White house. When Obama declare WAR on Iran I hope you will be on the front line, don't expect other more intelligent Americans to throw their life away, for no gain.
Red Phillips | 6.18.09 @ 6:56PM
Could we please have a front page article on Iran written by a sensible non-interventionist like Doug Bandow instead of all this bellicose neocon posturing? So the measure of a good foreign policy is whether we say mean and nasty things about the opposition? Perhaps if we don't run off at the mouth in order to make ourselves feel morally superior then we will be in a better position to negotiate with Ahmadinejad later.
But of course neocons have absolutely no interests in negotiating and actually preventing a war. They are interested only in making demands and plunging us into another one.
People who think bellicose saber rattling and aggression as first resort is conservatism don't have a clue.
Grow up. This ain't the 3rd grade playground and you are not moving pieces around on a Risk board. Untold numbers of real lives will be lost if the neocons manage to drag us into another preemptive/preventative war.
Are you saber rattlers at all familiar with Christian Just War theory? Do you even care? Just what we need. “Conservatives” who don’t think it is important what Christianity has to tell us about war.
Kevin DuBois | 6.18.09 @ 8:55PM
I agree with your article, and found it a good read, very informative and illustrative. It demonstrates that a strong leader with adherence to the values of the founding fathers is indeed the best leader.
I lament that this past election we were given the choice between a dangerous fool, and a weak leader, and I'm saddened that the nation picked the dangerous fool.
William R| 6.18.09 @ 9:14PM
Ex-hostage: Do not interfere with Iran
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/18/fmr-hostage-do-not-interfere-with-iran/
Red Phillips | 6.18.09 @ 9:30PM
"with adherence to the values of the founding fathers"
Do you mean like the non-interventionism of George Washington and John Q. Adams?
Jay D. Homnick| 6.18.09 @ 11:14PM
Bravo, Jeffrey. A splendid piece of work. You brought me back, if for a brief moment, to a wonderful time.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 12:07AM
You don't know what the hell you are talking about Red Phillips, the same fool who calls Abraham Lincoln a war criminal. There is no point in anything you say you Ron Paul lunatic. I will go with the example Ronald Reagan set of a strong determined US foreign policy and put this dictators in their damn place. When in the article in there anything about war with Iran? This is about offering moral support to their people in Iran who crave freedom from their evil rulers much like Reagan did with Poland. You are as bad as that jerk S.L. Toddard with your phony baloney arguments.
Jeff| 6.19.09 @ 3:50AM
Umm are you stupid? Obama's muted response to the Iranian elections has been absolutely the correct course of action. If he had forcefully supported the opposition (Mousavi) it would have absolutely played into Ahmaenijahd's (awful spelling) hands. The mass protests are now distinctly Iranian instead of US backed interventionism, but that makes to much sense for you morons.
jack| 6.19.09 @ 6:25AM
These are indeed dark days. Why would Obama be against a regime that he seems to admire? He believes he can negotiate with people whose only goal in life is to destroy our way of life. Maybe he can as it seems he has the same goals.
What did you we expect from a guy so blissfully ignorant of US and World history? A guy who has never held down a real job,never managed people,never authored a single piece of legislation? He wrote two books about himself. That is the sum of his resume. He is what racial preferences have wrought. A guy with no particular skills other than reading from a teleprompter elevated way above his pay grade
drudge ette obama| 6.19.09 @ 6:47AM
I would like to know what these protestors intend to do with their freedom? There does not seem to be a voice behind this movement, unless the press just isn't doing its job. If the protestors want to continue the status quo, then let them destroy themselves; if they wish to truly bring Iran into a civilized world, we should Reaganize their movement. Obama is incapable of being like Reagan. Obama has no passion for America.
Bob| 6.19.09 @ 7:12AM
Skiba is absolutely correct. If you make a threat, you must be able to back it up. Any war against the Soviet Union would be conventional. As stretched as our military is right now, we do not have the troops to back up a threat.
Jeffrey, your response reminds me of the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz. Just click your heels twice and get yourself out of this mess. You are usually rational. In this case, you have not thought through your remarks -- or worse - you don't know the facts.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 7:25AM
"Oh, as to SL's idiotic comment about 4000 dead US military members"
Isn't that odd - George W Bush has caused the deaths of as many Americans as Osama bin Laden. Would you call Bush "The American bin Laden"? I suppose there is a distinction, in that Bush caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and bin Laden attacked civilians but still - they're running neck and neck as far as American blood on their hands, don't you think?
"they died for the thousands of Iraqies [and also for our 3000 civilians that died on 9/11/01,etc] who were exterminated by Sadaam"
And who will die for the thousands of Iraqis exterminated by George W Bush?
Crusader| 6.19.09 @ 7:27AM
Does the "opposition" (and I use that term lightly) in Iran seek to reform islam? Will it halt the nuclear weapon program? Will it recognize Israel? Will it stop blaming the USA for all its problems?
No, no, no, and no.
So WTF is the difference between moosavi and ackmydinnersbad? And why should I care? They are both kook mooslims who were vetted by the kook imams who really run Iran anyway.
Melvin| 6.19.09 @ 7:27AM
The Iranian opposition isn't looking for missiles and bombs. By all appearances they are just seeking moral support and they themselves are willing to do the heavy lifting to rid Iran of the religious tyrants.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 7:30AM
"This has flushed the zanies out, hasn't it? I must've missed the predections of Saddam nuking Detroit"
You're absolutely right - I got the quote wrong.
Melvin| 6.19.09 @ 7:31AM
Crusader has a valid point but on the other hand if the Iranian opposition loosens up and allows its young people more freedom, then all bets are off. The crack in the dam will open up to a flood that no regime can put back in the box.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 7:32AM
"Does the "opposition" (and I use that term lightly) in Iran seek to reform islam? Will it halt the nuclear weapon program?"
They already did, as far as the IAEA can tell. Or have you discovered new proof that they have started it up again?
If your answer is "No - I have no proof" then just keep in mind - please - that your belief that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program is based on nothing but a desire to have a boogeyman to frighten yourself with.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 7:48AM
Guess what.....we are still the great Satan. Did any of you insane libs really believe the one would make us more likable to these religious fanatics that are really political fanatics? They lied, they killed, they oppreessed their own people and then blamed US for the demonstartions and violence.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE TYRANTS WHO WOULD BLOW US OF THIS PLANET IF THEY COULD! Jeez, how stupid do we have to be before you get it? Or do we actually have to be hurt again? Are you really willing to gamble with the lives of your friends and allies because you want peace and love in the world?
How miserably sad we are as a nation.....
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 7:49AM
No one can doubt Obama's courage and ability to lead. He has already been a better commander-in-chief than President Bush and Clinton were.
Obama - man of action
Barack Obama has already proven himself to be a great commander-in-chief. It's because he's a man of action.
Case #1 is Pakistan. George Bush never had the courage to do anything about it, so Al Qaeda, the ones who launched 9/11, sat there year after year laughing at us, facing nothing more than drone missile strikes.
But the first thing President Obama did when he took office was to publicly say that if Pakistan didn't remove the terrorists, that we would. Faced with a man of action, the Pakistani government has taken action. Hundreds of terrorists who were safe during the Bush Administration are dead. Others are trying to flee overseas.
Case #2 is North Korea. For 16 years the Clinton and Bush administration appeased NK, wrongly assuming that with the correct package they would give up their nukes. Obama realized that was a mistake. He has said no more negotiations and has shifted to military action, boarding and searching North Korean ships.
Big J| 6.19.09 @ 7:56AM
"Obama is no Reagan". That is the understatement of the decade.
No poster here called for "war", at least not any that I read.
This limp-wristed poser-in-chief is an empty suit that doesn't have the stones to make a strong statement, let alone protect our nation, or any other for that matter. He's too busy eating arugula beef, socializing America and campaigning for term 2.
"America stands for freedom and liberty. The Iranian people are exercising their God-given right to protest and have fair elections. You are not alone in your struggle, brave freedom-seekers. America is with you."
Reagan might have made a statement like that.
America used to stand for freedom around the world. Now, eh, not so much.
Big J| 6.19.09 @ 8:00AM
BTW:
Just mentioning Ronald Reagan's name gets the libs worked up in a frenzy.
I love it!
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 8:02AM
Jeffrey Lord's article mostly talks about SECRET letters and actions President Reagan took, things which have only been revealed now, 25 years later. How can Lord be sure that Obama is not doing the same things? What makes him certain that the CIA is not already running covert operations to help the Iranian protesters?
This latest series of neo-con articles is so ridiculous it reminds me of the story of the three pigs. According to the neo-cons President Obama can destroy the Iranian government just by saying a few words. "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your regime down". According to this article, all Obama has to say is "I support the protesters", then all the Iranian leaders will take the turbans off, adopt a secular US-like constitution, and peacefully transition to the new leaders.
This is totally ridiculous. What the neo-cons really want is to trap us into a war with Iran by making the same mistakes the first president Bush did. Bush talked the talk, encouraging the Shiites and Kurds to revolt against Saddam. Then thousands of them were slaughtered by Saddam because there was no US military support. Empty words of support accomplish nothing. Bush then had to create the no-fly zone and support it for years. We were entangled in Iraq, and eventually ended up with the current Iraqi war. Iran would proceed the same way.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 9:12AM
Having listened to and read my people far more knowledgeable about Iranian politics and history than Mr. Lord, I must vehemently disagree with him that the current administration is mishandling our diplomatic response to events in Iran. For anyone interested, the details are easily Googled. I address Mr. Lord's article from another perspective. What is your motive for writing this article Mr.Lord? Indeed what is the motive of TAS which has been nothing but critical of the current administration on this issue? Do you really believe what you are saying? If so, you are terribly myopic and misinformed. Are you simply another Rush Limbaugh - you want the President to fail? If so, I call you what I have called Limbaugh: TRAITOR. Have you sided with the part of the Jewish community that supports right wing Israeli politicians instead of the part genuinely working for peace? If so, please contrast the little progress made toward a peace agreement under the Carter and Bush 1 administrations as with the virtual lack of any progress under the Reagan and Bush 2 adminstrations.
Anthony| 6.19.09 @ 9:25AM
You just have to love the looney left that blogs here at TAS. We have Violence is Not the Solution, Red Phillips and Siegfried all screaming that all the neocons want is war with Iran. Nobody is calling for war, not even close, just some encouragement to those Iranians seeking a free and democrat society. This regime is ready to topple . all it needs is a little nudge. I know, the distinction is rather subtle, perhaps Chris Matthews can help you guys out here.
I bet these morons never gave Reagan credit for his actions with Solidarity or his bringing down the Soviet Union without a shot being fired. It must still stick in their craws to this day. Oh wait, my bad, it was all Gorbachov's doing.
But the prize of the day goes to Siegfried X . Ole Sig tells us Obama is a man of action, where both Clinton & Bush failed with N. Korea, our fearless leader has succeeded. Hey Sig, don't look now but Drudge is reporting North Korea is planning on firing a missle towards Hawaii on July 4th. Oops, our great leader Obama has put the kabosh on our missle defense shield. Drat, such bad timing. I blame Bush!!
O.K. guys, back to your alternative reality. Quick turn on CNBC.
Bob| 6.19.09 @ 9:38AM
Anthony -- CNBC is the only NBC division that is right of center. But it doesn't surprise me that you get facts wrong. The Soviet Union was a very different circumstance. If you aren't willing to send troops into Iran, then you need to stay out of the argument. We could topple the Soviet Union through economics and Reagan knew that. You can't do that in Iran and we don't have the troops to send it. While I think Reagan's economic plan was faulty because it created huge deficits, I think his foreign policy with the Soviet Union was right on target. That's why he was one of our better Presidents.
Now, get a clue...
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 9:38AM
'Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has ordered the U.S. military to take defensive measures should North Korea attempt to fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii, even as officials express skepticism of the possibility.
“I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect American territory,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon today. Gates said he has directed the deployment of a missile interceptor system known as Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, to Hawaii and the positioning of a sea- based radar system near the U.S. state...
A Pentagon official involved in the testing said last month that the U.S. system would likely knock out a long-range North Korean missile...
The report said the Taepodong-2 missile wouldn’t be able to hit Hawaii’s main islands because they are out of the device’s 4,000-mile (6,500-kilometer) range...'
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 9:42AM
"If so, I call you what I have called Limbaugh: TRAITOR. "
Ok, Mike. You've pretty much made my point. It's obvious you would be one of the people this country must be wary of, as I'm sure you would go for firing squads, home siezures, detention and persecution of us traitorous citizens. How refreshing it is to hear Iran tyrany and anti semitism so well spoken by a neolib right here at home.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 9:43AM
The Iranian opposition isn't looking for missiles and bombs. By all appearances they are just seeking moral support
What good would that do? I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your regime down.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 9:43AM
"When in the article in there anything about war with Iran?"
Todd, the clear implication of all this is that we demand Iran not pursue nuclear technology and if they don't comply we have the right to bomb them. That is a course to war. It is comply or else. And don't act all coy. "Who said anything about war?" Oh I don't know. McCain, Cheney, multiple leading neocons.
Anthony, I AM NOT a liberal. I am a non-interventionist paleoconservative. Would a liberal call for an article by Doug Bandow? Would many liberals cite Christian Just War Theory? Would a liberal bemoan the fact that Christians are ignoring their own faith's teachings on war?
Find out what Christian Just War Theory says about preemptive and preventative war and then get back to me.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 9:46AM
You make a hell of an argument Mike, I disagree and the reason is easily Googled with no links or references whatsoever. Damn right we want Obama to fail in socializing and weakening America, we want America to succeed you moron. What are you talking about in your last sentence about contrasting progress towards a peace agreement? All that progress Carter made by allowing the Shah to be replaced by the Nazi Mullahs? Funny how they released all the hostages the day Reagan got into office. Shouldn't expect anything coherent from you as you are a product of our failed public school system no doubt.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 9:54AM
The neo-cons remind me a lot of Jimmy Carter and his "human rights", sticking our noses into every other country's business, trying to tell them how to run their own country.
It would be like Iran telling us to be sure to count all the votes in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 9:57AM
Explain to me something Red, do you think Reagan was wrong to confront the Russians forcefully in every way possible without resorting to direct warfare like he did in regards to Poland? If you actually read the article, this is exactly what the author says we should do in regards to Iran. For any of it too work, they have to know that we will take direct action if it does indeed become necessary through their continued support for terrorism and proclaiming the destruction of Israel by nuclear means. Do you think we should just turn a blind eye and proclaim their right for "nuclear power" like the fool Obama? Anthony has good reason to think you are a liberal because you sound just like a dumb naive liberal on this issue.
Anthony| 6.19.09 @ 9:57AM
Gee Sig, what great comfort the American people should get from those quotes. No doubt about it, the Obama Administration is on the case.
Gates THINKS we're in a good postion to protect American territory. WHEW!! And to think we were worked up over nothing. So where exactly has Obama changed the paradigm with North Korea? Apparently, Hope and Change haven't registered with Kim Ill.
Bob; Not sure what your gripe is. I was responding the the loons who insist the neocons want war, first, last and always. I'm not sure your argument about not being able to topple Iran with economic sanctions is correct, but ok your point is well taken. You're right about CNBC, my bad.
Eric Damon| 6.19.09 @ 10:00AM
This is not a debate about Mousavi or Ahmadenijad, it is about the Iranian people trying to assert their right to choose their own government. It is about the right of the governed to choose leaders that will represent their views and vision if what the nation should be, not that of the mullahs who seized power in the 1970s. And despite what the left says, Obama's response has been simply shameful.
"Leader of the Free World" is the title that Obama sought with his campaing for president, and now that he has it he must live up to it. Standing mute or pretending that there was any way the Iranian elections were anything but fraudulent does nothing to advance our national interests, and it does not keep us from being blamed for the internal problems in Iran. The Iranians have, even after the president stood mute, claimed we were meddling in their affairs...the very charge Obama sought to avoid by standing aside while the protestors were being attacked and killed in the streets. I figure that if Obama is going to be accused anyway, then he should have been willing to stand for freedom...but he is too caught up in his own political prospects to take that sort of strong stand.
But should we have expected any better from him? Obama lacks any moral courage and is more of an egomaniac than even Bill Clinton. At least Clinton was willing to take a stand for freedom and liberty in Bosnia-Herzogovena and for human life in Somalia; the decisions were not good for him politically, but at least he was willing to risk his popularity for something he felt was right. This president cares more for his poll numbers than freedom, more for his Q-rating than liberty, and more for being on the cover of Us-Weekly than standing for what is right.
God save us from this Novice-in-Chief.
Peace to benefit humanity| 6.19.09 @ 10:08AM
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 7:32AM
You are a very smart person who is logical, able to thing. It's a shame others lack your ability.
I can just imagine what it would be like for Obama to send American troops to their deaths, for no real reason, like Bush sent 4.5 thousand Americans to die in Iraq, when the Iraqi people had nothing to do with Sept 11th.
But that's quickly forgotten, because your opponents don't think. It's all about as long as it's not me who is risking life and limb.
The most important thing that Obama is doing is being careful, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan - Pakistan, to add a WAR in Iran would be playing into the hands of the Iranians, American involvement in 3 WARS, how many American would die in such an operation.
Plus the risk of destablising the whole area, what would it do to the economy that is on its knees. Obama knows what the price of war would be. It's not a weakness, but the ability to work out the cost which George Bush lacked.
The only person who wants a war, is Dick Cheney, because he cleans up the rest of American Tax dollars, offering services to the American Army.
Halliburton would think it's Christmas, come early. Obama is committed to the RICH BANKERS of Wall Street, who funded his campaign. If there is another WAR it will not benefit the American masses, but American big business, the Arms industry, and huge loss of life of the American service men and women.
But the next question is the obvious, is Iran a threat to America? the answer to that is NO.
But if Iran is attacked, it would be a dark day for us all. I personally would like to see peace, and America pays attention to it's own domestic issues. Which is the ecomomy, and world trade, trade creates jobs, jobs creat wealth, and America can pay off its debt to the rest of the world. That is common sense.
Could America attack Iran, yes, but at a huge price.
Israel has signed a treaty to protect their back, can it be garanteed, this treaty signed by Israel and Turkey, is it written isn stone I think not. Has Israel honored any of the UN treaty such as the 1967 borders in Palestine no they have ignored every treaty ever signed, because America funds them to ignore every policy to peace, and as for the two state solution, it's a mouth peace to no-where, Obama knows that as well as anyone in the Middle East, none more so than the Iranians.
America is sponcering the Kurds to stir up trouble in both Turkey and Iran.
Israel has been stiring up trouble in Lebanon, in the last month at least 100 Israeli Spies have been caught inside Lebanon, to destabalise the country.
Several has been caught inside Iran as-well, they have blown up Mosques, and recently 2 weeks ago the Israelis planted a bomb on-board an Iranian passenger plane, which was what caused the 1979 revolition, which resulted in the Hostage crisis under the Jimmy Carter government being replayed again, set up and carried out by Israeli Mossad agents. The sole purpose to create a diplomatic problem with the Iranians and the Americans.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:14AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Old Texican| 6.19.09 @ 10:15AM
Hey Libs
I don't think you have to worry about a war between Iran and the US. Your President just voted "Present"....again.
What you may have to worry about is a sit down strike by we millions of Americans that support you with our taxes...right here at home.
I shall never believe our military would open fire on unarmed Americans "taking a week off without pay...and with subsequent no tax withholdings."
At this point I certainly cannot predict what will be the "camel-back breaker" for there are so many possibilities.
I know, that we productive Americans want "orderliness" and we prefer to shift our government's directions with honest dissent and remonstrance, but they don't seem to be listening to us at all....Repubs and Democrats alike.
The one thing that does encourage me is the number of independent "moderates", who voted for Mr. Obama are calling me and saying "whoah! this is not what I voted for."
Old Texican| 6.19.09 @ 10:17AM
SL
Heh...where? Here or in Iran? Heh!
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 10:20AM
The silence is deafening.
Nothing in this article, or the comments about it, talks about what is best for the United States. No one has said why it would be in the interest of the United States to take sides in the Iranian election.
For that matter, no one has said why we should support the candidate who lost. He is part of the Iranian establishment. He refuses to have a recount and is demanding a new election. Sounds like a cheater to me, that he wants to keep having elections until he wins one. One report said the protesters burned a military building while men were still in it. They don't sound like angels to me.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 10:24AM
it is about the Iranian people trying to assert their right to choose their own government
What about the Iranians who chose Ahmadenijad? Do they have a right to plead their case without foreign (US) interference?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:28AM
"Nothing in this article, or the comments about it, talks about what is best for the United States. No one has said why it would be in the interest of the United States to take sides in the Iranian election."
Obviously because it makes neocon chickenhawks feel like superior tough guys to have a boogeyman to oppose. Plus that way if we play our cards right everyone will have another chance to wave their little flags while more American boys die in another desert for nothing. That's like Christmas, Birthday and and a winning lottery ticket all rolled into one for these people.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:30AM
"What about the Iranians who chose Ahmadenijad? Do they have a right to plead their case without foreign (US) interference?"
I wonder if, after the 2004 election, these same people would have supported Ahmadenijad questioning our election results and have allowed an Iranian investigation into election fraud.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:33AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Anthony| 6.19.09 @ 10:35AM
To Peace to benefit humanity and Siegfried X; Not that it will do any good, but might I suggest you read Victor Davis Hanson's piece in today's NRO.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:43AM
"Not that it will do any good, but might I suggest you read Victor Davis Hanson's piece in today's NRO"
You mean the one where pretend "conservative" Victor David Hansen objects to an American President abandoning the left-wing foreign policy of left-wing liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson?
Woodrow Wilson was not a conservative.
Q: What kind of conservative would want a president to emulate Woodrow Wilson?
A: The kind that isn't really conservative.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:43AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 10:45AM
"it is about the Iranian people trying to assert their right to choose their own government"
"What about the Iranians who chose Ahmadenijad? Do they have a right to plead their case without foreign (US) interference? "
There it is. This is the argument that leaves us wounded as a nation. This person does not know what tyrany is, does not understand that his "Rights" are paid for in American blood, and does not accept the truth that these people need the symbol of American freedom as a banner for their "Rights". Many more will die, as people who have had enough are often willing to do rather then submit to tyrany. I don't know who you are Mr. X, but I do know you are not where I look to protect my freedom, as you seem willingly able to confuse yourself with delusional thinking about what exactly it costs to be able to even post here.
Freedom is what is best for the United States. First, last, and always, that is the bottom line. If you disagree with that as a priority of our national interests, then indeed, we have already abdicated our "Rights" and the willingness to pay the highest price for it. Every generation of my family since we came here over a hundred years ago has served in this country's military, and some of the comments here about the waste of American lives in pursuit of our Countries Idealogy of freedom, regardless of the policies of presidents past and present, disgusts me.
The Iranians will never break the back of tyrany without being willing to pay the price, as it has always been throughout history.
I'm sure you would believe that thought process I have just digressed is extremist, neocon, (whatever the heck that means), foolishness, interventionist, or whatever else you might gin up.
I ask you sir, are willing to die for me?
Liberal Reader| 6.19.09 @ 10:45AM
While this article and many of the comments skillfully repeat the points Hannity and Limbaugh have been making all week, the reactionary response to Obama's strategy is misguided and wrongheaded.
Iranians remember 1953 the way we remember 2001. In 1953 the CIA helped depose the Iranian government and reinstall the Shaw, a brutal fascist dictator almost universally hated by the Iranian people.
Iranians of all political persuasions -- moderates, hard-liners, and revolutionaries are unified by this humiliation and they deeply resent the US's meddling in their internal politics.
Obama knows the US cannot be seen to be meddling in an Iranian election. OF COURSE the US is meddling; we've always done that. But it has to be done with restraint and covertly.
Reagan was in a completely different position with regards to Poland. THE US HAD NEVER BACKED AN UNPOPULAR AND UNIVERSALLY REVILED COUP D'ETAT IN POLAND!!!!
You people need to get some perspective on world events other than what the disc jockeys on the radio say.
Read some journalism about what is going on in Iran. Obama is handling this situation just right.
Crusader| 6.19.09 @ 10:46AM
SLT, you must have misunderstood my post.
My point is why do we care about the Iranian election? Whoever is the "president" still answers to the eeee-mawms who really run the show. If the Iranian people wanted freedom they would convert en masse to Christianity. Islam is bondage, whether the "fundamental" or the "moderate" version. (Not that we've ever been able to find the so-called "moderate" muslim--I think we'll find a Sasquatch first.) Seeing as how I do not support bondage or a "religion" that calls for my death, I could care less who is "president" of Iran.
Over on American Thinker they are calling he protesters "freedom fighters." Wow. Go to a tea party and our gubmint calls you a low-level terrorist, and the right stands silent. Some weirded-out kook muslim Persians fight over who gets to bow to the mullahs and they're "freedom fighters." Says a lot I think.
America is dead.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:46AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Son Of Sam | 6.19.09 @ 10:49AM
Hmmmm.... a radical nutcase steals an election using voter fraud and stick wielding thugs, millions of ordinary people rise up in protest and "somehow" the TelePrompter In Chief thinks that supporting those people who want their vote to actually count for something would be "meddling". He is nothing but a weak kneed impotent coward. "Yes We Can?" Well, when it really actually MATTERS, no you damned well DON'T!
And as for all of you smug, hate-filled, insensitive jackasses like "S.L. Toddard", "Red Phillips", "Mike", "Siegfried X": you don't want "neo cons" interfering? Fine: why don't the likes of you go to Iran right this second and explain your reasons for standing by while they get crushed. Explain your silence to all those people there, who are risking their lives for the sake of the freedom you take for granted. You selfish scumbags, you would hang your heads in shame, but its obvious you don't have any. "Bomb Iran?" THE ARTICLE DIDN'T SAY THAT, you stupid jackasses! It only said that the President of our country should show some MORAL support for people who are trying to gain their rights.
But then, what would morons like you know about moral?
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:51AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Crusader| 6.19.09 @ 10:54AM
"I ask you sir, are willing to die for me?"
This is one of them thar Hannity specials "You hate freedom, right?"
I am willing to do a lot for my freedom. Dying in some far away islamic sh*thole country is not one of them. It serves no purpose to my wife, son, or daughters. The muslims will still want to kill my son and rape my wife and daughters. There can be no freedom as we know it in the West (slowly diminishing, BTW) under islam. Period.
Tell ya what, when a Christian church is constructed in Saudi Arabia or converts to Christianity don't get killed in Afghanistan I'll be willing to go there and help the ol' "freedom fighters" out. Until then, eff 'em.
Mikw | 6.19.09 @ 10:55AM
Someone named Mike writes: "as I'm sure you would go for firing squads, home siezures, detention and persecution of us traitorous citizens. How refreshing it is to hear Iran tyrany and anti semitism so well spoken by a neolib right here at home. " No, you have it wrong as you usually do. I wouldn't support any of the above any more than I supported unwarranted, secret spying on American citizens or spirited defenses of torture or a disregard for due process. As usual, you are projecting the worst of the right onto the left. Please stop with the anit-semitism bulls***t. The definition of anti-semitism is not the espousal of any idea with which you disagree. Who supports tyranny in Iran. I just don't want another monumental screw-up in Iran like the neo-cons gave us in Iraq.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 10:59AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
dcd| 6.19.09 @ 11:01AM
The fall in oil prices due to the economic downturn has done more to forment change in Iran than the past decade of bluster. If the US were interested in disposing of unfriendly tyrants (Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin) not subsidizing them would be a good start.
Crusader| 6.19.09 @ 11:01AM
Exactly what "freedoms" are these people fighting for? What "freedoms" can there be under an islamic regime? I don't get it. Just because some people oppose ackmydinnersbad they are our "friends" and deserve our support? Because the VOTED against him? WTF have they been DOING these last few years if they oppose him so much?????? WTF have they been doing when ackmydinnersbad called for wiping Israel off the map? NOW they want help? God helps those who help themselves, huh?
Tell ya what, why don't THEY take up arms against ackmydinnersbad? Why do I have to? Why does ANY AMERICAN have to? How about they give themselves "moral support?"
Freedom. In an islamic country. Disillusionment.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 11:12AM
"or a disregard for due process."
Tell that to Mr Walpin.....
"I just don't want another monumental screw-up in Iran like the neo-cons gave us in Iraq. "
You still don't get it. As if fighting for freedom is supposed to go well with no mistakes. Ask ole George Washington about that one...
"Have you sided with the part of the Jewish community that supports right wing Israeli politicians instead of the part genuinely working for peace?"
That is a LIE, period. There will be NO peace in Israel with the Muslims, EVER. And to even think for one moment that possibility even exists shows a lack of understanding the truth behind why there is emnity between them.
Just in case you don't get it, both sides have a history going back to Isaac and Ishmael that has never abated, will never abate.
And crusader, where is God in your picture? Isn't your neighbor everyman in this world? Or are Samaritans the only ones who get it....
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 11:14AM
What proof do you people have of voter fraud?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 11:19AM
"You still don't get it. As if fighting for freedom is supposed to go well with no mistakes. Ask ole George Washington about that one... "
I just did. He said:
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country"
So that's that, I guess.
"That is a LIE, period. There will be NO peace in Israel with the Muslims, EVER."
Is Israel at war with Turkey or is Israel at peace with Turkey?
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 11:27AM
The VDH article doesn't address any of my concerns, except it makes a really brief case that the challenger is the lesser of two evils.
Even if we agree for the sake of argument that's true, VDH doesn't explain why Obama publicly taking sides would help the challenger win. Why would everyone in Iran fall to the ground just because Obama opened his mouth?
The only answer is that VDH and the others are lying, concealing their true intention. The only explanation is that the neo-cons want war with Iran. They hope that if Obama publicly took sides, it would start down a slippery slope which led to a US invasion of Iran.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 11:44AM
S.L. Toddard,
In case you do not realize it, Turkey is a secular country and that is why they are peaceful with Israel. Turkey is the model of a Muslim country able to function peaceably in the modern world. That is why we should do everything we can to topple the fascist Mullahs in Iran so Iran can become a secular state that does not preach the destruction of Israel as a core tenet and continue their support for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. The Mullahs are really what is being protested against and not so much about who got the most votes though clearly they hate the dwarf thug who wants to steal the election. Iran is a very young country and they are sick of the oppression from these thugs and crave freedom. To offer moral support for their cause is not "meddling" but is the right action in the fight against evil and oppression. I don't think anyone in modern day Poland is upset at Reagan for "meddling".
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 11:57AM
S.L. Toddard....
I read the whole speech. And if you understand the time line, you will notice that it specifically adds that this was about Europe and set forth so that we would not allow ourselves to be involved in their politics to our detriment, ie., we are not to be like them.
This speech from one of our founding Fathers does indeed imply that through our strength we can remain true to our ideals. Through our strength we can maintain what we have fought so hard for. For the most part, we have stuck to these truths, having commerce with the majority of the world in peace and coexistence even if such entity did not completely reflect our idealogy.
It's when tyrany crosses over to impede that, we act. Using President Washington's exit speech to make your point is admirable, but allows one to point the finger back at you. We have already proven him right, and have indeed fallen in various ways as he pointed out. But we have also done much right as well. A good man he was, and knew his words would be needed everyday to guide our Nation and keep it from making the mistake of assuming to see tyranny where none exists except in the minds of those wanting to use such for personal gain and power, yet to be strong enough to fight it when recognized as a real threat to those ideals of peace and commerce.
We still have moral authority, but used only after well thought out national debate and set by our example as free people. No where did I imply we should willy nilly go looking for a fight. Iraq was a threat to that interest. China is not. North Korea is a threat to that interest, Russia is not. The Caliphate of Iran is a threat to that interest. Saudi Arabia is not. Turkey is a secular government that understands commerce and peace. The Taliban is not.
Commerce is what brings peace and stability, creating common ground for many nations of diverse ethnicity and beliefs. Tyrany is not about commerce and peace, it seeks to rule and destroy at the behest of a few over the many. We have the strength and as Washington said, the authority to stand against it.....blah blah blah...my fingers are tired....
But, to your credit, and as a humble opponant who agrees with some but not all of what you say, I salute you as a fellow American. Thank you so much for posting that. (and I mean that in all sincerity).
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 11:59AM
Obama - MAN OF CAPTION!
Without the teleprompter, B.O. can do nothing. And apparently TOTUS is on vacation at the moment B.O. needs him most.
Siegfried X,
Why do you keep arguing with straw men of your own making?
Let me explain, so even you might understand.
-The hope is that B.O. will act presidential, like President Reagan, and speak in defense of freedom and the protesters.
-This will hopefully inspire the protesters to persevere against the oligarchic Mullahs and keep up the pressure.
-Hopefully critical mass will be achieved and a new revolution will occur.
This should be right up Mr. Hope and Change's alley.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 11:59AM
Mike,
Okay if you tell it to the U.S. attorneys dismissed for being unwilling to politicize their office.
How long did it take Bush and company to get around to the "we're fighting for freedom in Iraq" justification?
And believe it or not, there are Israelis and Jews in America who do not view the world through the eyes of the settlers. For sure there will never be peace in the Middle East if people with mind sets like yours call the shots.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 12:19PM
"Okay if you tell it to the U.S. attorneys dismissed for being unwilling to politicize their office."
Agreed....
How long did it take Bush and company to get around to the "we're fighting for freedom in Iraq" justification?
Agreed....but with a caveat.....we all know it was about the fact Saddam was disrupting our ability to promote stability and commerce in the region that lies directly in line with our national interests.
Perhaps if we were not so dependent on foriegn oil imports, we would not be so inclined to intervene.
Sounds like a double standard huh?
I wish so much we didn't have these issues and could just do our own thing and to hell with the rest of the world, but it doesn't work that way, as Dad said, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first."
janet| 6.19.09 @ 12:24PM
Siegfried,
People like you will never understand or appreciate the underlying concepts and principles of promoting democracy, peacefully, worldwide. Ronald Reagan exemplified like no other the concept of peace through strength. Like a previous blogger noted, you just HATE the fact that Reagan's policies PEACEFULLY brought down the Soviet Union. If it were not for the FACT that the USSR had to keep up the arms race with US, their economic system collapsed because all their resources were diverted towards the arms race. I remember the left back then screaming that the arms race was going to lead to nuclear hell, which it did not. It only brought down the USSR sooner.
Nowhere in these posts is anybody calling for the US to enter a war in Iran. The only one calling for war is YOU with your lauding Obama for using the military to go after North Korea. When you said that this article talked about secret writings that Reagan had in his diaries and that maybe Obama has as well, you overlook the FACT that what Reagan wrote about in his diaries WAS CONSISTENT with his public policy statements and principles. Don't ever compare Reagan to an Obama. Reagan stood for freedom, liberty, and democracy based on principle. Something the likes of you and Obama cannot comprehend.
By the way, Siegfried, go back to your day job with Roy and amuse audiences there. Otherwise, keep your fascist impulses in check.
Steve in Fla| 6.19.09 @ 12:26PM
Let's be patient everyone! BHO needs time to run a poll, convene a focus group, meet with George Soros, analyze how this "crisis" can benefit Liberalcrats and figure out a way to blame Bush before he reads a carefully compose "statement" with a look of "grave" concern on his face of a teleprompter.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 12:34PM
Steve in Fla.
You are a master of the cliche. No other intellectual activity evident in your post, but I do accede to your prowess in this one.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 12:38PM
"Iraq was a threat to that interest"
One does not invade a country and slaughter its inhabitents if a country threatens ones "interests". Indeed, Japan threatens our "interests" by making better cars than America. That is not a casus belli.
Iraq posed no threat to U.S. national security. The casus belli brought before the American people was a canard. And even that false casus belli was not a true one, as it was nevere demonstrated that Iraq had any plans to attack America.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 12:39PM
“In case you do not realize it, Turkey is a secular country”
Yes, with a primarily Muslim population. You said “there will be NO peace in Israel with the Muslims, EVER”.
Is Israel at peace with Turkey?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 12:42PM
"Nowhere in these posts is anybody calling for the US to enter a war in Iran"
OK so you do not believe that there is any reason to use the military for "regime change" in Iran, or that their alleged "nuclear weapons" program is grounds for military action?
I hope everyone else here agrees with you.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 12:42PM
Also, what proof do you people have of voter fraud?
Karen in VA| 6.19.09 @ 12:51PM
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free." --Ronald Reagan
Something we need to remember.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 12:54PM
You are quoting someone else and not me Toddard. There certainly will be no peace for Israel as long as the Mullahs remain in power in Iran because they are the focus of the conflict. There is no two-state solution as long as the Iranian proxy's Hamas and Hezbollah are allowed to exert their influence in their attempt to destroy the state of Israel. Anyone who says otherwise is a naive fool or a liar that hates Israel.
The fact is there will be no peace as long as the fascist Mullahs stay in power and continue to exert their poisonous ideology. Saudi Arabia is very complicit as well in this as well but Iran is the bigger problem.
DaveS| 6.19.09 @ 1:03PM
Reagan: state the principle, and then make your subordinates take action. Put Ron on the rock. Now, as for Iran, the theocracy rules; any thought of democratic reform for the next three decades is pipe smoke. Only from without can Iran be heeled. Iran would be dismantling now if Ronaldus Maximus was in the Oval Office - and without his feet up on the desk. And, yes, there are still two legs of the 'Axis' left - and there will still be while BHO is supreme leader.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 1:05PM
"you just HATE the fact that Reagan's policies PEACEFULLY brought down the Soviet Union"
President Reagan, who I strongly supported, used whatever tools were appropriate to defend the United States. I am a conservative and that was one of the greatest things about him. He didn't use force which would be counter productive and hurt our cause, just for the sake of being tough.
For example, back then some Republicans said that we could only win by a hot war against the communists. We needed to over throw the Soviet Union by force, and anyone who disagreed was weak and didn't understand freedom. They said that each and every communist was dedicated to world domination so there could be no peace as long as there were communists. (Just as some people today say that all Muslims are dedicated to world domination and we could never have peace with them.) "Kill them all and let God sort them out" was a slogan back then.
But Reagan used whichever tools were best for us, ranging from economic pressure to covert ops to military action. And once the head was cut off the Soviet Union, surprise surprise, most of those communists were freedom loving, normal people like us.
Obama, who seems to be a fighting Democrat like JFK, is following Reagan by not doing things which would hurt our cause like publicly endorsing the Iranian protesters.
Eric Damon| 6.19.09 @ 1:08PM
Crusader:
Who besides you and the liberals posting here are talking about taking up arms against Iran? Neither the author nor the posters have mentioned any type of direct intervention into the internal affairs of Iran, just as the US had no direct intervention in the affairs of communist-occupied Poland in the early 1980s. The entire point of the article is that the revolution in Poland succeeded in large measure because the people rising against the communist regime there knew that the US administration stood in their corner in opposing the tyrants who had stolen control of their nation. We had a president then who valued freedom more than poll numbers, and who was willing to take a stand that was unpopular with the press of the day and ran contrary to the wishes of a Democrat controlled Congress. Freedom and liberty deserve at least a stronger statement of support than some milquetoast words about "concern" and "vigorous internal debates".
As for the silly question of where were these people earlier, they were there living their lives under an oppressive regime. They are not so much protesting to see Mousavi installed, they are rising up to protest their oppression by the mullahs. And that protest has cost the lives of at least 7 citizens, the arrests of scores of opposition voices, and an attempt at a complete media blackout of what is happening in the nation. And yet somewhow you and the liberals posting here conflate a call for President Obama to stand with the protestors with a call for war? What war would be launched by Obama doing what he does best...reading a soaring speech from his favorite teleprompter?
As for SL Toddard's repeated query "What proof do you people have of voter fraud?", I can say we have no definitive proof. We do have a strong suspicion that when a winner is declared in a national election and ally gives him 65% of the vote...all BEFORE the polls are even closed, that is pretty indicative that SOMETHING is fishy with the election results! Besides, why are you so sure that there ISN'T voter fraud in Iran? You seem to be one that probably still believes there was GOP fraud in Florida in 2000, yet you believe that an election where a small group of imams choose the candidates that can be on the ballot and controls the tallying of votes is somehow free and fair!
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:20PM
"There certainly will be no peace for Israel as long as the Mullahs remain in power"
Is Israel currently at war with Iran?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:22PM
"Only from without can Iran be heeled. Iran would be dismantling now if Ronaldus Maximus was in the Oval Office"
Really? How did Ronaldus Maximus treat with Iran when he WAS in office? Was Iran freer back then - more democratic?
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 1:23PM
Siegfried,
Do not even compare that naive coward Obama with the great Ronald Reagan. Do you think Obama would have stood up to the Soviets? No, he would have been exactly like that weakling Carter and let the Soviets walk all over him. You think Reagan would make some inane comment about not wanting to "meddle" in the affairs of Iran? In all due respect, your reasoning is idiotic.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:25PM
"I can say we have no definitive proof."
How about proof of any sort?
"You seem to be one that probably still believes there was GOP fraud in Florida in 2000"
You mean when the post election results were different than pre-election polls? Not me. What kind of an idiot would assume voter fraud just because the post election results were different than pre-election polls?
Bob| 6.19.09 @ 1:26PM
Eric, you missed the point. If you back the "reformists" (who are not really reformists, by the way), and they lose, are you going to go in and protect them from the theocracy when the crack down occurs? If you don't go in and protect them, they won't they be angry at the U.S. for not backing up rhetoric with action? That is why you must be prepared for military action if you back the reformists. Your thinking, and that of McCain as well, is shallow. The Reagan analogy makes absolutely no sense here -- and Reagan would probably agree with Obama's actions. He was a true conservative who believed you only went into war if you had to...
janet| 6.19.09 @ 1:31PM
Eric Damon,
Excellent insights.
As a person of Polish descent living in the US, I will always give credit and be indebted to Reagan and the late Pope John Paul, for all the support they showed to the Poles. I can tell you firsthand how important it is for people living under tyranny to know that they have the support of the free world in their quest for freedom and democracy. The morale that it provides is priceless. People in Iran today should hear the same kind of support from Obama. Telling the world that it is not the business of the US to stand and fight for freedom goes against the very principle of what made this country great. The US should not cede moral authority on this.
Todd| 6.19.09 @ 1:33PM
They are definitely in an indirect war through Hamas and Hezbollah moron. What do you think the purpose of those Iranian funded groups are? They were created to wage an indirect war against Israel because of the repeated failures against Israel in direct wars. The Palestinian's are nothing but propaganda to be used in their war against Israel. As to Reagan, they released the US hostages the day he was inaugurated because they knew he meant business. There is no way Iran would be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon under Reagan much like Iraq had their reactors bombed when Reagan as President by supporting the Israeli attack.
Sassy| 6.19.09 @ 1:35PM
An empty limousine pulled up to the curb and Obama, Toddard and Bob got out. All three liberal losers are afraid of their own shadows.
BOO!
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:44PM
"They are definitely in an indirect war through Hamas and Hezbollah moron"
Oh I'm sorry - I asked if Israel was at war with Iran. It's a yes or no question, really. Do you know the answer? Because I can tell you, if you don't.
"As to Reagan, they released the US hostages the day he was inaugurated because they knew he meant business."
Do you mean literal "business", like a business transaction wherein the following were sold to the Mullahs whose gov't you believe Reagan would now "dismantle":
* August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
* September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
* November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
* February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
* February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
* May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
* August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
* October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs
Or by "dismantle" do you mean "arm to the teeth"?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:46PM
"There is no way Iran would be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon under Reagan"
Are Iran allowed to develop a nuclear weapon under Obama? Has Obama armed the Iranians?
Old Texican| 6.19.09 @ 1:47PM
Mr Tomlinson
We miss your insights here on this thread. I can certainly appereciate you taking a rest; I have been enjoying your first hand experiences lending depth to your observations in some other threads.
We just gotta keep speaking the truth the best we understand it. We have to keep encouraging the rational people who visit here.
We have to also continue to remonstrate with honest Americans here to ignore and chuckle at the obvious trolls, loosers, and ostriches here.
On July 3rd, (5 PM) I am going to attend my second Tea Party here in Houston at the George R. Brown Convention Center "Green" across the street.
I hope we can double the numbers we saw on April 15 (about fifty thousand here in greater Houston's seven tea parties.)
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 1:56PM
"We have to also continue to remonstrate with honest Americans here to ignore and chuckle at the obvious trolls, loosers, and ostriches here."
What kind of loser can't even spell "loser"?
Paul McGrath| 6.19.09 @ 2:10PM
These posts can become very tiring in that they fail to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of American or world history.
The U. S. was founded on the very simple premise that "all men are created equal," and that all have a right to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These truths are indeed, "self-evident," and universal. The leftists here would have you believe and seem to believe themselves that because the U. S. has failed on occasion to live up to these lofty ideals, we therefore have no right to espouse them. This is a rather childish and naive way of looking at the world; most adults understand that all men are flawed, and doomed by their very nature to be imperfect.
But if we as Americans believe in these ideals, and I certainly do, then we must believe that all humans are entitled to these basic rights, and we therefore have a moral obligation to do as much as we possibly can to see that all humans obtain these rights.
The straw men set up by the dishonest people here who claim that Mr. Lord is advocating war are just that: Mr. Lord said no such thing. What he said is that if nothing else, our leader--the leader of the free world--can express our belief in the cause of freedom in order to give some faint glimmer of hope to those who are now fighting and dying for it in a country that is controlled by one of the most vicious governments on the earth. These poor, desparate people deserve every bit of our support and we should make this known in the loudest, clearest, most unequivocal terms.
To do so, of course, would require some courage. To not do so, for any reason, is simply cowardice.
Do the right thing, President Obama.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 2:11PM
The comparison with Poland is ridiculous. Poland was invaded by another country. The Iranian dispute involves only their own country, and it is about a democratic election held under their own constitution.
The Iranian challenger is part of their Islamic ruling class, a former government official. Lech Walesa was a working man from a shipyard.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 2:27PM
If we interfere in Iran's democratic election, then what is the next step? Tell them which mullah should lead their friday prayers?
Nothing hurts freedom more than for a foreign government to interfere with elections. Would we in the US be more free if the Iranians told us that our Minnesota voters deserve to be represented by two senators, so we should stop following our legal process and immediately confirm Franken (or Coleman)?
Rantly McTirade| 6.19.09 @ 2:31PM
Apparantly, the Obozo can tell the difference between Western Christians and stinking Muslim filth of humanity.
I would hope Reagan would have been able to do same.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.19.09 @ 2:35PM
“Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.” Big J that is the understatement of the millennium. For those who wonder if Obama is doing things behind the scenes read his lips – he’s pandering to Muslim extremism and hate not promoting freedom in Muslim nations. While Mr. Lord uses “secret” letters and actions to illustrate Reagan’s fight for democracy it was also evident in his speeches and other public actions that he supported spreading democracy to the oppressed. Obama is the exact opposite. (I’m sure Toddard or Philips will bad mouth Reagan as an interventionist, but they’re ramblings are mere paranoid farts blowing in the wind based on a shabby understanding of American and world history.)
All good conservatives want Obama’s policies of appeasing Muslim extremism and rogue nations to fail. We also want his economic policies and eagerness to supplant the Constitution and rule of law with his whims and will too fail. We want him to stop castrating the military and in light of the threats in this world continue developing our missile defense shield (the one he hates, but Gates’ says will protect Hawaii). None of this is treason it is democratic politics. Obama may be an Ernest Rohm type of neo-fascist, but America isn’t yet a fascist state yet. We have the freedom to oppose Obama and his policies.
Treason is when Democrat Senators and staffers illegally leak classified documents to the NY Times and other liberal rags. Treason is when members of Congress who voted to go to war turn on that war and seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for crass political purposes. Some might even think bowing to a foreign potentate in reverence is treason. What about a political party putting a foreign born national in the Presidency would that be treason?
As for the coward who called Reagan retarded without signing their name that speaks volumes about you and your infantile babble.
Hopefully and prayerfully, the number of Iranians who want democracy is sizable enough to topple the tyrants who rule their land. If the desire of the Iranian people is for democracy then as a nation we should lend them our moral support and encouragement. If civil war is the outcome of this call for democracy then we should support the champions of democracy with funding and materiel. Even if this isn’t the case it affords our country another opportunity to champion the principles of freedom by stating firmly we support a truly democratic Iran. That will cost us zero in blood or treasure, but it would be affirming of our own democratic values (not yet squashed by Obama or the nationalist right).
Mac Skiba you’re spot on about the lunatic fringe. They’d rather be obtuse and cling to neocon conspiracy theories. One wonders when they say neocon do they mean Jew and like MoveOn.org is it a reflection of their paranoia driven by anti-Semitism. If so it explains their defensiveness about and sympathy for Islamo-fascism and rogue states like Iran.
Mac, if reports that the Iranian people want democracy are to be believed Moussavi (a mullah approved candidate) might be more a symbol of the people’s pent up feelings and frustrations rather than the embodiment of their hopes and aspirations. If this is true they need a strong American President to act as midwife for the fledgling democracy much like Jimmy Carter was the midwife of the current repressive theocratic tyranny. Sadly, I fear the current vaginal foreign policy of our country will be a repeat of America’s “response” to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and/or the 1968 Czech Spring.
Mac and Chris remember on the right and left the appeasers of tyranny historically talk about saving lives, but their policies of co-existence result in greater carnage and destruction. It is also mystifying why those on the nationalist right aim their ire, rancor and wrath at people like Reagan and Bush who believe in democracy. Wouldn’t it be better to join us now and focus on the real domestic threat to liberty? Of course not, the Toddard’s of America hate conservatives more than radical leftists, because they share the same antipathy for encouraging democracy and freedom for anyone, but themselves.
We should also be cynical when the appeasers hide behind the bodies of our dead troops. If they care about the troops why don’t they do something constructive and call for military pay(active duty, retiree, reserve and Guard) to be exempt from all Federal taxes – why should the military be the only Americans to sacrifice twice? Like the left their “concern” seems more a propagandistic tool than genuine. But that’s merely an observation from one who serves.
For those who rationally fear Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but are uncertain as to their current motives the best way to determine if their program is being developed for peaceful energy purposes as they claim and not a WMD is to provide them with oil refineries and the technology to turn their abundant oil reserves into cheap energy for fueling their nation. Of course, they must be willing to give up their nuclear ambitions altogether. Their response to such a proposal would be insightful.
Ultimately, it is the Commander-in-Chief’s decision to defend this country. If that means a ground war in Iran I’ll be there (unlike the apparently UN loving Toddard, his soul-mate Philips and Herr Siegfried . . .). Prayerfully, a war will be unnecessary. Bush and the neocons were able to do it without taking the military option off the diplomatic table. Something something some of you obviously missed.
Hopefully, if we do use our military against Iran it isn’t in response to a nuclear detonation in the US, because by then it will be too late.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 2:44PM
Obama - MAN OF CAPTION!
Siegfried X,
You wrote: "The comparison with Poland is ridiculous. Poland was invaded by another country."
Yeah, in 1939! What is ridiculous is your knowledge of history.
Also: "Would we in the US be more free if the Iranians told us that our Minnesota voters deserve to be represented by two senators, so we should stop following our legal process and immediately confirm Franken (or Coleman)?"
Because there is complete moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S. of A., right?
30 years ago, 52 Americans were being held hostage by Iran. Ahmadinejad was one of the creeps. Were you one of the guys I saw on tv burning an American flag, Siegfried?
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 2:54PM
The military invasion, from J. Lord's article:
As Walesa and his fellow Poles demanded the most basic of human liberties, Moscow responded by sending troops on maneuvers along the Polish border, then installing a military government with instructions to stop Walesa in his tracks.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 3:01PM
Mr. McGrath, America was not "founded" on a "premise." That is proposition nation nonsense, and it is an entirely LIBERAL conception. America was formed BY a particular people at a particular time in a particular place. People with a particular heritage, a particular religion, a particular culture, etc. Seriously, can you not see how this America as universal nation with a mandate to spread goodness and light is rank, unadulterated Jacobinism? It is not conservative in any sense whatsoever.
Most everyone here needs a little Conservatism 101. Please read this or click on my name.
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/20_01/bradford.pdf
I know no one is going to tell me Mel Bradford doesn’t know what he is talking about re. conservatism.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 3:04PM
Bob,
Why are you commenting on anything?
With all your Ivy League education, you just recently learned the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, DID NOT give blacks 3/5 of a vote.
You need "to go away and learn something about foreign policy and the Supreme Court and the Constitution."
Ya' know, like you chided Gov. Palin to do.
Go crack a book, would ya' Bob.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 3:14PM
Obama - MAN OF CAPTION!
Siegfried X,
That is not an INVASION, it is a puppet government.
Are they also equivalent in your world?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 3:37PM
"Mr. McGrath, America was not "founded" on a "premise." That is proposition nation nonsense, and it is an entirely LIBERAL conception."
You and I are the only two people here who have any idea what you're talking about, Red. You might as well be speaking Martian. Amspec believe that the belief that America is a credal nation with a mandate to bring Glorious Freedom to the world is a central tenet of - of all things - "Conservatism".
I don't think you can approach this like you're speaking to wayward conservatives. You're speaking to un-reconstructed leftist Wilsonian imperialists.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 3:37PM
That should read "Amspec READERS believe that..."
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 3:53PM
the belief that America is a credal nation with a mandate to bring Glorious Freedom
That's like the Bush administrations ridiculous "war on terror". If one tribe is terrorizing another in the middle of Africa, we are supposed to break it up as part of the war on terror?
Joe B| 6.19.09 @ 3:58PM
Iran is a really lame country. There are no real ideological differences between the two candidates so I'm guessing the demonstrations are really just twitter driven flash mobs. In future it will be interesting to see if twitter is used in other places to create mob actions. Perhaps a race riot could be sparked in LA over which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi.
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 4:01PM
“While Mr. Lord uses “secret” letters and actions to illustrate Reagan’s fight for democracy it was also evident in his speeches and other public actions that he supported spreading democracy to the oppressed”
That is an absolutely meaningless statement.
“Obama may be an Ernest Rohm type of neo-fascist…”
You mean “fascist” as in “someone I dislike”, right? Because the definition is:
fas⋅cism
Show Spelled [fash-iz-uh m] Show IPA
–noun
1.(sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Demonstrate that Obama A) exercises absolute power, that he forcibly suppresses opposition, that he regiments *all* industry and commerce (not *some*, as Obama, Bush and their predecessors, including Reagan, have) and that he rules with an emphasis on “aggressive nationalism”.
Or, of course, you could retract and cease using the word “fascist” until you learn what it means (maybe print the above definition and read it aloud to yourself a number of times)
“Treason is when Democrat Senators and staffers illegally leak classified documents to the NY Times and other liberal rags. Treason is when members of Congress who voted to go to war turn on that war and seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for crass political purposes. Some might even think bowing to a foreign potentate in reverence is treason. What about a political party putting a foreign born national in the Presidency would that be treason?”
Actually none of those are treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Sorry, but your examples clearly (and obviously) do not fit the definition of “treason”, regardless of how you stretch it. Perhaps you should not use words unless you first make yourself familiar with what they actually mean.
“If the desire of the Iranian people is for democracy then as a nation we should lend them our moral support and encouragement.”
You mean like we did when the people of Iran democratically elected Mossadegh? Or do you believe Eisenhower was an enemy of Freedom and Glorious Democracy?
“ It is also mystifying why those on the nationalist right aim their ire, rancor and wrath at people like Reagan and Bush who believe in democracy”
Because Bush broke multiple laws of our Democracy – the Rule of Law is intrinsic to a Constitutional Republic, as it is literally all that separates us from Tyranny.
“Wouldn’t it be better to join us now and focus on the real domestic threat to liberty? Of course not, the Toddard’s of America”
Oh my. Do you really not know when to use an apostrophe?
“hate conservatives more than radical leftists, because they share the same antipathy for encouraging democracy and freedom for anyone, but themselves”
I’m sorry again, but you are no “conservative”. It is another word with which you are unfamiliar. You should stop using it as well.
“We should also be cynical when the appeasers hide behind the bodies of our dead troops.”
By whose policies are four thousand of them now dead? The opponents of the war in Iraq or your own?
“Bush and the neocons were able to do it without taking the military option off the diplomatic table”
To do what?
“Hopefully, if we do use our military against Iran it isn’t in response to a nuclear detonation in the US, because by then it will be too late.”
Iran does not posess a nuclear weapon. Do you have evidence otherwise, or is this more chickenhearted scaremongering from another scaredy-cat neoconservative?
Paul McGrath| 6.19.09 @ 4:05PM
Not sure what you're trying to get at, Red, but my statement is sound. The founding documents do not describe a particular kind of people or a particular kind of culture or a particular kind of religion, they instead describe a philosophy: again, "all men are created equal," and all men have the right to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
And I did not say that we have an obligation to wander the earth spreading this around. I do, however, argue that we have the obligation to support it in meaningful ways when on those occasions it sprouts up. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why is this so difficult to DO?
Because, by God, if we don't believe in ourselves, nobody else will either.
Siegfried X| 6.19.09 @ 4:34PM
"Why is this so difficult to DO?"
Because if military action is required, the lives of our troops are at risk. Those troops signed up with the promise that they would be defending the United States of America, not fighting for the "freedom" of every nation on earth.
This is especially a problem when neo-cons seem to be starting wars for the benefit of countries in the middle east, not for the safety of the United States of America.
If we are going to change the mission of the US military to fighting evil all over the globe, and fighting civil wars for whoever wants it, then we should inform every soldier and give him a chance to either sign onto the new mission or drop out.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 4:35PM
Mr. Toddard,
You, of all people, are admonishing others on the meaning of words and correct grammer?
Pot calling kettle black.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 5:05PM
Or GRAMMAR, as the rest of the world spells it.
D'oh!
janet| 6.19.09 @ 5:07PM
YES, SL TODDARD, OBAMA SAYS IT IS OKAY FOR IRAN TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. He stated that Iran has the right to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Remember, Obama, in his infinite wisdom thinks they only have peaceful intentions. Probablly thinks the same about North Korea. Reagan would never tolerate that. PLEASE stop comparing the two. You really are becoming tiresome in that regard.
What part of Obama's road to fascism do you not understand?
You say:
1.(sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
What do you call Obama nationalizing the auto industry? What do you call Obama taking over the banks? What do you call Obama UNILATERALLY absconding bankruptcy and contractual laws in this country? What do you call Obama's wanting to decide for himself what salaries PRIVATE BUSINESSES should pay their employees? For all the inexperience Obama has, he DOES have plenty of experience in dealing with opposing politicians. What do you call his firing of inspectors just because they were investigating him? What do you call Obama's pledge of "transparency in government" when he ordered his Labor Secretary to allow the Union NOT to report where and how much money they spend, reversing 8 years of Bush's policy regarding the same? Start researching his days in Chicago for starters. What to you call the road to nationalizion of the "free press" in this country? They are becoming an appendage of Obama's administration. They handpick who will be at his press conferences asking questions for God's sake. What do you call Obama wanting to nationalize healthcare and overhaul the banking systems and to move QUICKLY just like he did with the bailouts? His excuse is that everything is an "emergency" and he does not want to hear alternative views on his healthcare policy whatsoever. Hence the wanting to rush things through. With a Congress high on the Obama drug, who will put the brakes on him? Who will be the check on a President who rules by fiat like he is a king? I don't know how the hell you can NOT call Obama a fascist. Remember, Hitler was a LEFTIST SOCIALIST. I see much similarities between Obama and a Hitler. They even share a hatred of Jews, as Obama's stances toward Israel shows.
YES, OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE DOES HAVE FASCIST TENDENCIES.
You are delusional if you think you and Red are the only two that know what's going on here. I sure as hell hope you hold no positions in government or education in which you will propogate your dangerous ideas.
You may wish that your viewpoints have some validity but history has thrown your ideas in the trash heap.
Red Phillips | 6.19.09 @ 5:42PM
Paul, the idea that America is a creedal nation founded on ideas and "principles" (and hence universal) instead of a particular nation founded by a particular people is pernicious and destructive of all things conservative. And Heaven help us if the principle that we were founded on is unmitigated egalitarianism. If it is then say hello to gay marriage and women in combat.
William R| 6.19.09 @ 5:59PM
Obama never said Iraq had a right to develop nuclear weapons. He did say Iraq has a right to develop nuclear energy.
Pauley| 6.19.09 @ 6:08PM
Do you mean Iran?
Free wrong or right| 6.19.09 @ 6:22PM
Mike
Look at the grave yards in America and around Europe, and ask your self if you feel free in America. What the hell does what the election results in Iran have to do with you or me or any other American.
In the army you are there to protect your country you don't live in Iran.
Nick| 6.19.09 @ 7:32PM
Mr. Toddard,
I just got some proof of the voter fraud in Iran.
Stephen Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, just said the election was blatantly stolen, on the Hugh Hewitt show.
Also, did you see Hillary demand that the Israeli's freeze settlements the other day? And peanut-brain Carter blaming us as he attacked Israel in Gaza?
What is an anti-interventionalist, like you, to do?
On the one hand, it must warm your heart to have the evil Israeli's told to stop their evil oppression of the Arabs.
On the other, who are WE to intervene and tell Israel what to do?
Must get you all discombobulated, huh?
Eric Damon| 6.19.09 @ 7:48PM
Bob, it seems that you are intentionally missing the point that I am making here. I am not advocating that Obama endorse Mousavi or denounce Ahmadenijad; I am saying that he should speak out strongly in the freedom of the Iranian people to be able to vote freely and fairly...not to have an election obviously rigged to keep the mullah's preferred candidate in the presidential office. And I am saying that he should be willing to stand up for the principle that nonviolent demonstrations should not be met by government backed violence, intimidations, politically inspired arrests, and murders. It is not about candidates, but about the principles of basic human freedom. There needs to be no military option in place in order to speak on those principles, and to let the people of Iran...not the mullahs, but the people...know that we support them in their yearning for freedom.
As for your saying that Reagan would support Obama's silence, that premise is laughable. When did Reagan stand silent when others were being oppressed? When did he ever refuse to take a stand against tyranny in order to appease an oppressor? When? Reagan attacked Communism as far back as his days as president of the SAG; he was foing after the USSR in the late 1960s, and he never wavered in standing with Lech Walesa and Solidarity throughout his tenure as POTUS. The idea that he would stand silent as a repressive government murdered its own citizens...and threatened more to come, would be funny...if it weren't so contemptible!
"Good" conservatives don't stand around quiet as church mice when there is repression and injustice being thrown in their faces, and not so long ago liberals would have been leading the charge to defend the defenseless. But these days liberals are too occupied with reshaping American society along the lines of European socialism to care about anything that happens anywhere else in the world...unless it can be used for partisan political advantage at home. But I daresay that it is not too much to ask for the Leader of the Free World to actually raise his voice in the defense of freedom.
Alan Brooks| 6.19.09 @ 8:36PM
Toddard is criticizing Reagan's actions of roughly A QUARTER CENTURY AGO when the peace 'n' love Soviet Armed Forces were still sponsoring Love Ins in Afghanistan?
Alan Brooks| 6.19.09 @ 8:43PM
having written that, the Bushes did more to trash Reaganism than any other so-called friends.
Our friends aren't always competent, are they?
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 8:54PM
Free wrong or right: Not sure if you mean me, I have some of the longer posts....
When I see the graves, tears come to my eyes because each person there was like you and me, alive, with their own identities, lives that are cut short and never having the chance to live out those lives. When I see those graves, my only consolation comes from God. I have to believe whatever happens, He is in charge, and whether we understand that or not, believe in Him or not, I cannot, and will not, look at them as wasted lives ruin by the sacrifice they have made.
Shame on you for even for one moment bringing that up as if you even have a clue what the price of freedom from tyrany requires of us.
Shame on you for comparing our sacrifices to those of other countrys who have sacrificed as well.
You, unless you claim to have served and know what it means to do so, have no business bringing your trite comments here....
Fionnagh| 6.19.09 @ 9:39PM
Mike: when you quote Limbaugh, do have the courtesy not to take his words out of context just to make your point.
Mike| 6.19.09 @ 9:45PM
Fionnagh:
Hmm, that came from my heart, you are an ass..
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 9:50PM
"I just got some proof of the voter fraud in Iran.
Stephen Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, just said the election was blatantly stolen, on the Hugh Hewitt show."
Haha. Wait - you ARE kidding with me, as a sort of response to my "hippie" comment, right?
"Also, did you see Hillary demand that the Israeli's freeze settlements the other day? And peanut-brain Carter blaming us as he attacked Israel in Gaza?
What is an anti-interventionalist, like you, to do?"
Applaud, I guess. .
"On the one hand, it must warm your heart to have the evil Israeli's told to stop their evil oppression of the Arabs.
On the other, who are WE to intervene and tell Israel what to do"
We are their benefactor. They are our charity case. When an entity loans another entity (or grants the money/services/goods outright), the loan/grant-giver is absolutely entitled to attach conditions to their loan/grant. We are well within our moral and legal rights to say "Stop stealing Palestinian land or we will no longer give you your $3 billion welfare check."
That's not to say I approve of ANY of it, though. The solution for both parties is to cease giving Israel foreign aid, and at the same time cease telling them what to do with their country. A win-win solution for all involved. But, if Israel is going to continue to be a welfare nation and continue coming to America, hat in hand, to live off the hard work of the American People like an illegal immigrant welfare case, then they damn well better conduct themselves in a manner we see fit, and one that *enhances* our national security rather than *damaging it* by, say, further inflaming Arab hatred and giving truth to their caricatures of us ("The Great Satan pays for Israel's theft of our land" and so forth)
William R| 6.19.09 @ 9:51PM
Yeah, I meant Iran.
Stephen Hayes call your editor
http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9141
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 9:58PM
"YES, SL TODDARD, OBAMA SAYS IT IS OKAY FOR IRAN TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. He stated that Iran has the right to develop and "
Really? Could you please provide a quote or citation?
"What part of Obama's road to fascism do you not understand?"
The part where people claim it exists. That part. Obama does not have America on a road to fascism, Obama is continuing to drive America down the road to socialism - a road that was laid by George W Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman and FDR.
Are you aware that George W Bush - and I know, this is going to sound insane - styled himself a "conservative"? I know - it sounds ridiculous now that we know that after coming to office he did nothing to shrink the size and scope of the federal government, did nothing to seal the border, did nothing to return to the states their rightful powers. He spent far more money, and expanded the size of the federal government far more than Clinton while maintaining the same open-borders policy as Clinton. Which means that by any true conservative standard, George W Bush was *more* of a liberal than Bill Clinton.
You probably already know that though.
You say:
1.(sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
"What do you call Obama nationalizing the auto industry? What do you call Obama taking over the banks? What do you call Obama UNILATERALLY absconding bankruptcy and contractual laws in this country? What do you call Obama's wanting to decide for himself what salaries PRIVATE BUSINESSES should pay their employees? For all the inexperience Obama has, he DOES have plenty of experience in dealing with opposing politicians. What do you call his firing of inspectors just because they were investigating him? What do you call Obama's pledge of "transparency in government" when he ordered his Labor Secretary to allow the Union NOT to report where and how much money they spend, reversing 8 years of Bush's policy regarding the same?"
I call that "not indicitave of a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism". Because that's what it is.
"Start researching his days in Chicago for starters. What to you call the road to nationalizion of the "free press" in this country? They are becoming an appendage of Obama's administration."
They are already an appendage of the same massive corporate entities that literally own both parties. The "free press" is an illusion.
Crusader| 6.19.09 @ 10:23PM
small m mike,
I have no "brothers" in Iran. No muslim is my brother. They want to kill me because I am an infidel. Muslims are devil-worshipping death cultists. They are most definitely NOT my brothers. Again I pose the question that you FAILED to answer: Exactly what "freedoms" are they protesting for in Iran?
Freedom to build a Christian church?
Freedom for their women not to be killed because they were raped and brought dishonor on the family?
Freedom to question islam and say hey maybe this just isn't for me, I want to be a Christian/Jew/Atheist?
Freedom for Jews to live, work, and worship as they please in Iran?
Hardee-har har!!!!!
Or is it they want "their" kook in charge and not "the other" kook? Does that about sums it up?
Eric whateveryourname is,
You are a right wing zombie. To lump me in with liberals is laughable. I am about as far right as you can get, probably even on some gubmint lists, who knows. Liberal? Haha! I could just care less about mooslims. Let them kill each other--it'll be less we have to worry about when the time comes.
Small m mike couldn't answer, maybe you can. What freedoms are they fighting for, or isn't that in your talking points form letter from the RNC?
To compare this to Poland is~~~I can't even come up with a good adjective. Despicable? Reprehensible? Disgusting?
S.L. Toddard| 6.19.09 @ 11:13PM
I said this to a friend here before, but it bears repeating, especially to those here calling themselves "conservatives":
A conservative is one who reveres tradition, community and the permanent things. Who loves Liberty, and recognizes - as the Founders did - that the greatest threat to one's own Liberty comes from one's own government. Because of this, a Conservative reveres the Constitution, the 2nd and 10th Amendments especially, as they serve (or should, at least) as a check on tyranny, and so a conservative demands accountability when the Constitution is violated. A conservative believes fervently in the Rule of Law and an open, Constitutional Republic. A conservative loves his people and culture, and so opposes open borders and mass immigration. A conservative believes in localism and subsidiarity, and recognizes that the Constitution granted the lion’s share of power to the States so that it would be more accessible to the People – what is called “States Rights”. A conservative believes in self-reliance and responsibility - both for himself and his gov't, and so he demands balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. A conservative opposes federal social programs first and foremost because they are unconstitutional, and secondly because they do damage to the moral fiber of the people. A conservative loves the soldiers who stand ready to defend the Constitution, and because he values them he recognizes they should be sent to war only in defense or in the face of an imminent attack. A conservative insists on a small, un-intrusive and Constitutionally-defined federal government, partially because a massive federal government is inherently wasteful, but first and foremost because centralizing so much power far from the people and in the hands of a few is a danger to one's Liberty - a conservative agrees with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
One cannot consistently believe these things and support the GOP. Read through the above paragraph again – you KNOW in your heart that the GOP has not only failed to advance a conservative agenda, they have consistently and unwaveringly done the opposite. They dominated congress for over a decade and had the White House for eight years. And, apart from paying lip service to conservative ideas to rally the troops, what did they actually accomplish in that time? What did they DO?
They did not seal the border with Mexico – instead, they actively maintained an open-border policy. They did nothing to restore to the states their traditional and Constitutional powers – instead, they further consolidated power in the federal gov’t – especially in the Executive branch – at the States’ expense. They did NOT strengthen the Rule of Law – they violated it egregiously, they seized radical, unprecedented, unconstitutional powers for the Executive, they instituted an illegal spying regime to eavesdrop on American citizens, and they constructed a torture regime in violation of domestic and international law. They did not decrease spending and the size and power of the federal government – instead they DRASTICALLY INCREASED spending – more so than the two previous Democratic administrations – and DRASTICALLY INCREASED the size and scope of an already massive, overbearing, socialistic behemoth of a federal government. They did not decrease social spending – instead, they increased social spending dramatically and initiated and sunk billions into grotesque, massive new social programs worthy of LBJ. And they did not value the lives of our soldiers – instead, they flung them into the Middle East to conquer a country that posed no threat whatsoever, without ever having ANY evidence that Iraq was planning to attack us. Whatever evidence they did have – whether drummed up or not – NONE of it ever demonstrated a clear and present danger.
You may not want to believe these things, but in your heart YOU KNOW. And every vote for the GOP – every word of support – is support for an anti-conservative agenda that does damage to America as sure as any terrorist attack. It goes without saying that the same goes for support of the Democrats. There is one solution only: for Conservatives – true, American conservatives – to reject un-conservative policies and the people and parties that enact them, to do so loudly and often, in conversation, in writing, and at the ballot box. That means registering Republican and only voting for true Conservatives and *never* voting for the lesser of two evils. It means having to vote Third Party more often than one would like. It means depriving the GOP of your vote – even if it means the Democrats will win in the short term – until they adopt a truly Conservative agenda.
Otherwise, despite having conservative leanings, *you* are effectively a leftist - you support an anti-conservative agenda no less than Barack Obama does. No less than any liberal. You know the GOP’s record – *erase the rhetoric* and you’re left with nothing conservative whatsoever.
Guy| 6.20.09 @ 2:29AM
SL Toddard's view of conservatism is an unfortunate and thinly veiled recitation of what is otherwise known as Buchananism, itself a myopic view of conservatism.
His definition leaves little by way of explanation to the words that follow, "When in the course of human events....", let alone a rationale for what did follow those words publication.
Reading his thoughts one might think that a mistake was made in re- creating the US Navy to fight the Barbary pirates. Nor do I find anything within them to justify the US participation in the Cold War. I'm fairly certain that Mr. Reagan would have found his brand of conservatism foreign to the ear and rather xenophobic. It certainly would have been at odds with Reagan's rejection of detente as a "solution".
Oddly, I was under the impression still that WF Buckley had read his version of conservative out of the movement more than half a century ago, so imagine my surprise at finding such a post in the pages of the AmSpec.
One might acknowledge that, as others have pointed out, absent a belief in the words that, "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" that there is no basis for the American experiment and thus little worth conserving for the modern conservative.
Words indeed have meaning. And when Reagan spoke of a shining city on a hill, he spoke not only of America but all that is of America that the world respects, admires, and desires for it's own by example from America. Reagan would not have stood silent, as Mr. Lord well states, and the world does not expect America to stand silent. It counts upon a moral clarity from America that our founding documents imply is inherent to our cause.
To stand silent is to deny our American legacy and to adhere to only the utilitarian conservatism of those like S.L. Toddard is to squander a divinely given national blessing while mocking the implication of any responsibility required by an endowing Creator to serve our fellow man.
If that seductive but limited view is conservatism, then count me out. I'll just have to be content to make my way as an American without affiliation then, but never less than an American, ever.
Patriot| 6.20.09 @ 2:53AM
I knew Siegfried was a major azzclown; but I didn't realize to what degree until he posted that 'Obama was a man of action'.
A man of action to whom? The world's fly population?
The idiot trolls parade through this site daily--Bob big mouth, Toddard the touchy troll, Dumbazz Daphne Kenward, Red pissed off psycho, etc. but stupid Siegfried takes the cake for the idiot award today--Obama's a man of action--excuse me while I throw up now.
baluc/ka| 6.20.09 @ 8:33AM
OBAMADINEJAD
Need anyone say more
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 8:55AM
“SL Toddard's view of conservatism is an unfortunate and thinly veiled recitation of what is otherwise known as Buchananism, itself a myopic view of conservatism”
It is simply conservatism, as clarified by Russell Kirk and as understood by the Right in general back when the Right was conservative – i.e. before the hijacking of the party by outcasts from the Trotskyite left, i.e. neoconservatives.
“His definition leaves little by way of explanation to the words that follow, "When in the course of human events...."
This is an empty and meaningless statement. Nothing I said touches upon secession.
“Reading his thoughts one might think that a mistake was made in re- creating the US Navy to fight the Barbary pirates.”
I suppose – if one can’t read or understand English, maybe. Or if one is regurgitating half-understood arguments made by someone else. I wrote “A conservative loves the soldiers who stand ready to defend the Constitution, and because he values them he recognizes they should be sent to war only in defense or in the face of an imminent attack.” The Barbary pirates were *attacking* U.S. Shipping, which made the Barbary Wars defensive, and therefore just, ones. Did you really not know that?
“Nor do I find anything within them to justify the US participation in the Cold War.”
Is that a joke? You find nothing in “Buchananism” to justify *the Cold War*? Are you unfamiliar with American History and Pat Buchanan’s involvement in the Cold War – as senior advisor to three Cold War presidents - *including Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan*? Are you really unaware of the relationship between cold warriors Reagan and Buchanan? Reagan was Buchanan's hero, and Buchanan was Reagan's sage advisor - a fellow cold warrior whose from-the-right perspective balanced out the leftist perspective of the neoconservatives. Good lord, man. There is nothing in what I wrote that *precludes* participation in the Cold War. I will say that conservatives in general believed that they must *temporarily* abandon their conservative principles to face down the threat posed by the USSR, which was armed with a massive arsenal of nuclear-armed ICBMs, posing what they believed constituted a literal *existential threat*, as the USSR could literally *end our existence*. William F. Buckley himself noted that conservative principles must be *temporarily* abandoned in order to wage the Cold War, saying:
"we have to accept Big Government *for the duration* – for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores"
William F Buckley himself understood that waging a Cold War necessitated the *temporary* abandonment of conservative principles, but as it was done in the service of facing down an *existential threat* - which not even the most chickenhearted, terrified neoconservative can claim we face anywhere in the world today – it could be justified as a temporary conservative measure, as it preserved – which is to say, *conserved* - all of the things conservatives value, which I listed above.
“I'm fairly certain that Mr. Reagan would have found his brand of conservatism foreign to the ear and rather xenophobic. It certainly would have been at odds with Reagan's rejection of detente as a "solution"
Do you think it’s odd, then, that Reagan appointed Pat Buchanan himself as a senior advisor? Do you not recognize that Pat Buchanan himself – with whom you identify the definition of conservatism I posted above – was a fervent Cold Warrior who loudly and emphatically denounced détente?
Honestly – were you not alive during the Reagan Administration?
“Oddly, I was under the impression still that WF Buckley had read his version of conservative out of the movement more than half a century ago”
Indeed he did. And the ex-Trotskyites he replaced conservatives with led the GOP down to their current state – as an entirely marginalized and discredited fringe group who besmirched America’s good name and standing in the world.
“One might acknowledge that, as others have pointed out, absent a belief in the words that, "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
One might, but one would be entirely wrong and expose himself as ignorant of the history of the American Revolution.
“Reagan would not have stood silent, as Mr. Lord well states, and the world does not expect America to stand silent. It counts upon a moral clarity from America that our founding documents imply is inherent to our cause”
“Our cause”, as expressed in the Declaration, was to secede from Britain – nothing more. Sorry.
“If that seductive but limited view is conservatism, then count me out”
You already have been. You are not a conservative.
The Decline of a Nation| 6.20.09 @ 8:59AM
Black Youth and the Criminalization of a Generation
Part 2: The Political Economy of Racism and Criminalization
Revolutionary Worker #972, September 6, 1998
The first part of this series looked at the massive and unprecedented increase in the numbers of African-American and Latino people being sent to prison, or otherwise brought under control of the police. We documented that most of this increase comes from arrests of Black and Latino people for drug possession, out of all proportions to their share of the population of drug users, and/or other petty crimes. We showed how a huge portion of minority youth were being put in government files as "suspects." And we refuted the lie that all this results from an increase in violent crime.
The U.S. government is on the biggest campaign of locking people up since Adolf Hitler and the Nazi "final solution." Every week they add 1,600 people to prison, and almost 3/4 of these prisoners are Black or Latino. During the last four years of the rule of the liberal president Bill Clinton, they have added more than 3/4 million new prisoners, at a time when crime has been dropping.
Why?
To understand this, we have to step back some and analyze history. In particular, we have to look at the history of the position of African-American people in this country, which today is undergoing great change that is very linked up with the criminalization that we have described above.
Two horrible crimes have defined the existence and development of the United States throughout its history. First, the extermination of millions of indigenous people who lived here and the theft of their land. And second, the kidnapping, murder and enslavement of tens of millions of African people. The impulse and motive for both these crimes was capitalist accumulation--that is, the blind and compulsive drive to pile up ever more profit. Again and again this impulse led the American ruling class to new crimes: the theft of land in five Southwestern states from the Mexican people; the brutal mistreatment of the Chinese workers whose labor connected the east and west; the grinding up of millions of immigrant workers from Europe in their mines and factories, and on and on.
This same relentless pursuit of profit has driven the changes in the conditions of the African-American people throughout history. The Civil War was not fought because people felt it was time to "live up to American ideals," but because slavery had begun to stand in the way of the capitalists--the factory owners, railroad owners, etc.--in their drive to develop a single national system based on factory and other wage-labor.
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 9:15AM
Note that what Guy believes is missing in my definition of Conservatism is a mandate to bring to the world permanent revolution (a marxist concept) based on universal principles (a jacobin concept).
Tim| 6.20.09 @ 9:42AM
The pickle that the Obama Administration finds itself in is a very difficult one in that if they admit openly that the current rulers of Iran hate democracy and will do anything to keep power
up to and including "stealing elections" and killing and jailing their own people this whole notion that we can simply sit down with Iran's rulers and negotiate peace and harmony for the world becomes the transparent joke that it is.
Oh wait just a momement!
Didn't a former U.S. president correctly call the current Iranian leadership...part of an axis of evil?
Oh yes, I remember hearing somebody proclaim that not that long ago.
I will check my history book and get back to you.
Have a good week-end!
World on the brink of Famine| 6.20.09 @ 11:16AM
Reagan is Dead we are in 2009
ON THE BRINK OF FAMINE
A CALL TO ACTION
Between now and September 30, 2008, Project Concern International needs to raise at least $100,000 to meet our fiscal year end goal, which allows us to provide support for people living in poverty, especially during times of crisis.
Your donation will help us reach out to those in greatest need throughout all the communities in which we work. Every gift is important and could mean one less child will go to sleep on an empty stomach tonight.
Help support our mission, as we work to provide economic empowerment for women, health programs for families, and the promise of a bright future for impoverished communities around the world. Please remember that you can change the world - the responsibility to do so belongs to all of us.
>>> Donate Now
>>> Join the Seeds Movement for Change
>>> Learn more about PCI's Empower Africa Initiative
Addressing the world food crisis
Despite growing attention in the world media and expanding aid efforts by many organizations, the world hunger crisis continues to worsen as many of the communities in which we work struggle with daily hunger and starvation. The basic staples that feed the world wheat, rice and corn continue their inexorable rise in cost and scarcity.
In Ethiopia and throughout the Horn of Africa, rising commodity prices, civil war, and imperiled aid operations have pushed many people to the brink of famine. In Zambia and elsewhere in Africa, the scarcity of food is acute and many are simply finding a corner and sleeping until death finds them.
Project Concern International is responding to the world food crisis by addressing the large-scale issues of world hunger and malnutrition through programs that not only provide food aid, but address the underlying causes of food insecurity.
“Now is the time for all of us to act. We at PCI are committed to addressing these humanitarian issues by discovering solutions that empower individuals and communities, assisting them to overcome intransigent and persistent food insecurity. Economic empowerment, family food gardens, and food support, are just some of the ways PCI helps people every day around the world,” said George Guimaraes, President and CEO.
UNDERSTANDING THE CRISIS
Although it is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact cause of soaring food prices, experts have placed the blame on rising fuel costs, lower agricultural production, weather shocks, more meat consumption, and shifts to bio-fuel crops. High prices threaten to increase malnutrition, already an underlying cause of death for over 3.5 million children a year.
What we do know:
Wheat prices are up 120%
Rice prices have risen 75%
Poor families spend up to 80% of their budget on food
According to the World Bank, an estimated 100 million people have fallen into poverty in the last 2 years
Prices are expected to stay high through 2015
21 of 36 countries in a food security crisis are in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the United Nations FAO
West Africa, the Horn of Africa, and fragile states are especially vulnerable
CHANGING LIVES
We need reality| 6.20.09 @ 11:31AM
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 9:15AM
No doubt the smartest writer on this site, your insite is 2nd to none, thank you.
The Neo-Jacobins
by Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts
Do you want to know why President George W. Bush’s focus on the war against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn’s new book, America the Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.
Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.
These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the ideas “a recipe for conflict and perpetual war.” Neo-Jacobins are known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to, the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush administration.
Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins’ concept of morality is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.
Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other societies in the Jacobin image.
Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its dominance over others, including its own citizens.
Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world.
Jacobin morality is divorced from moral character, personal conduct, and treatment of others. Jacobin morality expresses itself in benevolent sentiments toward abstract entities. Human lives and cultural diversity mean nothing compared to “making the world safe for democracy” and “liberating women from the Muslim yoke.” Jacobin morality seeks to achieve a uniform unipolar world.
Possessed of an unrelenting will to power, the Jacobins in the Bush administration, together with their media allies, seized the opportunity afforded by September 11 to meld America’s nationalistic response to terrorism with the Jacobin ideological agenda. Once Americans associated invading foreign countries (Afghanistan) with the “war on terror,” Jacobins shifted the “terrorist threat” to Iraq. Now they are working to shift it to Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Next will be Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy taxation to support massive military budgets. It means the return of the draft.
It also explains why Jacobins are unconcerned with our own country’s porous borders while they seek to control Middle Eastern borders. The hordes of young Mexicans pouring into the US are a convenient source of cannon fodder, just as President Lincoln redirected the flow of Irish immigrants in his day into the Union Army.
Jacobins are dangerous because they lack historical understanding and rely on abstract righteousness to impose ideological unity. Their drive for like-mindedness implies coercion, the gulag and the Orwellian state. The Jacobin agenda means the end of Western civilization.
Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins are lost in abstractions and do not appreciate or understand Western civilization as a human achievement resulting from centuries of struggle to create moral character. Self-restraint, empathy, and mutual respect are necessary for pluralistic societies. However, such genuine virtues have no role in the uniform Jacobin state.
It is difficult to quibble when Professor Ryn writes that “monopolistic ideological universalism that scorns historically formed societies is a potential source of unending war and great disasters.” Professor Ryn reports that many Americans, including conservatives, find aspects of the Jacobin message attractive without understanding where it leads. The Jacobin quest for American world supremacy appeals to nationalistic patriots, to macho types whose response to September 11 is to “kick butt,” to people fearful of terrorist plots, to global business and financial interests, to do-gooders anxious to spread democracy and women’s rights, and to people who enjoy power and success vicariously like fans of champion sports teams.
Jacobins are to be found among both political parties and among both “conservative” and “liberal” columnists. As a result of conservative befuddlement, Jacobins now control the formerly conservative media, foundations and think tanks, and they occupy most of the putatively “conservative” posts in universities.
Professor Ryn acknowledges that he is alerting us to the Jacobin threat late in the game. Jacobins use their power and influence to suppress dissent. Jacobin ends justify Jacobin means. Thus, lies, deception, and manipulation cause Jacobins no shame.
As Professor Ryn observes, ambition unchecked by intellectual humility and moral self-control is the source of tyranny.
October 23, 2003
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright © 2003 Creators Syndicate
Paul Craig Roberts Archives
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
Freedom for the world| 6.20.09 @ 11:40AM
Tim| 6.20.09 @ 9:42AM
The pickle that the Obama Administration finds itself in is a very difficult one in that if they admit openly that the current rulers of Iran hate democracy and will do anything to keep power
up to and including "stealing elections" and killing and jailing their own people this whole notion that we can simply sit down with Iran's rulers and negotiate peace and harmony for the world becomes the transparent joke that it is.
Why are you concerned about the Iranian election? when Bush stole the 2004 Election it was OK.
Do you live in Iran?
Iran has to ensure there is the kind of leadership that defends Iran, not in the interest of America.
Does American administration run America in the interest of Iran?.
American adiministration would do well to sort out the long lines of un-employed people, and take control of the Federal Reserve Bank, and do an Audit.
And stop printing money backed with nothing.
Nick| 6.20.09 @ 1:03PM
Mr Toddard,
You wrote: "The Barbary pirates were *attacking* U.S. Shipping[...]"
Saddam was "attacking" U.S. aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone for 12 years. British aircraft were also shot at.
Saddam agreed to the NFZ as ONE of the conditions to the cease-fire of Operation Desert Storm. He violated many of the other conditions.
It is amazing how SELECTIVELY you would choose to "defend" this nation. Or should I say how ARBITRARILY.
Big J| 6.20.09 @ 1:37PM
I was under the impression that America stood for freedom and democracy at home AND abroad. I must be seriously mistaken.
Regardless of who "won" this election, Iran remains a dictatorial "regime". That's not the point.
The Iranian people (especially the yutes who make up 2/3 of the population) want freedom. At least their definition of it. They want their voices heard. The fact that signs of protest are written in English is SCREAMING to the United States "HELP"! Support us, we want democracy! All the while, The One has gone deaf, dumb and blind. I feel sorry for them.
The pseudo-intellectuals that often post on this site would have us turn our backs on that. "Not our problem". Whatever, I am glad I don't live close to you fools.
You see, in my neighborhood, we all look out for each other. If someone breaks into my neighbor's house in the middle of the day and I am home, you can bet that I will defend his property and family as if they were my own. It's an unspoken commitment that we share with each other. He would do the same for me. That's what makes my neighborhood so great.
Likewise, if I see one of my neighbors abusing his wife, my response would be equally swift. What's right is right, wrong is wrong.
The liberal posters here (especially the ones that call themselves "conservative") would prefer to redefine right and wrong. They would also rather take the "ostrich" defense posture, only instead of head planted firmly in sand, head planted firmly in backside.
As for me, I stand on the side of freedom and democracy. I stand with the protesters in Iran because they stand for fair elections. The outcome is not at issue. Regardless of who "wins", it doesn't change the fact that Iran has repeatedly called for the extermination of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Hereafter called "my neighbor and friend".
These protesters are risking life and limb, being beaten half to death and killed in the name of having their voices heard. I have more respect for them than words can express - and a hell of a lot more respect for them than the isolationist posters here (hereafter called "posers").
I doubt Bob, Mr. X, Toddard, Red or others would have a clue as to what these people are going through. This renders any comment by them baseless. Clueless pretty much sums it up. Being educated doesn't make you smart. Maybe intelligent, but not smart. See above posts where Siegfried corrects posters' grammar and spelling.
I think the fact that you can spell is great. Your belief system, not so much.
I would gladly take Paul, Nick, Tomlinson, Texican and several others as neighbors on my street.
They represent what I love about America. The greatness that Ronald Reagan knew was the "American Experiment".
If we are not careful, our streets may end up looking a lot like those in Iran. At least we will know who is to blame.
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 2:25PM
"Saddam was "attacking" U.S. aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone for 12 years. British aircraft were also shot at."
And missle strikes were launched at Iraq in response. What is your point?
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 2:36PM
"I was under the impression that America stood for freedom and democracy at home AND abroad. I must be seriously mistaken."
Correct. You are mistaken.
"The Iranian people (especially the yutes who make up 2/3 of the population) want freedom. At least their definition of it."
And what is that?
"They want their voices heard. The fact that signs of protest are written in English is SCREAMING to the United States "HELP"! Support us, we want democracy! All the while, The One has gone deaf, dumb and blind. I feel sorry for them."
You believe Obama should give them "democracy"? How?
"You see, in my neighborhood, we all look out for each other. If someone breaks into my neighbor's house in the middle of the day and I am home, you can bet that I will defend his property and family as if they were my own. It's an unspoken commitment that we share with each other. He would do the same for me. That's what makes my neighborhood so great."
Yaaay for you.
"Likewise, if I see one of my neighbors abusing his wife, my response would be equally swift. What's right is right, wrong is wrong."
America is not Iran's "neighbor".
"As for me, I stand on the side of freedom and democracy."
You truly are an American Hero.
"I stand with the protesters in Iran because they stand for fair elections. The outcome is not at issue. Regardless of who "wins", it doesn't change the fact that Iran has repeatedly called for the extermination of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East."
That's wonderful. Good for you.
"These protesters are risking life and limb, being beaten half to death and killed in the name of having their voices heard. I have more respect for them than words can express - and a hell of a lot more respect for them than the isolationist posters here (hereafter called "posers".
I doubt Bob, Mr. X, Toddard, Red or others would have a clue as to what these people are going through. This renders any comment by them baseless. Clueless pretty much sums it up."
Big J, how many times have you risked life and limb and being beaten half to death and killed in the name of having your voice heard? And if never, why are you posting your baseless, clueless comments here?
"Being educated doesn't make you smart. Maybe intelligent, but not smart."
Thank you for noticing that I am both educated and intelligent. Since you are neither, you are hardly in a position to judge who is "smart" though.
S.L. Toddard| 6.20.09 @ 2:51PM
I recommend that everyone read "We need reality's" posting of the Paul Craig Roberts piece on Jacobinism. You will find in it a description of your very own worldviews. He contrasts "conservatism" with "Jacobinism". Before your knee-jerk reaction to reject it wholesale, read it and think about it. At the very least, if you are honest, you will respond with something like "yes I am a Jacobin as described, but that is not a bad thing because" and then explain how you think Jacobinism is conservatism because Ronald Reagan displayed Jacobin tendencies or some such thing.
For instance:
"...the Jacobins’ concept of morality is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from the character of individuals and the traditions of a people."
You people agree with this - you believe in "universal principles", that "freedom" and "democracy" are the right system for ALL PEOPLE, regardless of those peoples' culture and traditions, no?
"Secure in their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other societies in the Jacobin image."
This is self-evident. You people believe that YOUR system is "the best" and "the greatest on earth and in history", and you are willing to use force to impose that system on foreign societies (Iraq being the most ready example), no?
"Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its dominance over others, including its own citizens.
Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world."
This is "American exceptionalism" in a nutshell.
"Jacobin morality is divorced from moral character, personal conduct, and treatment of others. Jacobin morality expresses itself in benevolent sentiments toward abstract entities. Human lives and cultural diversity mean nothing compared to “making the world safe for democracy” and “liberating women from the Muslim yoke"
Can any of you argue that you don't believe these things? Do any of you claim to *not* be Jacobins as defined above?
Steve from Alamo, California| 6.20.09 @ 3:28PM
This is the difference between a real President (Reagan) and the empty suit that assumes he's one (obama).
Siegfried X| 6.20.09 @ 4:29PM
"I stand with the protesters in Iran because they stand for fair elections. "
I support your right to fly to Iran and join the protesters. I absolutely oppose any attempt to force the US military to fight Iran's civil war, by ordering it to help the protesters.
Smitty| 6.20.09 @ 5:27PM
Siegfried the wimpy weenie strikes again. You are one dude I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN A FOXHOLE WITH. Ball-less wonder.
GatorGirl| 6.20.09 @ 5:53PM
Siegfried X: Exhibit "A" in demonstrating the failed education system and propagandist state run media of modern America.
Get educated, Sieg, you're just making a fool of yourself!
William R| 6.20.09 @ 7:48PM
GatorGirl, methinks it's the other way around. You and Smitty are making fools of yourselves.
Emil| 6.20.09 @ 7:59PM
"'Umm are you stupid? Obama's muted response to the Iranian elections has been absolutely the correct course of action. If he had forcefully supported the opposition (Mousavi) it would have absolutely played into Ahmaenijahd's (awful spelling) hands. The mass protests are now distinctly Iranian instead of US backed interventionism, but that makes to much sense for you morons. ""
Obama has displayed nothing cowardice. JFK and Reagan are rolling in their graves at the display of our pathethic President Obama. There is a chance to bring down the regime all together but Obama would rather negotiate with his pal and fellow Jew Haters in the Iranian regime.
The Iranisn peole wait for some word from Obama but they ar first nothing but silence then weakness.
Siegfried X| 6.20.09 @ 8:12PM
There is no courage in sacrificing other people's lives.
Terry| 6.21.09 @ 7:52AM
' "What about the Iranians who chose Ahmadenijad? Do they have a right to plead their case without foreign (US) interference?"
I wonder if, after the 2004 election, these same people would have supported Ahmadenijad questioning our election results and have allowed an Iranian investigation into election fraud.'
Ah, moral equivalence. The U.S. has no moral superiority, right? SL, freedom is not free. America has always been the light of freedom. Sometimes, in our quest to assist those desiring freedom we make mistakes. It is all fine and well to position oneself morally against war and violence. Ask Clement Atlee, he did such a wonderful job. Build a fence around your freedom, I'm sure Obeyme and all other leftist psuedo Marxists and terror supporting regimes will honor your pretty white picket fence.
Pingback| 6.21.09 @ 10:00AM
Violence in Iran Escalates | Axis of Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Big J| 6.21.09 @ 11:11AM
Typical liberal tripe, Siegfried. Hate to break this to ya, but.....
"The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights".
There's your precious leader's response to the situation in Iran. That's a little more like it.
Where's the outrage, Siegfried? I dare you to denounce Obama's statement as "meddling" or "warmongering" or whatever.
Too bad it took him so long to say the right thing. It's difficult to stay ahead of the curve when you're constantly checking the political wind direction.
I hear crickets chirping.
This completely blows your argument out of the water, and you know it. I am anxiously awaiting your response.
Anyone seen Siegfried?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Siegfried?
Anyone?
Nick| 6.21.09 @ 11:31AM
Mr. Toddard,
"And missle strikes were launched at Iraq in response. What is your point?"
So, we should have continued missle strikes indefinitely? We didn't have the right to make Saddam live up to his legal obligations?
I guess President Jefferson violated the constitution when he bombarded Tripoli and invaded Tunis, huh? He should have limited himself to only pirating Barbary ships and taking Moslems hostages to retaliate.
Maybe you forgot what you wrote, again: "The Barbary pirates were *attacking* U.S. Shipping, which made the Barbary Wars defensive, and therefore just, ones."
My point was clear.
Your definition of justfiable defense, under the Constitution, is completely ARBITRARY. If Jefferson and Madison use force, it is a JUST use of force to defend the nation, because you can't very well argue they didn't understand the law. If GWB does, it violates the constitution because he's a neo-con stooge.
Siegfried X| 6.21.09 @ 12:18PM
"The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights".
Obama said what his critics wanted. Do we have peace yet? Did the Iranian government resign? Did the rebels take over the Iranian government? Did Iran agree to the rebel demands like a new election?
No to all of the above. Everyone who said that Iran would become a free country as soon as Obama said "freedom" three times has been proven wrong.
The good news is that Obama said that we won't get involved in Iran's civil war, and we won't send troops there:
"Obama was also careful to stick to what has been the guiding principle of the White House’s measured reaction to the crisis: That the crisis is not about the United States, and must be resolved by Iranians"
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 12:34PM
"My point was clear."
Clear but idiotic. The Iraq War was not a defensive war fought by the US to defend American air traffic.
Really Nick, your arguments are becoming more and more desperate and less and less sensible.
Siegfried X| 6.21.09 @ 12:39PM
CNN: But shouldn't the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?
Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.
Sue| 6.21.09 @ 1:04PM
I must be a neo-Jacobin because I believe ALL women should be liberated from the Muslim yoke. What malarkey! And from a professor no less.
This is rhetorical Mr. Professor: All women want to be abused in the name of Allah; women want to be treated as "sex" objects in the name of Allah; women want to be stoned in the name of Allah; women want to walk around in that ridiculous garment not showing anything but submission to some jerk of a man; yea, listen to this brillant professor talk about what conservatives believe. He's lived the life of a woman in a Islamist-dominated country. Maybe he'll get 72 virgins when he gets to heaven for trying to keep them in bondage with his gobblygook. I'd take a Jacobin any day if it would get me away from these religious fanatics.
Remember your definition of "wants" and "needs" and don't buy Professor Ryn's book.
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 3:49PM
"I must be a neo-Jacobin because I believe ALL women should be liberated from the Muslim yoke"
Yes, you are. Not ALL muslim women consider it a "yoke", but part of their religious duties to which they submit willfully and happily. Who are you to deny them freedom of religion - to practice their religion as they see fit? Imposing western standards on eastern cultural norms is arrogant and ignorant. You are a radical and a Jacobin. There's nothing inherenty immoral about being a radical and a Jacobin, but it *is* immoral to claim to be a "conservative", as dishonesty is immoral. Conservatism is the opposite of radicalism.
The anti-conservative idea of "universal principles" - that one ideological system can fit all peoples regardless of their culture and history - is arrogant and ignorant in essence - it ignores the variety and diversity of the peoples of the world, and it is always the Jacobin's own system that is believed to be "the best" and that should be imposed upon everyone else. Kirk's 5th Conservative Principle:
"Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
Alan Brooks| 6.21.09 @ 3:52PM
libs seem to forget what the USSR was doing in Afghanistan until '88.
they weren't spreading the Gospel-- that's for sure.
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 3:55PM
For the neoconservatives here (which is to say, everyone here besides myself, Red Phillips and one or two other Conservatives) who believe in the Jacobin idea of "universal principles", and who believe Ronald Reagan the true measure of conservatism, I cannot recommend Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind highly enough. It will illustrate to you what Conservatism actually IS, and give you a perspective as to how it has been abandoned, and to how self-professed "conservatives" now vote for a party that consistently maintains and open borders policy with Mexico, and that unwaveringly increases spending and the size and scope and power of the Federal Gov't. Here are Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles - ten general maxims to which Conservatives (the real kind) adhere in common.
RUSSEL KIRK'S TEN CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.
Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.
Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.
For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.
The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 3:57PM
"libs seem to forget what the USSR was doing in Afghanistan until '88.
they weren't spreading the Gospel-- that's for sure."
No - they were trying to conquer it to impose their own system and puppet government upon it and failing. Just as we are and just as we will.
William| 6.21.09 @ 4:06PM
@ The truth Reagan the Retarded -
Your argument - if it was one - might be more persuasive if you would learn to construct a sentence. I bet you are on the welfare or affirmative action teat, huh?
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 4:27PM
Hey Toddard, did you realize that now conservatism is apparently about spreading gender egalitarianism around the globe? That's funny, I thought conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, recognized that gender roles were part of the natural and God ordained order. That's at least what this little book called the Bible says.
Sue, you do realize that there are a lot of God hating feminist who would love to "liberate" Christian women and Christian America from the "yoke of oppression." Are you a feminist? Do you support getting rid of the prohibition against women in combat? Against women priests/preachers?
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 4:41PM
Just so our neocon readers don't misunderstand Kirk's point one (I'm sure they will object that they believe in a moral order.) Kirk is referring to a Christian and natural moral order. It is an ancient order based on the limits of human nature and made clear by both Revelation and history/tradition/culture etc.
The neocon moral order is post-Enlightenment, rationalistic, universalistic and allegedly derived from pure reason. The neocon moral order is at odds with tradition and traditional societies and wherever it is wars against them.
William| 6.21.09 @ 5:43PM
Agreed.
Neo-conservative is neither of those things.
Billy| 6.21.09 @ 7:23PM
It's kind of funny to see diarrhea of the mouth blowhards like Red Phillips, Toddard and Stupid Siegfried hog this thread with their endless boring rants and realize that they have absolutely no influence on anyone or here. Or anywhere else.
None, nada, zilch.
You're writing for each other, losers--no one else reads your crap or cares. lol
William | 6.21.09 @ 7:31PM
Billy it's obvious you're reading them.
William| 6.21.09 @ 7:48PM
BTW the 7:31 PM William is not me - the 5:43 PM William. Someone is stirring the pot.
Obama supporters are turds who can type. Well, the literate ones are anyway.
Guy| 6.21.09 @ 8:59PM
S.L. Toddard's defense of the Cold War fight as one of it's existentialist nature to the US does seem at odds with both history and his other points. One could extrapolate an existentialist threat to the US using the domino theory but our treaty obligations via NATO might shed more actual light on the matter. Nevertheless, were I S.L., I'd have taken the principled position and opposed the US fighting of the Cold War. That the US was directly threatened existentially is a difficult case to make given the absence of massed hordes threatening the Alaskan coast.
Now we'll have no argument between us that all areas where freedom is denied are strategic interests of the US and therefore not worthy of a drop of American blood nor a penny of American treasure. Even though Iran is a strategic interest of the US, none here have called for either blood or treasure to be expended in any significant way.
The problem for S.L. and his supporters is the conundrum found within the US Declaration of Independence, not a wholly conservative document, but our document nonetheless.
"....that all men are created equal" (demonstrably not true) "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
The weakness I see in S.L.'s position is that, while one can make the point for non-involvement in any number of foreign entanglements, including Iran and Iraq, one cannot refute those declarative words as an American nor deny that they were written not only regarding the nascent American nation but as being true for all men, at all times, in all places.
For the US to ever remain silent about the rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator is to imply a limitation to the Declaration that is simply not found there, nor was intended to be found there by the authors.
Whether other actions are necessary is a matter of debate but there should be no doubt that the American president should never be reticent about declaring that we stand on the side of freedom, loudly.
Goldwater and Reagan both would have understood the importance of those words being issued by the American president, and I'll sleep peacefully in that conservative camp.
Billy| 6.21.09 @ 9:05PM
7:31 PM William (an Obama supporter who is a turd who can type), your assertion would only be obvious to a fool. I don't have to read the losers' garbage, all I have to read is their moniker to know the content of their latest spew. Moron.
"Obama supporters are turds who can type"--lol.
They're wasting their time and AmSpec blog space--no one cares what these buffoons think.
Siegfried X| 6.21.09 @ 9:11PM
That flowerly language from the Declaration of Independence isn't law. It's just a preamble, wishful thinking that we might want to be true.
Even if we believe that all men SHOULD be equal, that doesn't mean that we must attack each country which doesn't have equality, or even criticize them. Our constitution and laws are those of the United States of America, not a world government.
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 9:57PM
"That the US was directly threatened existentially is a difficult case to make given the absence of massed hordes threatening the Alaskan coast."
OH - I wasn't talking about two centuries ago, like, the Russian Empire conquering us with a massive invasion of armies. The USSR possessed things called "nuclear missles". And boy oh boy they had a lot of 'em! They had enough of them to literally end the existence of the United States, and we had enough to end their own existence. There was a long conflict between the two countries called "the Cold War" - look it up in a history book or even on the internet. Trust me it's fascinating. It never erupted into nuclear war because of something called "mutually assured destruction", meaning if one country were to attack the other would respond and both would be "destroyed" - the destruction could be so great as to end that country's "existence".
Seriously look into it - "the Cold War", "nuclear weapon", "ICBM" for starters. It's pretty amazing stuff.
S.L. Toddard| 6.21.09 @ 10:13PM
"For the US to ever remain silent about the rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator is to imply a limitation to the Declaration that is simply not found there, nor was intended to be found there by the authors"
Oh it's found there - "We, therefore, the Representatives of the *united States of America*", "the good People of these Colonies", "these United Colonies" etc. The Declaration is *extremely* "limited" - it was a particular Declaration of a particular people at a particular place in time. The men who wrote it denied those very principles themselves to the slaves they owned. It is a set of grievances and a statement of secession. One need not "imply" those "limitations" - they are the essence of the document. That is all entirely beside the point though - the Declaration is not what sets the "limitations" of the responsibilities and powers of United States government - the *Constitution* does, and the *Constitution* does not grant, to the federal gov't, responsibility for the freedoms and rights of other peoples. The government of the United States serves the *people of the United States*, and it doesn't even do that very well.
No Trolls| 6.21.09 @ 10:23PM
More silly diarrhea from the diarrhea mouth breathers.
Matilda| 6.21.09 @ 11:12PM
Hey, Siegfried--on another thread you claimed that Governor Palin made violent threats against David Lecherman.
You butted out when I challenged your obvious lie--care to tell the truth this time? What a slimy cowardly b@stard you are. Man of in-action, you are a joke.
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 11:37PM
"Red Phillips, Toddard and Stupid Siegfried hog this thread with their endless boring rants and realize that they have absolutely no influence on anyone or here. Or anywhere else.
None, nada, zilch.
You're writing for each other, losers--no one else reads your crap or cares."
You wish Billy. You are whistling past the graveyard, and you know it. Non-interventionism is growing on the right. It is already the default, assumed position of the "far right." And it is slowly but surely infiltrating the interventionist echo chamber of the mainstream right. That's why it drives you so mad. You are losing your grip, and you can't stand it.
Red Phillips | 6.21.09 @ 11:38PM
"Red Phillips, Toddard and Stupid Siegfried hog this thread with their endless boring rants and realize that they have absolutely no influence on anyone or here. Or anywhere else.
None, nada, zilch.
You're writing for each other, losers--no one else reads your crap or cares."
You wish Billy. You are whistling past the graveyard, and you know it. Non-interventionism is growing on the right. It is already the default, assumed position of the "far right." And it is slowly but surely infiltrating the interventionist echo chamber of the mainstream right. That's why it drives you so mad. You are losing your grip, and you can't stand it.
Cow Rie| 6.22.09 @ 12:15AM
I love it when the libs multi post. It is the sound of stuck pigs. No one wants to bomgb Iran, no one wants another war. We just want the spirit of human freedom to be allowed to flourish. Positive things for everyone tend to follow when that happens.
Last summer, Obama refused to do a dem debate carried by FOX out of cowardice. It was an early sign of his weakness. He is showing his colors now that have been masked by the media.
Like the squealing lib bloggers, Obama steps on
any green shoots of freedom. It doesn't suit his needs.
You see this doesn't fit Obama's plans for his ego.
Plus it once again reveals his personal subjugation to Islam, probably learned as a boy listening to the calls to prayer.
Barrack Hussein Obama can not stand up to Iran, or the Supreme Leader, or Islamic autocratic governments that love to torture and terrorize. It is in his blood to bow before them. Trained as a boy to recognize the supremacy of Islam, and with his philosophies nurtured by Ayers, Dorn, Wright, and Farahakhan, it is clear that the eye candy called Obama is a coward.
John II| 6.22.09 @ 12:50AM
My dear Doddered--er, Toddard: I was reading through this thread and couldn't keep my typing fingers to myself. Ignore everything I'm about to say, whatever it is.
First, isn't your rather tedious list of conservative principles also a list of "universal principles"? And whatever you've been told to think about the Jacobin mindset (which I agree is monstrous, but the precise monstrosity of which seems to have eluded you: Satan always imitates the good because Satan is uncreative), would you not agree that the claims of the Judaeo-Christian thing are "universalist"?
You can't have it both ways, Toddard. You can't spout universal principles in the course of condemning universalism. . . . Well, I suppose you can, if you want--but when you do so, you're pretending to some kind of vagrant superiority over that most basic of universals: the principle of non-contradiction. A closer rereading of Aristotle, now that you're older, would make all this clear to you.
Second, and to get back to earth, are you old enough, as I am, to remember Pat Buchanan writing columns in passionate defense of Israel against Middle Eastern treachery and Western fecklessness? Of course, he changed his mind. Did you change your mind as well, or did you enter the fray after Pat's metanoia?
And third, more generally again, is it okay for people to change their minds, in your worldview?
My children have been spoiling the hell out of me on this Father's Day, Toddard. I need balance. Please attack me.
I remain, sempiternally,
Your most obedient servant,
John II
Second, do you
John II| 6.22.09 @ 12:53AM
Erase "Second, do you" --whatever that's doing there.
Billy| 6.22.09 @ 5:28AM
Talk about losing your grip.
No, Red--it's not driving me mad; you're the one who is so apoplectic about interventionism. You even duplicated your last post you were so revved up about it.
I can just see you at your spittle-flecked computer screen: Your eyes bulging out, lips dry and cracked with greasy unwashed hair screeching, "DIE NEOCON, DIE NEOCON."
I don't know what happened to you dude, but it's obvious that this issue is personal for you. Something is big time wrong with you Ron Paul people; I'm not the only one who thinks you're fanatics.
Patriot| 6.22.09 @ 5:50AM
"Eye candy called Obama is a coward." Good one, Cow Rie!!
sltoddard@gmail.com| 6.22.09 @ 11:22AM
"First, isn't your rather tedious list of conservative principles also a list of "universal principles""
Absolutely not.
"And whatever you've been told to think about the Jacobin mindset (which I agree is monstrous, but the precise monstrosity of which seems to have eluded you: Satan always imitates the good because Satan is uncreative), would you not agree that the claims of the Judaeo-Christian thing are "universalist"?"
No.
"Second, and to get back to earth, are you old enough, as I am, to remember Pat Buchanan writing columns in passionate defense of Israel against Middle Eastern treachery and Western fecklessness? Of course, he changed his mind. Did you change your mind as well, or did you enter the fray after Pat's metanoia?"
No, I did not change my mind.
"And third, more generally again, is it okay for people to change their minds, in your worldview?"
Of course.
S.L. Toddard| 6.22.09 @ 12:01PM
"No, Red--it's not driving me mad; you're the one who is so apoplectic about interventionism. You even duplicated your last post you were so revved up about it."
Jesus Billy - take a breather. You're obsessed with Red. I guess he hit a nerve. And now you're stalking the poor guy.
Billy| 6.22.09 @ 5:08PM
I'm focusing on Red, Toddard--and all of you diarrhea of the mouth morons.
No one reads your silly drivel and no one cares what you clowns think.
Looks like my post about Red hit a nerve with you Toddard, you diarrhea of the mouth joke. Ha!
Pingback| 6.22.09 @ 7:07PM
Steynian 366 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul | 6.23.09 @ 12:28AM
Insightful. Great contrast between those that stand up for democracy and those that say they stand up. I don't hear many Republicans following the Gipper's example and speaking out either, when are they going to get it? It took Bush finally speaking out for them to get energized and even then it was a modest response.
Is BO legitimizing Ahmadinejad, in what by all appearances is an illegal election, by taking such a soft stance? If so, what moral authority will we have in denouncing it later? President Obama could take some pointers from the Gipper's play book.
Patriot| 6.23.09 @ 5:57PM
Bush is/was part of the problem. Too weak.
Pingback| 6.23.09 @ 8:02PM
Learning From Reagan and Poland « Verus Politics: Truth and Reason links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 9:18PM
Eunomia » Iran Is Not Poland (And Other Blindingly Obvious Truths) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: