Polarization, Inside and Out
This post is probably better suited for the Midlothian Campaign, but the IOP seems a bit stale so here goes:
Hamas now ruling the Palestinian state. Hardliner Ahmedinejad in Iran. I've heard a lot of local/regional reasons why in both situations an Islamic conservative group won. But another reading of this is that Muslims are becoming more radical because they feel threatened. They feel threatened because the US is starting preemptive wars. Now I have always said that Muslims have to face up to the fact that their God is being used to commit murder and unequivocally denounce this. But the fact is that Islamic extremists feed off of a perceived threat to their way of life. So the path to national security does not go through more/continued military action, it is through diplomacy (panda equivalents may be helpful here).
In the same way, I think the Democrats have to be careful not to become an automatic counterweight to the Right. The natural reaction given the state of the nation is to become even more progressive, but I think that is a trap. This is the time to be pragmatic and seize the center, which is why I keep coming back to the hijacking of churches and which is why I'm torn about good 'ol Russ. I agree wholeheartedly w/what he's doing, but I think it's most important in that it starts the discussion--I think the Democrats are wise to be cautious in going there. There are plenty of places where the Republicans have overreached and are taking clearly unpopular positions (i.e. no abortions even in cases of rape and incest?!? Illegal immigrants deported, so that their US citizen children can go into foster care?!?) and those are the areas of debate that will be most helpful to the progressive cause. (Now as more skeletons come out of the Scooter/Abramoff closet, this may change...)
"Wisdom is the caution of old men." Hemingway, I think.
Maybe this is a reflection of me getting old, but I feel our country has been damaged and I've decided it's better to win w/luke-warm progressive than lose w/red-hot communists.
Hamas now ruling the Palestinian state. Hardliner Ahmedinejad in Iran. I've heard a lot of local/regional reasons why in both situations an Islamic conservative group won. But another reading of this is that Muslims are becoming more radical because they feel threatened. They feel threatened because the US is starting preemptive wars. Now I have always said that Muslims have to face up to the fact that their God is being used to commit murder and unequivocally denounce this. But the fact is that Islamic extremists feed off of a perceived threat to their way of life. So the path to national security does not go through more/continued military action, it is through diplomacy (panda equivalents may be helpful here).
In the same way, I think the Democrats have to be careful not to become an automatic counterweight to the Right. The natural reaction given the state of the nation is to become even more progressive, but I think that is a trap. This is the time to be pragmatic and seize the center, which is why I keep coming back to the hijacking of churches and which is why I'm torn about good 'ol Russ. I agree wholeheartedly w/what he's doing, but I think it's most important in that it starts the discussion--I think the Democrats are wise to be cautious in going there. There are plenty of places where the Republicans have overreached and are taking clearly unpopular positions (i.e. no abortions even in cases of rape and incest?!? Illegal immigrants deported, so that their US citizen children can go into foster care?!?) and those are the areas of debate that will be most helpful to the progressive cause. (Now as more skeletons come out of the Scooter/Abramoff closet, this may change...)
"Wisdom is the caution of old men." Hemingway, I think.
Maybe this is a reflection of me getting old, but I feel our country has been damaged and I've decided it's better to win w/luke-warm progressive than lose w/red-hot communists.
Comments
Post a Comment