Imperialism and Treason: The Debate Continues

ChefJef continues our conversation of the last several days:

While an intelligent person may reasonably infer from my comments that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologies, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.

Counselor, you have me there. I do not think YOU intended even an inference that Bush = Hitler. I do not think you believe this; I sincerely believe that you, like me, think a serious comparison of this nature is a) nuts—carpet-chewing, tinfoil hat stuff—and b) stupid—thoroughly ignorant of history and the nature of evil in the world.

That said, I DO think that the boy and, more to the point, his teachers in Rhode Island, DID intend a direct comparison, even if the boy represented this disingenuously as a comparison between the tactics or operational art of the Wehrmacht and US forces. This is not how the comparison was taken and is not how it was intended. Whatever the words that accompanied the mobile said, a depiction of Hitler giving the Zeig Heil in front of toy soldiers of one (wrong) color directly next to W holding his arms up in front of his own goosestepping toy army cannot reasonably be taken any other way. Many learned treatises (some of them mine) have compared the doctrinal and technological revolution represented in Blitzkrieg with the current transformation of military practice. This is a valid—and values-neutral—line of research. It carries no implied comparison of Hitler’s ideology with that of the Bush administration. The Rhode Island kid’s project did. Period. Regardless of your own opinion on the subject, Chefjef—a reasonable one, I think—this is what the kid and his BlueState betters meant to be taken from his efforts. Any wordy protests and demurrals on their part are just legalese.

ChefJef continues:

I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.

Us RedStaters ‘presheate that. Gitrdone!

That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfowitz, et al, ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that. Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our
sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.

I concede your point again. I have used the term too loosely at times, I admit. For that I apologize, especially if it has offended an obvious member of the loyal opposition such as yourself. I honor your service, as you have honored mine, and have no doubts whatsoever concerning your loyalty to your country and your community. I can think you a fine American—and I do—and still disagree with you, even on “first principles.” That is, after all, much of the point of this blog. Debating these issues with civility and intelligence is an art that has largely been lost in this age’s partisan fog. It is an art our founding fathers possessed, as you yourself have pointed out. Our founding age was remarkable for the open debate that took place between fine minds of differing points of view and the survival and prosperity of our Republic is in large part a reflection of the reasonable compromise on first principles they were able to achieve. I’m confident similar common cause can be found today; we just need to get past the kind of rhetoric that both sides have over-indulged in these last twenty years or so. The Civil War was an example of what happens even in a nation based on reasoned, moderate first principles when civil discourse breaks down.

I believe I made clear in my last post that there is a distinction to be made between the benevolence of intent and the fact of empire. Conquer, keep, and rule—you do those things and you are an empire. If you sweep away an army and government, set up civil rule of law, and ultimately withdraw all but your commercial interests, you are not an empire, you have a sphere of influence. The US sphere of influence today spans the globe. (I don’t consider that such a bad thing, either.) If we are an empire and if our motives are imperialistic, then the definition of empire has morphed to include the exercise of soft power as well as hard power. By this definition, the Vatican is an empire that spans the globe too. Wahabbi Sunni is also an empire that spans half a billion screaming muslims (scary thought, that). This may be reasonable, but it does not accord with the conventional definition of empire.

A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool)…

…Gitrdone!…

…where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If you have the cake and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.

Uh…..nice try, but no. We forced an end to Fascism on Italy and Germany, an end to militaristic imperialism (correctly defined) on Japan and an end to communism on Soviet Russia, but none of these actions were “imperialistic” per se. We conquered the first three of these countries, yes. But we administered them for several years (taking casualties from disgruntled insurgents the whole time) and we eventually restored or established the civilian rule of law and left them to their own devices. This WAS “assault and battery,” a point I readily concede (albeit they started it), but it WAS NOT imperialism. If I force you to eat a piece of my Napoleon against your will, it is a form of assault. If I then put a gun to your head, put you in a cage, and force you to do my bidding from now ‘til…whenever…that is imperialism. Again, America has done this in the past, even though the results were largely benevolent, but it is NOT doing so in Iraq.ChefJef goes on,

That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.

They may. And they’d be wrong. I’m sure the denizens of Dresden thought it was “imperialistic” of us and the Brits to turn them into 100,000 hunks of well-done steak in atonement for their nation’s genuine imperialism, but they’d be wrong, too. I’m sure the people of Hiroshima would have thought it similarly nasty of us to turn them into shadows and grease spots on the pavement, had they had time to think about it. Terrible? Perhaps. Assault? Certainly. Perhaps even murder in the strict sense. But imperialism? No. It was not. By the same token, I’m sure Slobodan Milosevic thought we were being bloody “imperialistic” when Bill Clinton ordered his cronies’ porn and stolen car parts factories bombed back to the Middle Ages, but, again, that was assault, not imperialism. One can wage war, kill, destroy, coerce, and impose one’s will in a multitude of ways and those you are attacking can curse you to heaven from now until doomsday, but none of this will be “imperialism” unless the attacker’s intent is to conquer, keep, and rule.

Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You
got me there! Darn!

And, as the wise man has said, young Grasshopper: GITRDONE!

By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!

Chefjef

Thanks—and you are a large part of the reason it is. Keep those cards and letter coming in, folks!

Monk

Imperialism and Treason

Chefjef responds to this post of mine:

"I meant blitzkrieg. I was too lazy to type it out, so I typed blitz in quotes, but then got lazier and dropped the quotes. Sorry for the confusion.

"While an intelligent person may reasonably infer, from my comments, that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologizes, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.

"I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.

"That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfawitz (sp?) et al ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation Enduring freedom, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that . Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.

"A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool) where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If, you have the cake, and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is,” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.

"That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.

"Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You got me there! Darn!

"By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!"

Chefjef

An Empire of Words

Three of my correspondents have weighed in on the issue of the young Rhode Islander’s award-winning Bush = Hitler school project. Now it’s my turn.

Let me say at the outset that I agree with ChefJef’s objection to the kind of blind partisanship that leads to uncivil discourse. I don’t “fear for the Republic,” as ChefJef claims to—the Republic has seen much worse even in calm periods than the current era has put in its path (we don’t have Congressmen caning each other in the Capitol, for example)—but I do wish to encourage the civil exchange of ideas on this website. I think the new media—the ones that are rapidly toppling our self-appointed masters from the pinnacles of their information empire (see below for definition of this term)—are especially well suited to this task. Nonetheless, this blog will rapidly descend to the level of many others if we attack each other. I know I’m as guilty of blind partisanship as the next guy (Hans, for instance) and I will continue to express outrageous opinions in outrageous terms. Still, I think we need to refrain from ad hominem attacks in these pages. Margaret Cho and Rush Limbaugh are fair game. ChefJef and Hans are not. Fair enough?

In his last post, ChefJef wrote:

“The art was cheesy…but I don’t see how it is treasonous.”

You’re right, counselor. You would know better than I, but what the kid in Rhode Island did was certainly not treason in any legally actionable sense, as Hans admits. He was merely exercising his free speech rights and I would not seek to deny him that opportunity, however objectionable or ridiculous his speech may have been.

In a larger, qualitative sense, however, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question the patriotism of someone who directly compares an American President he or she disagrees with to the most coldly, systematically evil dictator in human history,* unless the result is that the POTUS—however squamous—comes across as reason, light, dark beer, and cold cream. (I despised Nixon, but he couldn’t rise to the level of Francisco Franco in my mind. I hated Clinton and thought he should have been removed from office, but he wasn’t even as bad as Nixon in my book—he was certainly no Hitler.) You can argue that W is dumb, his policies are dumb, his cabinet is dumb, and his dog is dumb from now until doomsday, but when you seriously make (that is, in the boy’s case, parrot) a comparison of this type, you are outside the bounds of what may reasonably be thought of as the actions of a loyal American, at least in colloquial terms. You have a perfect right to do it, of course, but I also have the perfect right to think you a traitor, even though you haven’t yet proven that you are in any legally meaningful sense. I suspect most RedState Americans would agree with me.

ChefJef said, “Furthermore, there is a grain of truth to the [boy’s] assertion. Am I saying Bush is a Nazi? Of course not; that's insane. But, the German blitz - among other things –was imperialistic in nature. The "Bush Doctrine," as it were, is also imperialistic. Now, whether or not the doctrine is justifiable is another question. A pre-emptive strike is a pre-emptive strike; some are justifiable while others aren't, but those that are justified do not, as a result of so being justified, somehow become ‘un- preemptive.’”

I beg to differ. There is not even a quark of truth to the boy’s assertion. As you say, it’s insane. It’s also I’gn’rant, as we say down here. German Blitzkrieg (as well as “the Blitz,” which is commonly taken to mean “the German bombing of London during WW II”), and all their other WW I and II campaigns, were imperialistic. That is, they sought to grab territory, resources, dependencies, and slave populations from conquered nations; to administer them directly or by suzerainty as part of an empire run solely by Germans or their immediate dependents; and to permanently occupy them with German or allied soldiers. This is not a narrow definition—throughout human history, this has been the common understanding of “empire.” An empire is a “hard power” entity. America exercises “soft power.” Our TV and movies are usually more influential than our troops, or even our cash. Yes, in many ways we are what Rome was to the Western world for many centuries and what Manchu China was to East Asia for even longer. Nonetheless, we are not an empire and our actions in Iraq were not “imperialistic,” however pervasive our influence may be. Jesus Christ, through moral suasion, influenced all history and thus sundered many empires. He created no earthly empire of his own. (Of course, He already had one elsewhere, in a manner of speaking.)

In Iraq, we sought to reduce a security threat (whether rightly or wrongly, you decide), establish a viable ideological and sociological alternative to both rogue and islamic fundamentalist regimes (rightly or wrongly, you decide), and secure access to a resource vital to the entire developed world free from the dictates of an unstable autocrat (rightly or wrongly, you decide). None of these things, however wrongheaded you may think them, were “imperialistic.” Neither was our war in Vietnam, contrary to the charges of people like John Kerry. Our aim there was not to conquer, keep, and rule. You can argue that it was stupid to stand in the way of an independence movement that was at least as much nationalist as communist. You can also argue that the war as fought was ill thought out and poorly run. But you cannot reasonably argue that our motives and efforts were imperialistic. Those that did so in the 60s were moonbats, by virtue of their unreasoned position, and, yes, many of them became traitors in what would have been a legally actionable sense in any age but ours, although that is peripheral to the issue at hand.

To put the term in perspective, Britain’s conquest and occupation of India was imperialistic. Even though its consequences were largely benevolent, it still met the criteria set forth above. By the same token, America’s conquest of Cuba and the Philippines in the early 20th century was imperialistic. If we get no ultimate benefit from military action other than a pseudo-democratic-republican country that provides us a market for our goods, it’s not imperialistic. This answers the Veep’s contention that we can’t act imperialistically because we’re a democratic country. Of course we can. We have done so and so has Great Britain, the Queen Mother of democracies in the modern world. But we have not done so in Iraq. If the Iraqi campaign was imperialistic, then so was our occupation of Germany and Japan following WW II. Further, the issue of whether the move was justified doesn’t determine whether the move was imperialistic. Again, most of Britain’s imperial conquests were benevolent, but they were still imperial in nature. We, the American Democratic Republic, may someday be justified in taking imperialistic action—even in Iraq—but that is a separate issue for another time.

Our young parrot was not critiquing or comparing the tactic of pre-emptive military action and pre-emption has nothing per se to do with imperialism. The latter is a matter of ultimate aim, not of the operational-level courses of action chosen to accomplish the military objectives. The “what” and “why” matter, not the “how”—what we do with the land once the enemy is conquered, not the conquest itself, matters most. In fact, even the word “conquer” is wrong, because it is informed by ages of imperial conquest and carries, at least implicitly, the taint of empire—even if, as in Germany, Japan, and Iraq, it is not “imperialistic” by nature.

I belabor this point because it is central to ChefJef’s argument. He maintains that this is the only aspect in which the boy intended the comparison. This is simply untrue. Even if the boy stated this as his intent, it was disingenuous—he intended the blindly partisan calumny to be taken in its larger, colloquial sense and so did the Rhode Island cognoscenti who endorsed the project. That is part of the problem of blind partisanship that ChefJef himself identifies. The leftists in Rhode Island are preaching to the choir. The Bushitler meme was such a commonplace for leftists during the presidential campaign that it’s not even noticed when it emerges in other venues: “Oh, little Johnny did a cute Bushitler mobile for art class. Isn’t that sweet! Gee, let’s give it a blue ribbon and send a picture of it to the New York Times. I HATE Bush. And that Hitler guy, he was pretty bad too, wasn’t he? He did something really awful in….where was it? China? Denver? Europe? That was it! Europe. I remember hearing about that place in college. Yeah. He did something really bad in Europe. My college professor told me that. Really cool guy. Laid back. Smoked pot. Really liberal. Gave everyone an ‘A.’ There was something about the Jews, too. Hitler was a Jew, right? Just like those damn Israelis! God, I hate those guys, oppressing the Palestinians like they do! Just like Bush. The whole world is controlled by the Jews and Bush! Bush is Hitler! Kill them all! And send a picture of little Johnny’s project to Washington! That’ll show those bloodsuckers!”

And so goes BlueState America.

We will never move toward consensus or intelligent civil discourse in this country until we get past this kind of bullsh*t.

That said, I agree entirely on ChefJef’s last two points—that the project represents a lowering of academic standards and that blind partisanship is strangling civil discourse in this country. I think my parody of BlueState academic standards shows my thinking on that score. The Red States are not much better, of course. Some are worse in a number of ways. Still, I grew up going to school in and around Washington DC—as Blue State as it gets. We had to worry about getting shot going to and in school. Down here in the “backward” Red States, I might have to worry about a teenager playing his music too loud, but even that’s rare. I put this to ChefJef: Where would you rather raise you children? In Los Angeles, where you grew up, or in Alabama? I think you have already made that vote with your feet, brother, regardless of what you may say on the subject. As to civil discourse—well, cool it, Hans, and all other do alike.

There is one more issue to deal with. All the Rhode Island boy’s work and several of ChefJef’s comments imply that a comparison between Hitler and any US president is “in bounds.” This diminishes the evil that Hitler represented. Hans has it exactly right, I think. The Veep does too. Where are the concentration camps? Where is the genocide? Note that I mean genocide here in its real-world sense: attempting to kill an entire people. I do not mean the sense that has been used by the leftist press for many years: “something the Right does involving the death of at least one human being that the Left does not agree with.” Yes, I am willing to entertain the idea the US government attempted a form of genocide against “Native Americans” during its imperialistic phase (from the end of the Civil War to WW I) (but not, of course, against Ward Churhill’s people, since it appears he is not an “Indian”). Be that as it may, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush’s policies in Iraq. The issue at hand it Iraq, not Wounded Knee. The law is an exercise in logic, counselor. Let’s keep things logical.

Again, though, to use rhetoric like the Rhode Islanders did is to diminish the reality of evil in the world. Evil is dangerous enough. It pervades the world. This is something good people cannot afford to do. Let’s have an end to “Bushitler” and agree that anyone using this meme is a moonbat and thus is outside the bounds of civil discourse.

PS: I have been out of touch with local business for several days; others have no clue—what is the news from MPD for which we need to pray?

Monk

* (albeit Stalin and Mao racked up higher body counts)

Teppichfressungen In Our Schools

A young product of BlueState America’s education system was awarded a state art prize last week for a school project that equated W to everyone’s favorite Teppichfresser (carpet-chewer).

Jeffrey Eden, 17, insisted he was trying to make comparisons between the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the German blitzkrieg without actually equating Hitler to Bush, the Providence Journal reported.But his piece, titled "Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself," immediately prompted a complaint after it was displayed at a store with other winners of the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards.

Check out the picture. Lovely.



Color me surprised, but I can’t think why I should be. This sort of thing was only a matter of time. I don’t fault the young man—although it would be satisfying if we still had press gangs and could “induct” him into the Marines and send him to Al-Anbar Province to experience a slice of life as it really is outside the Great American Parentheses.

No, I fault his teachers, school administrators, and everyone else involved in the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards program. Undoubtedly, they didn’t think twice about propagating this treasonous calumny. The kid was just cutely aping what they’d all taught him for years. This is just another symptom of the moral bankruptcy of many of our school systems that ChefJef wrote of a few days ago. (Update: Mark Steyn has further good thoughts here.)

It seems to me today's Teppichfresseren are the Lefts. Commentators are pointing out how things like this go hand in hand with things like the Eason Jordan scandal. These folks are preaching to the choir and that’s all they know how to do. Unfortunately for the Left, that’s probably all they’ll ever know how to do. This type of thinking has been entrenched for a long time—take film critic Pauline Kael’s remark back in 1980: “I don’t know how Reagan won—I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

One listener on Bill Bennett’s program this morning was right to point out how such things may have gone on unnoticed for a long time, but have recently been brought under scrutiny by indymedia like talk radio and the blogs. The era in which this sort of thing could be propagated without others noticing is over. Predictably, those whose rocks have been turned over are already crying “McCarthyism.” (Update: More of same here.)

(BTW, my twelve-year-old daughter put together a more professional looking presentation in a day. I guess they’re too busy teaching political correctness in RI to actually teach “art.”)

Monk

Updates: This post engendered a long thread, reproduced in its entirety below:

Okay, the "art" piece was cheesy, insofar as it purports to be a "work of art." But I don't see how it is treasonous. If the guy truly thinks that Bush's war policy is similar to Hitler's, how is he a traitor? Just because W is the President of the United States doesn't mean to oppose him, be it on one issue, several issues, or all issues, is somehow treasonous.

Furthermore, there is a grain of truth to the assertion. Am I saying Bush is a Nazi? Of course not; that's insane. But, the German blitz - among other things -was imperialistic in nature. The "Bush Doctrine," as it were, is also imperialistic. Now, whether or not the Doctrine is justifiable is another question. A pre-emptive strike is a pre-emptive strike; some are justifiable while others aren't, but those that are justified do not, as a result of so being justified, somehow become "un-preemptive."

My concern, though, is two-fold. The first is the apparent lack of academic standards at the boys' school. Again, his work, under any objective art analysis, is terrible. I sincerely hope that academic standards in other disciplines at his school are much more stringently maintained. In addition, given the lack of artistry reflected in his work, there is a strong possibility that the work received high marks because the evaluator(s) found its political message agreeable. This disturbs me.

On the other hand, I am guessing there are many people who would find the work disagreeable, yet similarly have no problem with the occasional "FemiNazi" rantings of Rush Limbaugh - that is when he is sober enough to babble-on. This equally disturbs. And therein, my-friends, is the real issue here. PARTISANSHIP. Partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that is so strong that otherwise intelligent, reasonable people either love Bush and hate Clinton, or hate Bush and love Clinton, when both are palpably pathetic and not remotely worthy of what was, for a time, an Office of passionate statesman.

Chefjef

Hans was next:

I'm truly glad that this guy's brain is not totally oatmeal. Yes the standards of the school are questionable. But more important is this guys belief of any similarity between the German Blitzkrieg and our war in Iraq. I'm not sure why liberals insist on comparing Bush to Hitler and our policies to those of the Nazis. The last time I checked, there weren't any concentration camps being built in Iraq. Our national policies have never included the systematic elimination of an entire race of people.

It is most unfortunate that these idiot morons actually believe this crap. This poor idiot 17 year-old kid should really just stick his head in the microwave now and get it over with. Although the kid is not necessarily a traitor (yet), he is definitely an idiot mouthpiece of the liberal crap that he hears everyday in school. Let's just hope that we can change his mind before he produces a kid even dumber and ignorant than he is.

My head hurts.

Hans

Chefjef posted a riposte:

Your comments, while appreciated, edify my concerns about partisanship. You saw the words "Bush" and "Hitler" together and got a little miffed.

To clarify, I never compared the policies of Bush to the policies of the Third Reich; that would be a broad stroke, to say the least, and, obviously, beyond the pale of reason. The "Blitz" was a particular war tactic, and while it was practiced by a mad-man whose total paradigm included world domination and the wholesale slaughter of a race of people, that does not somehow render any particular aspect of the Blitz, as an innovative (at the time) war tactic, not subject to analysis, via comparing and contrasting, to other war tactics. If I were to compare or contrast Rommel's desert offensive strategies to Patton's, would you accuse me of calling Patton a "Jew-hater?"

I disagree with most of Bush's foreign policy. But I don't think he is a mad-man, or an idiot or any such thing. I just disagree with him. Nevertheless, the Blitz, as a war tactic, has, as ONE of it's aspects, a pre-emptive element similar to the manner in which we attacked Iraq (keeping in mind that striking Iraq, as a policy idea, has been outlined and pushed by several key people in Bush's administration long before there was a Bush administration). Whether you like it or not, this is an inescapable truth. How anyone can take that micro-analysis and somehow induce that it must derive from a macro-analysis which concludes that U.S. middle east policy is similar to Nazi Germany war policy is absolutely beyond me, unless I presume such a person to be an extreme political and/or ideological partisan. And it is THAT type of partisanship, on both sides of the aisle, that makes me fear for the Republic. I may be wrong,
and if so, I SINCERELY apologize, but some of your language - specifically the several points of name calling in your response - lean me toward believing I am correct on the partisan issue.

Incidentally, I am not a liberal. Also, while I agree with you that we have not had a national policy centered around the systematic elimination of an entire race, I do think it is an arguable point; I am familiar with several Native Americans who have made strong, reasoned arguments to the contrary.

Chefjef

And finally, Veep weighed in:

OK, one question, maybe two...

Since when did spreading democracy mean a government is "imperialistic?" imperialism, suggests a government spreading an empire. An empire is run by a emperor or monarch. Since our country is a democratic republic, we cannot by nature be imperialistic. My problem with the whole art thing is that this kid can so easily without any question display his WRONG opinion. Would a child that had an art piece with a Christian theme be allowed to display? I think not. I am not for censorship, just truth. We as a society need to decide what truth we believe in. Everything has some truth or the traditional conservative ideal that there is an ultimate truth.

Well, gotta go get a car load of conservative Christian kids, that happen to be the revolution of tomorrow.

Peace be with all.

Veep

I concluded the thread by enjoining all correspondents to keep conversation civil and leave ad hominem arguments out of Vita ab Alto. I also disagreed with Veep that it was not possible for a democratic republic to be "imperialistic" simply because its government was consensual to some degree. The US has been imperialistic in its past--I argue that "imperialism," however, entails the intent and fact or conquering, keeping, and ruling states, lands, resources, and people legally ruled or owned by others. US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to meet these criteria, even if they should be conducted brutally or prove very destructive.

"There Are More Similarities Between Red and Blue America Than People Realize"

An early post of Chefjef's, resurrected for its brilliance and because it's linked to elsewhere. He was, in part, responding to an earlier post of mine -- Monk

Juan Cole is clearly on the fringe of Left thought. Even though I agree with some of his premises – but certainly not all - the language in which he encases them is offensive. Still, I don’t think the Belmont Club “smack down” retort is entirely full of merit. While Cole, unfortunately, reverts to “name calling,” people like Rush Limbaugh and Gordon Liddy have been “name calling” liberals for years. Further, I don’t think “[T]he weakening of the traditional media and the stresses caused by war have created a kind of 'play' in the system which now allow unchained weights to crash about” is an explanation for the seeming increase in incivility between the Right and Left; American society, as a whole, has degraded considerably in the exercise of civility, in both red and blue states, and the political scene has concomitantly degraded as well.

Moreover, while the Left has some “ridic” spokes persons such as Garofalo and Cho, the Right’s Coultier and Liddy are no farther away from “buffoonery” than the former.

Nonetheless, I think there are more similarities between Red and Blue America than people realize. Unfortunately, both sides are missing important points. For example, there is a measure of political common ground, I think, between the University-type liberals, among whom I’ve spent many years, and evangelical churches that are thick with Republicans; the red-blue polarization is mostly (NOT entirely – there are some basic philosophical differences on some issues - but mostly) a consequence of which issues are on the table -- and which ones aren't. Change the issue menu, and those electoral maps may look very different. Imagine a presidential campaign in which the two candidates seriously debated how a loving society should treat its poorest members. Helping the poor is supposed to be the left's central commitment. In practice, the commitment has all but disappeared from national politics. Judging by the speeches of liberal Democratic politicians, what poor people need most is free abortions. Anti-poverty programs tend to help middle-class government employees; the poor end up with a few scraps from the table. Teachers' unions have a stranglehold on failed urban school systems, even though fixing those schools would be the best anti-poverty/ anti-crime program imaginable.

Most liberals I know do not like this state of affairs, and neither do most of my church friends, who regard helping the poor as both a passion and a spiritual obligation, not just a political preference. These evangelicals vote Republican not because they like the party's policy toward poverty -- cut upper-income and capital gains taxes and hope for the best -- but because poverty isn't on the table anymore. But, ironically, however erroneously we got to it, the moral-values debate is precisely the one Democrats need to be having right now. Because if they don't capture the moral high ground back from the Republicans, they'll never be able to capture the hearts and votes of Red America. If the Democratic Party is not about bringing focus and urgency to the creation of a more fair, just -- and, yes, moral -- society, it might as well cease to exist. FDR gave expression to the moral principle that should be animating Democrats when he said that “the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” America's Founding Fathers understood the connection between statecraft and soulcraft. They were not political men engaged in a spiritual enterprise. They were deeply spiritual men engaged in a political enterprise. After all, the premise that “all men are created equal” -- which Lincoln called “the father of all moral principle” -- is true and self-evident only in spiritual terms. We are clearly not self-evidently equal by any other criteria, including brains, looks or talent.

Democrats need to realize that the values debate is not about triangulating on gay marriage – it’s about passion and principles. And that’s what distinguishes an inspiring political vision from a laundry list of policies and four-point plans. But Democrats can’t get to the promised land by treating moral values as just another tactic their pollsters tell them they need to pursue, as something “we” need to figure out so we can convince “them” to vote for us. Until the Democrats put forth some leaders, at the national level, who understand this, the chaos that is the Democratic Party will continue.

Chejef

You Now Have Four Years To Reach Minimum Safe Distance

What the heck is the Left thinking? Liberals of late seem bent on setting the ship’s computer of their political stakes on “self-destruct.”

How else do you account for this?

Or this?

Or this? (Bio here. There’s substantial dispute about whether this dude, who’s made his career as a Professional American Indian (PAI), has even a drop of Amerind blood in his treasonous veins)

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this? (Much less this!)

Or this?

Or this? (Which initiated this wonderful Blogger Smackdown)

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this? (Or, for that matter, this, this, this, this….)

The barking moonbat element, of course, can always be relied upon to provide political street theater of a sort that causes maximum political damage to their interests. That’s why I love them so.

Still, others see strategy where I see only the Left’s true nature showing through (due to frustration I suppose). I mean, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are now the Democrats chosen mouthpieces. This isn’t strategery, it’s suicide.

I personally have no problem with this. The Left could withdraw into the fever swamps and pull their tinfoil hats down over their eyes and ears for the next fifty years and it wouldn’t hurt my feelings. In fact, it will be a boon to America and the world, as the rougher, more realistic men and women destined to rule got about the business of leading without idiots impeding their progress. And it would keep us entertained. I love Jeanine Garofalo. I love Margaret Cho. My life would be diminished if people like this gave up being pure ass-hat nut-bags and started sounding like Condi Rice.

I suspect I have friends who disagree. I suppose they might make the argument that having only one sane political party on the national scene isn’t intellectually or culturally healthy.

Long before 2008 such Democrats may find themselves screaming, “Mother! I turned the cooling unit back on, Mother!” If you are one such, let’s hear from you…

Monk