New at Reason

Terry Michael marvels at how the Democrats can reveal their wimpiness by talking tough.

Comments

Ron Hardin | February 22, 2007, 7:53am | #

Some of them actually shared the neoconservative pretensions of a new American imperialism.

Not if it interferes with defeating the hated Bush.

Max | February 22, 2007, 8:17am | #

There are some firm Democrats. Feingold, for one. (He was also the lone Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, incidentally). But only the useless gasbags are running for President.

edna | February 22, 2007, 8:27am | #

journalism students who want to spend their careers interpreting politics.

and right there, in one phrase, you have everything that is wrong with contemporary journalism.

Lord Jubjub | February 22, 2007, 8:41am | #

It occurs to me that there was another time in U.S. history when the opposition party was confused on a defining philosophical issue and refused to take a firm stand in opposition. This party eventually split and dissolved into the majority party and into an emerging party dedicated to one side of the debate. The eventual fallout of these events nearly tore the country apart.

Be careful what you wish for. The results will probably not be pretty.

jf | February 22, 2007, 8:47am | #

Pretty good article. Except for:

The only place I can find truth speaking to power is on a cable TV comedy channel

Arggh! "Truth to power" my ass!

JasonL | February 22, 2007, 9:16am | #

Isn't this how the reality based party is supposed to act? Isn't principle identical to frothing at the mouth religious zeal?

It seems an awkward position to spend years criticizing the black and white simplicity of the Bush administration, then demand a black and white response to the war in Iraq.

I'm not saying that Dems were wrong in criticizing the administration. I'm saying that the current Weigelian trend of demanding that we treat a very complicated situation as something utterly obvious is not helpful.

Graphite | February 22, 2007, 9:19am | #

Yeah pretty much anytime I see someone use the phrase "speaking truth to power" I steel myself for a generous helping of bullshit.

Warren | February 22, 2007, 9:24am | #

But like millions of other Americans, I can no longer contain the primal scream I want to direct at the members of my party who declined to engage in a real debate in the run-up to this completely avoidable misjudgment of old men and women.

Direct that outrage at the mirror pal. You say the Democrats are your party? Well then, this is your fault. Isn't it, asshat? You helped put these douche bags in power. And now you are shocked shocked to find out their are all a bunch of self-serving, two-faced, spineless jellyfish? Grow the fuck up.

And oh yeah! STOP VOTING! You're fucking up the whole planet with your insipid politics.

[Obligatory Disclaimer: Same goes for the Republicans]

ed | February 22, 2007, 9:35am | #

A tribal culture with zero indigenous movement for pluralistic democracy

Sad but apparently true. We (or at least I) had hoped that a people freed from a gangster would seize the opportunity. There are countries in the region that, while not exactly "pluralistic democracies" are, at least, peaceful and prosperous. That scenario seems all but impossible now in Iraq. America was naive, and Iraq is incorrigible.

Warren | February 22, 2007, 9:48am | #

There are countries in the region that, while not exactly "pluralistic democracies" are, at least, peaceful and prosperous.

There are? Which ones?

edna | February 22, 2007, 9:50am | #

jordan, for one. but the peace is transitory.

tijjer | February 22, 2007, 10:20am | #

Kuwait, UAE. Jordan and Oman are friendly but I wouldn't call them prosperous.

Warren | February 22, 2007, 10:25am | #

Jordan eh? Yeah, OK I can see how one can make a case for Jordanian peace and prosperity (one could certainly make a case against it as well). But "transitory" along with "recent" is the best you could say for it.

joe | February 22, 2007, 11:49am | #

Wow, reading that piece, I almost forgot that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF. 58%-42%.

"Where are the Gordon Smiths in the Democratic Party?" Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama...do any of these names ring a bell?

This column starts off with the mistake that you can meaningfully speak of a single Democratic position on Iraq, and never recovers. I'm as mad as Michael is about the Clinton/Biden/Gephardt/Lieberman/Nelson variety of Democratic coward giving cover to the necons (or actually becoming neocons themselves), but those people have never been even a majority of the party.

Steven Crane | February 22, 2007, 12:14pm | #

yeah. see, joe, you said that "ted kennedy" word. didn't you know he drove off a bridge once? he obviously hasn't done ANYTHING right since.

duh.

Timon19 | February 22, 2007, 12:36pm | #

Warren,

UAE qualifies big time as peaceful and prosperous. It's a collection of benevolent dictatorships, but they are creeping toward voting for their equivalent of a unicameral lawmaking body (currently, they're all appointed, very soon to be half appointed, half elected). But boy, are they prosperous. Watch Discovery or Nat Geo or the Science channel one of these days. Barely a week goes by anymore without one of their shows featuring Dubai.

Kuwait qualifies. Qatar and Bahrain qualify to some degree (Bahrain is where all the Saudis go to party and be un-Islamic). Oman is on the road. It is peaceful and getting more and more prosperous by the day.

joe | February 22, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Why doesn't anyone ever mention Turkey? It's been a democracy for decades, hasn't started any wars, and has no Islamist extremism to speak of.

edna | February 22, 2007, 1:10pm | #

because it's not arabic.

the war thing is debatable, but i've never noted much sympathy for the kurds from the left.

joe | February 22, 2007, 1:20pm | #

edna,

Oh, no? I guess you didn't notice the years-long Slate feature, "Kurd Sellout Watch."

I can only speak for myself, but the likelihood that we would abandon the Kurds' safety and democracy to Islamist or Arab nationalist depredations when - and it was always "when" - this war went bad was always one my top three reasons for opposing this war.

Timon19 | February 22, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Turkey doesn't get mentioned because its culture is as European as it is Middle Eastern (even though almost all of it lies technically in Asia).

It's a part of both worlds. Back when CENTO still existed, Turkey was NATO's vital link to that organization's other nations, from whom they were so different.

joe | February 23, 2007, 3:28pm | #

"Turkey doesn't get mentioned because its culture is as European as it is Middle Eastern (even though almost all of it lies technically in Asia).

It's a part of both worlds."

So's Lebanon, but that didn't stop war supporters from taking credit for the anti-Syrian protests.

My theory: the fact that Turkey's democracy predates the Iraq War by several decades disproves the notion that the creation of a Middle Eastern democracy will inspire democratic revolutions throughout the region, as well as the notion that Islamic culture is somehow inherently hostile to democracy and modernity.

80sfan | February 24, 2007, 1:13am | #

The article blows. Even Weigel's links are better... Spare me the high-dudgeon Kos imitators, especially these so shameless to be perfunctory panderers around the Jon Stewart totem. What "libertarian" bonafides!