There’s an acronym ‘IOKIYAR’ which means ‘it’s okay if you’re a Republican’. And I think Dick Cheney is a case in point. Dick Cheney was close to the most conservative member of the Republican Party when he was a member of the House. But he didn’t have any difficulty getting confirmed as George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense. Hardly anyone in the mainstream press blinked an eye when he was selected as George W. Bush’s running mate. It was okay for one of the most radical Republicans in the country to run the Pentagon and serve as vice-president. But would it be okay for one of the most radical Democrats to serve in those positions?
The issue here isn’t that fringe leftists should be acceptable candidates for Secretary of Defense and Vice President. I’m not suggesting that Cynthia McKinney should be Barack Obama’s running mate and Dennis Kucinich should be Secretary of Defense. I’m just wondering why it’s okay to be a radical politician on the right but not on the left.
And I don’t mean to suggest they are no limits on the right. Tom Tancredo is too radical to get taken seriously, as is Ron Paul. But I still think there is a double standard.
Well, see, Ron Paul doesn’t qualify for the IOKIYAR rule because he’s against the Iraq War more thoroughly than any Dem except Kucinich. So he’s a crazy isolationist who must be marginalized for that reason alone. We don’t need to get into anything about the gold standard or social programs. That wouldn’t be enough to violate the rule. It’s threatening the sacrosanct nature of the Empire that gets him thrown off the team. So let’s be clear on what these repugs are all about.
.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
Ron Paul before the Iraq war.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’ve always believed it is the word “conservative.” Most people intepret this word as meaning calm, reserved, measured, formal, dignified.
The modern republican is none of these things, but the definition still lingers and it’s still applied. Modern republicans are neocons, and the word conservative has not applied to any of them in quite some time-but the definion carries a connotation and people still trust that definiton. What’s in a name? Plenty-obviously.
“I’ve always believed it is the word “conservative.” Most people intepret this word as meaning calm, reserved, measured, formal, dignified.”
you know, that’s an excellent point. It’s all in the perception of what the current connotation of a word is and with conservatism I think you hit the nail on the head.
I remember an interview by pete katz on KOOP radio here in Austin, where he talked to Ray McGovern, former CIA who said that during his days in intelligence, EVEN when Bush senior was president, the ‘crazies’ (as the neocons were called) were kept at bay by giving them jobs far away from the center of power. They’ve always been known as the ‘crazies’ and unfortunately, the religious voters have made very useful in giving them power. All because I think that they associate ‘conservatism’ with what you were describing and NOT (definitely not) by any true moral and honest analysis.
Ingrid
And conversely, the GOP has been very effective at making “liberal” a dirty word. Many more Americans identify as “conservative” rather than “liberal” but right now more identify as Democratic rather than Republican.
So obviously much of it is a branding issue. The word progressive may be a good substitute for liberal or maybe we should take back the word liberal?
Liberal is a synonym for permissive. Apply shampoo or mayonaisse liberally. I’m being liberal with my estimate, don’t hold me to it. I had an overly liberal approach to running the store, and now I can’t get rid of those deadbeat customers.
All of our words are kind of bad, come to think of it: left is still considered abnormal whereas right is familiar and normal. Some of this is historical (“Sinistra” is left in Latin, “Dextera” is right.), but I think it still affects us.
We definitely need a rebranding, as good as Obama’s branding. Or… maybe we just need a different word. Progressive… what’s not to like?
Technically, neocons are “progressives” – they believe in progress, it’s just a question of which direction society should be dragged kicking and screaming. Liberal progressives tend toward the kinder, gentler society while conservative progressives tend towards empire, but both of them can claim to be “Progressives” in the technical sense. I believe the Left has a pretty good lock on the term as of now, but be careful since it could get co-opted fairly easily.
Cheney is essentially a fascist (not by the definition of the Spawn of Lucianne Goldberg but by the classic Mussolini definition) working for the merger of corporation and state. The Pentagon is fed by corporations and our military in turn fights wars on behalf of corporations. The arrangement is so tight that the will of the citizenry is hardly considered. Okay, occasionally they will lie to the obedient corporate media about the rationale for the latest military adventure (they’ve got nukes, they’re bad men, they hate democracy), but mostly it’s a closed system which only needs to siphon off lots of our money but is otherwise disengaged from us.
To put a McKinney or a Kucinich into the Defense Department would by necessity reveal the actual relationships in this ongoing swindle. Can’t have that.
Bingo! This is what I have been saying for a long time. Thank you for this.
Liberals need to look within. We are largely to blame. We allow our fellow lefty travelers, our allies, to be treated this way. We let the Republicans and the media tell us that liberalism is radical. In fact, Democrats CREATED the current media landscape as a political strategy–it’s called Clintonian third-way politics. It’s called kneecapping your allies (or preemptively shooting one’s allies) in an effort to appeal to more people.
But look at how the Republicans play politics. They are much better at this. They may disagree with the radicals on their right but they treat them as allies. They let their attack dogs attack and then give them protection afterwards. We treat our hardest fighters like crap. Look at yourself Booman. Kucinich is probably the closest to your politics (my guess). And how do you treat him? With utter contempt and ridicule. Republicans would never do that.
Democrats heap scorn on liberals because Bill Clinton and other moderates taught them that the way to national power was to stop fighting the right-wing smears against liberals and simply join in. This strategy may have been necessary and effective in the mid 1990s but it is counterproductive now. And Democrats have not figured it out yet.
The way to change this is for Democrats and liberals to have the COURAGE of their CONVICTIONS and to actually fight for these important beliefs. That’s why I wanted “radicals” that aren’t electable, like Kucinich, as candidates. If we fight for our ideas now we will lay the groundwork for the future. And this means making hard decisions now. It means pursuing impeachment or fighting Bush on FISA or not giving Bush a blank check to wage war. My God, the sitting president has admitted to illegally spying on thousands and maybe millions of Americans. And the Democrats are trying to cover it up instead of prosecuting and impeaching him over it!!!
The American people are not stupid. They know the Democrats have decided to lay low and not create any ripples until the election. And the American people hate this approach. They want the abuses fixed and they want justice. They don’t want cowards that have no convictions. It just so happens that the public hates the cowardly Democrats slightly less that the Republicans right now. But Democrats better not mistake that for a political victory.
We have the political spectrum we deserve–we are a right-wing nation because so many good liberals gave up the fight.
Dennis Kucinich should be Secretary of Defense
Actually, my preference is for Al Gore. If not him, Max Cleland.
But given your argument about Cheney why is Kucinich not qualified to be Secretary of Defense?
Why would Dennis Kucinish be unacceptable as SecDef? And please answer using policy positions, not the caricature that has been created.
I thought you agreed that our imperial foreign policy is a radical and dangerous policy.
I know Kucinich is the only Dem candidate that wants to actually cut the military. Why is that unacceptable? We, the U.S., spend about the same amount on war as the rest of the world combined. I think we would be more safe if we cut our military spending. A lot of liberals do. We liberals should start offering protection to candidates that have the COURAGE to make this important point. If you agree with his policy position what good does it do to say that policy position is unacceptably radical? What does it say about you (or liberals in general) that you believe in something but think that belief is too radical to be implemented?
What liberals should say is “Kucinich would be an acceptable candidate because he has some good arguments about making our country safer. He thinks that our imperial foreign policy actually makes us less safe. I don’t know if Obama agrees with that entirely but I THINK HE WOULD BE A great SecDef.”
Same with McKinney. Instead of liberals agreeing that she is batshit crazy and should never be in a cabinet why don’t you analyze her positions and at least give her positions some respect? Instead you just paint her as a radical on par with Dick Cheney. Your’e doing it again. You’re kneecapping her to make yourself seem more respectable. What exactly do you disagree with her on and why does this disqualify her from a cabinet position?
My point is that Kucinich either wouldn’t get confirmed or would never get selected in the first place.
It’s not something I disagree with since I think he is a charlatan and a crank, but so is Dick Cheney and no one cared about that.
That’s my point too. I agree that Kucinich would not happen in the current environment.
But I blame lefties like YOU for the fact that Kucinich is too “radical” and wouldn’t get nominated or confirmed whereas all the right-wing idealogues sail through. I’m not a psychologist and I don’t know why so many lefties hate to see a politician actually fighting for the ideas they believe in. It astounds me. It really does.
My guess is that some liberals anticipate the counter attack and do not look forward to defending Kucinich. That’s when it gets personal with some people like you. You don’t want liberalism to be about one man–Dennis Kucinich. And I don’t either. Liberalism is far more importatnt that Dennis Kucinich.
But that is why we have to start defending politicians that have the courage to stand up for liberalism. And we have to go to war with the liberals we have, not the imaginary liberals we want.
It’s not enough for you to say he’s unelectable. I largely agree with that sentiment. But you were the one complaining of the double standard. I’m just asking you to be intellectually honest. You are comparing “radicals” and I just want an honest assessment of why you think Kucinich is such a radical for SecDef.
So far your answer has been circular–he’s unelectable because he’s unelectable–not that you think his foreign policy positions are “radical”. After all, his foreign policy is pretty similar to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Dwight Eishenhower. In fact, you’ve posted a few essays re foreign policy here on this blog the last week that are very similar to Dennis Kucinich’s foreign policy views.
The reason we have the double standard is because you buy into it. You bought into the idea that Dennis Kucicich is just as radical as Dick Cheney. You made the comparison. Why do you hate the foreign policy views that you espoused just this week so much? Why do you hate yourself?
Dennis Kucinich’s voting record sucks. Whenever you see a vote where one Democrat voted against, it’s always Kucinich. He’s a phony. He was pro-life until 5 seconds before he decided to run for president. Just because he’s good on health care and against the war doesn’t turn him into a great progressive voice. He was probably the worst mayor in Cleveland’s history. The man used his platform as a candidate in 2004 to get dates. I have almost no respect for him and I can’t stand it when he becomes the point person on universal health care or impeachment or any other worthy cause because he’s a buffoon and everybody knows it. When he advocates for a position that position is weakened automatically because he is such a flawed messenger.
It has nothing to do with the merits of what he’s saying. Have Jim Webb, Bill Bradley, or Jack Reed say the same things and people will take it seriously. With Kucinich they just assume it’s a bad idea.
I was hoping he would lose his primary.
Do you scrutinize the personal life and personalities of all politicians as closely as you have Kucinich? Your stated reasons for why Kucinich is beyond the pale seems rather underwhelming. He went on dates? He is an independent voter? You can’t stand him?
I can tell you can’t stand him because you holding him to a higher standard than other politicians.
I care about deeds, not ambiguous personality traits.
And I frankly don’t really care about a politician’s personal dating life and I simply assume that politicians are egomaniacs. Yeah, Barney Frank is probably using his position of power to bang younger guys. bill Clinton did too. All politicians hunger for power and fame. Does that make them bad politicians that are unfit for office? That’s politics and those are the type of people that become politicians. That’s why I tuned out of the Democratic primary race. It became a silly game where each side tried to make a personality-based caricature of who they were. There was almost zero policy debates the last few months.
Once again. Your hatred of Kucinich says more about you and what you think of your own purported liberalism than it says about Kucinich. I don’t want Kucinich to be THE spokesman for liberalism either. I want to expand liberalism. But he is a liberal that is fighting on your side and as a fellow that joined the fight you should honor his sacrifice and help him–or at least don’t undercut him.
We need to encourage fighters. Hold your tongue if you don’t like him. Don’t put him up there as a radical on par with Dick Cheney. Especially the same week you write essays agreeing with Kucinich on foreign policy. The very same week you mock him and say he’s unfit to be put in charge of the military where he could implement the policy goals you profess to believe in.
You want a war hero liberal as the face of liberalism which I agree can be a potent political weapon for Democrats. I’m all for getting tougher military men and women to run as liberals. But being “tough” isn’t simply serving in the military and we don’t have the luxury of imposing some artificial purity test where we can only recruit war heroes to run as liberals. You have to go to war with the liberals you have, not the ones you want.
And the idea that Democrats can only win by electing military men is grossly mistaken. That’s how we got John Kerry and it didn’t stop the GOP and media from turning him into a hippy freak. They will do the same with Wes Clark or any other white military man that you think will be acceptable to the GOP. They will call the Dem nominee an appeaser pussy no matter who it is. Bet on it. They will treat Kucinich the exact same way they would treat John Kerry or Wes Clark. It’s a suckers game to appease them.
There are 435 representatives.
Out of those 435 reps, Dennis Kucinich’s voting record is the wackiest on the left side. He won’t show up as the most progressive in any charts because he votes against the progressives half the time. No one votes against the caucus more on votes that don’t matter than Dennis. Go look at his Progressive Punch score. He ranks 177th out of 230+ members.
He’s right there with Leonard Boswell, Shelley Berkley and John Spratt for chrissakes. You are just hoodwinked by his progressive bullshit. A guy whose voting record is in the most conservative third of the caucus is supposed to be a progressive champion. In reality, he’s just a crank. Stop holding him up as a liberal champion. He’s not my ally, he’s an obstacle to progress.
That’s just weak. I thought you said Kucinich was a “radical lefty” that is unacceptable as SecDef because of his lefty views. Now you are saying he’s faking it and really a blue dog Democrat in disguise that is “hoodwinking” us crazy nutso liberals on the left. O.k., you’ve clearly demonstrated that you you hate you some Kucinich. And that’s why I agree with you that he is not electable. Too many people have been hoodwinked into thinking of him as unacceptably radical–without a rational argument. His opponents don’t even mention his policy positions anymore. They just say he’s got pointy ears, he’s short, he dates younger women, and he’s just downright kooky.
(In contrast, you’re not hoodwinked with Obama, I guess, even when your new post is all about how you really believe in his motivations. I’m not saying it’s entirely irrelevant but one should be leery of believing in the inherent goodness of a candidate and elevating his personality over his policy deeds. I’m am starting to see what Hillary supporters call the cult of Obama. One could say you’ve been hoodwinked into thinking he’s more progressive than he really is.)
And what about Cynthia McKinney. Why is she a radical unfit to hold a cabinet position? I really want to know because I suspect it would resemble a Rush Limbaugh rant about how she is Marxist and wants to turn you into a queer terrorist, or something.
McKinney is a 9/11 Truther, which is fine, but it qualifies you for fringe status.
As for Kucinich, I’m not saying he’s a Blue Dog, I’m saying he’s a crank. A buffoon. The fact that he has the progressive score of a Blue Dog is merely my evidence for the fact that he’s a crank with a stupid idiosyncratic and grandstanding voting record.
I think I mentioned that I agree with him on health care and the war. I just wish he’d take the other side on those issues or just shut up. He’s like having a lawyer that sold the judge a lemon of a car.
I just really don’t see it. A buffoon? A crank? Because he’s not the typical Democrat? Do you have an example of something he was bufoonish on? I thought the opposite during the Democratic nomination process. Watching the debates I was impressed by his ability to make compelling arguments on behalf of liberalism. He didn’t back down even when he came up against the mainstream kneejerk reaction that is hostile to liberalism. I thought he argued for liberalism with composure. He took the standard attacks (from the GOP and media and Dems like you intent on kneecapping him). I didn’t think a single thing he said during the campaign was bufoonish. He stood up for progressive ideas and he is a good debater and a good speaker. I guess he looks a bit funny and he is goofy looking (but so is Obama with the same ears) but I though he comported himself with dignity. I guess we have much different definitions of bufoonery. Is taking unpopular positions being a bufoon in your book?
You have your caricature and there’s no fixing it. I think you caricature is a result of your won self-loathing. Kucinich is dead I guess because liberals like you chose to kneecap him. You claim he was a failed messenger of liberalism that needed to be shot in order to preserve liberalism. I think that our continued shooting of our allies is counterproductive and the very reason liberal is a dirty word. To me this is the exact debate Democrats should be having and I’m sorry for hijacking this thread but I really believe this is the most important debate for liberals to be having. Sorry to see you side with the Clinton wing. Now that Obama has sealed the nomination I guess you and others are advising him to run to the right (like a Clinton) as quick as he can. Big mistake.
And you wonder why even white male war heroes like John Kerry are attacked for being pussy liberals like Kucinich? And as you decry the double standard that you do your best to perpetuate.
Dude. Get over your Kucinich love. It’s ridiculous.
You won’t see me ridiculing John Conyers or John Lewis or Tammy Baldwin or Raul Grijalva or Barbara Lee or Barney Frank or Russ Feingold or Jack Reed or any of the strong progressive voices that we have.
But they’re not grandstanding holier-than-thou pro-life until it’s inconvenient progressives that hurt our cause everytime they open their mouths. They don’t have a history of disastrous governance, nor do they use their office to troll for wives. They’re not going around accusing the president of being behind 9/11 without any proof. That might be okay for a blogger but not for an elected official. McKinney was defeated twice for a reason. Her constituents didn’t like her grandstanding.
You seem to think I equate Kucinich with liberalism and hate him for being liberal and that I am somehow hating myself thereby. You’re totally missing the point that I don’t see Mr. Anti-Choice Kucinich as a liberal. I see him as a slightly mad grandstanding opportunist who just so happens to be right on many issues. That’s not good enough. Barbara Lee is right on all those issues, too. But she doesn’t have the voting record of Blue Dog because she’s holier than thou and can’t support the caucus on mainstream votes. She’s isn’t out wasting people’s time running for president, she’s representing her district.
I’d love to have a progressive run for president that wasn’t a joke. You act like I should be grateful that universal health care is being supported only be a guy that believes in chemtrails.
I am not a Kucinich partisan. I’m a pragmatist and am willing to support Obama as long as he doesn’t stray too far from my core positions. I liked Kucinich because he came the closest to my policy views and because I think we need exactly his political style at this point in time. We need unapologetic defenders of liberalism–not more Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton style waffling and Republican-lite. I also respect Kucinich for his courage.
It’s you that is making it all about Kucinich when you say you want to excommunicate him but not the other lefties (and apparantly the irony is lost on you that you are just like the other moderate dems except they would go further and excommunicate the others in your list of progressives). It is you that has an unhealthy fixation on Kucinich. For me Kucinich represents the left-wing and I react to those Dems (like you) that reflexively shoot their allies because they are scared the GOP and the media will portray them as kooky leftists. Now I know you are slightly different in that you say you accept other lefties but apparently just draw the line at Kucinich and McKinney.
Look, if I thought that taking Kucinich out would advance liberalism I would be all for it. I bring him up as an example of progressives and liberals mistakingly shooting their allies. And you have not disappointed. You did a little hit piece on Kucinich with no rational basis and no purpose other than to rant about how much you dislike the man. You first said he’s too radical to be SecDef, because his lefty positions. Then you went on a character-based harangue against Kucinich that you would never apply to other Democrats–replete with the typical U.F.O. comments and cheap shots that you know score so well. It’s an easy shot. Kucinich is funny looking and believes in U.F.O.s and likewise any American that doesn’t want to increase the military spending is a dirty fucking commie that should be laughed out of this golorious country. See? I can do it to. These are cheap, short-sighted attacks on an ally. Don’t you see how you hurt liberalism when you do this? You’re not a big man for taking an easy pot shot like that.
The independents and media and GOP don’t see you being the reasonable magnaminous fellow you seem to think they will see you as. They will not give you credit for being a reasonable moderate by shooting Kucinich. No. They will use your cheap shot against you. They will say that Kucinich’s liberal viewpoint is so un-American and fringe that even liberal bloggers want nothing to do with him. And this is the guy that ran on a foreign policy platform that is closest to you!!!
Just look at the words you use to take out this failed messenger, Kucinich. You continually use words like “grandstanding” and “mad” and “charleton” and “crank” and “bufoon”. Don’t you see your bias coming through? Do you really think Kucinich is any more of these things than the standard pol? Did Richardson or Biden have noble intentions in running for president but Kucinish didn’t? I suppose Biden was running to make America great whereas Kucinich was only running for his personal aggrandizement or to score another wife? Do you really believe this crap?
First of all I don’t care. It’s silly to gaze into the heart of a candidate and guess his purity. It’s a fool’s game. I’m surprised to see you playing it. I guess you gazed into the heart of Obama and saw that his intentions are pure so you have annointed him as the savior of progressivism.
I think of you as a normally rational blogger with a lot of incisive observations and I’m just surprised to see your irrational hatred of Kucinich.
But the effect of your short-sighted assasination attempt is clear enough. Congrats. The one candidate running for president that espoused the beliefs closest to you is Dennis Kucinich. I know that hurts. That a man who you PERSONALLY don’t like is the closest to your views. You can choose to deal with it the way you have been–heaping scorn and ridicule on him–but all it does is weaken your cause.
Thats great that you’ve penned a couple of essays on foreign policy which could have been written by Dennis Kucinich. Good for you and I hope you are able to influence the Obama team to not rush to the right on foreign policy. But I can’t help but think you are providing ammunition to your opponents by agreeing with them that a liberal foreign policy viewpoint is unacceptable for a SecDef. And as such your entreaties to Obama to not turn to the right will ring hollow. Especially since you have already decreed that his heart is pure.
At some point in this conversation you might realize that I haven’t once said that Kucinich is ineligible (in my mind) to beSecretary of Defense because of his left-wing views, but because he’s a crank that garners little respect.
Ok. Uncle. Last comment.
I know that your antipathy for Kucinich is personality-based and not necessarily based on the platform he ran on for president. Kucinich seems to largely share your foreign policy beliefs and no self-respecting liberal would hate himself so much to think that a SecDef should not share his views.
But you can see the confusion, no? Your initial post reads as if you think Kucinich’s policies are too radical, presumably his foreign policy policies. One would really have to parse your words to understand that you hate Kucinich’s personality and don’t trust his motivations (that he’s trying to get dates with women or grandstand).
I still don’t see why you go apeshit on Kucinich’s character while you don’t do the same for other candidates. If you are trying to expose Charlatans in Congress then you will have your work cut out for you and you better expand your list from Kucinich and McKinney.
But whatever. Like I say it’s not about Kucinich the man. I’m rather pessimistic because I still see liberals and Dems afraid to stand up for what they believe in. Even when they have the tailwinds of public support behind them. The temptation to not rock the boat until the election will be too great. I see Obama tacking to the right, allowing an attack on Iran. I see him doing nothing to stop the rape of our Costitution. Bush’s crimes will go unpunished. I hope you’re right and Obama is the savior and will magically reverse this course of events and give us huge progressive majorities.
But I see very little in the way of evidence to support this and a lot of people banking on hope alone. This is indeed a testament to Obama’s political skills, but it is disheartnening to see policy people and politcal wonks, such as yourself, get caught up in hope rather than facts. I just wish liberals would stop playing personality-based politics and get to fighting for liberal ideas and righting this country from the disaster of conservative rule.
Bravo,
the day that those on the left (and psuedo leftists/progressives ) cease labeling our own best advocates as “fringe” is the day they begin being accepted as mainstream.