February 14, 2002

10:45 AM

A Time For Dissent This piece suggests that the Bush team has been riding high and mighty because of or since 9/11 and that it is time to ask specifically what has been gained and what lost. Leftist rant or spot on?
posted by Postroad (27 comments total)

I don't think there ever should have been a pause in dissent. Speak your mind regardless of it's popularity.

That said - I don't agree with this article. For example : The view that the "peace process" was doing anything but spin its tires is naive IMHO. Sometimes it's good to shake things up and see what happens. We'll see how it turns out...

(btw, the whole "Bush is a dummy" thing is getting old though. Seriously, can't they phrase their opinions in ways that make them obviously superior instead of attacking the intellect of the opposition? It reminds me of being 8 years old in the schoolyard of public school #44 and detracts from the seriousness of their position)
posted by revbrian at 11:00 AM on February 14, 2002

I don't think it's necessarily a "leftist" propaganda statement. Rather, I think the concern is how long is Bush going to ride out the whole 9/11 bandwagon. His actions and policies are hardly mentioned without the context of the event...
posted by dkhong at 11:02 AM on February 14, 2002

Presidents with high approval ratings stand a better chance of getting what they want. That's why they have high approval ratings, because the voters like what they're doing. If he screws up, his numbers will drop and his opponents will have a better shot at derailing his proposals. Nothing particularly special about GWB in that regard.
posted by aaron at 11:24 AM on February 14, 2002

But revbrian, Bush IS a dummy! Comparable to Reagan but without the actor skills and just as dangerous.
posted by nofundy at 11:39 AM on February 14, 2002

His actions and policies are hardly mentioned without the context of the event...

9/11 has, is having, and will hopefully have a prolonged and profound effect on the way America functions. While I (even being a moderate conservative) may disagree with some of his policies, some of them are a direct result of what happened in September, and it is therefore impossible to separate the two.

I'd hardly consider "America needs an increased defense budget to prepare for and protect itself from inevitable terrorist threats" a bandwagon-based issue. Can you honestly debate a need for increased security?
posted by Danelope at 12:01 PM on February 14, 2002

I was calm until a certain paragraph in the article, this one:
Bush's plans for the post-military phase of the campaign against terrorism are fair game for debate, and there's plenty more to challenge. The Afghan operation was brief and relatively inexpensive. So why is the Pentagon getting a blank check? Why, with the surplus gone and the budget in deficit, are we still giving the richest 1 percent of Americans a tax cut that will imperil Social Security?

First, they bring up the whole OMG RICHEST 1% ARE GETTING TAX CUTS AGAIN THE SCUMBUCKETS argument. Geez, I wish I could read one thing that is anti bush without that. At least I didn't see anything like BUSH IS IN THE POCKETS OF CORPORATIONS LIKE ENRON AND HE STOLE THE ELECTION!

And what do they mean by "imperil" social security?
posted by Keen at 12:27 PM on February 14, 2002

I was calm until a certain paragraph in the article, this one:
Bush's plans for the post-military phase of the campaign against terrorism are fair game for debate, and there's plenty more to challenge. The Afghan operation was brief and relatively inexpensive. So why is the Pentagon getting a blank check? Why, with the surplus gone and the budget in deficit, are we still giving the richest 1 percent of Americans a tax cut that will imperil Social Security?

First, they bring up the whole OMG RICHEST 1% ARE GETTING TAX CUTS AGAIN THE SCUMBUCKETS argument. Geez, I wish I could read one thing that is anti bush without that. At least I didn't see anything like BUSH IS IN THE POCKETS OF CORPORATIONS LIKE ENRON AND HE STOLE THE ELECTION!

And what do they mean by "imperil" social security?
posted by Keen at 12:28 PM on February 14, 2002

Uhh.... sorry!
posted by Keen at 12:29 PM on February 14, 2002

Can you honestly debate a need for improved education, alternative energy, balanced budget, socialized medicine, fair wages, campaign finance reform, etc. etc.

The administration wants a billion dollars A DAY for defense, while cigarettes, car crashes and fat kill off the population. Locks on cockpit doors aren't that expensive, are they?
posted by greensweater at 12:47 PM on February 14, 2002

Can you honestly debate a need for improved education, alternative energy, balanced budget, socialized medicine, fair wages, campaign finance reform, etc. etc.

No, we can't debate a need for improved education, though there's plenty of debate over whether dumping ever more money into government-run schools is the answer. No, we can't debate a need for alternative energy, though we can certainly debate how desperately we need it right now(not at all, and we don't have the technology yet to get it in the amounts necessary to make a difference anyway). The "need" for any of those other things can absolutely be debated and are every day.

posted by aaron at 1:00 PM on February 14, 2002

I don't think there ever should have been a pause in dissent.

Right.

btw, the whole "Bush is a dummy" thing is getting old though.

I agree. Maybe he should pick up a book or something.
posted by jpoulos at 1:50 PM on February 14, 2002

Okay, not debating the need for increased security, but we can debate a billion-dollar-a-day defense budget that borrows from SS & Medicare pools to cover it.

That's the point of this article - debate requires dissent. If dissent is perceived as "un-American," what happens to democracy?
posted by greensweater at 1:51 PM on February 14, 2002

OK, must remember why there's a "Preview" button. That was unecessarily confrontation, rev, and I apologize. My point is close to what greensweater just said. You can say things like "I don't think there ever should have been a pause in dissent" but these days dissent is being equated to treason (see Ashcroft, John).

And I do, in fact, agree that using the "Bush is Dumb" thing as a substitute for informed criticism is wrong. But the decisions the Bush administration have made--even before 9-11--can only be described as foolish. The article is right in that Bush has pissed away any diplomatic advances Clinton made with N. Korea and Iran. Throw Cuba in there, too.

Basically, we've got an old-school Reagan republican who feels that military build-up is the way to strengthen America. So he's creating enemies from acquaintances. "Axis of Evil" -- fuck him.
posted by jpoulos at 2:15 PM on February 14, 2002

I'd hardly consider "America needs an increased defense budget to prepare for and protect itself from inevitable terrorist threats" a bandwagon-based issue. Can you honestly debate a need for increased security?

Certainly we can argue about how those dollars are being spent. Do we invest billions of dollars in a missile defense system that may be nothing but pork and snake oil? Or do we invest the money in boosting international intelligence and police efforts to control the black market in nuclear materials?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:28 PM on February 14, 2002

bush will ride the wave for as long as the sheeplike media-hypnotized slab of raging ignorance we call a citizenry will swallow it. look around. the nation is shattered, but it's not. there's a war, but there's not. there's a recession, but there's not. 1984 has finally arrived. jpoulos put it most elegantly - fuck bush.
posted by quonsar at 3:07 PM on February 14, 2002

Danelope -- Nobody would argue that we need increased security. However, I would hope that nobody would make the mistake of equating money with security, either. We spend 17 times more than all rogue nations combined, and look what our investments have returned.

All the money on earth isn't going to stop anyone with determination and persistance from doing as much damage to us as they can imagine, and that's the bottom line. From this premise, the most obvious conclusion is to decrease the number of people who want to do us harm, and the amount of harm they want to do us.
posted by Hildago at 3:17 PM on February 14, 2002

Postroad, yup.. definitely leftist rant.

Even Daschle had the good sense to back off his criticism of the "axis" speech.

As for the luminaries who repeat in seemingly Rush-Dittohead fashion that Bush is stupid, I suggest a comparison of the scholastic records of Bush v. those of Gore.
posted by Real9 at 3:27 PM on February 14, 2002

I suggest a comparison of the scholastic records of Bush v. those of Gore.

how about bush v. clinton?
posted by jpoulos at 3:31 PM on February 14, 2002

jpoulos, Clinton's Rhodes scholarship would indeed be impressive if he had completed it. Sadly, he was expelled from Oxford amidst allegations of rape.
posted by Real9 at 3:46 PM on February 14, 2002

You cite the most laughable sources, real9.
posted by jpoulos at 4:30 PM on February 14, 2002

This article makes statements like "Just as we can't practically 'nation build' every benighted society on earth, we can't costlessly blow away every dictator" and "Blunder comes from swagger," which sound like a call for a conservative, measured response to the current military situation. For contrast, here's an example of a leftist response. (Aren't midwesterners quaint and neighborly?)
posted by sheauga at 4:43 PM on February 14, 2002

Yes, jpoulos. I generally try to find urls that provide some background for statements I make. You may not like the source or reputation of these references but that's life. At least I go to the trouble.

Please compare you to your recent history.
posted by Real9 at 4:57 PM on February 14, 2002

jpoulos - fuggetaboutit, I think I made my case in that linked thread.

I think dissent is a good thing, but not for it's own sake. Dissent if you have reasons, dissent if you have a better idea, but don't dissent just for the hell of it.

It reminds me so much of the 'Argument Sketch' from Monty Python.
posted by revbrian at 6:57 PM on February 14, 2002

bush will ride the wave for as long as the sheeplike media-hypnotized slab of raging ignorance we call a citizenry will swallow it.

Or until you get fired for it! I agree that this cartoon that was run was in bad taste but should it be silenced for it?

This scares me. This has happened several time since Sept. and no one seems that upset about it.
posted by bas67 at 8:31 PM on February 14, 2002

any diplomatic advances Clinton made with N. Korea

Clinton didn't make any. Kim Dae Jung did. All Clinton's government did was (occasionally, and far from consistently) rattle the sabers a little more quietly, and let the South Koreans take the lead in deciding how to deal with the lunatics (but shrewd, calculating lunatics, who are once again guiding the way the negotiation goes) in the North.

I won't bother to self link. You know by now where to go.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:31 PM on February 14, 2002

it is time to ask specifically what has been gained and what lost.

Whoops, almost forgot. There's a long list of things that have been lost since September 11, certainly, but there's also a long list of what was lost before that, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:34 PM on February 14, 2002

This scares me. This has happened several time since Sept. and no one seems that upset about it.

1) The cartoonist was not fired. You link to a story about an entirely different person getting fired, for what appears to be blatant insubordination.

2) Nobody's that upset because it's the First Amendment in action. You can draw all the tasteless cartoons you want. You can write all the mean-spirited editorials you want. But if it's not YOUR newspaper, and your boss says "I'm not running this crap," then you'll have to find some other way of disseminating your material. You have no right - zero - to arbitrarily use other peoples' property in order to disseminate your opinions. Not even if you're an employee of theirs.
posted by aaron at 1:21 AM on February 15, 2002