Reclaiming Our Inner Truman: Two books just in time for the elections

[wyldwolf]

Reclaiming Our Inner Truman: Two books just in time for the elections

Let every nation know. . .whether it wishes us well or ill. . . that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge. . .and more...

--- John F. Kennedy

The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again

Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed. They believed America must lead the world by persuasion, not command. And they believed that by championing freedom overseas, America itself could become more free. That liberal spirit won America's trust at the dawn of the cold war. Then it collapsed in the wake of Vietnam. Now, after 9/11, and the failed presidency of George W. Bush, America needs it back.

In this powerful and provocative book, Peter Beinart offers a new liberal vision, based on principles liberals too often forget: That America's greatness cannot simply be asserted; it must be proved. That to be good, America does not have to be pure. That American leadership is not American empire. And that liberalism cannot merely define itself against the right, but must fervently oppose the totalitarianism that blighted Europe a half century ago, and which stalks the Islamic world today.

With liberals severed from their own history, conservatives have drawn on theirs -- the principles of national chauvinism and moral complacency that America once rejected. The country will reject them again, and embrace the creed that brought it greatness before. But only if liberals remember what that means. It means an unyielding hostility to totalitarianism -- and a recognition that defeating it requires bringing hope to the bleakest corners of the globe. And it means understanding that democracy begins at home, in a nation that does not merely preach about justice, but becomes more just itself.

Peter Beinart's The Good Fight is a passionate rejoinder to the conservatives who have ruled Washington since 9/11. It is an intellectual lifeline for a Democratic Party lying flat on its back. And it is a call for liberals to revive the spirit that swept America, and inspired the world.

This stimulating manifesto calls for a liberalism that battles Islamist totalitarianism as forthrightly as Cold War liberals opposed Communist totalitarianism. Former New Republic editor Beinart assails both an anti-imperialist left that rejects the exercise of U.S. power and the Bush administration's assumption of America's moral infallibility. America shouldn't shrink from fighting terrorism, despite civilian casualties and moral compromises, he contends, but its antitotalitarian agenda must be restrained by world opinion, international institutions and liberal self-doubt, while bolstered by economic development aid abroad and economic equality at home. Beinart offers an incisive historical account of the conflicts straining postwar liberalism and of the contradictions, hubris and incompetence of Bush's actions. He's sketchier on what a liberal war on terror entails" perhaps a cross between Clinton's Balkan humanitarian interventions and the Afghanistan operation, with U.S. forces descending on Muslim backwaters to destroy jihadists and build nations. The tragic conundrum of a fighting liberalism that avoids enmeshment in a Vietnam or Iraq (the author now repudiates his early support of the Iraq war) is never adequately addressed. Still, Beinart's provocative analysis could stir much-needed debate on the direction of liberal foreign policy.




With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty

With President Bush's approval ratings in a swan dive, progressives -- for the first time since 9/11 changed U.S. politics -- finally have a chance to be heard on national security. What will they say? Instead of falling back on easy criticisms of the administration's blunders in Iraq, a new Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) book argues that progressives should seize the moment by proposing a comprehensive agenda for winning the war against jihadist terrorism -- an agenda rooted in the tough-minded, internationalist tradition of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

"It has become increasingly obvious that America's 'war on terror' is actually part of something much bigger: an historic confrontation between democracy and totalitarianism. With All Our Might makes a compelling case that Democrats can do a better job of winning this war of ideas, vindicating our progressive values, and making Americans safer."

-- Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa
and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council

"Anyone who questions whether Democrats are capable of taking charge of America's fight against jihadist terror should read this book. It offers a compelling alternative to the one-dimensional Bush doctrine, a progressive vision for recapturing the totality of America's strength and our ideas and ideals, as well as our military might to defend our way of life."

-- Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware

"This book takes the long view -- beyond the difficulties in Iraq to America's long-range strategy for defeating Islamist extremism. It presents a bold plan for repairing our overstretched military, rebuilding our strategic alliances, renewing our economic strength, and restoring American's most precious asset -- our moral authority."

-- Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia

"With All Our Might reconnects Democrats to our party's proud heritage of defending our country in tough and smart ways. It is a how-to manual for winning our new war against terror, yet its vision and strategies would not be unfamiliar to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or John Kennedy."

-- Senator Evan Bayh, Indiana

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Kicking hard and HIGHLY recommending!

Enough of the myth that conservatives know the true path to America's greatness!

:kick::kick::kick::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[calimary]

2. I'll take a crack at that, too.

Kick!

We liberals need more good ammo like this in our arsenals.

[wyldwolf]

3. thank you! Thread is gonna sink, but it had to be said

[Mz Pip]

4. kick

:kick:

Real book! Not ad homimem tripe that the RW puts out on a regular basis.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[wyldwolf]

5. thanks for the kick! The war on terror should be the liberal's war!

Think about it: The jihadist campaign is not some generic explosion of terrorism, but rather a calculated attack on all that liberals hold dear: tolerance, diversity, women's rights, the fundamental freedoms and protections of democracy, even trade unionism. In short, liberal values. That's why the liberal left makes a profound mistake if it concedes this war to George W. Bush and the right.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253452

[OzarkDem]

9. I agree, but Progressive Policy Institute isn't liberal

They've usually used that term with scorn against their fellow Dems.

[wyldwolf]

13. no, actually, they scorn the new left of the late 60s

the pacifist crowd that the so-called KOSian "netroots" are the idealogical heirs to.

[OzarkDem]

15. So if they don't like liberals

why are PNAC loving DLC er's writing books about how liberals are better suited to deal with terrorism?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

19. yes. The FDR to LBJ stripe. Not the radical left that has tried to...

... hijack the party since roughly 1968.

[ulysses]

22. what characterizes that "radical left"?

I'm curious about who, exactly, you mean.

[ulysses]

29. I guess I didn't really expect a response.

I never seem to get one when I ask questions like this. It's too good a slur to ruin with an explanation, I suppose.

[wyldwolf]

33. What is the Radical, or New Left?

I'll use several sources to flesh out who, exactly, I mean when I say "radical left..."

The New Left is a term used in political discourse to refer to radical left-wing movements from the 1960s onwards... In the United States, the "New Left" was the name loosely associated with a radical political movement that took place during the 1960s, primarily among college students... The New Left opposed the prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment..." Wikipedia

In American politics, the "establishment" opposed by the New Left was, among other things, the Government and party structure. The Democrats and Republicans. The The new left ultimately got a presidential nominee in George McGovern.

The New Left's goal, as it is today, is to correct perceived errors of what many on DU call "the old guard," or Democrats like Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Clinton (based on his association with the DLC.)

In my experience, the New Left today (as described by Marshall Whittman) are merely "McGovernites with modems."

Many of the ideological heirs to the New Left movement today are a paranoid bunch more concerned with ideological heresy within the ranks of the left than actually defeating the enemy - the GOP. They have their counterparts on the right, as well.

I've also noticed historical revisionism among them, with many believing the politics of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson are in line with their thinking, although their movement was born to oppose the politics of the just mentioned Presidents.

I've seen other moderates on DU jokingly say that the "progressives" (New Left) here believe McGovern created the Democratic party. Actually, the extent of knowledge of the party, policies, and such, is limited to the anti-war movement of the 60s. They can speak with reverence about FDR's New Deal, but for the most part they have little knowledge of FDR's policies beyond that.

The skewed thinking of the new, or radical, left has given rise to the popular mantra among them that they "have to take their party back." In reality, though, they never gained more than a foot hole in the party, yet believe they have some grand power over it.

[ulysses]

40. oh, ok. thanks for the answer.

Question: do you think I belong to this group? If so, why?

[Donna Zen]

41. So let me get this straight

If we disagree with triangulation, the war in Iraq, or anything the DLC says, you have decided to dismiss us as raving radicals? BTW, George McGovern was a long serving member of the Senate, a war hero who faced a horrible smear campaign by a liar who would be impeached.

This is hardly the biography of a radical leftist or a loser.

World War II interrupted McGovern's education in 1943. He flew 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot in Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross. After the war he returned to Dakota Wesleyan University, graduating in 1946. McGovern then attended Garrett Seminary for one year before enrolling at Northwestern University in Chicago, where he earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in American history and government.

The broad brush used to in describing 95% of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention (all anti-war) reveals a complete disregard for a large part of the party. The DLC is but a small ruling class, they are not the entire party. Hell, maybe when the rank and file Democrats were supporting JFK and fighting Goldwater, some of the DLC members were volunteering their time for that republican campaign.

[brentspeak]

43. The Progressive Policy Institute is not FDR-LBJ type

They may claim to be New Deal Democrats, but its PNAC-oriented stances on the Middle East and its neoliberal pro-NAFTA/CAFTA positions definitely puts them nowhere near the "radical centrist" types of FDR through LBJ.

[Donna Zen]

31. No, actually, Kos is not a pacifist nor are many members of the netroots

Beinart admits in the book that he got it wrong. What he and the others fail to admit is that many of the so-called netroots got it right in the first place. Beinart believed then that going into Iraq, the swamp-cleaning, was a good idea. The opposition, including 3 of the 4 generals who testified prior to the war, argued that the entire concept was flawed. Those guys can hardly be considered netroots pacifists. Beinart and his crowd have ignored that fact, and have decided to instead reframe the debate with false labeling. Being against this war does not necessarily mean being against all wars. There's a difference you know.

So, that's where we are: those who signed up for the neocon plan are now preaching liberal foreign policy to those who got in the first place. Spicing it up with name calling doesn't change the bad taste this leaves in ones mouth.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. k/r

[many a good man]

7. I've never cared much for liberal hawks

While far less evil than their conservative counterparts, they pursue an equally unsustainable philosophy that will result in the same ends, only more gradually.

The world sorely needs greater American leadership, but with a stronger dose of humility. The UN and other international institutions can only fulfill their promise with the strong backing of the US. That won't happen as long as American interests are identified with multinational corporations at the expense of social justice. We need to lead by example and offer incentives for other countries to do the same.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. Peter Beinart wants a massive purge of the Democratic Party

granted there are people here on DU advocating the opposite sort of purge-but young Mr. Beinart is a lot closer to the centers of power than those folks here on DU:

Link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2110699/

snip:

"Beinart-Skipper: TNR's Peter Beinart argues that, just as liberals needed to purge non-anti-Communists from their ranks in the late 1940s, Democrats need to purge today's "heirs of Henry Wallace"--specifically, Michael Moore and MoveOn--who do "not believe there is a terrorist threat." It's a powerful analogy, and running Moore out of the party might well give any Democratic candidate an essential anti-Souljah credibility. "

snip:" Beinart's whole Cold War analogy is perfectly apt. Except that

a) "Islamist totalitarianism" isn't a state phenomenon the way Communist totalitarianism was (which Beinart acknowledges in passing);

b) Angry Islamists in 2004, unlike angry Communists in 1947, are increasingly empowered by ever-more-available technologies of mass destruction (something Beinart doesn't acknowledge);

c) Attacking Communism didn't threaten to radicalize hundreds of millions of otherwise peaceable socialists the way frontally attacking Islamic fundamentalists threatens to radicalize hundreds of millions of Muslims (another way of saying that the "clash of civilizations" has a self-fulfilling quality that the twilight struggle against the Soviets did not); and

d) We never did anything as agressive, in the course of successfully containing communism, as what we've already done in the course of combatting Islamic terror (i.e. invading Iraq).

If Communism had been a non-state ideology that embraced suicidal terrorism and was potentially adopted by millions of individuals and small groups with increasing access to weapons of mass death--individuals who could be whipped into anger by Internet-era media technology in the wake of anything that smacked of an "assault on Communism"--the Cold War might have looked very different back in 1947"
____________

I'm also very concerned about Mr. Beinart's term "Islamo-fascism". Is there not something of a racist ring to that phrase? If he means the likes of Al Qaeda, fine. But is he including the many other political groupings in the Middle East such as Hezboulah or Hamas? Does he know that that there are major-major difference between these groups who feel no affinity to Al Qaeda whatsoever? Does he realize the consequences of assaults on extremely popular mass based political parties even if they are defined as terrorist by the U.S.?

And when will this war end when there is no Berlin to fall? And how much of any such war would in affect be a cover for other agendas the way the cold war was a cover in Latin America for overthrowing democracies that ran afoul of American corporations?

[OzarkDem]

11. Terrorism is a criminal enterprise requiring police intervention

That was the argument made by US intelligence against the Iraq invasion from the beginning.

Clinton caught the terrorists who bombed WTC the first time by pursuing the criminals through international police networks and investigation.

Invading countries and taking over governments doesn't solve the problem of terrorism, it only makes it worse.

Tracking criminal terrorism groups and materials around the globe while having strong homeland security is the way to fight terrorism.

[MrBenchley]

36. Uh, Moore isn't IN the Democratic party....

But it is funny as hell to see you trot out a book review by lying Mickey Kaus.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. Oh, What a Lovely Day for a Purge! by Ruy Teixeira author of the

Emerging Democratic Majority

link:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000986.php

"Peter Beinart, editor of the The New Republic, proposes in their latest magazine that Democrats stop all this unity nonsense and get down to what's really important: purging the party of all those wrong-headed "softs" who don't have the backbone to stand up (really stand up) to the new totalitarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Their failure to "report for duty" (Beinart specifically mentions only MoveOn and Michael Moore but I think his criteria for softness would also implicate most of the liberal blogosphere, most Dean campaign activists, a good chunk of the leadership of the 527s and countless others within the party) cost the Democrats the White House in 2004 and will do so forever until Democrats decisively remove them from power and influence in the party. Yes, it's purge time in the glorious spirit of the late '40s actions against Communists and those soft on them within the Democratic party."

[OzarkDem]

8. Truman wouldn't agree w/ PNAC

I'm not so sure about Will Marshall and PPI reflecting Truman's values. He liked working through the UN and with our Allies. I'm not so sure he would agree that a ground invasion of Iraq or any mideast country is a good idea.

[many a good man]

12. Sure, but HST invented the Cold War and National Security State

Fighting worldwide tyrannical movements is one thing, but not when it destroys yourself in the process. Whipping up an enemy (communism, terrorism) is an easy way to win votes (and patronage from the military-industrial complex) but it leads to massive debt and massive blowback that haunts for decades down the line.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. I'm afraid you are right

I remember those outlandish grim fairy tales about Soviet soldiers marching down our streets in small town America gathering up the Bibles and shooting people who were caught praying. And somehow or other we were supposed believe that we were in Viet Nam to prevent that from happening.

I was just a kid when LBJ was President but I remember so well all the hope for the Great Society and how the Democratic Party held power from sea to shining sea. Then all of that was destroyed by cold war ideology and the endless serious of carnage and slaughter it created. I don't blame LBJ personally because he was following the natural course of an ideology running amok.

I sure hope the Democratic Party doesn't commit suicide a second time by following demagoguery and make believe threats. The real threats of terrorism are bad enough. The real threats are what we have an international police network for.

speaking of books here is great one just on the subject you mentioned:

House of War by James Carroll



link to Amazon site:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618187804/002-1846545-3744063?v=glance&n=283155



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[OzarkDem]

16. Truman was smeared by the anti-Communist groups

McCarthy and others went after Truman when he fired McArthur. He was actually a victim of the fearmongering.

[wyldwolf]

24. Truman was smeared by pro-communist groups as well.

[Critters2]

30. Truman did a little smearing of his own

Me, I still think Henry Wallace was a great man. In spite of what Truman and the Dem apparatchiks did to him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. Zbigniew Brzezinski calls War on Terror a narrow and extremist vision

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions."

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "
_______________

and while on the subject of Mr. Brzezinski here are his thoughts regarding Iran:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[SaveElmer]

17. I'll give this a kick...

And add both of these books to my summer reading. An objective look at the PPI white papers reveals a new way to fight for progressive ideals. I don't always agree with them, but they do have some very intriguing ideas. Unfortunately, for many, any DLC link will automatically disqualify it in their eyes.

[Donna Zen]

18. Beinart and his allies

Beinart cites Harry Truman's inaugural address:

Essentially, it rested on three interlocking planks. The first was containment: military efforts to prevent Soviet aggression . . . The second element in liberal foreign policy was development . . . If democracy couldn't provide economic opportunity it would lose people's faith. This was the principle behind the Marshall Plan. . . . Thirdly, liberal foreign policy involved restraint. Rather than wield its enormous power alone, the United States would share it with other countries. NATO was an expression of this idea. So was Truman's support for the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. Partly this reflected the Truman Administration`s recognition that in an interdependent world, the United States could guarantee neither its security nor its prosperity alone. But it reflected another recognition as well . . . Americans should not fall in love with their own virtue, and should not expect non-Americans to take that virtue on faith. . . . " We all have to recognize - no matter how great our strength," Truman declared, "that we must deny ourselves the license to do as we please." . . . As one State Department official put it, the goal was to foster allies "string enough to say 'no' both to the Soviet Union and the United States, if our actions should seem so to require."

Unfortunately for the world and our country, Beinart and his allies, those now singing his praises, abandon every tenet that the liberal foreign policy was built upon when they chose to support this sinful war. We who understood and remembered begged them to vote "no." To lecture us now as if we were ignorant is, one would think, more than a little insulting.

Or do Beinart and his merry band write us off as those tree-hugging leftists dimwits that they keep complaining about? Well, perhaps it matters that we know they were told before they chose to support bush in this terrible adventure:

GEN. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, at the end of World War II, when the United States had a nuclear weapons monopoly and when our gross domestic product was 50 percent of the world's production, President Roosevelt and, later, President Truman recognized that even with that strength, the United States by itself wasn't strong enough, wasn't capable of handling all of the world's problems in assuring peace and security by itself. And so they sought to create an institution which would be better than the defunct League of Nations, and they built the United Nations. And President Truman said that the method of the United Nations should be that right makes might.

We've spent the 55, 57 years since then trying to develop international institutions that would help strengthen America and help protect our interests as well as the interests of people around the world. But we recognized that a world in which nations are only regulated and guided unilaterally in seeking their self-interest is not a world that's in our best advantage.

Ah...the value of hindsight vs the value of knowing your history. I'll take history rather than heap rewards upon those who failed to stand for a liberal foreign policy when it might have mattered.

[wyldwolf]

20. A Review of "With All Our Might" by Michael Signer of the Truman Institute

Michael Signer over at Democracy Arsenal and member of the Truman Institute has this to say about the Progressive Policy Institute's new book With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty.

A great big shout-out to the good folks at the Progressive Policy Institute for their publication this week of a volume called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, edited by the redoubtable Will Marshall.

The book is a spectacular example of how engaged progressives are coming up with specific policy to envision a brighter future -- and to lead the country and the world toward security. A collection of essays by top scholars and policymakers, including Ken Pollack, Graham Allison, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Rachel Kleinfeld and Matt Spence of the Truman Project (of which I'm a Principal), the book is based on three premises:

1) Defeating Islamic extremism is America's top security imperative
2) Victory will require new strategies that are at once tough and intelligent
3) Progressives need to stop just reacting to President Bush and instead should be taking the lead with their own initiatives on security.

Among others, the book's authors make the following arguments:

- Rachel Kleinfeld and Matt Spence argue that new surveys reveal the "9/11" generation (those under 30) do not easily fit into familiar hawk-dove dichotomies -- that they're more patriotic, confident in the miiltary, and supportive of free trade than other groups. They should be embraced by the Democratic Party as "Truman Democrats," and should form the basis of a reinvigorated progressive/security nexus.

- Reza Aslan calls for supporting Muslim modernizers, taking the right side in the civil war (called fitnah by Muslims) within Islam between orthodoxy and modernity.

- Ken Pollack argues that we should create a grand strategy for the Middle East, based on the spread of liberal ideas, habits, and constitutions.

- In order to spread deeply-rooted democracy Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul suggest a Middle East version of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which formed a network of international institutions and NGO's to help undermine Soviet and Eastern bloc communism.

- Edward Gresser argues for a "Greater Middle East Prosperity Plan," in order to bolster Muslim economies and create opportunity for restless youth who otherwise turn to terrorism.

- Melissa Tyran says we need to reconcile Democrats and the military, by forging relationships between progressives with veterans groups, and by addressing the day-to-day challenges of the military community.

- Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that the United Nations should concentrate more on economic and social assistance to weak and failing states, while NATO takes up more of the burden of collective security.

Progressives can gain the country's confidence again with ideas like these -- victory comes through policy, not just posturing. If we demonstrate that -- with sincerity and conviction -- we'll demonstrate we're doing the heavy lifting to figure out just what needs to be done to create a safer, more secure, and more stable post-9/11 world order, with America at the helm. And that will be a mighty accomplishment indeed.

More info: http://www.withallourmight.com/more.html

[eridani]

35. And where does the billion dollar US embassy in Iraq fit in?

The notion that we need 700 military bases around the world is bullshit. Also bullshit is the notion that any PPI thugs actually want democracy in the ME or anyplace else. If people get a real choice, they always vote to use their resources to benefite themselves in preference to foreign corporations.

Those assholes want secular democracy in the ME? Iran used to be one in the 50s, and then they decided to nationalize their oil. They seem to think that the US support of the most viciously reactionary Moslems in the 80s never happened.

[ulysses]

21. our friends in the DLC

are liberals now?

[wyldwolf]

23. what characterizes "liberal?"

I'm curious about what gains admission into that obviously exclusive club.

[ulysses]

25. well, ymmv, but

to my mind, a liberal is characterized by a concern for those in less fortunate circumstances than himself and by a determination not to rattle sabers simply because one likes the sound.

More generally, I would say that a liberal is able and willing to stand on principle instead of chasing after focus groups and the latest poll.

Now, would you care to answer my question upthread? I know you've seen it, since you question here mirrored it.

[wyldwolf]

26. ah, yes

So, if one is concerned for those in less fortunate circumstances, they are a liberal.

So, liberal:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253799&kaid=131&subid=207

A call to aid poor and developing countries with internet access...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253768&kaid=137&subid=900109

...we expanded access to health care to thousands of children, tens of thousands of children. We created a senior living trust that provided long-term care for people in their homes so that they didn't have to go to the nursing home before they wanted to or had to. They had the dignity of being able to live in their own home. We expanded opportunities for veterans. And now we're working on a creative and innovative approach to provide health insurance to everyone under 200 percent of poverty.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253585&kaid=127&subid=173

A few months ago, I led a trade mission to India. I saw a number of things there that speak to me about where we need to be as a nation. I was struck by the crushing poverty...

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253588&kaid=137&subid=900111

We are combining a progressive international agenda on issues like arms control, climate change, and efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, lack of schooling, and the ravages of disease in developing countries.

And if one has a determination not to rattle sabers simply because one likes the sound, they are a liberal. But, conversely, saber rattling beyond just liking the sound of it would make one liberal, yes? Like saber rattling against a organized Islamic extremists who have no tolerance for those who don't believe as they do and are committed to killing such.

And, yes, one can disagree with the left and still stand on principle. Perhaps it is THEIR principle and not yours?

[ulysses]

27. I notice you still haven't answered my original question.

How about you do that, then we'll get to all this.

[ulysses]

28. actually, let's go ahead and do this. you can continue to ignore my

question later.

So, if one is concerned for those in less fortunate circumstances, they are a liberal.

That is a characterization of a liberal. George W. Bush can affect concern for the poor, but he's not a liberal.

So, liberal:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253799&kaid=13...

A call to aid poor and developing countries with internet access...

See, this is why I love the DLC. We're going to send jobs overseas with NAFTA - and the limit the amount of time you can spend on welfare once your job is gone - but here's a cell phone. It's the new age! Whee!

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253768&kaid=13...

...we expanded access to health care to thousands of children, tens of thousands of children...

A later snip from Vilsack:

There are two great fundamentals of the American experience -- the self-made individual, but that self-made individual has always been surrounded by community. And recently we've forgotten that community aspect

Emphasis added. May we assume that Gov. Vilsack supported welfare reform?

A few months ago, I led a trade mission to India. I saw a number of things there that speak to me about where we need to be as a nation. I was struck by the crushing poverty...

Warner didn't have to go to India to be "struck by crushing poverty". The kids in the school where I teach know how to use Google, too.

We are combining a progressive international agenda on issues like arms control, climate change, and efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, lack of schooling, and the ravages of disease in developing countries.

Oh, wank wank. Pretty words. What was Hillary's stand on the immigration thing again? What, exactly, *is* that "progressive international agenda"? How's it working out?

But, conversely, saber rattling beyond just liking the sound of it would make one liberal, yes?

No.

Like saber rattling against a organized Islamic extremists who have no tolerance for those who don't believe as they do and are committed to killing such.

Actually, liberal in that regard would be undercutting those extremists' base of popular support by first stopping the policies that make us a pariah to much of the developing world. And liberal in that regard is most assuredly not supporting something as irrevocably stupid as invading Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

32. so you now insert caveats?

Originally, you said a liberal is characterized by a concern for those in less fortunate circumstances than himself and by a determination not to rattle sabers simply because one likes the sound.

I briefly demonstrated how how the DLC meets those qualifications.

Warner didn't have to go to India to be "struck by crushing poverty".

So... your new caveat is that to be a liberal, one must have concern with those in less fortunate circumstances than himself, but only in this country?

The rest of your response is pretty much the same. Typically of the left, you'll set criteria, then set the bar too high for those you don't like to meet that criteria.

liberal in that regard would be undercutting those extremists' base of popular support by first stopping the policies that make us a pariah to much of the developing world.

I'm assuming, then, that FDR was no liberal. He didn't try to undercut the base of Japan's popular support after Pearl Harbor.

[ulysses]

39. actually...

I briefly demonstrated how how the DLC meets those qualifications.

You quoted some nice words, yes. The reality falls short, imo.

So... your new caveat is that to be a liberal, one must have concern with those in less fortunate circumstances than himself, but only in this country?

Not at all. I'd just be interested to know what the plan is to help folks here, besides welfare reform.

The rest of your response is pretty much the same. Typically of the left, you'll set criteria, then set the bar too high for those you don't like to meet that criteria.

Not really.

I'm assuming, then, that FDR was no liberal. He didn't try to undercut the base of Japan's popular support after Pearl Harbor.

Apples and oranges. 9/11 was not Pearl Harbor and US foreign and economic policy at the time was a very different beast than it is now.

Was FDR liberal? I suppose I'd call him a moderate by today's standards. Would he be a DLCer?

[eridani]

34. Imperialism will destroy this country if these thugs have their way

Britain and the Soviets had to give it up because of the expense, and so will we. The only question is whether that will occur before or after we destroy ourselves internally.

[MrBenchley]

37. And it's worth remembering that the far left HATED Truman

although in retrospect he was right and they were ridiculous.....

[brentspeak]

44. I have a real problem with these Progressive Policy types claiming

some kind of kinship with the FDR through LBJ New Deal Democrats (and I would include Republican Dwight Eisenhower as an unofficial "New Deal Democrats", as well).

That generation of Democratic presidents, and Democratic congressmen (like Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson) were entirely pro-union, anti-laissez-faire free trade. The Progressive Policy people, in complete contrast, are staunch supporters of things like NAFTA and CAFTA (ie., they're "neoliberals"). Furthermore, while that generation of Democrats were pro-Israel, they were hardly the types who would hitch U.S. foreign policy to groups like PNAC. (ie. they would not have supported the Iraq invasion, as quite a few of the Progressive Policy people do).

The Progressive Policy is neoliberal (liberal on social issues, moderate Republican on free trade issues, neoconservative on foreign policy), not FDR liberal-centrist (apolitical on social issues, entirely liberal on economic issues, occasionally hawkish but not neoconservative on foreign policy.)