[CLUE-Talk] The prism of our experience

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 07-10 19:47, Matt Gushee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:57:58PM +0000, Randy Arabie wrote:
> > 
> > I didn't read the commentary by the Christian Science
> > Monitor.  But the quote you included in your email implied
> > that starting wars without congressional declarations of war
> > was a "conservative" and Republican issue.
> > 
> > It isn't, and to imply so is BS.
> 
> For once, I heartily agree with you (didn't expect that, didja?).
> 
> But the other side of the coin is that opposition to the Iraq war is not a
> "liberal" or Democratic party issue, as some commentators have implied (though
> you haven't, that I recall).
> 
> Some of the toughest critics of the Iraq enterprise are, in fact,
> conservatives--at least, to the extent that word has meaning, and to the
> extent that I understand it, they seem to me to be outstanding examples
> of conservatism. Do the names James Jeffords and Ron Paul ring a bell?
> And it probably won't surprise you to hear that I frequently visit
> anti-war/anti-Iraq-war websites. Some of the best of them come from a
> conservative viewpoint (e.g. antiwar.com, and particularly Justin
> Raimondo's column: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html).

I think, though I'm not 100%, that Pat Buchanan has long had a policy of
avoiding foreign entanglements. I'm not sure how he stood on the latest
Iraqi war, but I think a few of his comments on the McLaughlin Group tended
towards "opposed".

Interesting you bring up the meaning of the term conservatism - I recently
finished Noam Chomsky's _Understanding Power_, and he makes some sort of
comment that he was "more conservative than the Reaganites". He was talking
about much protectionism they brought on, etc..., but still it was odd that
he'd say that. I'd say if there was merely a right-left scale on issues,
that old Noamie would register on most issues pretty darned far to the left.
I'd wish he went more into explaining that one...

Incidentally, the book wasn't too bad, though he does tend to lay just about
every ill of the entire planet at the doorstep of Washington. I'd say I
agree with maybe 5% at most of what he is saying, but there's no doubt he's
doing a good job of keeping (at least some) folks vigilant.

 
> But of course, we know (don't we?) that The Liberals are just the
> all-purpose political bogeymen of our age, since noone is scared of The
> Communists any more. It's been many years since there was any
> significant number of real liberals in positions of authority in the US.

Well, I always thought the Unholy Triumverate of Bogeymen were terrorists,
drug lords and child pornographers...at least they are the sort of specters
that are presented when such wonderful things like the Clipper chip were
pitched. Speaking of paranoia, have you seen this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/07/02/pentagon.cameras.ap/

They promise it won't be used for law enforcement in the U.S. - yah, right.
Let's see where we are at in a decade or two. Smile for the telescreen!

Cheers,
-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/
Murray's Law: If written correctly, legalese if perfectly incomprehensible.