|
|
|
August 22, 2005
Partisan political war?
Unless I am reading him wrong, Professor Bainbridge seems to think that success in the Iraq war should be measured by whether it benefits partisan (in this case conservative) politics: The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?I'm sorry, but I think this is fundamentally the wrong way to look at any war. The country is supposed to be at war, and ideally, all citizens should be in support of it. The war is not being waged for the benefit of the "conservative" cause -- or any other cause other than the cause of freedom. I must be missing something. Is Professor Bainbridge suggesting that this is a war for conservatism? I hope he isn't, and I hope it isn't. UPDATE: Rick Moran has a very thorough refutation of Professor Bainbridge's post. (Much more thorough than mine.) posted by Eric on 08.22.05 at 11:26 PM
Comments
I totally agree with you. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans or even necessarily about Left vs. Right. The Left, and the Left in the Democratic party, have done their best to make it so, but the rest of us should think of ourselves as Americans first in this War. I agree with Dean Esmay that "politics stops at the water's edge". I oppose the New Deal, but I would have totally supported FDR and Truman (and Churchill) in their War against Hitler and the Japanese empire. If fighting and winning that War had the unfortunate side effect of further entrenching the Democratic party and its New Deal and Fair Deal, that's too bad, but that's the way it had to be. Winning this War is far more important than just about any internal political controversies. If our enemies win, then there won't be homosexual marriage or women's rights or legalized drugs or any of the freedoms we want or any of the freedoms we take for granted. The choice before is either victory or slavery. We must fight and win this War. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 23, 2005 10:00 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq...
This pretty much sums up this guy's mental and moral bankruptcy: however bad things get in Iraq, whoever wants to kill Americans and undermine the basic values of a civilized society, his greatest enemy and boogeyman will always be nonviolent Americans different from himself.