One of the farcical things implicit in this is that Yglesias probably thinks he's cosmopolitan, in the snooty sense of "sophisticated and at home in all parts of the world", and quite distinct from -- and much superior to -- Lee Harris's tacky nationalistic (as Yglesias would no doubt call it) "team cosmopolitanism" adduced in Civilization and its Enemies, where having constituent elements from all over the world or from many different parts of the world united by a common and deep team outlook, and loyalty, is the crucial factor.

Harris's "team" terminology adds a nice fillip of triviality if one chooses. Yup, just like the Celtics -- if you're a superficially "cosmopolitan" git.

AL, before you get too worked up about other people's understanding of patriotism, how about we revisit some of your own shortcomings on the issue?

I would suggest that Yglesias is dead on with his comments in the article that you've linked to - although I think this post may be even more apt. Yes, the US has a long history of proud achievements and profound and meaningful ideology, and we justly celebrate that stuff on the 4th of July (and at other times of the year). But there is a substantive difference between loving your country because it's your country, and loving the ideas that represent that country at its best. And just because America does have a long and proud history of ideas and goals that warrant joyous celebration doesn't mean that any and all celebration of America is of those ideas - quite a lot of it is of the "my country, right or wrong" mindset.

Which can be, and generally is, a good thing, in and of itself, but let's recognize it for what it is.

Meantime, I'll note that many here at WoC seem to have gone out of their way to prove Yglesias right - that y'all were all too willing to turn your back on the actual ideals of this country (say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment - and no, the 8th amendment doesn't say "citizens only") in favor of arguing that just about anything George W Bush wanted to do was fine because we're Americans, dammit, and Americans are always the good guys, regardless of their actual actions.

Which brings us back to AL's misreading of Schaar I linked to above... but I think I'll stop and leave y'all to your sneering at Mr. Yglesias for now.

Chris, I hope I can point out that (from context) the 8th Amendment applies to criminal (and possibly civil) matters, and specifically to the actions taken by officers of the court and those who pass or execute sentences upon those accused or convicted of conventionally criminal acts.

That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not. [NOTE: The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine that to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty. :\ ]

Even more debate-worthy are the questions along these lines: whether interrogation is intrinsically the same thing as punishment, whether warfare is "punishment", and indeed whether the conduct of war can be anything but cruel. And how about this: If war is punishment, but we wish war to be not common, that is to say unusual, does the 8th Amendment forbid it, no matter what, to all who truly hold American principles? I could really go to town on this whole claim of yours about the 8th Amendment, but let it be for now.

I do not hold that Americans are incapable of cruelty. I do hold that nothing I've heard of the atrocities laid at the feet of our forces in the recent conduct of the Iraqi campaign is much like the systematic behavior of any renowned {sic} despot.

I do agree that we should hold ourselves to a high standard of moral conduct. Just "better than Saddam" is clearly not good enough, and too often that's the cartoon rejoinder from some apologists.

That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically -- and I'll refrain from that as it is unproductive.

[Edits added]

What is wrong with loving your country because it is your country?

Davod, who said there was something wrong with that?

Nortius, #3:

That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not.

Unfortunately, as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has determined that the CSRT process as it exists is inadequate. It's therefore a bit dubious to assert that illegal enemy combatants cannot be afforded the protections of the US Constitution when it's their status as properly determined illegal enemy combatants is part of what's at question.

That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically -- and I'll refrain from that as it is unproductive.

Well, I still have some rocks to throw, in the service of complexty. I've thrown some at the Executive, above, so
let's throw two more: One at the Court, for suggesting a process based on AR 190-8, then striking it down; and one at the Legislative for being so feckless that they have refused to proved any meaningful legal clarification, codification, or guidelines on how to deal with this.

Congress seems to think the world today is the same as the world of 2000, and needs no new legal thinking whatsoever. The Executive knows the world has changed, and seems to think it can do whatever it wants. The Court seems to think this is the time to play Sphinx. They're all wrong; the world has changed, we do need a base of law both flexible ad coherent off which to experiment but which restrains the Executive from doing anything it pleases, and this is not the time to be ambiguous or flighty.

Marcus Vitruvius, #6 shows that you appreciate that the issues surrounding patriotism are complex. You discuss some of them without caricaturing the positions (much less the inner thoughts) of those who disagree with you.

Chris, comment #2 suggests that this subtlety has escaped you, so far. Try again?

What bloviating bullshit! One loves the homeland because one grew up in it; you create rationalizations (like these) later. By the way: if Americans were so eager to throw off the yoke of hereditary privilege and substitute the rule of the governed, how was it that the Founders sanctioned slavery?

Why love your parents more than any other strange man or women? Right?

Patriotism is not about criticism. It exists entirely apart from the fact of criticism.

Chesterton explained the problem best.

A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all...

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises -- he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things.

When a man begins by saying 'I am sorry we were ever born,' it is hard not to think he is an antipatriot of this type: one who lacks the "primary and supernatural loyalty" that is the mark of the patriot. Every subsequent criticism is flavored by that initial regret that America should exist at all.

That does not mean the criticisms are wrong, of course: it only means that the man is not a patriot. Another man, who loved his country with the ferocity of a child for his mother, might have the same criticisms. They could both be right at the same time, in terms of the criticisms they raise: but only one is a patriot.

That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not

Apparently, the definition of "reasonable people" now encompasses people who assert that captured illegal combatants be tried in U.S. courts for violations of U.S. law, and that they be treated in accordance with the third Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibits the trial of captured EPWs under domestic criminal law.

It's not that big of a difference between loving a deeply subjective personal interpretation of your country's highest ideals, while hating what your country actually is.

Yglesias is saying what liberals typically do constitutes constructive criticism. Problem is, the construction never begins. No, it's all about ego and self-importance. What matters to Yglesias and that sort is maintaining a self-image as more (important, intelligent, patriotic, whatever) than some other group.

It saves a lot of time, though, if you just say 'he's an ass' and move on. I mean, really, life's too short and so on. He'll have the same self-delusion tomorrow that he has today regardless of what anyone says about him. One post on this, fine. But why go on and on?

Myself, at this point if I see that name, I usually just pass. If I see a skunk, I know the deal. No need to test it.

Why bother? This guys sounds like a sophomore with a major in poli sci who landed a job as an intern at the Atlantic.

Look, it's really simple - the United States of America came into being with the Declaration of Independence (and was given its substance with the Constitution.) When Matt says that we would have been even "awesomer" if not for that, then he is quite simply saying that it would have been better had the United States of America never been born.

Now, if Matt wants to try to reconcile that with any known definition of patriotism, he's welcome to try. But it won't fly. If "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is arguably moronic, then "you can be patriotic while simultaneously thinking that your country would have been better had it never existed" is demonstrably oxymoronic.

Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform. In the uniform of the enemy. A person capture on the field of batlle out of unifrom can be shot as a spy. The poeple detained aren't covered under the convention.

Does anyone need a better example of moral relativism than Yglesias' formulation of "patriotism"? Actually, it is this complete inability to escape the "floating opera" of relativism that is the REAL dividing point between Liberals and Conservatives. Yglesias thinks it is a demonstration of his superior intellect to say that there is no difference between a Nazi stormtrooper's loyalty to the Fatherland, and Abraham Lincoln's love of the Union. No difference, see? Coke or Pepsi, you silly boy!

It is just you rubes that think otherwise.

freedom from cruel and unusual punishment - and no, the 8th amendment doesn't say "citizens only")

It does say punishment though. Limitation of Clause to Criminal Punishment And the Fifth Amendment right to be Mirandized doesn't say "citizens only" either.

{Slightly mangled link format. Fixed. --NM]

A liberal friend of mine is a rabid UCLA Bruins fan because he is a citizen of UCLA, having attended there for a few years.

Would that he was as devoted to this country as he is to his team.

Mike P.

Why love your parents more than any other strange man or women? Right?

That is exactly a very large part of it. Why does Yglesias love his mother more than my mother?

Familial love does not operate on the same plane as utilitarian calculation. It doesn't obey strict laws of human rationalism - it might completely ignore individual merit, for example.

Yglesias-type liberals ought to recognize that it is a good thing that human affection extends beyond family to community, region, and country. This is what makes life livable for billions of people, and it's an instinct that liberals want to appeal to.

Patriotism is not all sentimentality - particularly American patriotism, since we a country founded in political idealism. But national sentiment is a hugely important thing, and to dismiss it is irrational.

I can very well understand how a Russian can love Russia, in spite of centuries of disastrous history and all current problems. Likewise the Mexican. What I can't understand is someone who lives comfortably in a very fortunate country and feels no affection for it at all.

Posted to Yglesias, see if it goes up:

"Arbitrary? What, did our ancestors choose America to emigrate to by throwing darts at a map? "Od, drat, we missed Montreal; oh, well, on to Ellis Island, then..."

People CHOSE to come to America. Maybe they wanted what they believed it offered, or what they believed it stood for, or because we wouldn't kill them out of hand like their current neighbors. But there was nothing arbitrary about it. They looked at America and they saw their best hope, or their last hope, and they boarded the ships.

Shame on you for denigrating their faith and courage, equating it to a casual choice in a candy store."

I dislike sports fandom (not sports - just the fandom) for exactly the arbitrariness of it that Yglesias points out.

I have never, and will never, wear an article of clothing with the logo of a sports team.

On the other hand, I served in the military, and am willing to die to preserve the freedom of the United States.

...because the US, as you point out, is not arbitrary - it is a beacon of liberty for all of mankind. That's something you can't say about France, or Mexico, or Zimbabwe, or any place other than the US.

Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there's something arbitrary about it -- we're [sic] just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you.

Just because a liberal can do something "better" doesn't make that something worth doing at all.

For example, Yglesias et al are very good at standing on the stern of a ship, warning everybody of the icebergs that were missed.

Liberals in America think that loving America is something arbitrary, but somehow can't see that the same thing is true of the sports they support.

I looked Yglesias up on Wikipedia, and it says he's a basketball fan. How American! And how unthinkingly American, too.

My challenge to liberals and leftists is simple: impress me. Impress me with your knowledge of sports in other countries. Impress me with your sensitivity to their sports. Impress me by knowing about not just the Boston Celtics but also Glasgow Celtic. Impress me by knowing what sort of competition the FA Cup is. Impress me by knowing something about cricket.

Yes, I know, some liberals and leftists can impress me in this way. But they tend to be younger. The older ones are hopelessly mired in sports bigotry. And knowing this, I just ignore the thoughts of people like Yglesias.

If Yglesias intended to suggest that, as a political matter, liberals don't confuse their admiration of some parts of the Constitution with their zeal for International Law, he should have just said so.

Chris, I hope I can point out that (from context) the 8th Amendment applies to criminal (and possibly civil) matters, and specifically to the actions taken by officers of the court and those who pass or execute sentences upon those accused or convicted of conventionally criminal acts.

That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not. [NOTE: The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine that to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty. :\ ]

NM, I think the founders would have disagreed - considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders were "unlawful combatants", or the equivalent of, for their day and age. What's more, the basic idea of "inalienable rights" doesn't exactly mesh with legal distinctions about who may or may not to be tortured.

I could really go to town on this whole claim of yours about the 8th Amendment, but let it be for now.

And this is my point - for all the great and abiding love that y'all claim to have for this country, for freedom and human rights and all the other ideals this country was founded on, you seem to care relatively little about the actual application of those ideals.

It's pretty simple, actually, NM - you claim to stand ready to overturn a _prima facie _ reading of the 8th amendment with loopy logic about how, gosh, war is bad, and interrogation is bad, and they're all bad, and probably against the 8th amendment, but what are you gonna do, huh?

NM, rationalizing away torture as merely being the application of "harsh interrogation techniques" on "unlawful combatants" is not the way to protect and honor this country's ideals.

And for all that AL loves to talk about a nation bound together by shared ideals, the fact that y'all support the guys who stand behind the principle that the President is not bound by Congressional law not to, say, crush children's testicles suggests to me that we do not have many of those founding ideals in common any more. And that being the case, forgive me for not really giving a rat's ass about how much you thump your chests about how you really love your country, and how others do not.

That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically -- and I'll refrain from that as it is unproductive.

Oddly enough, NM, this is me at my least cynical and most productive. None of this has a damn thing to do with right vs. left, D vs. R - this pretty much falls right into good vs. evil, in my book. And what you call an effigy, I call plain, honest truth.

Um, Chris not to put too fine a point on it but have you read what I've written here about torture ? Why do you attribute ideas to me that aren't mine?

Now I don;t beat the drum on it, because while I oppose it, I think that the issues raised here are relatively small beer - compared to any war we've engaged in in the past, we're doing far better (not that we don't have better still to do, and not that the Administration did not miss yet another golden opportunity to publicly do the right thing and to improve the stories told about this war).

But this is so far from defining the core of who we are as a people that I'm kind of at a loss for how to respond. Does Charlie Manson define America to you?

Out government is imperfect, which the Founders recognized it would be. That's why it will change in seven months. We have a chance to do better. And when that government shows itself to be imperfect, we'll get to change it, too.

A.L.

Chris wrote a counterfactual:

"NM, I think the founders would have disagreed - considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders were "unlawful combatants", or the equivalent of, for their day and age."

And he's simply got the history wrong. We treated captured Crown soldiers as POWs, and they treated captured Americans as POWs, even ones in civilian clothing if they were taken as part of the military unit.

We hung captured out of uniform spies such as Major Andre, and they hung captured out of uniform American spies, such as Nathan Hale.

Neither quibbled with either capital punishment, as each was perfectly according to the rules of war then in use.

One loves the homeland because one grew up in it....

Tell that to my Hungarian grandmother.

Well, we're kind of an accident of geography, but probably not in the way that you meant. Otherwise, yeah, you're right about the difference between patriotism as you define it and nationalism. That's also why when some people differ so much about what they think this country is supposed to be, it starts to become patriotism of something else entirely.

Um, Chris not to put too fine a point on it but have you read what I've written here about torture ? Why do you attribute ideas to me that aren't mine?

AL, I have read what you wrote - and it's basically a long winded way of saying "yeah, we do some bad stuff, but nobody's perfect, and we're better than Saddam."

Which is to say, you say pretty much nothing at all, while continuing to broadly support the Bush administration and attack the Democrats, even as John Yoo is saying the kind of stuff I linked to above. And with such stuff, if you're not bang against it, you're with it, for all intents and purposes.

But this is so far from defining the core of who we are as a people that I'm kind of at a loss for how to respond. Does Charlie Manson define America to you?

AL, let me spell this out for you: we are, at the core, a nation given certain inalienable rights by our creator and governed by (largely) elected institutions, where each major branch is subject to checks and balances from the others and no one man is above the law.

However, the position of the Bush administration, both with regard to John Yoo's testimony above and in a wide variety of other instances, is that he is above the law, and does not need to follow what Congress or anyone else says.

So, yes, the official stated policies and actions of our elected President define our core principles in the way that the actions of a psychopath 30-odd years ago do not.

This crap goes way beyond "our government is imperfect" - our government is actively undermining the ideals of this country. And shame on you for pussyfooting around the issue with this "nothing's perfect" BS.

Why is Matthew Yglesias at all celebrated or admired? What has he ever written that wasn't conventional liberal wisdom of the most expected sort? Why is he an Atlantic columnist and not just a staff writer at Newsweek? Can anyone point to ANYTHING he ever wrote that was especially clever, insightful, thought-provoking, anything?

Chris, that's such a flat misreading of what I wrote that I've gotta question either your honesty or your reading skills.

A.L.

Tom-

And [Chris has] simply got the history wrong. We treated captured Crown soldiers as POWs, and they treated captured Americans as POWs, even ones in civilian clothing if they were taken as part of the military unit.

Tom, it has been a while since I took my courses on the Revolutionary War, but I do seem to remember that POW status for American soldiers was not immediate, and that there were a fair number of highly questionable instances of captured prisoners falling dead.

"I think the founders would have disagreed - considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders were "unlawful combatants", or the equivalent of, for their day and age."

No. The British considered them traitors, plain and simple, and described them as such.

AMac, #7:

Well, I characterized the Hell out of the legislature as being feckless, but by and large I try not to caricature actual people. I don't always succeed.

Nortius is exactly right that the issues are complex. I hold that they are not only complex, but novel-- indeed, they're complex in part because they are novel-- and I get very frustrated when people ignore that. It's not even always a right/left split, as it is a split between people who refuse to see we're in a fundamentally different situation than we were ten years ago, vs people who think that novelty grants extreme license.

If I have a basic sympathy in this situation, it's toward the Executive Branch, on the grounds that they've been given a job, but few tools or guidelines. I've been there in my own life. But that's sympathy. It's not a free pass.

(Some of this is also being fueled by my read through of Bobbitt's (somewhat) new book, Terror and Consent.)

Chris, that's such a flat misreading of what I wrote that I've gotta question either your honesty or your reading skills.

AL, the thrust of your argument is that the Nazis, North Korea, etc., are based on violence, that we're not, and we should know that we have to resist becoming as such. And your main critique of the administration is not that they've done bad stuff, but that they've left themselves open to criticism on this issue.

Which is not substantively different from my earlier summation: "yeah, we do some bad stuff, but nobody's perfect, and we're better than Saddam."

If you disagree, give specifics.

And as for honesty, give me a f^&king break - you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest after implying that George W Bush's behavior doesn't reflect on this country any more than Charles Manson's does?

How many times do I have to make the argument that what Bush is doing is substantively different - and worse - than what occurred in the past before you stop with this glib "nobody's perfect" defense?

"Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform. In the uniform of the enemy. A person capture on the field of batlle out of unifrom can be shot as a spy."

Tell that to Scott Helvenston, Jerry (Jerko) Zovko, Wesley Batalona, and Michael Teague.

Chris says:

Oddly enough, NM, this is me at my least cynical and most productive.

Ah. So your true calling is as a stick-figure cartoonist. Much is made clear.

By the way, that "Y'all" stuff? It's getting pretty old. Are you a hearing-impaired cartoonist? So it seems.

#35 (MV):

The situation being novel is, of course, (as I'm sure even our deaf acquaintance Chris would say -- though he won't note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his "Y'all" vs "Chris" narrative) one great big opportunity for license (in the sense of excess). As, for instance, was the Patriot Act one great big Christmas present for the FBI.

"The British considered them traitors, plain and simple, and described them as such."

Correct. And the consideration of them as traitors was correct, as well. The only reason that now, in the USA, they are not so considered is because the rebellion succeeded.

"There is only one excuse for rebellion; that excuse is if you win."

And the matters of, e.g., not being represented in Parliament were only tyranny because the Americans who objected survived to say so, rather than being hanged one and all as directed by the Crown. Because, as is well understood, all monarchs are sovereign by Divine Right.

Yes, that's perfectly clear.

Ah. So your true calling is as a stick-figure cartoonist. Much is made clear.

No, I'm a mere engineer in real life. I dearly wish I was smart enough to be a stick-figure cartoonist.

By the way, that "Y'all" stuff? It's getting pretty old. Are you a hearing-impaired cartoonist? So it seems.

I'm a life-long southerner who talks that way in real life, and my writing reflects that. Euphemistically speaking, forget you if you have a problem with it.

My problem with the expression is it does not actually describe all the people to whom you (believe you) are speaking. It's because you're being sloppy with your accusations that I object, not because it's a Southernism.

Forget me if you wish. But when you use too broad a brush, a stick figure (even a crucially paradigmatic one relating to the claims you make about rights violated uniquely by GWB) becomes a blob. Such blobs make it less worthwhile to attempt engagement on the merits of your views.

[Edited]

My problem with the expression is that "You-all" does not actually describe the people to whom you are speaking. It is too broad a brush. A stick figure drawn with a broad brush is a blob. The combination makes it less worthwhile to attempt engagement on the merits of your views.

NM, even if you don't like my use of "y'all" as shorthand to refer to "many here at WoC," I've made specific arguments about what both you and AL have said here - there shouldn't be any problems attempting engagement with those particular posts.

I'm also curious if you've ever voiced similar concerns about imprecision to any of the many, many, many right-leaning posters I've seen here over the years who've used the terms "the left", or "liberals" or "Democrats" to refer to everyone they disagree with.

Simmons understands why others like their teams as much as he likes his. That's why you can enjoy his columns even if you aren't from Boston. They are about being a die-hard sports fan, not a die-hard Boston fan. Bad analogy.

Chris, in fact, I hope you never see the really bogus / imprecise posts from the right that I manage to catch in my role as one of the Marshals here. They are transported to /dev/null as obnoxious. Just sayin'.

Coming late to this thread, let me just place here that having a strong opinion on the legalistic implications of the Eighth Amendment concerning enemy combatants neither enhances nor reduces someone's patriotism.

It's a difference of opinion on a highly technical point of Constitutional law.

And connecting disagreements on such a technical and complicated disagreement like Chris does on a post that is simply about loving the warm hearth that is your home country discredits his whole larger argument.

I believe Kelo is an horrible abridgement of my Fifth Amendment rights. I don't try to connect the intellectual qualms I have with it towards my basic love of America.

Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done. You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly - that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.

That's your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.

A.L.

OK, too much about the effective WoC editorial policy, but what the heck.

I've made specific arguments about what both you and AL have said here - there shouldn't be any problems attempting engagement with those particular posts.

Indeed, and yet here we are, with you saying we say things we don't. Impasse, it seems.

I'm also curious if you've ever voiced similar concerns about imprecision to any of the many, many, many right-leaning posters I've seen here over the years who've used the terms "the left", or "liberals" or "Democrats" to refer to everyone they disagree with.

We've been over this multiple times on this site.

What we have here is a classic distinction that I predict you will claim is without a difference.

Direct address to parties evidently in conversation, using blog handles, participant names, and personal pronouns such as "you", carry a particular evident directness to the parties. This is tautologous.

Generalizations and party labels are not the same thing.

Arbitrary though it might be, saying (hypothetically)

"You-all are ***holes"

is different than saying (hypothetically)

"Leftists are ***holes",

or

"Skinheads are ***holes",

or even, say

"People who believe what AL believes are all (but I don't really mean all, I mean most) crypto-fascist."

All of the above are sloppy and I (I think the evidence will show) eschew those formulations when I post.

Generalizations and categories are inherently imprecise. "You-all" carries a denotative meaning, whether you like it or not, that "Leftists" or even "conservatives" lacks.

I note that it seems that most of the complaints I get about the latter are from people who self-identify as aggrieved or specially-picked-on leftists, at least here, [and who seem to find the distinction I make here bogus].

Thus my prediction that you will remain true to form and take such sloppy speech as personally offensive when it's uttered by people you identify as adversary... [and when it please you, going personal, because it's the same thing to you.]

And that you will continue to regard the bias here as worth remarking on and as unfair.

That's tough, and I don't know what to do about that except acknowledge that you will do it, and say that I wish the speech here in general showed more probity, and carry on.

[Edited]

"Prisoners, sir? What prisoners? They all fought to the last man," said the young soldier on the battlefield, afraid that yet another jihadist would regain his freedom after being released due to a minor legal technicality at trial back in the States.

The difference I see is that conservatives believe that America is great in its founding ideals and the system its founders created to protect both its citizens and a society that would endure.

Liberals seem to be ashamed of that kind of pride, and deem it hubris in light of our many failings as a people throughout history. They focus on goals they believe are necessary for greatness, which they label as progressive, and hold the nation liable for not eliminating poverty, sickness and other forms of inequality.

It seems to me that it boils down to one's definitions of two terms, justice and freedom. I would say that neither implies equality of results, because results come from our personal efforts. Yglesias would probably say that the fact of poverty proves that there is no justice and that poverty itself is a denial of freedom.

I think he's wrong.

Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done.

AL, I did just that in the post I linked to earlier - you never even bothered to respond to my points about why what Bush did was worse than what Lincoln or FDR did. So you might want to give that a reread before you start complaining about me not actually substantiating my arguments.

You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly - that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.

Actually, AL, I challenge you to find any other post I've made here where I claim the problem with Iraq was that we started the war. I do have a wide variety of problems with how Iraq was started, how it's been fought, and the kind of crap people here on Winds of Change have been willing to support in Iraq's name - but my earlier point about Iraq being different from WW2 or the Civil War because we started it was fairly unique.

That's your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.

No, it's not. But please do try to actually support that assertion with substantive links back to what I've written here in the past, as I've done in my posts, rather than just making blanket assertions about what I do and don't stand for.

Indeed, and yet here we are, with you saying we say things we don't. Impasse, it seems.

Setting aside for a moment the (incorrect) assertion that I'm lying about what you and AL have and haven't said, what does this have to do with my earlier point that, even if you don't like "y'all", I am at least being specific with what I'm saying to to two of you?

We've been over this multiple times on this site. What we have here is a classic distinction that I predict you will claim is without a difference.

Well done, NM - you've correctly predicted my response by... er, looking at what I said on this exact subject in the past. Kudos.

Generalizations and categories are inherently imprecise. "You-all" carries a denotative meaning, whether you like it or not, that "Leftists" or even "conservatives" lacks.

Oddly enough, I don't think my comment #2 would have had a substantially different meaning had it read:

Meantime, I'll note that many here at WoC seem to have gone out of their way to prove Yglesias right - that conservatives were all too willing to turn their back on the actual ideals of this country (say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment - and no, the 8th amendment doesn't say "citizens only")...

In fact, it would have been substantially less accurate, because while I have seen just those arguments made by posters on these boards, I there are plenty of conservatives who haven't made such arguments. Given that my problems are specifically with the general tone and approach of the posters here, I think it's only right and proper that I say just that.

Thus my prediction that you will remain true to form and take such sloppy speech as personally offensive when it's uttered by people you identify as adversary... [and when it please you, going personal, because it's the same thing to you.]

Wow... a mess of misrepresentations here. First, I don't take it as personally offensive, and I don't believe I've "gone personal", other than specifically calling out individual posters such as AL and disputing the things they've said. Despite the examples you used in your post, NM, I've never called anyone here an "***hole", or a "crypto-fascist", or any of that, nor will I.

As to whether it's offensive, I maintain that the dread word "y'all" is no better or worse than when someone in one of these threads states that "liberals are traitors".

And that you will continue to regard the bias here as worth remarking on and as unfair.

I don't find that there's a bias in the threads - I do believe there's a bias specifically in your supposed "policing" actions, NM, which frequently blur the division between your own personal political opinions and the actions you take as a moderator. That said, while I won't apologize for pointing that out, I don't feel that this is horribly or uniquely unfair - I suspect similar things happen to conservatives who're in the minority on liberal sites - and if you're telling me to stop remarking on it, I will.

You said it differently than I, but at least as well (wink):

The flame of which America is the white-hot heart is the living fire of the West. But who knew I would find one of the most moving descriptions of what the United States represents in one of my youngest son’s books? Rick Riordan has created Percy Jackson, son of a human woman and Poseidon, the (Greek) God of the Sea. In The Lightning Thief, Percy discovers what it means to be a half-blood; that the gods truly are immortal—and they are living in America:

Explains Charon the Centaur:

“Come now, Percy. What you call ‘Western civilization.’ Do you think it’s just an abstract concept? No, it’s a living force. A collective consciousness that has burned bright for thousands of years…The fire started in Greece…Then…the heart of the fire moved to Rome…Wherever the flame was brightest, the gods were there. They spent several centuries in England…Like it or not—and believe me, plenty of people weren’t very fond of Rome, either—America is now the heart of the flame. It is the great power of the West.”

If what is happening all over western Europe and in Britain is any indication, the blaze of true freedom of thought and spirit is a barely glowing ember everywhere but here. With those who represent the Law and Faith in England showing their bellies to the feral hounds of Islam, the torch of individual liberty has well and truly passed to those of us here willing to keep it lit.

I think to modify civilization with the word “Western” is redundant now. From what we have seen of the twins, Fascism and Socialism, civil society can not survive the death of individual rights and the ownership of private property. Certainly, while on her way to being a military and economic superpower, China is no more truly civilized than were our Neolithic ancestors. Cultured, yes; civilized? No. The cult of the State obliterates what is mannered and respectful and genuinely human in society. And one can only turn away in loathing from what passes for civility in the theocracies of Islam. In so far as non-Western nations are beginning to light the path forward, it is only as they are embracing the foundational ideas of Western greatness.

Mark Steyn is prophetic in his work America Alone. To watch England and Europe today is to watch a once-powerful warrior remain still and silent as he is cut to ribbons by goblins with pocketknives. What is horrifying to let into consciousness is the thought that some of those who would style themselves our leaders stand ready, eager even, to douse the flame—and the bitter heart of the gall is that they are not even capable of understanding the consequences of their submission and the depth of their betrayal. Mental dwarves, they launch themselves into the gutter, eschewing the brilliantly lighted palace left to them by those whose crowns they can never hope to wear. God willing, some of us will remain to keep Olympus whole and safe.

[Worthy, if slightly wet prose for a first post here. :) Feel free to stick around and contribute original content here, rather than limiting yourself to extended quotes lifted from your own blog. --NM]

#15 from telepath at 5:01 pm on Jul 06, 2008

"Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform."

Off the top of my head, the answer is there was more than one and there is more than treaty. One, the US never signed, gave some rights to some nonuniformed insurgent types.

Chris, I didn't say you had crossed any line.

I predicted you would (and do) equate the use of "You-all" with the use of "{political party [x]}" and that you would not consider the two things to be distinct.

I used hypothetical simple utterances not to say you had said such but to make my examples a bit less colorless and academic.

I regret the attempt. It did muddy the water.

I reassert that, at least in my case, you have failed to represent me as an apologist for Bush by citing anything I've posted, have (possibly) meant me, and possibly not as part of your "Y'all" -- who can say? -- and have behaved as I also predicted in my # 39:

[Chris] won't note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his "Y'all" vs "Chris" narrative

Well done, sir!

This guy Yglesias, he's just saying this stuff because it's the only thing that can get him laid.

You don't get to pick your country any more than you get to pick your family, sure. I'll buy that.

But if you were to say "the only use I have for my family is the extent to which they conform to my interests and ideals, and beyond that, affection for the family is simple-minded sentimentality and I'll have no part in it..." Not only our society, but virtually all societies in the world and throughout the ages, would find that opinion unnatural and abhorrent.

And if you trot that line out in the middle of the family reunion, then you, my friend, are just being an @$$hole. [Redaction mine. --NM]

All other things being equal, I prefer the other people living in my society to like that society. Not in every jot and tittle, not in each single specification, not to the exclusion of seeing that society's imperfections and working to improve them. But you should still like it anyway! At least, in our case, where to be frank, it's pretty damned good and hardly anybody can do as well.

I don't like thinking that other people in society look at our form of government and life as some kind of raw material, to rip up and use to form the shining utopia in their minds. If that's really your opinion, okay, so be it, but don't wave it in my face and then wonder why I'm sneering at you.

Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, etc etc

They are all great places to live. People who make it a point to say one is so obviously the best compared to the others tend to be quite obnoxious.

The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine that to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty.

And how DO you determine that, absent a fair trial?

Yes, and how do you conduct a fair trial during (what some say is) a war? One doesn't "try" combatants during a firefight, one attempts to kill or defeat them. What's "good enough", once shooting stops, but there is no clear party to surrender, in an arena where the convention, since 1648, more or less, has been that you have "rules of engagement" as distinct from "rule of (English Common) law"? As I said, complicated.

#39, Nortius Maximus:

The situation being novel is, of course, (as I'm sure even our deaf acquaintance Chris would say -- though he won't note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his "Y'all" vs "Chris" narrative) one great big opportunity for license (in the sense of excess). As, for instance, was the Patriot Act one great big Christmas present for the FBI.

That's one type of license, yes, but I don't think it's the most problematical one-- at least it's license of a sort which is written down, bounded, and defined. As such, it's easy to change and deal with because it is a known thing.

Worse, though, are the cases where the Administration is given a job (or has a new form of an old job, such as providing national security) but critical elements of it are left unclear, or definitions which are clearly outmoded are left without even an attempt at update. There are a great many things about this current-- and likely to be long-lasting-- situation, which are new. How does one fight a war in which the other side is itself distributed, uses only distributed agents, and has almost no reliance on conventional, uniformed forces, but which also don't really fit the definition of a spy, per se? How does one treat an armed, organized group that parasitizes a real, but weakened, nation-state? What if these situations effectively break the Geneva Conventions to which we are signatory? If we create new categories of combatant and non-combatant, how are decisions made? Who has jurisdiction? Who has review? What courts apply?

These are important questions of law, as well as strategy, and without some sort of guidance and input from law-making bodies, what recourse does the Executive have? Well, they have two overriding responsibilities: First, to do their jobs as best they are able; second, to maintain the Constitution as best they understand it. In the absence of guidance, and in significant danger, I would expect any Administration, Republican or Democrat, to act along certain lines. Namely, to carve out as large an area of operating space as possible as they think they can possibly justify, in order to get the job done.

I sure as Hell don't agree with everything the Administration has done. Even aside from that, their justifications for some things have been shockingly tone deaf, and their failure to educate the population about some similar measures taken in the past has been inexcusable. But I cannot quite find it in my heart to condemn this Administration as deeply or profoundly as the Left (generally) has.

Fletcher, #40:

Correct. And the consideration of them as traitors was correct, as well. The only reason that now, in the USA, they are not so considered is because the rebellion succeeded.

I... don't think that's quite fair. I realize that every side in every civil conflict will try to justify itself, and that the Federal government of the US has the quandry of defending it's own Revolution while simultaneously defending it's prosecution of the Civil War, but:

There is, and was at the time, a well-developed notion of a social contract. That's why the French and Indian Wars are significant, here. It wasn't outrage at being forced to pay, monetarily, for the French and Indian Wars. It's being forced to pay for them, after being shoddily defended and discouraged from managing their own defense. It was abuse heaped on outrage, and the American revolutionaries had some just cause to feel themselves betrayed already.

And finally, on the general subject of patriotism, I confess to getting tired of the subject before it comes up. It sometimes seems to me as if it's a perennial fight between those who can't bear to hear of anything their country does wrong, vs those who can't bear to hear of anything their country does right.

It's not quite that simple, but one is sometimes left with that impression.

Chris, you say :

AL, I did just that in the post I linked to earlier - you never even bothered to respond to my points about why what Bush did was worse than what Lincoln or FDR did.

and

Actually, AL, I challenge you to find any other post I've made here where I claim the problem with Iraq was that we started the war.

OK, here's the entirety of the comment you linked (absent a quote from my post, omitted for brevity):

Two things, AL. One is that, oddly enough, the US wasn't the aggressor in starting those wars. Did Lincoln or FDR maneuver politically and diplomatically to make it more likely that war would occur? Arguably, yes, but we still got hit first, and as a result, those presidents had a far greater range of options to pursue the war than Bush did. Did they finesse and spin to keep the public involved in the war? Sure, but the core argument for war - they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence - was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war - as opposed to the war in Afghanistan - that's not the case. And when Bush's core cause for war is basically a purposeful fraud - which was never the case with the Civil War or WW2 - then we've got a real problem.

Second, the basic fact of the matter is that the public increasingly sees Iraq as, if not a losing war, than as one we aren't - and won't - win. If that weren't the case, then things would be entirely different - probably some liberals would still be sore about what Bush did leading up to the war, but Bush would have enough political strength that it wouldn't be an issue, and, as I've written before, guys like you and Joe Lieberman would be doing far better within the Democratic party than you currently are. And, much like Lincoln was ultimately forgiven by history for suspending habeas corpus for saving the Union, and FDR was forgiven for interning Japanese-Americans for saving the world, Bush's actions leading up to the war just wouldn't mean that much.

As it is, however, Bush misled us into war and we have a loss on our hands because of it.

THAT is where the problem lies, AL - and those two reasons make a world of difference when it comes to how we view Bush's actions.

OK, so claim #1 was: you responded to my charge that you had not made any kind of substantial argument as to why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents. That was your answer...

OK, so claim #2 was: that you never claimed that the problem in Iraq was that we started the war. I'll go with the next-to-opening sentence from the cite above - "One is that, oddly enough, the US wasn't the aggressor in starting those wars."

So forgive me Chris when I question - since I'll accept your claim to honorable behavior - whether we're speaking the same language.

telepath #15:

Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform. In the uniform of the enemy. A person capture on the field of batlle out of unifrom can be shot as a spy. The poeple detained aren't covered under the convention.

I'm a bit confused as well. I can understand how one might regard someone out of uniform as a legitimate combatant since (for instance) it took a few years for uniforms of the Union and Confederacy to become standardized. But it's generally recognized (for good reason) that to deliberately dress in civilian garb is a form of perfidy. It doesn't simply endanger the opponent, but also noncombatants who have no stake in the fight. In fact, it deliberately endangers them, as a strategy. That's what perfidy is. As someone pointed out, both Andre and Hale were executed... and in the case of the former Washington insisted that he be hanged rather than shot because the latter form of execution was reserved for honorable men. Washington suggested that if Andre were not going to be hanged he ought not be executed at all.

Also, I was under the impression that it was illegal under the Geneva conventions to "try" a POW... so the requirement that enemy combatants (even perfidious ones) be tried in US courts suggests an unexpressed conviction that our system of justice transcends and supersedes such cautionary constraints, and can effectively be regarded as "universal." If you don't think this the case then the requirements regarding trial would be ill-advised. Clearly we would not be all that happy to have our captured military "tried" in enemy courts... and would prefer that they simply be held until the end of hostilities, or until there were a prisoner exchange.

Chris:

I think you're sadly lacking a coherent background understanding. One clue might be the situation related above: that there's an implied assurance that our procedures approach a universal standard of fairness compared to those of nearly all real or potential enemies. That, I would suggest, is good reason for more than nationalism. Whatever you want to call it, it's grounded in something beyond "team spirit" or even pride of place.

Just a suggestion: Read practically anything by S.M. Lipset, but especially something like The First New Nation. He's a lifelong Democrat, so that shouldn't compromise your partisanship too much. But you really need some context. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you make no sense (nor does Yglasias, really). Your arguments are not even sufficiently coherent to be worthy of a direct response. And I'm not saying this as a form of backhanded argument. Your posts just seem like a pile of loose threads, with no relevant organization. I just have no idea where to begin.

But if you haven't time to read Lipset, AST #51 puts it rather succinctly. Start with that.

Well, it's either gonna be McCain/Palin or ...

Barack Obama starring as "Change" the Gardener in remake of movie classic, "Being There", starring Peter Sellers as "Chance" the Gardener!

*HT to hs commenting on
puma4palin.blogspot.com

I reassert that, at least in my case, you have failed to represent me as an apologist for Bush by citing anything I've posted, have (possibly) meant me, and possibly not as part of your "Y'all" -- who can say? -- and have behaved as I also predicted in my # 39:

[Chris] won't note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his "Y'all" vs "Chris" narrative

Well done, sir!

NM, for you to agree with me, I'd first have to agree that "the situation being novel is... one great big opportunity for license." Which I don't much have an opinion on, one way or another.

As for the rest - does all this basically boil down to whether you, personally, NM, feel impugned by possibly being called a Bush admin apologist? Dude, get a grip - if you're not, you're not, but it's hardly some gross misrepresentation of the facts to say that many here at WoC either are substantively have been in the past. And whether you support the Bush admin or not, NM, what you're saying about the 8th amendment is plenty reckless in and of itself - especially given the current civil liberties crisis - regardless of whether you support Bush or not.

If folks that the US Army captures in Iraq, etc must be treated the same as folks arrested by NYPD, must the US Army treat folks who it hasn't captured the same way that the NYPD treats folks who haven't been arrested?

For example, must the US Army follow the same rules before shooting someone? Can the US Air Force bomb in circumstances where the NYPD can't?

AL-

OK, so claim #1 was: you responded to my charge that you had not made any kind of substantial argument as to why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents. That was your answer...

Yep.

OK, so claim #2 was: that you never claimed that the problem in Iraq was that we started the war. I'll go with the next-to-opening sentence from the cite above - "One is that, oddly enough, the US wasn't the aggressor in starting those wars."

No, AL, that was not my claim. What I specifically said - in response to your assertion that I complained about us starting the war "frequently and loudly" - was:

AL, I challenge you to find any other post I've made here where I claim the problem with Iraq was that we started the war. I do have a wide variety of problems with how Iraq was started, how it's been fought, and the kind of crap people here on Winds of Change have been willing to support in Iraq's name - but my earlier point about Iraq being different from WW2 or the Civil War because we started it was fairly unique. [Emphasis added]

In other words, while I sure as hell did say that in that one post, that is not a theme that I harp on here at WoC.

So forgive me Chris when I question - since I'll accept your claim to honorable behavior - whether we're speaking the same language.

Oh, we're speaking the same language, AL - the difference is, I'm actually of the opinion that all the words matter, whereas you skip over the petty details you don't care for. Which brings us back to the Schaar post I quoted up in #2...

Demosophist-

I think you're sadly lacking a coherent background understanding. One clue might be the situation related above: that there's an implied assurance that our procedures approach a universal standard of fairness compared to those of nearly all real or potential enemies. That, I would suggest, is good reason for more than nationalism. Whatever you want to call it, it's grounded in something beyond "team spirit" or even pride of place.

Quoting my comment #2 above, Demo:

Yes, the US has a long history of proud achievements and profound and meaningful ideology, and we justly celebrate that stuff on the 4th of July (and at other times of the year). But there is a substantive difference between loving your country because it's your country, and loving the ideas that represent that country at its best. And just because America does have a long and proud history of ideas and goals that warrant joyous celebration doesn't mean that any and all celebration of America is of those ideas - quite a lot of it is of the "my country, right or wrong" mindset. [Emphasis added]

So, no, it's never been an issue of "all American patriotism is just nationalism" - but there is some nationalism involved, and I believe (and I think Yglesias does as well) that the two get confused far too often.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you make no sense (nor does Yglasias, really). Your arguments are not even sufficiently coherent to be worthy of a direct response. And I'm not saying this as a form of backhanded argument. Your posts just seem like a pile of loose threads, with no relevant organization. I just have no idea where to begin.

Bull-hockey, Demo: a backhanded attack is exactly what you're doing. You're making a direct response while claiming you're somehow above making a direct response - which would simply be annoying, if it weren't for the fact that you didn't even read my argument correctly. As it is, what you're doing is merely pathetic.

Chris -

AL-

OK, so claim #1 was: you responded to my charge that you had not made any kind of substantial argument as to why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents. That was your answer...

Yep.

And sorry, I don't have cycles to search through your comments to show whether you've made the same point before.

Your point in the comment you cited - which I presume was dispositive - was clear to me. We started it, and in order to start it, Bush had to lie (as opposed to what Lincoln and Roosevelt did, which was distinct from lying somehow).

So thanks for the fish, and when you make a criticism that makes sense to me, I'll be happy to play.

Huh? How about showing me an argument in there?

AL, I was agreeing with your synopsis of what my "claim #1" was. There was no argument to be had on that particular point.

And sorry, I don't have cycles to search through your comments to show whether you've made the same point before.

No, but you have time to lie about what I was asserting in my "claim #2", and then completely ignore what I said about that in my followup post. And you have time to assert that I make arguments about how horrible it was that we started the war "frequently and loudly", but not actually prove that assertion with any, y'know, evidence. Nice.

Your point in the comment you cited - which I presume was dispositive - was clear to me. We started it, and in order to start it, Bush had to lie (as opposed to what Lincoln and Roosevelt did, which was distinct from lying somehow).

Yes, that is approximately what I said in that comment - although I'm generally careful not to use the word "lie" with Bush, as it sets off too many knee-jerk reactions. And if Lincoln and Roosevelt misrepresented their cases for war to anywhere near their cases to the extent that Bush did, I surely wish you'd make that argument, rather than just implying it.

So thanks for the fish, and when you make a criticism that makes sense to me, I'll be happy to play.

AL, I have no idea what does and doesn't make any sense to you, because you pretty much seem to play by your own logical and rhetorical rules - "look, I'll prove how much I understand patriotism by quoting Schaar, and just lop off this sentence at the end of my selected quote that completely undermines my whole argument!"

So I guess I'll just keep saying what I'm saying, and if, someday, you rouse yourself long enough to make a coherent counterargument, so much the better.

Quite interesting. I think in reality the difference is between those who are utopians, and thus forever damned to feel disappointment over America's failures; and then those who are realists and are in awe of what was created as a political ideal to freedom over 200 years ago. The utopian must force the ideal, for the failure to have the ideal is a constant irritant. The utopian has much in common with the Caesers of Rome, the old monarchies of Europe, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, and yes even Hitler - the ability, nay the need to order society to their vision. The realist fears these people because they steal freedom. I think the realist has to be aware of forgiving the state's actions when they feel the state is trying to protect those freedoms.

I distrust people who trot out the old canard about conferring our constitutional rights to non-citizens who try to kill us, and the utopian's desire to give them constitutional protections is puzzling. Defense of the executive's ability to act in the interest of defense of the nation is not an argument to shred the constitution. There are very plausible constitutional arguments for every action GWB has taken, and the Supremes have created some new requirements, including most recently the need to look into the future and determine exactly what process we would like you to create when we just told you to create one. Turning a constitutional dispute, of legitimate origins, and saying that it is evil intent on one of the parties is foolish. Both parties believe they are in the right, impugning their motives without specific knowledge is reckless.

And as to losing Iraq ( was that a reference to a post that was pre-surge ) - we sure seem to be losing it in a way that looks alot like winning, with the last AQ stronghold being wiped out by a joint Iraqi-US operation. But maybe the definition of winning in war has changed with the times as well.

Chris, I'm just gonna call for help on this one.

Anyone? I'd love an explanation...

A.L.

[i]... much as we may love America there's something arbitrary about it ...[/i]

That a paid professional political writer -- an American one at that -- has either never heard of or doesn't understand the significance of the Constitution is ... disgusting. There's no other word for it.

Chris, I'm just gonna call for help on this one.

Anyone? I'd love an explanation...

AL, what, exactly, are you confused about? Or is this merely some lame attempt to have others dogpile on so you don't have to defend your own arguments?

We obviously have a lot of points of disagreement, but I'll make it simple: in #48, you said:

Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done. You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly - that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.

That's your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.

In #52 I linked to a post that made the argument that what GWB did is worse than what Lincoln and FDR did, and pointed out that "Iraq is bad because we started it" is not an argument I've frequently made. I asked you to provide proof to the contrary; you declined. Logically, it would follow that I have therefore rebutted the whole of your post #48.

Is this not correct, AL?

There actually is something unique and well worth celebrating in American patriotism. First because we were among the first to throw off the yoke of hereditary privilege and substitute the rule of the governed.

Oliver Cromwell doesn't mean anything to you? the Netherlands? Athens, for the love of God?

Second - and most important - because we are not a patrimony defined by land or by blood - not an accident of geography or a nation bound by a common heritage but instead a people animated by a set of ideas.

Much like the USSR then...

Sigh. OK, one last time, Chris.

I'm confused because when I made a statement about your clsim #1 it was because you had stated that the linked post included all your arguments for "why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents." You responded affirmatively - that that was in fact your argument.

The problem is that I don't see any such argument in your words; your only point appears to be that Bush made us the aggressor in the war, and that because the public doesn't support this war, we cannot win.

I ask about fruits and vegetables, and you tell me about bricks and plaster. I don't get it.

So let's see if we can reach some common understanding on this one and we'll proceed from there.

A.L.

Hmm, Cromwell - how'd that work out for him, then? The Netherlands are your best case, but I don't recall William of Orange being elected to his position - the confederancy included only one or two non-feudal states, as I recall (Frieland? I'll go look it up...). Definitely on the path, but I think they still have a monarchy.

Athens? Well, how, exactly did you become a citizen? Check it out, I'll still be here.

A.L.

Sigh. OK, one last time, Chris.

I'm confused because when I made a statement about your clsim #1 it was because you had stated that the linked post included all your arguments for "why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents." You responded affirmatively - that that was in fact your argument.

And I repeat, that comment was, in fact, my argument. In the original context, it's more about FDR and Lincoln than US Presidents in general, and it explicitly differentiates between Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, the core of the argument - that Lincoln and FDR were actually being attacked, whereas Bush instigated the Iraq war by pushing flawed intelligence - is the same.

The problem is that I don't see any such argument in your words; your only point appears to be that Bush made us the aggressor in the war, and that because the public doesn't support this war, we cannot win.

AL, I don't really see how you can get that out of this:

...but the core argument for war - they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence - was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war - as opposed to the war in Afghanistan - that's not the case. And when Bush's core cause for war is basically a purposeful fraud - which was never the case with the Civil War or WW2 - then we've got a real problem.

As for the public not supporting this war, that's not an issue with us winning, it's an issue with how much latitude Bush is to be given for his screw-ups in prosecuting the war. In other words:

... much like Lincoln was ultimately forgiven by history for suspending habeas corpus for saving the Union, and FDR was forgiven for interning Japanese-Americans for saving the world, Bush's actions leading up to the war just wouldn't mean that much. As it is, however, Bush misled us into war and we have a loss on our hands because of it. THAT is where the problem lies, AL - and those two reasons make a world of difference when it comes to how we view Bush's actions.

Moving on:

I ask about fruits and vegetables, and you tell me about bricks and plaster. I don't get it. So let's see if we can reach some common understanding on this one and we'll proceed from there.

AL, I can't control what you get out of my words, but by and large I do a far better job of fairly representing what you say, and backing that up with direct quotes - here, for example - than you do for me. And in the meantime you blithely misrepresent what I say - by saying I'm constantly harping on GWB starting the war - and then don't back down when I disprove you.

I don't really expect any better from you at this point, but I won't sit still while you do it.

Athens? Well, how, exactly did you become a citizen? Check it out, I'll still be here.

yeah, well I guess you better stay quiet with talk about the overthrowing the yoke of hereditary privilege until the next president is sworn in...

I blink. I read the text again. Is Phoenician... actually trotting out the trope that the US has dynasties? I shake my head wearily.

Trust me, Chris, my expectations of you are equally low. Does the self-congratulation get as tiresome to you as it does to the rest of us?

OK, you make claim A which is "why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents." and your response is that because GWB made

"the core argument for war - they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence - was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war - as opposed to the war in Afghanistan - that's not the case."

Well, that's historically inaccurate if you know anything about 19th Century American wars. I can suggest reading, but I'd just start at Wikipedia.

And it doesn't reflect the issue being discussed, which was the conduct of the war; in your model if the war had been run by Mother Teresa, it would still be awful and qualitatively worse than anything the US had ever done, because it was the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Look, there are two broad claims made by opponents of the war (there are more, but there are two central ones) which are that a) starting the war was wrong (morally, or instrumentally) and b) that the conduct of the war was so reprehensible that is a) had been OK, the war would have been unforgiveable.

b) is demonstrably not true by simply searching basic history; a) is challengeable on instrumental and moral grounds, although arguable.

Your declaring a) to be true is a common position, but declaring that pi=3.0 a million times with great passion and certainty doesn't make it so. We can't know whether it was in our interest until the dust settles, and there are competing moral arguments that are well-played out but inconclusive.

So no, I don;t think we're speaking the same language. I will suggest one change to yours, which is that if you're going to keep tossing accusations of lying around, you'll soon be doing it on your own blog, and not here. Be civil or be gone.

A.L.

Phoenician help me get it - are you suggesting that the next president won;t be sworn in? Because last time I looked, neither candidate was part of a dynasty.

And to become an Athenian citizen? You had to be born into one of the families that owned property in Athens. And even then the rules could be changed (as they were in Periclean times) to deprive you of your citizenship.

Check out McDowell's book on the Athenian Constitution (I did a large chunk of my undergraduate thesis on the Athenian Constitution and proscriptive law).

A.L.

Was LBJ conspiring to gin up causus beli in the Gulf of Tonkin up there with anything Bush has done? Hussein's Iraq provided 10x the rationale to go to war than North Vietnam ever did... and of course strategically there is no contest. Notwithstanding the shooting war in Laos Johnson and Kennedys CIA was running before the official kickoff at Tonkin.

I cant recommend Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA highly enough for those looking for any kind of historical insight. Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and certainly Nixon would have made Bush blush with their antics. Think Bush's FISA issue is a big deal? All 4 of those president used the CIA with increasing brazenness in direct violation of federal law to spy on US citizens.. and without so much as an overseas phonecall to known terrorists as a justification.

The only thing unique about Bush is that everything he does ends up on the cover of the NYT within a month instead of being buried for 30 years.

Phoenician help me get it - are you suggesting that the next president won;t be sworn in? Because last time I looked, neither candidate was part of a dynasty.

The term was "hereditary privilege".

How many people here honestly believe Bush Jr would be President now if Buah Sr hadn't been it then?

Anyone? Anyone?

#83 Armed Citizen:

The difference between Athens and the modern USA is that they admitted the stratification of their society. How many people get into high office (particularly the highest) in America without being extremely rich?

As for "dynasties"; well, in the last century there have been two US Presidents that were succeeded by their sons - admittedly with gaps in between. And of course, there was very nearly one who was succeeded by his wife - and hence would have had a lot of power, albeit unofficial, again. Incidentally, if Shrub hadn't made such a godawful mess of Iraq, how likely would it have been that he would eventually have been succeeded by another family member?

Rome started out as a republic, too. Look what happened to them.

Ahem. John Quincy Adams beat GWB to the succession bit by a cool 1.75 centuries.

Fat cats and people of "standing" are indeed pretty much who get elected, and for most much of the 20th Century the Roosevelt, and later, Kennedy names carried a lot of weight; but I think the notion that running for high office is a rich person's game is more defensible than the "d-word" angle.

Of course, if one thinks in terms of American empire, what could be more natural than thinking of dynasties as well?

[Edit: ...and do please note that FDR and TR were distant cousins, not fils et père.]

The daily parade of Democratic Party wackjobs and their churlish cohorts pop up like jack-in-the-boxes in front of the nearest T.V. camera: Code Pink, Charles Rangel: “George Bush is our Bull Connor” , Cynthia McKinney: "The entire ‘Saving Private Lynch in Iraq’ episode was staged by the US military”, Patty Murray: “bin Laden builds day-care facilities…we haven’t done that”, Nancy Pelosi: “Bush guilty of Katrina cover-up”, Sheila Jackson-Lee: “Names like Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Sam and Hurricane Wanda are just too white and, all racial groups should be represented.”, Al Sharpton: “Fidel Castro is a great leader.”, and Louis Farrakhan: “The New Orleans levees were blown up by the government”.

Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Howard Dean don’t often pass up the chance to enlighten us with their perspectives, either. They’re frustrated; reduced to hurling playground taunts from the sidelines when the adults are in charge of running the country.
The egotistical incompetents of the left would never dare to praise the U.S. or show gratitude for what they’ve got when bizarre, obscene, unappreciative behavior will do.
The left’s “love” for this country orbits around the guaranteed right to spew all the things they hate. Here’s just some of what they hate: The country, (“It’s not worth fighting for”) American history, democracy, President Bush, SUVs, President Bush, people who question their opinions, and oh, did I forget to mention President Bush?
Then there’s the special hate category they’ve reserved for the military; denigrating the sacrifices of those sworn to protect them and reap the benefits without having to put their own lives on the line. The convenience of it all is mind-boggling. Newsflash: Marching with anti-American/pro-Islamofascist signs and screaming the usual recitations in a free country doesn’t take a lot of guts.

For all of the bluster, they would never, for one minute, live under the system they advocate. Their identity is mired in the anti-American neurosis part and parcel to the lunatic fringe.

But don't you DARE question their "patriotism".

Chris, A.L.;

FDR deliberately maneuvered the USA in to a war with Japan primarily to defeat Japanese aggression in mainland China (and to a lesser extent in Korea). Here's a source, with a key bit on page 105 --

26 July [1941] when the President [Franklin Roosevelt], against the advice of his Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark, issued an order freezing Japanese assets in the United States. Since Japan no longer had the dollars with which to purchase the urgently needed materials of war, the effect of this measure, which the British and Dutch supported, was to create an economic blockade of Japan. So seriously did Admiral Stark regard this move that he warned Admiral Thomas C. Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet, to take "appropriate precautionary measures against possible eventualities."

Both sides viewed this blockade as likely to result in the collapse of the Japanese economy. Japan was, therefore, facing an existential threat before the attack on Pearl Harbor, due to the direct action of FDR via executive order. Bush, on the other hand, led up with months (if not years) of debate and got the explicit approval of Congress. Plus, it's very debatable whether Bush lied or even mislead.

FDR also flagrantly violated official USA neutrality in the European War via Lend Lease and other stratagems, all of which, IMHO, were "worse" than anything Bush did.

Lincoln I would give a pass, because the Civil War or partition was coming and Lincoln's action prior to that were of not much significance.

And Chris, I agree with A.L. that it's very hard to parse any actual arguments out of your text. Your entire parsing arguments with A.L. seem like a deliberate distraction from the paucity of your real arguments.

AL-

OK, you make claim A which is "why GWB's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents." and your response is that because GWB made

"the core argument for war - they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence - was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war - as opposed to the war in Afghanistan - that's not the case."

Well, that's historically inaccurate if you know anything about 19th Century American wars. I can suggest reading, but I'd just start at Wikipedia.

AL, I specifically qualified my remarks by saying:

In the original context, it's more about FDR and Lincoln than US Presidents in general, and it explicitly differentiates between Iraq and Afghanistan.

You pull some questionable 19th century wars out of your pocket and think you've proven something. And hey, I suppose if your only desire is for current US policy to be as good as the Mexican American war, I guess you have.

And it doesn't reflect the issue being discussed, which was the conduct of the war; in your model if the war had been run by Mother Teresa, it would still be awful and qualitatively worse than anything the US had ever done, because it was the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Maybe I'm crazy, but yeah, I'd say that if a war started under false pretenses definitely starts out life with one strike against it. But the second half of my comment was about why starting the war under false pretenses is specifically bad for Bush - because we're not winning. And, of course, you skipped right over that in favor of lecturing me about history (except, y'know, not actually saying anything other than "it's in Wikipedia, trust me.")

Your declaring a) to be true is a common position, but declaring that pi=3.0 a million times with great passion and certainty doesn't make it so. We can't know whether it was in our interest until the dust settles, and there are competing moral arguments that are well-played out but inconclusive.

Well, that's at least somewhat straightforward: it doesn't matter what kind of crap gets pulled in starting or prosecuting a war: as long as there's at least some chance it might not be a complete disaster, everything's excusable. Nice moral system you've got there, AL.

So no, I don;t think we're speaking the same language. I will suggest one change to yours, which is that if you're going to keep tossing accusations of lying around, you'll soon be doing it on your own blog, and not here. Be civil or be gone.

AL, I called you out on specific quotes. Beyond that people can judge for themselves.

Chris you haven't 'called anyone out', less drama please. And I'm more than happy to let the audience judge each of our arguments as we've made them.

A.L.

#87 Nortius:

I stand corrected on the point about the Roosevelts. I strongly suspect, however, that there is quite a lot of dynasticism (is there such a word?) about various offices below that of President; after all, when a few plutocratic families make up most of the political establishment it is inevitable. On the gripping hand, I have neither the time nor the inclination to actually check this point; indeed, I wouldn't know where to start.

Before anyone says anything about the British aristocracy - most of them have no power these days; at most, a few life peers in the House of Lords. And our monarchy is largely symbolic, of course.

You're misreading Yglesias. He's not saying that patriotism "is equivalent to" liking the Celtics. He doesn't even imply it. The whole point of bringing up Simmons is to argue by analogy: just as Simmons, who loves the Red Sox, extols the Red Sox to a broader audience that have a variety of different allegiances, so too does the patriot, who loves his country, extol that country to a broader audience of people who love their respective countries. Just as the Yankees fan won't get Simmons, so too will the Russian patriot not get the American patriot.

What, exactly, is objectionable about this observation?

Yglesias nowhere says there is nothing laudable about the U.S. He's talking about patriotism as a phenomenon, not about the virtues of the U.S. as a country. Why don't people understand this difference?

[Commenter name changed to conform to policy. Commenter is thanked for his kind compliance with AL's request. --NM]

Chris, you're misreading Yglesias because you're ignoring context. he's repeatedly made the connection between patriotism and fandom, just as he's repeatedly made the suggestion that the world would have been far better off without the US Revolution.

Go Google "patriotism" on his old Typepad site.

But now here is an argument we can debate...so thanks for that.

A.L.

Mr Yglesias has it exactly backwards, loving ones country because it is yours is a conservative impulse. Loving ones country because one thinks it lovable is liberal.
If one is to say that one should love ones country because of it's lovablity then a corralary to that is that such love is conditional on the lovability remaining. And it can lead to such absurdities as hating one's country because ones favorite candidate is not elected.
True love does not demand that the love be deserved. In that sense it is "arbitrary". But said "arbitrariness" also means that such patriotism is not self-righteous and does not become an ideology. It does not lead to endless confrontations with foreigners over who is the best. Nor does it require you to believe absurdities(one's nation cannot be the best at everything). Finally loving ones country because it is yours is claiming only the right to feel human affection. Loving your country because it meets your approval and only so long as it does so is setting yourself up as a judge of your own country.

Armed Liberal:

If you meant to invoke this broader context of Yglesias' writings on patriotism, I missed it in your post; I was going off the language and text of the post itself.

I'm not sure which of Yglesias' writings you're referring to, since the "Nationalism and Patriotism" post in his old Typepad site suggests that he's more apt to equate sports fandom with nationalism than with patriotism: link

But even then, his point again is that nationalism is a sentiment of solidarity and loyalty and affection, and analogizing to (not equating with) sports fandom. He is not saying that loving your country as a patriot is akin to loving a sports team. Even in his old Typepad site. Is there a specific post you're thinking about?

As for the world "being better off" without the American Revolution, it's a slight mischaracterization of his arg