arisbe

What the New Democrats object to is the Bush gang's outspokenness – its crude honesty, if you like – in stating its plans openly, and not from behind the usual veil or in the usual specious code of imperial liberalism and its "moral authority." New Democrats of Kerry's sort are all for the American empire; understandably, they would prefer that those words remained unsaid. "Progressive internationalism" is far more acceptable.

So Kerry will be elected, and the course of evil will be unchecked, at least in its international manifestation. Though the stupidity with which our present leaders conduct their policy may entail evils of its own. And there may be some hope that the juggernaut of domestic repression will slow somewhat.

If I had money, which I do not, I might be tempted to take my Irish passport and buy a home in the Netherlands Antilles. Or one of the smaller Greek islands.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

I think you should take a look at this week's New Republic and read about the perspective Kerry inherits from his father, a career diplomat. Kerry is very much NOT a "New Democrat," if this article is correct, but, instead, a "realist" with an internationalist perspective. Turns out his State Department father was against the war before his son was, but for purely pragmatic reasons. Kerry, who IS wooden and somewhat hypocritical in his private life, is nevertheless beginning to look better and better to me.

From:

arisbe.livejournal.com

Pragmatic reasons are better than no reason at all.

From:

fixnwrtr.livejournal.com

Instead of a two-party system we have Dems and Reps masquerading as each other but unwilling to deny they're wearing the exact same dress to the ball.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

I agree with this only up to a point: we definitely would NOT have gone to war in Iraq when we did--and perhaps not at all--had Gore been President. I think most politically astute people would agree with that, and I think, in making a choice between Kerry and Bush--and I agree it's not MUCH of a choice, when it comes to domestic and economic policy--I think it's useful to focus on THAT difference, no matter what is your political ideology.

From:

fixnwrtr.livejournal.com

And you don't think Kerry's doctrine of American Domination, masked though it is, is not THE issue? To trade one horse for another equally as lame will do nothing for the economy or for international policy. What we need is a shake-up and a real difference in candidates instead of the current Coke or Pepsi choices. There is definitely a difference, but it is small, especially since they reinvented Coke. Too bad Kerry doesn't have time to reinvent himself.

From:

publius-aelius.livejournal.com

Kerry's doctrine of "American Domination" will be more nuanced, more diplomatic in tone, and will DEFINITELY be more respectful of the lives and cultures of others who aren't American. That's all a lot of realistic Asians and Europeans are looking for. Look, I understand where you're coming from, and from your perspective (which I largely share) both men are imperialists. The problem is that the most powerful country on earth is intellectually and spiritually MARRIED to the Horatio Alger myth which will destroy the planet eventually.

From:

fixnwrtr.livejournal.com

Domination is domination no matter how you phrase it or how 'friendly' and 'diplomatic' it is. All I am saying is that they're both still wearing the same gown to the ball and neither one of them wants to acknowledge it. You're right. In the end it will either kill us and destroy the world or someone/something will step in and stop it. I vote for stopping it and voting in someone who does have our best interests at heart.

And they say honesty is the best policy...yet it does not seem to be so.

From:

winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com

"Domination is domination"--that's a dangerous viewpoint, considering all politics is about lesser domination of one view over another. Now, I don't like Kerry, but I know that when it comes to lives and whole cultures lost, Kerry will probably have a lot less blood on his hands than our current dominator.

"In the end it will kill us.." what will kill us? Please be specific. . . .

who would you have run and how do you win? YOu know what democracy is very good, slowing the pace of public change to that of a snail. That is why most revolutions end with dictators.

From:

fixnwrtr.livejournal.com

When you're talking about world domination and extending the reach of America into world domination, that is dangerous. How can you say Kerry will have less blood on his hands than Bush when he has fought in Vietnam and is a known hawk? The only true proof of anyone's views and beliefs is in their voting record and, if that is not available, in their professed views. You also have to throw out the feel good rhetoric dressed up as liberalism or conservatism and focus on the facts and not on the spin and spin is exactly what Kerry offers. We would have had a better chance with Dean, but he was not electable because he is not a media hog wallowing in Clintonesque ideals and media spin. He was who he was and he was not apologetic for his views or his demeanor. Unfortunately, the race for the presidencey is more about sound bytes and media grooming than about issues and records.

What will kill us? The need to continue world domination in any form, which does not mean we should return to a more isolationist approach or that we kowtow to endless UN proposals that go nowhere and mean about as much as telling a child not to do something over and over, threatening punishment and never getting there until you explode. That kind of passive-aggressive activity will only end in complete disregard for the UN and its policies and for utter disregard for anyone who proposes endless proposals and does nothing. There has to be a stopping point.

Charisma should not be an issue nor should it be any part of the process in choosing a leader. Nixon had no charisma next to Kennedy, but he was a much better president, diplomat, and statesman.

The problem is that the public, that much vaunted voice of the people, feel they have no recourse to action and that their votes mean nothing. They have also been taught that it is the rich man who wins and not the one who is best for the job. I'd like to see more diversity among the candidates and someone who not only shows a grasp of how to make the system work for them, but who has no personal political agenda outside of serving the people who elect them. Personally, I'd like to see a woman put up for office, but there have been no front runners in that arena either. The US, that arbiter of democracy and forerunner of world politics, has yet to elect a woman or an ethnic candidate.

Who would be right for the job? None of the current crop and whoever is right isn't stepping forward.

Who would you like to see?

From:

winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com

Charisma is a quality of leadership--and while I agree its over-valued in our culture, I wouldn't devalue either. You seem to operate under the assumption that reason should rule our political judgments. In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, that has never happened anywhere in human.

I don't think anyone is right for the job--it's probably not a valid job. Part of the problem is the nature of the Presidency, not just the nature of those who want to be President.

Perhaps, you should question what the power is in voting? The models of citizenry that the modern idea of the democratic republic could exist where, in the case of Greece, a small enough population to fit in a forum, or, in the case of Rome, didn't last very long once real outside political power was achieved.

I would like to see a female President--or a minority President, but that being said, a minority does not represent the majority of the nation yet (but probably will soon in regards to Hispanics). But some good ol' female agression (and non-aggression) would do us some good in the executive office.

But let me be frank, we should worship freedom, not democracy.