Over and over again we read how the blogosphere is polarized between the far-left and the far-right, and that the discussions online seem to be far more fierce than of those in the reral world. While some may view this, I find that the majority of the people in the blogosphere have rather centrist political ideologies (not to mention the over-representation of libertarians in the blogosphere), but what runs deep is the partisanship. I am as guilty as most, and I find myself defending Republicans far more often than they merit, if only because of the nature of their enemies. At any rate, in the last 24 hours, Kevin Drum has some prime examples of this partisanship, and I note this only because from my interpretation of his less snarky posts, Kevin actually has pretty middle of the road politics.
Yesterday, Kevin posted this doozy:
For all those American conservatives who have decided to give Silvio Berlusconi’s egregious corruption a pass just because he supported the Iraq war, maybe you’d better take a second look at your guy:
In a newspaper interview published this week, the health minister in Italy’s right-of-centre administration, Girolamo Sirchia, announced that he would be doing what he could to reinstate Friday as a day of fasting throughout Italy.
“Apart from being an ancient religious tradition, the weekly fast is a useful health measure,” Mr Sirchia told the daily La Stampa. “It has a scientific basis. It helps to purify the system of the effects of an unhealthy diet.”
….”In school and works canteens and in the hospitals, we shall take the path of reduced portions and a day of abstinence,” Mr Sirchia declared.
A day of fasting in hospitals? Enforced by the government?
For the record, I find the idea of government enforced fasting in hospitals to be reckless and stupid- ‘No anti-nausea medicine today, chemo patients- you won’t be needing your appetites!’ Almost as stupid and reckless as this statement:
….For all those American conservatives who have decided to give Silvio Berlusconi’s egregious corruption a pass just because he supported the Iraq war, maybe you’d better take a second look at your guy.
This is just a partisan swipe, a cheapshot, and it has no basis in reality. Conservatives may have hailed Berlusconi for being supportive of the administrations policies, but one of the main reasons many were praising Berlusconi was that he was also simply standing up for the United States at a time when certain of our ‘allies’ were running domestic political campaigns with the sole platform of America bashing. Remember this statement:
Editor’s note: This article is written by Jose Mar
Robin Roberts
Well said, its just cheap shots. In fact, Berlusconi’s politics do not map to American “conservatives” at all.
David Perron
I’m pretty sure Democrats never thought it’d take a U.N.-free theater in order for the Iraqi Army to be soundly defeated in record time. Just a hunch.
Bush never said we’d do the whole thing alone. He just said we’ll take whatever help is available. The U.N. refused to help out initially, although we did ask. Going back to the U.N. to ask if they’d now like to pitch in is exactly the opposite of a reversal of policy.
Matthew
It’s all a grand comedy, isn’t it?
Bush to the UN: “Hey, you guys want to support us?”
France: “Non!”
Bush to the Dems: “They say no.”
Dems: “Ask again, will ya?”
Bush to the UN: “Hey, have you guys changed your mind?”
Germany, speaking for France: “Nein!”
Bush to the Dems: “They still say no. Fellas, since you already signed off on the war, I think I’m going to go ahead with it.”
Kerry: “But I only signed off on it as a threat to Saddam! I didn’t really mean for you to follow through.”
Bush: “Sorry John, but this we gotta do.”
Under no circumstances whatsoever would France have agreed to go to war with Saddam. Ever. And that means no UN support for the war. Ever.
Why don’t Dem presidential candidates run with the slogan, “Vote for us, and we’ll make France Commander-in-Chief?” That’s the effective result of any “Only-with-UN-approval” foreign policy.
greg
What in the living hell would’ve ever caused you to think Kevin Drum is “middle of the road”?
People just think he’s middle of the road and open minded because of that Alex P. Keaton look he has going on in the picture of himself.
He’s as far left as Hesoid, only Kevin a little more civil.
RW
Maybe someone should tell him (again) that just about every poll in recent memory backs up the premise that the Democrats have no worthwhile foreign policy ideas and can’t be trusted with national security. How many elections must it take before some people get the message?
Besides, the ‘guilt by association’ thing is considered a remedial debating tactic amongst usenet novices…when are parts of the blogosphere gonna catch up? Otherwise, I could end every discussion with “oh, yeah, what about Marion Barry” and be done with it.
Terry
I think Greg nails it pretty good. I feel that Drum is a little like Oliver Willis in terms of the way their thought of across the blogosphere. Because they both usually express their views with a certain amount of restraint (although Willis is increasingly abandoning this approach) they often get a pass for what are in substance the same positions/arguments that the wackos at Hesiod and atrios spew forth. Again, a good post John.
Terry
Obviously the first “their” was supposed to come out as “they’re.”
Moe Lane
“He’s as far left as Hesoid, only Kevin a little more civil.”
Given that Hesiod’s entire schtick is being incivil at any and all opportunities, I’d say that Kevin’s a LOT more civil. I also see a quite a bit of daylight between his position and Hesiod’s – but YMMV. I am parked right on the Right-of-center position, after all. :)
Pauly
“although Willis is increasingly abandoning this approach”
I thought I was the only one who had noticed this. I’m not going crazy (or becoming more partisan)!
GFW
There is no evidence- none whatsoever- that an international force would make things any better. IN fact, the historical record would, in many cases, state otherwise.
If this is true, why has the administration approached the UN for help?
Regardless, there already is an international force in place, and the administration has ALWAYS wanted international support- they have just not wanted to cede control.
Well, true to an extent. Once the administration realized no more countries were going to send sizable amounts of troops without some sort of “control” over the shape of post-war Iraq, they had to reach out to the UN. Or am I missing something.
Kimmitt
The Bush Administration could save a lot of time if they put forward their usual poorly-thought-out scheme, let the Dems play off of it to come up with a good response, then implemented the Democratic plan. From the Department to Homeland Security, to the internationalization of the Iraqi occupation force, to negotiation with North Korea, the Bush Administration has shown its consistent capacity to eventually implement superior Democratic policy proposals.
My opinion: Cut out the middleman in 2004.
Kevin Drum
Gee, John, that’s a lot of words! Let’s see here:
On the first post: it was a joke. Get it? Fasting in hospitals? Ha ha. (And I read a *ton* of conservatives defending Berlusconi’s corruption, which is truly about as wretched as it comes.)
On the second post: I didn’t say any of those things were the right things to do (although I agree with much of it). What I said was that *Bush* now seems to agree with it all. Why is it OK to bash Democrats for believing this stuff when it turns out that the Bush administration ends up doing it all anyway?
And yes, of course I’m partisan, and I don’t try to hide it. What’s wrong with that?
John Cole
I guess I am a dolt, but I still fail to see the humor in claiming that conservatives are embracing a corrupt man.
Also- there has beeen no move to Democrat positions- I thought I pointed that out.
John Cole
Ok Kimmitt- it is now official. You can’t read.
GFW
John, I’m still waiting for an answer:
“There is no evidence- none whatsoever- that an international force would make things any better. IN fact, the historical record would, in many cases, state otherwise.”
If this is true, why has the administration approached the UN for help?
JKC
GFW-
The answer is simple. The Rumsfeld-Cheney neocon fairy tale didn’t come true, and the Iraqi rose petal parades are nowhere in sight. We don’t have enough soldiers to secure Iraq: that’s the bottom line.
Somewhere, I hope Eric Shinseki is sitting in comfortable retirement, laughing his fanny off at the Bush League.
David Perron
I really hope you hurriedly hit the “post” button before reading that, JKC. The idea that you MEANT to lump Bush and Cheney together as neocons and imply that we fully expected to get unreserved embrace from the Iraqis just isn’t very complimentary. At a minimum, it just shows that you have no idea what it is to be a neocon. At the other end, it’s that plus you’ve been feeding at the DNC talking points trough a few too many times.
JKC
David- I apologise if any neocons reading my post found it uncomplimentary. Unfortunately, I meant it to be uncomplimentary.
Unfortunately, as brilliant as the military invasion of Iraq was, the occupation is playing out like it was being run by Boris Badanov and Natadha Fatale…
BORIS: Quick, Natasha. Another bomb went off in Baghdad. Get UN in here to help clean up mess. Maybe Blix can find WMD’s while they’re here.
NATASHA: But, dahlink, you told UN they were irrelevant and sent Blix on mission to Potsylvania…
JKC
Sorry if that sounds shrill. It is very frustrating, however, to watch the current administration make a hash of foreign policy and then listen to people say that the Democrats have no foreign policy credibility.
David Perron
Wow, didn’t think I’d have to clarify, but:
Uncomplementary to YOU, is what I was attempting to say. It’s obvious you have absolutely no idea what a neocon is.
Sean
“The Democrat approach to foreign policy has been to not look TOO stupid to win elections so that they can get on to what they are really all about- taxing people and screwing up domestic policy.”
Wow, if Democrats are all about screwing up domestic policy, I don’t know what Bush is doing with the monster deficit and 2.7 million jobs gone the way of the dodo bird. But those darn Clintonites and their god-awful tax tax tax domestic policy! You’d think they balanced the budget or something in 1993 without any Republican votes…
and argh, what is wrong with a foreign policy of not screwing up? Sure it’s not quite visionary or macho, but I always thought country A’s leader should concentrate most of his time on leading country A, and not trying to assimilate or empire build or liberate countries B,C, and D. That’s not a statement of pure isolationism, as I thought Clinton’s foreign policy was not awful, but he got the job done at home besides his games around the world (he should have done more, particularly with Rwanda, though). You almost make it seem though that if you don’t come in with some radical ideology and go hell-or-high-water with it, you aren’t a real leader and you’re just some wimpy appeaser. Hardly. All good things in moderation…
Kimmitt
John, I wasn’t trying to sum up your arguments; I was presenting my own humorous spin. Apologies for appearing to put words in your mouth.
JKC
Dave, I’m well aware of what a “neocon” is. Not a label I like, but it’s a handy shorthand.
If the way the Iraqi occupation has been handled is any indication, “neocon” is Republican Newspeak for “incompetent.”
David Perron
So, it was an intentional misuse of the word. I’m not sure if that makes you look any better.
Mark L
Mr. Drum is apparently clueless about fasting. The fasting to which is being referred is *not* total abstinence from food. It is abstinence from certain *kinds* of food, typically meat and dairy.
The Catholic Friday fast was abstaining from eating M_E_A_T, not as Mr. Drum seems to think F_O_O_D. It *is* healthier to abstain from eating meat once day a week. Since he is so off-base on that issue, — and not only off-base, but apparently obsessed with an issue about which he is so clueless — it is really, really, difficult to take the rest of his arguments seriously. After all, if he has missed that *simple* point, how good is his aim on the more complex ones?
Robin Roberts
Poor, Mark, his aim is very poor. A “ton” of conservatives, my ass. Or better yet, Kevin’s.
RW
sean, two quick items:
for a balanced budget, that 18 billion dollar increase in the debt during ’00 is a kicker, huh? Perhaps you can explain how we can run up a debt with a balanced budget?
Second, we just finished up the mess of what you consider “getting the job done”. Bombing buildings & then leaving things as they were when you came into power isn’t “getting the job done”.
GFW
No one answered my question…
Dean
GFW:
Can’t speak for the Administration, but try these answers on for size:
1. We want troops, not necessarily co-administrators. (Which begs the question of whether we’ll get them or not).
2. We want to show the domestic audience what French “cooperation” looks like (as in a vetoed UN effort).
3. We don’t want troops, necessarily, but to send a political message to the Ba’athists/al-Q in Iraq that they are facing a world that is opposed to them. Think of this as the equivalent of the Brazilian brigade that fought in Italy in WWII; or the various international battalions that fought alongside the 10 or so American divisions and multitude of ROK divisions in Korea.
The point is that, as Napoleon once said, from a military perspective, he’d rather fight against a coalition than fight in one. But politics might well suggest the APPEARANCE of multinational solidarity, even if, in the main, it works less well on the ground.
whatever
Calpundit takes a lot of cheap shots at republicans or anyone else who disagrees with him and then bemoans that people aren’t civil in the comment section. My favorite time is one where he said that republicans want to poison the food and water.
Don’t ever say that he has “civil discourse” when in fact he does the opposite.
GFW
So we are asking for UN help in order to embarass the French? Sounds interesting!