Just get it over with already

[muckefuck]

Here's a letter from a reader recently posted on Andrew Sullivan's page that sort of sums up where I'm coming from right now:

Andrew, Look, like you, I am aghast at the GOP and its partisan plays to the social conservatives. I'm a New York Republican, whose main focus is foreign policy. Like you, I'm a hawk. Like you, I'm a fiscal conservative (so neither party gives me a home on this issue). On social policy, I'm closer to a San Francisco Democrat, and I RESPECT you for not allowing your self-respect to continue to be co-opted by the Republicans playing footsie with the haters. Yet, from my perspective, if you don't get the foreign policy right, the economic and social issues won't matter. So I reluctantly, with teeth gnashing, support the GOP -- this round, while in this awful war, the fact that there are many areas to legimately criticize on the conduct of this war, notwithstanding.

Anybody have some words of consolation?

Comments

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

i sent him an e-mail along similar lines several months ago... beneath the subject line "bigger fish to fry," i argued that if we don't defeat the islamo-fascists, nothing else matters... and while the GOP may oppose gay marriage, the jihadis oppose gay existance. Sadly, mr sullivan seems to be turning into a single-issue voter.

[keanubear.livejournal.com]

If we defeat the islamo-facists but lose our ideals then they really have won havent they?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

That's why were seeking to defeat them by spreading our ideals. If you're opposed to imposing a foreign governmental system onto Iraq and Afghanistan then, fine, let's just give them their repressive military dictatorships back (only with cuddly pro-American strongmen in charge) and call it a day.

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

That doesn't make any sense... what good will ideals do you in the grave?

Everybody needs to make some sacrifices in a war... putting a few aspirations for social equality on hold for the present is a pittance compared to what is being sacrificed by the men and women who face the dangers of combat on our behalf.

And i repeat my point... some members of the GOP (and dems, Bill Clinton among them) may want to deny gays the right to marry (actually, what they want is to prevent a court decision in one state forcing a redefinition of marriage in all states, but that's getting kinda technical)... but the enemy wants to deny gays the right to exist.

Terrorists have succeeded in killing thousands of americans here on our own soil... and they certainly aspire to kill thousands more. So it's not like you can turn your back and wish the problem away.

The terrorists and their state supporters who use terrorism to wage proxy-war on america need to be eliminated... at a minimum. (Or discover the error of their ways, as the Libyians seem to have done.)

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

princeofcairo likes to say to me: "Just think of all those Republicans who had to suck it up and vote for FDR during WWII." Oh wait, that's not so much consolation as schadenfreude.

It might only take 20 or 30 years to correct the effects of Dubya's effed-up domestic agenda after his 2nd term ends. Woo! Unless the Democrats still haven't produced a respectable candidate by 2008, in which case add 4-8 years to that.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Personally, I've been tempted to write him something along the lines of "Andrew, if you're going to vote for John Kerry, vote for John Kerry. But enough with the attempts to read a foreign policy you like into what he's saying-- and not saying. To paraphrase Breakup Girl, if you elect this person as president, this is the president you will get." Of course, it may just be that I figure that if I have to vote open-eyed for George W. Bush, then Sullivan should have to vote for the real John F. Kerry, rather than the the (much better) Kerry in his head.

[his-regard.livejournal.com]

I miss Breakup Girl.

Alas, no

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

Reasoned, thoughtful positions like this are not passionate positions; in the first column Micheal Moore wrote from the RNC, he went about asking delegates about their opions for various issues as a 40 hour work week, minimum wage, and even gays in realtionships, and he got supportive answers. Such issues, of course, don't fire people up to send in money, work the campaign slots, or to ignore the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq- or that there is no real substance to Kerry's economic plans either, for that matter.

Heros are hard to come by, these days. Of all of the things that I hold against Shrub, it's how he shrank away from the challenge raised by 9/11...

Ah, that is a catfight for another place and time, je?

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much the foreign policy of a Kerry administration would differ from the Bush administration's? In either case, our army is still in Iraq, and we still have to defeat the Islamofascists.

There is that branch of the Left I've taken to calling the "goodie-goodies"
who seem to be denial about the existence of al Qaeda et al., but I don't think they are really part of the Democratic mainstream. They sure do show up in the media, and can be a real turn-off, even for this Democrat.

Anyway, I'd love to chat more about politics.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much the foreign policy of a Kerry administration would differ from the Bush administration's? In either case, our army is still in Iraq, and we still have to defeat the Islamofascists.

Kerry has been carefully scaling back any committment to keep our army in Iraq. Last month, he was talking about significantly reducing our forces there by July 2005. (I do wish they'd given a more complete quote on that point, but he definitely went on record as planning significant reductions by the end of his first year.) Given how his political career began, I certainly don't see any reason to think he wouldn't go through with this. (And I can't think of any consideration other than pure domestic politics for his announcing this plan even given that it's his intent. "And just a note to our foes over there in Iraq-- if you can just hold out for another six months to a year, you probably won't have to worry about facing American troops after that." Is that what his vaunted military experience and understanding of foreign mindsets tells him will improve matters?)

It may be that Kerry is playing to his base and means to put resources into Iraq and the wider war on terror to resolve them successfully once he's safely in office. (Or that he at least won't skimp any worse than the Bush administration.) But I see no more evidence for that than for his secretly planning to declare himself emperor, or to appoint Ralph Nader his vice president and resign in his favor. Nothing in Kerry's political record or his biography supports such a move as far as I can tell, and he has zero political capital riding on Iraq. (If Iraq becomes a disaster, it's Bush's fault, not his, and if he withdraws our troops then they're safe from the first-order effects.) I likewise don't see any indication that he's particularly committed to any sort of overall strategy against Islamofascism (as opposed to trying to track down specific terrorists and organizations as they come to our attention).

Is there something about him that I'm missing, where Kerry has articulated a clear committment to a strategy? (Ideally, one that's gone uncontradicted by other speeches or actions?) While it's unlikely that I'd vote for Kerry, I'd love to see some reassurance that if he's elected anyway it won't be a disaster for the overall war.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

Howdy!
Thanks for your reply. I will read up on your references, and try to form a more informed opinion myself.

I'm getting a sense of a consensus starting to grow among the foreign policy mainstream, (and the American people -- what with the 9-11) report, but this is only a "sense", and not well-informed.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Another significant difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq is: Bush has repeatedly identified the establishment of democracy in Iraq as a major goal of the occupation, while Kerry has spoken only of "stability." I expect this difference would have a major impact on when and under what conditions either candidate would be willing to withdraw troops.

[snowy-owlet.livejournal.com]

But what kind of democracy? Is there any evidence to think that a US-style democracy would be successful in an Arab country?

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

I have no words of consolation for you whatsoever.

While the choice between Kerry and Bush is not unlike chosing your favorite Menendez brother, voting for Bush is unconscionable. If you value foreign policy, then you are supporting a foreign policy of genocide and tyranny in the Middle East. You support clear-cut forests and offshore drilling and the corporate takoever of the FDA. You support tax cuts for the rich (just how rich are you, anyway?) and a deficit that will be paid by the grandchildren of people who have emigrated here for a better life. You support the Patriot Act.

George Bush was not elected president- hw was chosen by Republican members of the Supreme Court after eight years of Republican attempts to hobble Clinton's ability to govern. And to top it off, I simply do not understand gay men who vote Republican. You can rationalize it all you want. I don't get it.

Stop worshipping your oppressors.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

And to top it off, I simply do not understand gay men who vote Republican. You can rationalize it all you want. I don't get it.

Fair enough. For my part, I don't understand allowing one's sexuality to dictate party loyalties--particularly when I fail to see that either party has ever done much for gay rights. I've never forgotten who signed DOMA into law, much less the fact that a majority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress voted in favour of it. It seems to me that the biggest victories have always been the ones handed to us by the courts rather than any we've been able to beg and wheedle out of legislators.

But I'm of a different generation with a very different set of experiences and expectations.

Stop worshipping your oppressors.

Regardless, we can all do without this kind of rhetoric. While reasonable people might differ over whether the policies of Republican politicians can meaningfully be said to constitute "oppression" (personally, I don't feel I'm being "kept in subjection and hardship by the unjust exercise of authority, power, or strength", but YMMV), it simply makes no sense at all to compare casting a ballot for a particular candidate to an act of submission before a godhead.

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

I think there's enough to chew on without letting one's sexuality dictate one's party loyalties, and I'm sorry if thought i was. Although there are certainly enough people who are willing to do just that over gun control. Clinton's big error (on the gay) was the gays in the military mess. He acted way too soon. He would soon be shot down again over health care. After that, he learned prudence- at least in legislative affairs. I think he'll wind up re-assessed like Nixon, with the tragic near-greats.

I simply think of the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. As for the courts you look to for succor, we're only heartbeats away from a conservative Supreme Court under a second Bush administration, an issue again that is not just about gays. So your vote for Bush will be a mandate to appoint conservatives to the Court.

I don't understand the ageist comment. It's insulting. Everyone has different expectations and experiences.

As for "this kind" of rhetoric, maybe you can do without it, but I think not. It has served the Bush administration well in selling the war in Iraq and the continued oppression of the Palestinians. Whether it's "Healthy Forests" or "Freedom-Haters" academics like you provide the apologia. Perhaps I meant you were identifying with your oppressor, or the NeoCons on the tenure committee, rather than worshipping a godhead. But hey! Thanks for the definition. Academics do the best condescension.

The only room for us in the "Big Tent" the Republicans threw up a few weeks ago is under the floor, and preferably in a layer of quicklime.

"Why vote for Kerry?"

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

"He'd pick a really good cabinet."

My answer? I like to breathe. I never had asthma attacks while growing up, even though we lived in Dow Chemical central. For some reason I get them now from time to time. Especially in places like, oh, Houston.[*] I have to wonder what chance some kid who has been the victim of enviromental racism has. Given that Bush is letting energy companies write his energy policy for him, I don't think it is in the American people's best interest to reelect him.

http://misleader.org is also worth a look.

[*] Worth noting that I never had asthma attacks in Houston until after Bush was governer. Sadly, Bush seems to have laid waste to my bits of Texas. I'm told the water at the beach has odd scary oil drops in it. :P

I don't think I understand why you would vote for known evil. And Kerry will have a Republican Congress to deal with, so I don't think you can really loose with that.

Asthma Re: "Why vote for Kerry?"

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

Dude! I figured it out!

This way Bush gets to pay back both energy companies and drug companies at the same time!

Re: "Why vote for Kerry?"

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You can definitely lose by getting gridlock at a time like this. I can't help but wonder what Clinton might've accomplished in the fight against terrorism if he hadn't been at odds with such a vicious Congress.

I really can't understand making the environment one's primary issue this year. After all, if terrorists succeed in disrupting our oil supply, we'll be forced to rely even more on burning coal to supply our energy needs. What will it be like for asthmatics then?

[keanubear.livejournal.com]

Interesting, because my main reason for not supporting the President is his foreign policy. He had a great opportunity in Afganistan to maybe get democracy going there. Of course one could make the argument that democracy has to be brought about by a nations own people, but in any event, invading Afganistan made sense, so we were there, so why not get some democracy going?
Now that would cost a lot of money, and a lot of manpower, but he obviously isn't interested in doing that, because we are not.
There are also other philosophical issues, like the treatment of prisoners in Cuba, and Afganistan, and Iraq. If we were really trying to spread democracy we would give these prisoners the same rights that US citizens have, because that is the way we feel people, even our enemies, should be treated. We should be showing the world that a democracy is an enlightened way of living, and that we believe in our constitution and bill of rights. Unfortunetly our President has made sure our actions do not do that at all.
The whole one candidate being "lesss worse" than the other is a depressing aspect. But even in foreign policy I think Kerry would do a much better job than Bush.
"I RESPECT you for not allowing your self-respect to continue to be co-opted by the Republicans playing footsie with the haters."
I don't get that line from the letter at all. Bush wants to put discrimination in the constitution. That's kinda hateful on his part. By doing so he essentially trying to cram his religious views down all of our throats, and that seems kinda hateful too.
We could go on and on. Essentially I have big differences with how the Bush administration views the nature of our representative democracy. After 9-11, Cheney and Bush said that this wasn't our fault and that everyone was innocent, that people who would try to see why the terrorists may have done this horrible act should stop, etc etc. Osama Bin Laden said that he wanted to kill as many civilians as possible. Which shows he understands the US government more than Bush. Government for the people, by the people, OF the people. We pay for those bombs we drop. We pay for everything the government does in the world. We are all responsible. No tax paying US citizen is innocent.
In my view, Bush has failed on so many levels. Yes we need to be tough, and fight the terrorists, but we also need to hold on to the ideals that are special about this nation.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Interesting, because my main reason for not supporting the President is his foreign policy. He had a great opportunity in Afganistan to maybe get democracy going there. Of course one could make the argument that democracy has to be brought about by a nations own people, but in any event, invading Afganistan made sense, so we were there, so why not get some democracy going?

I agree completly!

Now that would cost a lot of money, and a lot of manpower, but he obviously isn't interested in doing that, because we are not.
There are also other philosophical issues, like the treatment of prisoners in Cuba, and Afganistan, and Iraq. If we were really trying to spread democracy we would give these prisoners the same rights that US citizens have, because that is the way we feel people, even our enemies, should be treated. We should be showing the world that a democracy is an enlightened way of living, and that we believe in our constitution and bill of rights. Unfortunetly our President has made sure our actions do not do that at all.

Finally I can read my thoughts written by somebody else.
Guantanamo is evidence enough that Bush isn't the one to push democracy in the world.
For me as an European it's strange that the president of the USA is well supported by christian fundamentalists. And it seems not to be a problem for the election.

Bush wants to put discrimination in the constitution. That's kinda hateful on his part. By doing so he essentially trying to cram his religious views down all of our throats, and that seems kinda hateful too.

Wow! You're right!

...In my view, Bush has failed on so many levels. Yes we need to be tough, and fight the terrorists, but we also need to hold on to the ideals that are special about this nation.

Wow! I love you for what you say!

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I don't get that line from the letter at all. Bush wants to put discrimination in the constitution. That's kinda hateful on his part. By doing so he essentially trying to cram his religious views down all of our throats, and that seems kinda hateful too.

I can't understand why people are making so much out of the proposed amendment. It's always struck me as a transparently diversionary tactic. Bush knows as well as anyone who can do Congressional math that has no chance at all of passing--not least of all because of the opposition of Constitutional conservatives in his own party. (These are the kind of principled people that say, "I don't believe in gay marriage, but changing the Constitution to prohibit it is unnecessary and irresponsible.") What it's done is energised his base by throwing a bone to the religious conservatives who, really, don't have much to show for four years of Bush in office.

The fact that's calculated doesn't make it less despicable, but it also hardly makes it evidence of a deep-seated hatred of homosexuals or a desire to impose Levitican prohibitions on the country. Underneath it all, he probably honestly believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but so do most people in the country. Does that make them all awful, homophobic people?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

If we were really trying to spread democracy we would give these prisoners the same rights that US citizens have, because that is the way we feel people, even our enemies, should be treated. We should be showing the world that a democracy is an enlightened way of living, and that we believe in our constitution and bill of rights. Unfortunetly our President has made sure our actions do not do that at all.

Does this mean that we had no interest in democracy after WWII? (The vast majority of Axis prisoners were explicitly excluded from POW status, were mostly not even considered for treatment under US criminal or constitutional law, were kept in conditions that were forbidden under the relevant treaties, were used in dangerous forced labor, and many were held for years without even the military tribunals the Guantanamo prisoners are getting.) And given that we somehow managed to build democracies in the defeated countries anyway, is there reason to think that Guantanamo is more of an insurmountable obstacle (or proof of our overall ill-intentions) than our post-WWII actions were?

(This is distinct from the question of whether the use of Guantanamo is a good or a bad thing. Stipulating for the sake of argument that it's bad, does it poison our efforts more than our similar actions during and after WWII did, and if so, how?)

Does that make them all awful, homophobic people?

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

Not unequivocally awful. Perhaps unable to see beyond the narrow confines of what they'd like the world to look like. It's like interracial marriage or universal suffrage once were- totally out of the box. But does this mean we're just going to sit around and wait for them to change their minds? I think not.

I usually instantly de-friend people who bring up either politics or Laci Peterson, but in your case a really smart gay Republican was too much of a tasty morsel to resist. But I apologize. It turns out your not really a Republican. It was still fun chewing on you. My sense of outrage sometimes spilleth over.

I don't think gays should vote for George Bush for many reasons, most of which I've already elucidated. I don't think Americans should vote for George Bush for pretty much the same reasons. And as keanubear put it, those are our bullets out there. We paid for them. and re-electing George Bush will just send more. And I'm sure lots of Americans have very plausible reasons to vote for Bush, some of them one or two issue voters, like billionaires, Catholics and Cuban-Americans, to name a few.

We'll probably never know the real reasons for Iraq II, but I suspect it will, in the coming weeks, become even uglier. If only for the "Insurgents" to rub Bush's face in it. So it sounds you're going to vote for Bush solely on the basis of his competent foreign policy, which makes you a one issue voter. Or perhaps I misunderstand:

if you don't get the foreign policy right, the economic and social issues won't matter. So I reluctantly, with teeth gnashing, support the GOP

And I don't think Bush has a foreign policy much beyond bombing the shit out of brown peoples very far away. So I'm sorry you're voting for him when there are so many reasons not to. And to bring up the age issue again, maybe you haven't been around long enough to build up enough anger and outrage. It's enough to make one pine for the relatively placid early days of Richard Nixon.

I liked your thoughts on Kansas City and Frank Gehry. Late-career architects are rarely a good choice for epoch-making buildings, and I think the mayor has been reading to many Conde Nast Traveller magazines. To mix metaphors (or something) the term "world class" has "wannabe" written all over it.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

But does this mean we're just going to sit around and wait for them to change their minds? I think not.

That's one option. Sorry to bring up age again, but opposition to gay marriage decreases markedly with it. A majority of people younger than me (I'm 34) have no problems with it. Within my lifetime, it will become a non-issue.

However, at present, a majority of Americans still oppose it, so I see legislative solutions as a losing proposition except in a few pockets of liberalism. However, pursuing anti-discrimination through the courts has shown dramatic success. My hope is that enough moderates will see that the establishment of gay marriage in Massachusetts has not led to mass hysteria that attitudes will change faster than they would otherwise. That's a medium-term strategy at best, though.

I usually instantly de-friend people who bring up either politics or Laci Peterson

I'm hoping we'll be able to compartmentalise this relationship, just as we'd be able to if we knew each other in person instead of just over the Internet. I'd miss your comments on food on culture and I hope you'd miss mind as well. I hide sex behind cut tags now in order to keep from losing androkles; should I begin doing the same with politics?

So it sounds you're going to vote for Bush solely on the basis of his competent foreign policy, which makes you a one issue voter.

I feel perillously to being one, but it "helps" that Kerry is so deeply flawed. For instance, fiscal responsibility is usually a big issue with me, too (despite what the letter-writer says, if you get the economy wrong, you're ability to conduct foreign policy is seriously hobbled), but Kerry seems hardly better than Bush on this score. Yes, he will rescind some of Bush's overly-generous tax cuts, but the increased revenue goes right out the door again on health care spending and the deficit gets no smaller.

maybe you haven't been around long enough to build up enough anger and outrage.

Oh, I've got plenty of that; I came of age under Reagan, after all. It's just that I've switched targets. These days, Chomsky pisses me off more than Helms ever did.