Keep the unflattering photographs coming, Steve. ;-)

I dunno. It really strikes me that you're falling for it Steve. Some flaky extremist goes over the edge, everyone's appalled. Bush & Co buy themselves some easy credibility by dishing out a harmless slap on the risk and go on about the business of bombing Quatar, nominating Alito, and warrantless wiretapping.

Or on the other hand, the flake gets away with it, or the fuss isn't too great. And then, there's a whole topic legitimized for eventual colonization by Bush & Co.

Consider for instance, this "Certain kinds of dissent are unacceptable" meme that Bush has just come out with. Did he come out with it out of the blue? Nope, Dick Cheney came out with it three months ago, and suffered no backlash. Karl Rove came out with it six months ago, and suffered no backlash. Last year, it was all over Free Republic, it was voiced by Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly. People were upset, it went back and forth, but it became acceptable. And now the President is saying it...

So, either way, Bush wins.

Let's go back to Robertson. The guy said a stupid thing. Two observations. He's been saying stupid things for a while, he's been doing disgusting things for a while, and yet, he's still right around the fringes of the mainstream. He's serious mojo, first name basis with the Pres, welcome in all the mainstream circles. He's just 'nutty Pat' but the doors all open for him. And no matter what he says to offend, those doors keep opening for him. His smackdown? It's in Israel for Pete's sakes, a continent and a half away! What's up with that.

But the other, perhaps the more important thing, is what did 'nutty Pat' just do to our collective attentions. What ongoing things did he distract us from. His comment, offensive as it was, was irrelevant in the big scheme of things. But relevant things were going on right and left. So did we take our eye off the ball. Did we lose track?

I regret to say this, Steve, but I have to say it. I like you. You come across as a decent thoughtful person. You clearly have contacts and access that the rest of us can only dream about. You're close to the pulse of things. So, don't take this the wrong way...

Up here in Canada, I kept wondering how it was that a gang of inept thugs like the Bush gang could keep scoring win after win after win. I was amazed that no matter how incompetent they were, no matter how inept they were at dealing with crises or events in the real world, they were untouchable, endless scandals faded away like cotton candy in the rain, they spun everything, everything was fed into their agenda, which advanced and advanced. I couldn't understand how they were doing it.

Reading your blog, I've come to appreciate it. They simply have you outclassed Steve. You and your ilk. They're running rings around you, and you don't even realize it. They're thugs, true. And they're incompetent, definitely. But the problem is that you seem to be playing by a set of rules, you operate on a set of conceptions, a certain pace. They don't, and constantly, even within your own blog, I'm appalled to see you outmaneuvered, flustered, left behind in the dust and compromised.

You probably find this unpleasant. And frankly, so do I. I have no special wish to criticize a fundamentally decent man. But the hour is drawing near, the shadows are gathering, its no longer the America you know. Get in the game, man. Or wait for what we all know is coming.

Dear Den -- really like your posts, even your caring criticism of my position. However, I would argue with you about the Bush administration running circles around me. Don't think that is happening. The way to move the ball forward in a way I support is to build vision and competence among Dems and moderate Republicans, divide the right where possible, flash a public spotlight on the Bush administration's embarrassing decisions, and support the better personalities in the Bush crowd in a multi-personality reality in the White House.

I've said that this was the way to approach these problems many times, have laid out much of the strategy -- and am incrementally doing this -- and have achieved some successes, while many are doing nothing.

So, criticism is always welcome -- but the fact is (as I see it), I am less naive than you might think and know what I'm doing.

Thanks much,

Steve Clemons

The problem with doing things incrementally is that BushCo isn't doing that -- they're moving by leaps and bounds. If in fact there is something going on in the background to derail these thugs, I sure wish it would speed the hell up before it can't catch up.

i doubt very much that robertson won't in some way have his finger in the till in this. there's too much money at stake in this fundie venture; and as we've seen, there are all sorts of front companies/foundations available or waiting to be created just for this sort of deal.

also, i'd be interested in opinions on the intelligence of inviting this type of looniness into israel; which in a few years will result in a well-funded, ingrained fundamentalist christian presence into israeli politics.

Steve:

On a marginally related note, have you noticed that none of the coverage describes where the evangelicals are planning on building this theme park? It's always, "where Jesus walked on water," couched in biblical language. I'm not sure which story (on the theme park, not Robertson's comments) mentioned, as an aside almost, "contested territory.

But I've just developed a very strong suspicion that the "theme park" is planned for the Golan Heights. No wonder Israel is so thrilled with the idea (and intent on going forward with it, breaking ground this year, in spite of Robertson's buffoonery). They're planning to pre-empt any further discussions of the Golan Heights by populating it with a bunch of American wingnuts. Brilliant move. But sickening, in its own way.

Den - I know you have standards (read you at TPMCafe) but you want to abondon them to win?

DV: ...."They simply have you outclassed Steve... They're thugs, true....But the problem is that you seem to be playing by a set of rules, you operate on a set of conceptions, a certain pace. They don't"...

Why descend to the level of the opponents? Once you descend you don't live to your own standards. We need your outside view - come back from the edge.

(a.k.a. irishkg)

Great Point Steve.

A problem I see is that Democrats and Liberals are trying to typecast all Republicans with the neo-con right.

The moderate Republicans like McCain and myself, as I consider myself a McCain Republican, are not being given any help from the left, instead of helping us win back our party and the "vision" theyre trying to make it a three or four way fight for who's right, instead of "Whats right".

The moderate Republicans like McCain

hahaha, john mccain a moderate!? tells ya how far right this country's 'leadership' has swung.

You've lost me. Who executed this supposed 'wedge strategy?' To whom are you giving a 'Bravo?'

A successful "wedge strategy" would condemn and permanently isolate greedy, vengeful wrathful, war and money mongering fundamentalist shades and hypocrits like Pat Robertson, and openly expose his and thier patently FALSE, DECEPTIVE, and EXPLOITIVE hatespeak, and the manipulative expropriation and radical perversion of religion for his, and thier singular and exclusive profit.

Pat is boiler room telemarketer exploiting and selling a perversion of religion to ignorant, and vulneralbe people for profit.

He has no more attachment to real religion than bin Laden.

Steve,

I admit to occasionally, perhaps frequently, being harsh and blunt in my language. I am often take the position of saying uncomfortable things in uncomfortable ways. Sometimes this is necessary, a hard, sharp shock can be the only thing to jolt complacency and drift. The risk is always that the blunt approach will provoke a simple rejection of the viewpoint because, although true, it is too unpleasant to contemplate.

>The way to move the ball forward in a way I support is to build vision and competence among Dems and moderate Republicans, divide the right where possible, flash a spotlight on the Bush administration's embarrassing decisions, and support the better personalities in the Bush crowd in a multi-personality reality...

And how has that been working for you? It strikes me that the only major agenda item that the Bush administration has failed on has been its effort to loot Social Security. Harriet Miers might be another example, but I'm skeptical. I don't know at this point, whether the failure on Social Security is a permanent or temporary setback. My impression is that these guys don't give up.

But tell me of the 'moderate Republicans'? The 'moderate Republicans' in many cases are literally under siege in their own party. They've been reduced to an outlier wing, lashed by party discipline, reviled and threatened. They appear to be an intimidated group. If not intimidated, then ineffective. If not ineffective, then compliant.

John McCain, under some views, is a moderate. I feel that's questionable. McCain can make a credible pretense of challenging the administration, but when push comes to shove, he complies. His 'anti-torture' amendment is laudable, and under other circumstances, it would be a victory. But the Bush administration's signing statement makes it very clear that the White House does not consider itself bound by the Amendment. McCain and other republicans are silent. So what are we left with, but theatre? A moralistic tijuana donkey show?

All too often, this is the pattern. There is an Orwellian subtext to much of the American pageant which borders on surreal humour. Thus 'clear skies' deregulates polluters, 'no child left behind' dismantles education, 'healthy forests' empowers lumber companies. These are just the most obvious, but hardly the sole examples.

The notion of 'moderate' republicans has become increasingly meaningless in the larger context. Their role has been redefined from being the central pillar of the Republican party, the clearinghouse through which divergent extreme factions obtain a reasonable compromise, to being merely an appendage. The extreme factions have reached their own compromises with each other, the moderates are excluded from the process. They have been awarded a new role, which is merely to be the enablers, the cutting edge, the door openers. They exist to offer a veneer of legitimacy to otherwise repellent extremists. Their contesting of repellent extremism amounts to a show contest where their surrender is inevitable, where matters conclude in a superficial compromise in which the extreme agenda, cast now in a soft light, is implemented.

Tell us of the 'better personalities'? Are there better personalities in the White House? Who might they be? Louis Libby (formerly)? Karl Rove? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell (formerly)? Christie Todd Whitman (formerly)?

Looked at in a historical sense, the Bush administration is a fascinating artifact. You may perceive a melange of individuals operating in a multi-personality reality. I'm not sure that is accurate. Rather, the dominant themes of the Bush administration appear to be the relentless centralization of power in the hands of a narrow group of extremist personalities, and the implementation of a set of agendas at all costs, including costs to both governance and the nation's well being.

It is very clear that this is an administration which does not do well with reality. Real world events, including 9/11 and Katrina, have consistently caught the Administration flat footed. The responses have been initially paralysis, followed by bungling, and then eventually using the incident to justify pre-arranged agenda items. 9/11 and Katrina are the most horrific examples, but examples abound, ranging from the continental blackout, to the Enron and Worldcom collapses, the Chinese Spy Plane incident, etc. Repeatedly, something occurs which is not instigated or under the control of the Bush administration. Initially, they fail completely to respond, finally galvanized into action they flounder aimlessly, and then as the crisis recedes their thought are how to turn this event to their advantage, how to use it to feed their particular agenda.

I must question your attention to 'better personalities' in the White House as an irrelevant concept. The only thing that counts are 'dominant personalities' and these 'dominant personalities' are apparently impervious or indifferent to real world events.

So, if we address 'dominant personalities', what then do we find? An Agenda whose pursuit is relentless. Are gargantuan tax cuts good for the economy? Doesn't matter. Is there justification for invading Iraq? Doesn't matter. Reforming security or intelligence after 9/11? Who cares.

Even prior to 9/11, the Bush Administration was phenomenally good at implementing an agenda which in many respects, seems bad for America overall. It appears that the good of the country is an irrelevant consideration. Your countries administration, in my view, seems very close to a condition I would clinically describe as psychosis.

In this respect, the effort to build bridges with 'moderate republicans' and 'better personalities' while completely valid in other circumstances, amounts to a dangerous strategic mistake. You seem inclined to build a coalition to influence policy. This would have worked in the Clinton White House, or Bush I, Reagan, even Nixon. Unfortunately, you are dealing ultimately with a dominant core group of pathological individuals displaying psychotic fixation. You cannot build coalitions to affect the behaviour of such a group. They will not be affected.

Rather, the impulse of such a group is to simply advance their agenda relentlessly. They view compromise as surrender. This does not mean that they will engage in dialogue. It simply means that at each point, their approach to a constituency is not meaningful dialogue but rather, a compromise which amounts to surrender, or the threat of all out war. Having co-opted one constituency into 'compromise', they use this as leverage to move on the next constituency. In this respect, 'better personalities' or 'moderate republicans' are simply vehicles to enable the agenda.

The Administration appears to be occasionally prepared to concede 'moral victories' or victories of principle to its opponents, in exchange for securing its agenda. The Administration's deeper view is that 'moral victories' or 'victories of principal' are meaningless, so long as it achieves conquest on substance. In respect of this, I believe that they are correct in their assessment. Substance counts. Consolation prizes do not.

I do not consider you naive in the general sense. If I have said this, please allow me to apologize. You are an articulate and well connected person. However, allow me to make some observations.

All of us, in life, develop and employ strategies which allow us a modicum of success. Some strategies work better than others. Some work better at different times. Because we find a strategy which works for us, because we have incorporated this strategy into our world view, perhaps because we have been formally or informally trained in a strategy, we will tend to remain committed to it. We will use it generically on every situation. And hopefully it works often enough to serve us well.

However, no strategy is effective all the time or for every situation. Invariably, the single strategy approach, as a statistical inevitability, will come to a situation where it does not work. At which point, it fails and fails spectacularly. Often it fails disastrously.

There's often a feeling of betrayal, of shock and dismay. "It worked every other time on all these other occasions, wha' happened?" Looking objectively, there were probably times it didn't work so well, or didn't work at all, but the costs of these occasions was minimal, and they could be ignored.

History is full of examples of pursuing winning or viable strategies straight into catastrophe. It doesn't invalidate those strategies. It just means that they led off a cliff. Any strategy pursued uniformly on an open ended time scale will lead off the cliff. And that's generally the end. Of course, if one survives the fall, one could continue to employ the strategy successfully again, until the next cliff.

A better approach, and one which is perhaps counter to human nature, is from time to time, to sit back and re-evaluate strategy. Is it completely ineffective for the circumstance? Would alternate strategies be worthwhile. This is difficult, new or alternate strategies, unless you have a repertore established are untried, unreliable and suspect. There is a vast personal and emotional investment in a working strategy. It is not abandoned or amended easily. It is easier to make excuses or to ignore lack of results or exaggerate or misrepresent results than it is to concede that it is not working.

Often, the concession that a strategy has failed utterly comes only after going off the cliff and even then, only after a devastating crash in which damage is substantial and perhaps irrecoverable.

I would suggest, Steve, that your 'coalition building' approach to public policy has been a working strategy. And it has been a working and viable strategy in American life perhaps for generations.

My thesis is that it is not working for you now. You have come up against a collective entity which is not amenable, which employs its own strategy.

In my view, you and persons like you, are heading straight for the cliff, if you are not actually past that point and in free fall. It is my fervent hope that we collectively have not yet gone over. But increasingly, I am concerned that if the point of no return has not already been passed, then it is approaching fast and in a manner which will brook no turning.

I feel that the best hope for you lies in re-evaluating your working strategy under current conditions. Consider who you are dealing with. Consider their behaviour. Consider your victories so far and whether they have been meaningful. *Is it working for you.*

I believe that your instinctive answer, whether it is true or not is, *Yes, it is working for me.* If you are correct, fine. If you are not correct, then you are in big trouble.

Personally, I have my doubts. Your Bolton-watch seems to be a point for illustration. You've written that you were prepared to allow Mr. Bolton the benefit of the doubt. Enough rope to hang himself.

Why? Why on earth? Mr. Bolton is a man legendary for abuse of his staff, known to have gone right up to the edge of assaulting a woman, a rabid and partisan ideologue, this is a man who worked assiduously to undermine Colin Powell, who attempted to embarass Jimmy Carter on Carter's trip to Cuba, who accessed confidential materials without right or colour and who apparently used this improper access for partisan political purposes. This is a man who has been a rabid dog through his entire career, and who has been proud of his rabies and worn his foam like a badge of honour. A man who ascends to the UN under spectacularly questionable circumstances.

And yet, you were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt? You were prepared to wait and see as to whether he would be a constructive force for reform? Why? How is this justified or explainable? Is there a head injury involved? Crack? What?

Based on Bolton's history and the circumstances of his appointment, there could be no other logical conclusion but that Bolton was going to do exactly as he has been doing. No other conclusion. It's inescapable. It's obvious.

And yet, and this stands to your credit as a person, you insisted on being fair, on treating him as a person not unlike yourself. You insisted on seeing in Bolton a capacity for reason and for reasonability, a capacity for apprehending reality, which was simply not there. And in this sense, you gave Bolton the benefit of the doubt.

I have to say, Steve, that in this instance, it has not worked for you. Of course, we're all looking at this as observers without a real capacity to influence events. So this failure of your life strategy is without costs. You got rooked, you got suckered. But in the end, all that happened was some mild embarrassment, a bit of disappointment, and a substantial delay in starting up your Bolton-watch project, which delay may not be all that meaningful. So, you made a mistake about Bolton, no harm, no foul, no big deal.

Except that the lesson I take from it is that your operating strategy, and the operating strategy of people like you (that sounds pejorative, I'm sorry, its not intended to be), is not working.

So, this takes us to the question of costs. For you or me, as relatively impotent actors, the failure in Bolton's case might be of minimal or meaningless consequence. Nevertheless, we're talking about broad operating strategies employed by a broad class of people, a political and bureaucratic class of people and stakeholders in a working democracy.

If Bolton was merely an isolated case, I would not be concerned. But Bolton is an illustration, not an isolated case. A non-functioning strategy is employed on a large scale, well, that's just a recipe for collectively heading over that cliff, in my view.

As a student of history, one of the mysteries which has always puzzled me is how is it that a viable society gets overrun by obvious monsters, when they are so very clearly obvious monsters, and their reigns are uniformly disastrous. The hallmarks of the monsters are always that their nature is clearly apparent and that they are profoundly incompetent at everything but taking power. I have often wondered at the linkage of the two.

The cliche is Hitler dismantling the Weimar democracy, but there are endless examples, Galtieri in Argentina, Stalin's and Lenin's consolidation of the Russian Revolution. The rise of the Theocracy in the wake of the Iranian revolution, all the way back to the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of dynasties of disastrously incompetent dynasties of Caesars.

Now, before my eyes, in a country that I love as much as I love my own, I see it happening. My questions are being answered.

Part of it is that the monsters are incompetent, because they only know how to do one thing. Win at a particular political game. They are psychotically fixated, but they have a winning strategy for power, and they simply keep on using it. They don't need anything else, and in fact, diverting significantly from their psychotic fixation undermines their winning strategy. It's simple, it's elegant and it is frightening.

And the other part of it, tragically, is people like you. This is not a criticism or condemnation of you. It is merely an acknowledgement that you are committed to playing the civilized game, the game of politics and coalitions and compromise. And they are not. You think you are dealing with people like yourself. You are not. You think you are dealing with civilized men. You are not. They are not.

If I may resort to Saturday morning matinee language: The Monsters are Eating Your Country, Steve. The rules are changed. It is not business as usual.

I'm glad that I've won your attention. We are coming up to a weekend. What I would ask you to do is to take these ideas I have presented home with you and think long and hard about them.

From time to time in life, we should all go through a period of reappraisal of some aspect of our lives. I am strongly suggesting that you examine your approach, and ask yourself if it is truly working. I'm quite happy to acknowledge it has worked in the past. It's a great strategy. Many happy results. Minimal damage.

But is it working *now*?

This post is already far too long. I'm not prepared at this point, to make suggestions or engage in discussions of what might work, or what alternative strategies are available.

But before we can even proceed to that sort of discussion, there has to be a cold-eyed evaluation of whether what you currently committed to as a strategy is viable or is functioning. And if it is not, then the next step is to move to a clear appraisal of the situation you are facing and only then begin to contemplate strategies which are tailored to that situation.

Realistically, I am depressed to say that I believe your country is over the cliff and in free fall. But there is always hope. And even if the cause is lost, that is no reason not to fight the good fight. Justice is its own cause.

He's apologizing for the timing of his remarks, but not the remarks themselves? Well, whoop-de-doo! Would the remarks have been less offensive if he'd said them after Sharon is burning in hell?

@ emptywheel: this article goes into some detail about the location and character of the project, and the remaining funders.

Nice work Den Valdron. It is an impotent and hopeless strategy to adopt the quaint notions of civility, or 'responsible debate", or dignified discourse against the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship.

Any cursory review of the fanaticus wingnutsia savage rhetoric, and the fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorships' slime, demonization, scurrilous slander, and patent lies hurled in lockstep unison against "demoncrats" or "libruls" or any individual daring to question or challenge, or oppose, or offer alternate opinion to the imperial dictates of the fascist warmongers in the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship PROVES that civility, dignity, and socalled responsible debate are impossible.

These "monsters" as you very aptly describe them, are ruthless, unsavory, and expert in the black arts of slime, disinformation, and propaganda and need/must be marked and stained openly in the most truthful and therefore exceeedingly harsh and negative light.

The fascist warmongers and profiteers in the republican reich, all the complicit parrots in socalled MSM, the mindless flocks of fanaticus wingnutsia truebelievers, and the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship all insidiously pervert, retard, divide, and are ultimately destroying America and profiting obscenely in and from the nefarious process.

Pretending these beasts, shades, shaitans, iblis, and somnabulants are "civil", or responsible is foolish and dangerous.

This foolish and dangerous woefully mistaken approach enables these "monsters" to claim legitimacy and credibility in repeatedly defending the indefensible, excusing the inexcusable, and cloaking the obvious deceptions, abuses, failures, dereliciton of duty, mismanagement, cronyism, acts of financial malfeasance and perfidy, and wanton profiteering of and by the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the republican reich and the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship.

Pretenses of civility in the face of monsters conducting savage attacks is foolish, dangerous, and doomed to fail.

These monsters must be exposed as fascist warmongers, profiteers, and imperialist tyrants and defeated on principle by and with the vetting of facts openly in the clear light of day.

That is our only hope.

Den

That is without doubt the clearest description I have seen of the NeoCons. They are indeed psychotic monsters fixated on one thing: winning.

I see that echoed time and again by their true believers. But WE WON they cry when confronted with NeoCon failures at everything but politics. As if winning an election were the only thing that mattered and not the havoc and destruction of our country that has been our prize for their victory.

America can't stand any more victories like the NeoCons monsters (or dragons as I call them) have given us.

I believe that once Mr. "signing statement" Alito is seated, the Republic is over unless one of the dragons turns into a knight or some real knights at the Pentagon become dragonslayers. The NeoCons will have nothing to constrain their power once that "g-d piece of paper" (as Bush calls the Constitution) is out of the way.

Steve

Listen to Den. Do you think Col. Wilkerson was just joking around when he said this:

"..if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you BACK TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Read it sometimes again. I just use it for a tutoring class for my students down in the District of Columbia. It forced me to read it really closely because we’re doing metaphors and similes and antonyms and synonyms and so forth, and read in there what the founders say in a very different language than we use today. Read in there what they say about the necessity of the people to THROW OFF TYRANNY or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. And you’re talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don’t get our act together."

Get that?

He was referring to the beginning of our Republic and throwing off tyranny, and saying we are in for:

"...real dangerous times if we don’t get our act together."

I don't think he was talking about coalitions any more than Patrick Henry was talking about compromising with the British.

I think Col. Wilkerson was dead serious too. He taught the brightest people in the military the frigging National Security Act for crying out loud. That the person who is perhaps America's foremost expert on that law said what he did in that speech is astonishing.

Think about it.

Steve I have to tell you that the coalition bus left the station in 2001 and it isn't coming back. No matter how long you stand at the stop, no matter how much you want it to, and no matter much you think it should because it always has... the bus just isn't going to come.

Welcome to the nightmare.

Thanks, Den, for spending the time to put into words what I have felt for a while here. I respect Steve, but am constantly amased at the quaint naivete he often exhibits in his assesments and opinions in regards to the Bush Administration. Perhaps after these bastards get cornered and force feed America another "trifecta" Steve will finally recognize the depth and the scale of the pure EVIL that is currently soiling the rugs in our nation's White House.

Thanks folks. One caveat. 'Fascism' and 'Fascists' is an easy word to default to, but in some ways its misleading.

The pathology of what America is undergoing appears to be extremely well described in history, and goes far back well before there 'fascism.' Think of it as a sort of political 'flu', that nations periodically get. It has been survived. It has quite often been fatal in one way or another.

Den -

Leaving Steve out of it (sorry Steve, it being your blog and all), I think your analysis makes a lot of sense.

Here's the problem. Most alternatives to the strategies you call "naive" are thinly cloaked appeals to mirroring the monsters - a similarly psychotic and monofixated authoritarian push to victory or death. Destroying the values of a democratic society to save it. And it doesn't work. Either.

I'm not suggesting you are advocating authoritarian solutions or approaches. All you've done is to point out that reasoning with the unreasonable is a good way to get hurt. You're right. But we're unlikely to be as good at unreason as they are, and if we were, what would that make us?

I am saying that this problem is maybe not solved yet. I'm curious as to the examples of surviving this political "flu" that you mention. What are they? I only know of fatal cases.

We need a third way, between liberal irrelevance and Stalinism. I don't know what it would look like. Could anyone venture a guess?

Den - Good post. I hear arguments going both ways, should liberals take the low road or stay on the high road and I still haven't made up mind on this. The one point that I wanted to make is, here you are the citizen of a foreign country and you have very deep insights into what is going on in the the U.S. This saddens me, if the voting population of America had 1/10 the understanding that you have we wouldn't even be having these types of conversations.

FYI

the headline should be "you're sorry" not "your sorry." just a little typo but thought you'd want to know!

Well, fatal cases are usually the big 'finish' for a state or civilization. If you had to press me, I think I would point to Europe during the 30's, or to Latin America at various points.

Europe in the 30's had major fascist movements breaking out all over the place. But only in Germany and Italy did they succeed on their own. Other 'successes' of Fascism, such as Spain or Hungary.

I don't, at this point, advocate either high roads or low roads. What I want you all to do is understand first and foremost what you are dealing with. Only if you recognize the monsters clearly for what they are can you successfully deal with them.

It may be that in Europe, the examples of Germany and Italy taught the liberals and democrats in other countries what they were up against and gave them the insight into how to deal with their own fascists.

Remember, the greatest strength of these monsters, their winning strategy, is that they attack people who believe that they are reasonable and can be reasoned with.

Latin America may also be a window to show us how societies can reform or purge themselves of tyrants. Indeed, Latin America is fairly complicated, due to both the dysfunctionality of the elites and the interference on behalf of the US in favour of monsters.

Ancient Rome managed to fight off or deal with various proto-tyrants, Marius, Sulla, etc., before Caesar came along.

heraclitus:

When someone declares war on us, do we decline to lower ourselves to their depths, and let them conquer and rule us? Or do we decide to defend ourselves, and all that we stand for, using the last option available to us (war)? The U.S. managed this in World War II without losing our honor, didn't we?? [Despite the fact that war, fundamentally, IS failure as EVERY option available to honorably avoid it before it is resorted to is preferable.]

Perhaps your hesitation comes because you've never really needed to defend yourself strenuously in your daily life, from an aggressive opponent. I have, more than once, and I have full confidence I have the ability, and capacity, to "take on" the Bush crime family, without becoming one of them. I suppose I have a "mean streak" compared to many goodhearted people whose upbringing was lined with roses -- but think of it as righteous anger, and an asset to securing justice with truth at this time in our history.

We need our own Generals, and our own organizing strategy, and the steely resolve to, yes, win, just as Winston Churchill and FDR did, in defense of our U.S. Constitution. And the best of it is, we have no need as yet to resort to force of (literal) arms to do so. This is still doable with words. What are we waiting for?

"Our side" has all the personnel and tools needed to take this battle on, but so far the fighters have been kept locked up in the basement by the establishment members of the Democratic Party...

I can see we are going nowhere faster than the speed of light. marcus, what ever grants us the audacity to claim the voting population of America doesn't have 1/10 the understanding "we" have? There is such a creature as difference of opinion given the same facts. Our opposing force is righteous in their (bequeathed from Him)world status and has no problem of using force to "protect" it, from the owner of the bank to its most minimal account holder. It was no mistake that our country's citizens voted that guy into the White House. It is a true reflection of their concerns. You may not agree with what they want to do but don't believe they aren't aware of what they are doing.
And, 'The Forest", since when has ANY political party not swayed with the wind? Your holding out for the Dems to dig a little deeper is a fool's goal(gold). They will risk nothing to lose their reins on power and their place in line(first) to ascend the throne.
Perhaps this country once could rely on a contentious Fourth Estate to call out the crooks but they(NYT & WaPo) have fallen in line behind the neocons-birthed by german nazi-era refugees who believe it is proper to lie to a country's citizens so they can assign that "Never Again" mantra some perverted validity. You link that with man's natural inclination to greed and there you have our current state of affairs. Raw meat every course.

He apologized for the insensitivity of the timing? Not for the stupidity of the remark but for the insensitivity of the timing? It would have been okay if he had waited until the body was cold?

yahaddasayit - Your last paragraph gives the answer. A lot of the blame, IMO, lies with the media.

The 1/10 figure is an estimation on my part. I talk to quite a few people and I use a pretty low-key approach. I try to feel people out with questions along the lines of "have you heard about this?", "do you know about such and such?". The amount of blank stares and I don't knows I get is pretty shocking.

Differences of opinion open the door for discussion, not being even slightly informed is a bigger problem and makes people susceptible to the shallowness of the sound-bite propaganda that passes for news. Maybe it's no coincidence that as people devote less time to reading that the government has become more corrupt. The information is out there, but it takes work to sift through the it and arrive at an informed opinion. That quote by Ben Franklin, "you have a democracy, if you can keep it", seems very relevant to this discussion.

marcus,you seem somewhat softer in your approach to others than I ever am. I grant the other fellow some knowledge on what he is talking about and I think just about everything you query on has been covered by his sources be they newsmax, Rush, Sean, Fox, Foward, NYT, or Bush speeches. When I ask why we are killing Third Worlders they go into some trance seemingly brought on by the fear them there Arabs had camels that could cross the Atlantic in a matter of minutes. No, what it seems to reduce to is the ease of acceptance for killing another human being. And I am not surprised within my amazement. Really. I just didn't realize so many could be so stupid(in my opinion).
Another thing, Franklin used the word Republic, not Democracy. There is a big difference and that difference should be exposed until those exploiting it are shamed into seeking an alternative piece of propaganda.

I'll agree, yahaddasayit, about the increasingly easy acceptance of killing. I was on a thread in TPMCafe called "Iran Notes" in which many of the participants were thoroughly comfortable with a raid on Iran which would kill many people. The subject of discussion was an unprovoked massive attack on a nation which poses no immediate threat, and some, perhaps many, people seemed to accept this as a desirable thing. And these were progressives. It shook my faith in America.

Den, You are a mystery to me. For example, you throw in the word increasingly and other than that the current "conflict" is of greater magnitude I don't see where the American citizen's acceptance of killing in the name of greed is on the increase. It's a moral decision and too many-way too many as you point out-have decided long ago maybe slaughter is not such a bad trail to traverse as long as we get the psychos and the underclass to do the dirty work. Blood is much too messy for my (well fed)family to be involved. The ONLY reason there was the slow uproar over Viet Nam was because there was a draft and the middle class was forced to carry their fair share(the upper class never does) and the grisly details became too much for the well off to accept. Hey, but if it's YOUR son or daughter, we are much appreciative for their service. Yessiree, much obliged. I don't know the depth of your resources as you come up with this "America's beacon once being so bright". It hasn't been for the last 50 years. You must be in your eighties.
And other than the slight difference cited above you are one insightful dude. Thanks for your posts.

Yahaddasyait,

Maybe I'm just a leftover from the 60's or the 70's when morality meant something. Or maybe I'm an idealist. I want to believe in America. I want to believe in the ideals that are enshrined in your constitution.

It is not fatal in my view, that America has upon occasion strayed from its ideals, that it has fallen, or all too often played lip service to its own principles. Yes, the history of America is replete with greed and horror, a series fo genocides and land grabs against Indians, the slums of the north, slavery in the south, wars of conquest and theft against Mexico, the Spanish American war, the Phillipine Insurrection, numerous atrocities perpetrated upon Latin America, the sacrifice of principles for Empire, the sacrifice of the poor in favour of the rich.

But through it all, I would argue, that there was an ideal that America expressed, a moral principle that was real and vibrant. I see the American revolution and the ideals of the nascent Democracy being expressed in the French Revolution, being expressed in the Haitian revolution, in the wave of Latin American liberations of 1820, in the waves of European revolts and revolutions in 1836 and 1848. I see it in the principles of democracy, of individual worth and individual rights, that were stamped out over and over, sometimes by America itself and kept coming back nevertheless. The early Russian revolution of 1918, the wave of new European nations in the 20's, Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, the United Nation's, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, the Iranian revolution, all of these things trace their genesis, their roots back to those fundamental principles, to American ideals.

And were the French and Russian and Iranian revolutions perverted? Of course. Did circumstance make Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro into communists? Yes. Did America itself quash democracy and give license to monsters in latin America and South East Asia? Yes.

So what does it mean? Only that Americans were human. Having established principles, all too often, there was the temptation to take the easier road, not to live up to the ideals set out.

And yet, those ideals never went away. In the most corrupt and evil of times, there were always men of principle and moral compass. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, FDR.

America was a land that, for all its flaws, confronted slavery and shed blood to purge it. It was a land that lead the enlightenment, that said that torture was wrong, that tyrants were wrong, that people were entitled to due process and rights against the state. It was a place that said all men were entitled to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Isn't that fundamentally revolutionary, isn't that a startling concept. In a world where slavery was the norm, where people were chattels to the state, to their employers, to their owners. In a world which trumpeted the divine right and the moral value of the strong to devour the weak. This was amazing. It is still amazing.

Oh I've read enough history to know America's failures, its compromises, its concessions and power lust, its hypocrisies.

But you know, I used to believe that there was something more. That America still represented something beyond the sum total of its evils. That within all the garbage, there was a shining virtue.

Now?

I don't know. I've watched 'progressives' discuss among themselves the need to kill tens of thousands of people in Iran, to launch a massive and unproked attack on a nation that poses no imminent threat, simply on the basis that there is a possibility that it may someday acquire the ability to pursue nuclear weapons.

I told Steve that monsters are eating your country. And yet, in the last day or so, I find myself wondering if it is merely that you are yourselves monsters.

I find myself wondering if the America that I believed in, the America that I loved, ever existed. I think it did once. Or I would prefer to believe that it did once. But if it ever did, I wonder if that America is now dead, or dying. Devoured or abandoned. Perhaps the pathology has simply infected your whole society.

Are you degenerate? Are you really worthless? Is there anything left to respect in you. Or has your nation become that rough beast shambling towards Jerusalem.

It is ironic that having asked Steve to reappraise his beliefs, I find myself in the same situation.

I think that I'm losing my faith in you. There may be nothing left in you worth fighting for. There may only be the fighting.

Den Valdron

Den ...

People who coolly discuss online the hypothetical deaths of thousands are more often immature than monsters, and even more often responding to the jibes of realpolitik folks who accuse them of being somehow "less than" for refusing to do so.

Thank goodness people who will really sacrifice others' lives for hypothetical gains are rare. Sadly they look like anybody else. I've got a post somewhere or other about a chance meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz, certifiably a monster if anybody is, and he appears on Earth in the guise of a kindly old Jewish man. Nothing about his demeanor, appearance or affect would clue you to the fact that he has the blood of tens of thousands o on his hands. All in pursuit of a hypothetical good, at least being charitable towards his motives.

Forest ...

You may have made that realpolitik error, and your guesses about my personal history are incorrect. It's usually (not always) an error to infer personal history from position, and almost always an error to do so based on a single post.

You're right that my reluctance to do the obvious thing and make war on the buggers is based in personal experience, just not the kind you think. Much of my youth was spent fighting against the US war on Vietnam. Over time I saw more and more of my fellows, and eventually myself become a parody of what we fought against, as we became increasingly undemocratic in our efforts to support democracy; increasingly intolerant in our frustrations with the glacial pace at which the opposition to the war grew. Unlike the Horowitzes I did not draw the conclusion that our fight and vision was wrong, but I did draw the conclusion that in dining with the devil you need a really long fork. And a mirror.

WWII, the example you cite, is in fact the example I would cite too. Like Den I'm deeply antifascist and I do believe the US did the right thing to war on Hitler. When I reach back in our history to find the key point where the democracy in our country began to die I inevitably come to the time shortly after the WWII fighting ended, when the generals, industrialists and politicians declined to disband the temporarily militarized society they had created, and turned it instead against their ideological competitor and former ally, Stalinist Russia in our first forever war.

If they hadn't made a (bad) movie out of his work I'd quote Tolkein, another icon of my youth, but his central point remains. It's much easier to put the ring on than it is to take it off.

To embrace a tedious cliche, I would see things with more gravity. WWII was not Hitler and thirty like minded guys running around blowing the hell out of everything in sight. It was because the values of monsters became the values of a nation. It is easy to dismiss them as immature. But I think increasingly, the values of monsters are becoming, or are the values of America. When the accepted range of discussion among the elites is not why bomb Iran, but simply when and how hard, then that elite is corrupted. In the end, I think that it is far more likely that our friend Steve Clemons here will eventually find it reasonable, beautiful and inevitable to march in goosestep. It is far less likely that he will be able to persuade the goosesteppers to saunter and dance.

I don't make more of the bloggers than they are. We are all impotent people exchanging views in isolation. On the other hand, its not reasonable to simply dismiss every voice as unrepresentative and unmeaningful.

The voices of Americans grow more psychotic with each passing day. I am persuaded to think that they represent your country, and that they mean what they say.

Depressing, isn't it.

Den, I truly believe you overstate the case when you say this country lead(led) the Enlightenment. It's more like we pushed it. We did put words into action but the ideas were hardly American.
One thing I've realized in the six decades I've been a part of what we label existence is that a person's true character is revealed when he responds to duress. What many others label America's most trying episode, that being 9-11, can be cited as an excellent example of this country's response to its perceived affliction. Instead of addressing modern day truisms such as even the poorest of the poor has instantaneous access to information our founding fathers could never have conceived and they have the wherewithal to use weapons to effect citizenry en masse and address their grievences, we had better be on our best behavior or face the consequences. Instead, we implement an overt might makes right policy that tries to impose our beliefs and culture upon those falsely accused of threatening us. We are the same as schoolyard bullies. And, do you think our actions are truly guided by fairness and humanism? He** no, it is aggressive capitalism at the helm and get the fu** out the way, boy. All this democracy this and that junk is a beard. Someone somewhere may find something redeeming in our current manifestation but if you don't believe in wanton killing and fear no one you yourself haven't treated unjustly, live elsewhere, as you are.(congratulations).
Nope, ever since we ascended to power(post WWII), we've been quick with the sword and slow with the solace.
Too bad for us.

heraclitus:

Apologies for my assumption about your personal history -- just a stab in the dark on my part.

If your main worry about "beginning" is how to "end" when the nominal goal is reached (or the battle gets sidetracked) -- I agree that is indeed a wise thing to worry about. But does that mean that if it IS the right thing to begin the organized (verbal) battle now, but for the unknown ending and course of the battle, it is therefore also right to avoid that beginning so as to avoid the wrong ending? Or in other words, can't we cross that bridge when we come to it (the ending or misdirection) using the experience you've gained to correct course as necessary, and meanwhile to get on with the job at hand?

I would be far more cautious if we were in fact discussing launching an actual war (as in attacking Iran, which is apparently the Rove/Cheney/Bush 2006 Election Strategy) -- but here I am in fact only discussing DEFENDING truth and the democratic process in the public domain, by whatever nonviolent means are at our disposal. The lack of action in that regard concerns me far more than a possible future point in that battle when some may stray beyond the boundaries of democracy in their efforts.

[And yahaddasayit: Because of the Two-Party system in this country that controls both the access to the ballot and the financial means to run for office via mass media advertising, yes, I'm harping on the Democratic Party to stand their ground and do the right thing. Perhaps this is hopelessly naive, but I certainly don't have the leverage or power to do it on my own, so am left (as are most of the people in this country) to beg at the feet of a "major" Political Party... What else is there for any of us to do, on a short-term basis?]

First, I challenge anyone here to post a definition of facsist, or fascism for all to see, and then explain to me and all the pedestrian socalled "psychotics" visiting this site and others, how the definition DOES NOT apply to the Bush government. I do not fling this incendiary word around flippantly, nor do I make any claim here that can not easily be linked to ongoing controversies, crisis, investigations, or factbasedreality.

This silly and offensive suggestion that framing the Bush government warmongers and profiteers as fascist is somehow - uncivil, indignant, irresponsible, conspiratorial, or pychotic is wildly hypocritical and in light of the subsequent commentary on this thread, purposefully deceptive.

"The truth will set you free" and the warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are promoting and advancing fascism and 'fascist" policies, ideologies, and designs.

To deny this glaring truth, and sheepishly attempt to paint lipstick on a pig and pretend that the totalitarian lurches and tyranny of the Bush government are not fascist in nature is absurd, foolish, dangerous, and a grotesque insult to our intelligence.

If a government run by, beholden to, and singularly exclusively advancing and promoting the interests of select cronies and oligarchs is not a fascist government then what is?

If a government whose leadership whose leadership is accountable to no one, and operates above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain of the law proclaiming "king rights", infallibility is not a fascist government - then what is?

If a conducts conducts information warfare on, and, exploits, abuses, terrorizes, and erodes the freedoms, rights, protections, and priviliges of it's own people is not a fascist government - then what is?

If a government who conducts its' machinations in secret cabals outside and beyond the purview or remedy of the people, - a government that cloaks and suppresses its activities, ambitions and designs in a web of disinformation, propaganda, and subversion of the socalled MSM is not a fascist government - then what is?

A government whose chief operators are stained with scandals present and past, whose collective and concerted ideologies are intrinsically supremist, imperialist, and corporatist and ruthless imposed on the people without debate or consensus, or even a public hearing - is not a fascist government - then what is?

If a government that continually systemically eploits perversions of religious fanaticism and partisan nationalism (you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists") dictates is not a fascist government - then what is?

If a government that continually, systemically, and endemically throws sand in the face of the judicial and political system, perverst the nations laws and guiding principles to conform to the government ambitions and designs, - when a government repeatedly betrays the public trust, ruthlessly attacks and slime every and any voice of dissent, opposition, alternate opinion, and every and any question and questioner is not a fascist government - then what is?

If a government whose imperial leadership plunder and profiteer wantonly from the governments' policies, dictates, machinations, and operations is not a fascist government - then what is?

I ask you gentlemen, how in good conscience, and with a straight face you can deny the framing of the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship as a fascist government?

Upon what ground do you dismiss this framing as "misleading"?

Den --

Yes, the situation is grave. But everywhere around me I see well meaning and even well-doing people seeking a way, albeit without leadership after a generation of assassinations, without a party after the royal screwings and betrayals become too painful to bear, and without a plan. I also see what you do ... an increasing swing towards the mean, the callous, the jackboot and the culture of "winning over all". But it was always there in this country, and probably in our genes ... it comes and goes.

For my part I'm waiting and watching and hoping. After Kerry threw the election (my view) I gave the Dems a year to see if Dean could make a difference. Looks like not. There are people with a gift for organization and leadership -- I'm not one. But if the stirrings of a way open I think a lot of us will follow the Quaker dictum and "proceed as the way opens".

Forest, no problem. And I misunderstood you ... it did *not* sound to me as if you were talking about a more forceful and nonviolent stance towards our rulers. I agree entirely that the time to be assertive, forceful, in their faces and intransigent has long since arrived. I also think that our opponents on the right are ceaselessly trying to provoke us into ineffective acts of violence to justify their retaliation, and that was my concern.

Tony, the most thoughtful definition of fascism I've heard speaks to an alliance of state power and capital under the guise of a drive to progress, to the detrement of ordinary citizens. If the shoe fits, we'll have to wear it. Our opponents have used a rhetorical trick and made any reference to fascism seem overblown, extreme and comical, just as the word revolution has been powerfully linked to cosmetics and bathroom cleaners. When the very language is corrupt it's hard to speak the truth.

Tony:
No argument here. I'm down.

FWIW - If anyone hasn't had the chance to check it out, I would recommend reading David Neiwert's The Rise of Psuedo Fascism. You can read it at his blog Orcinus

I would call his essay the definitive piece on how the conservative movement has pulled us down the path to fascism.

Yahaddasayit,

You're correct in that the principles of the enlightenment preceded America, and I would agree that it is likely that had there been no America, the enlightenment would have proceeded in some form. Nevertheless, America was a creation of the enlightenment, incorporated its values and provided an example and an inspiration.

As for true character. It's been my experience that different things show a person's true character. Duress is one, wealth or power is another, intoxication. Different things bring out the true nature. If there is such a thing as a true nature. What does it matter, for instance, if a man is a coward on a battlefield if the rest of his life is lived with honour and dignity, doing right by all he meets. Should a moment of weakness damn a man? And what of the man who beats his wife and children, but in a crisis shows courage and forbearance... which is the true man?

I believe that there are yet many good and decent Americans. In the 1930's, there were many good and decent germans. They eventually fell into three categories, those who went along to get along, those who put on jackboots, and those who went into concentration camps. The good and decent ones in jackboots helped the other ones into the concentration camps. This is the way its always been through history.

Comparisons with the Nazi's, I agree are trite. But appropriate. Nevertheless, I don't worry overmuch about the term fascism. The pathology you are experiencing is much older than fascism.

Den,
Overall I agree and thanks. I am not one for any religion but I was educated in one and I think you are entirely correct when you say we are beyond fascism. For the last twenty years or so we have involved in a macabre dance with too many of the seven capital sins.

Points well taken. Your comment about the corruption of language and the blurring, and mangling of truth heraclitus is poignant. Doublespeak, disinformation, information domination, management perception are all well honed information warfare tactics employed to control the flow of information and general message.

The otherside (what I term the republican reich and the fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorship) ruthlessly prosecute these information warfare campiagns and exploit the peoples general somnabulance, apathy, or selective blindness or ignorance to promote the partisan party line on one hand, and cloak, suppress or prevent any real discovery of the socalled "truth", or any examination or recognition of the factbasedreality revealing the government/leaderships sordid machinations on the other.

It is as though there is no truth, and solid ground, or no firm foundation upon which to hoist our collective principles and standards.

All we hear from our socalled leaders is doublespeak, distortion, obfuscation, and discordant noise, and all we see is artfully cloaked in a murky cloud of myst, or viscous film of blurr and haze.

We hear the pretty patriotic platitudes, the lovethebabyjesus speak parables, the parroting of lofty noble words, and hollow vapid promises, - and we see the flags unfurling in the wind before the vast assemblies, the glorified video of the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, the valiant soldiers hunting for evildoers, and the royal court and clergy meeting and dictating in one or another of the great halls, - but what exactly our socalled leaders are truly saying and what exactly our socalled leaders actually doing behind our backs, and where exactly our socalled leaders are intentionally or haphazardly piloting the people and the good ship America - is a disturbing and haunting unknown unknown.

Our collective unease and unsettledness, our division and divisiveness is a direct product of the obvious incongruities and patent lies pimped by our socalled leaders; the institionalized secrets and the secret cabals, the systemic morphing, mangling, and shapeshifting of truth and factbasedreality, the blurring and intermingling of fact and fiction, the re-engineering and revising of history, the subversion and sweeping off the radar of reportage or any information potentially damaging to the socalled leadership, the robopathic sliming and diabolizing of alternate opinion, dissent, opposition, and every and any question or questioner, and the systemic perpetuation of the "disinformation situation" renders everyone lost, uneasy, concerned, suspect, lacking in trust, and willing to demonize or slime everbody else.

Paul Watzlavik has conducted some disturbing experiments along these lines.

When there is no trust in government, when the leadership simply cannot be trusted, - the entire fabric of society slowly, steadily, and inevitably unravels.

We swim in an ocean of lies.

The old, drooling, Christofacist fuck looks like he's constipated. Or maybe it's just the Devil fucking him.