White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.
Tell me who in the Bush administration feels "white guilt" about the Third World? Who in the Bush administration pities our enemies? "Managerial minimalism" is a great term, except it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who advocated sending in a light force of troops into both Afghanistan and Iraq, not because he felt some kind of guilt or fear that we might harm people, but because he wants to transform the U.S. miltary into a light and agile force that no longer relies on 100s of 1000s of troops, tanks, etc. Under the original invasion plan for Iraq, the U.S. was to send in around 400,000 soldiers. Rumsfeld only wanted to send in 70,000. After arguing with his generals he agreed upon roughly 175-150,000 troops to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld made no plans for after the invasion and wanted almost all U.S. troops out within 3-4 months. Last time I checked Rumsfeld was no guilty white liberal.
Why all the blah blah.....where on EARTH did you come up with Steele saying the current administration has any kind of "white guilt". He obviously attributes this phenomenom to the Left......jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this?
White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.
Tell me who in the Bush administration feels "white guilt" about the Third World? Who in the Bush administration pities our enemies? "Managerial minimalism" is a great term, except it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who advocated sending in a light force of troops into both Afghanistan and Iraq, not because he felt some kind of guilt or fear that we might harm people, but because he wants to transform the U.S. miltary into a light and agile force that no longer relies on 100s of 1000s of troops, tanks, etc. Under the original invasion plan for Iraq, the U.S. was to send in around 400,000 soldiers. Rumsfeld only wanted to send in 70,000. After arguing with his generals he agreed upon roughly 175-150,000 troops to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld made no plans for after the invasion and wanted almost all U.S. troops out within 3-4 months. Last time I checked Rumsfeld was no guilty white liberal.
Why all the blah blah.....where on EARTH did you come up with Steele saying the current administration has any kind of "white guilt". He obviously attributes this phenomenom to the Left......jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this?
Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so."
It doesn't matter if it's a friggin record collecting idiot like me, or the future Prez of Harvard, if they have an opinion that even leans towards being Conservative, they are full of shit.
I understand.
jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
I haven't said anything anti-conservative in this thread. I certainly wouldn't ever be so boneheaded to suggest that all conservatives are full of shit. It sometimes seems like every argument here about politics comes down to you claiming partisan politics is clouding everyone's judgement but your own.
It doesn't matter if it's a friggin record collecting idiot like me, or the future Prez of Harvard, if they have an opinion that even leans towards being Conservative, they are full of shit.
I understand.
jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
I haven't said anything anti-conservative in this thread. I certainly wouldn't ever be so boneheaded to suggest that all conservatives are full of shit. It sometimes seems like every argument here about politics comes down to you claiming partisan politics is clouding everyone's judgement but your own.
Why all the blah blah.....where on EARTH did you come up with Steele saying the current administration has any kind of "white guilt". He obviously attributes this phenomenom to the Left......jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this? Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so." Liberals think "victory" is politically incorrect. Is most of America conservative or liberal right now? I would say conservative, so he's talking about a liberal minority who hold limited political power in America.
If our president and Congress talk about victory all the time, and I would think that if you asked, an overwhelming number of Americans would say that they want victory over Islamists too, than what is the point of his whole argument that some liberals feel guilty and can't talk about "victory"?
His implied message is that these liberals are somehow constraining our efforts at victory, and thus preventing us from achieving it. By implication, these liberals can neither talk about victory, nor fight for it against Islamists because it doesn't fit their world view.
Why all the blah blah.....where on EARTH did you come up with Steele saying the current administration has any kind of "white guilt". He obviously attributes this phenomenom to the Left......jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......
But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this?
Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so." Liberals think "victory" is politically incorrect. Is most of America conservative or liberal right now? I would say conservative, so he's talking about a liberal minority who hold limited political power in America.
If our president and Congress talk about victory all the time, and I would think that if you asked, an overwhelming number of Americans would say that they want victory over Islamists too, than what is the point of his whole argument that some liberals feel guilty and can't talk about "victory"?
His implied message is that these liberals are somehow constraining our efforts at victory, and thus preventing us from achieving it. By implication, these liberals can neither talk about victory, nor fight for it against Islamists because it doesn't fit their world view. I agree...he's talking about people with limited political power...does that make what he's saying wrong???...no not one bit.
I agree...he's talking about people with limited political power...does that make what he's saying wrong???...no not one bit.
What's the point though? They are not really effecting the war on terror nor this administration that's fighting it so who fucking cares if they can't talk about victory????
He just seems to be doing some liberal bashing about a group that doesn't hold any say right now. Not only that, but in case you haven't checked, but the so-called liberal party of the Democrats are all over the place on what to do about Iraq, but pretty much agree that we should go after Al Qaeda and terrorists so it seems like he's talking about a very small minority within liberals and leftists who are pretty marginal in the big picture of American life.
He also wrote that article for the conservative Hoover Institute where he would get a receptive audience for attacking liberals. It seems like HE's[/b] the one being pretty partisan.
He also wrote that article for the conservative Hoover Institute where he would get a receptive audience for attacking liberals. It seems like HE's[/b] the one being pretty partisan.
Simple Yes or No
Under any concievable circumstance, is it possible to attack Liberal ideals AND[/b] be correct at the same time??
He also wrote that article for the conservative Hoover Institute where he would get a receptive audience for attacking liberals. It seems like HE's[/b] the one being pretty partisan.
Simple Yes or No
Under any concievable circumstance, is it possible to attack Liberal ideals AND[/b] be correct at the same time??
You can have last word....I'm done/too drunk
If you want me to go off on liberals I can. I can go off on the Democrats' pretty much pussy stance towards Iraq, or I have a really fucking pitiful and stupid story of bleeding heart liberals, racism, and Cambridge, MA's mayor and schools, but those are all other stories.
My point with Steele is that he's talking about a very small group of liberals who basically have very little support as almost everyone would be for beating the terrorists. When he talks about these white guilt liberals who can't talk about victory I'm thinking independent book stores, public access radio, and Leftists, etc. However, he seems to be implying that there are in fact a lot of liberals who are like this, which I don't think to be true, and he's also making it to a very partison group of hard-right conservatives in the Hoover Institute, who'll just eat this shit up.
It's like me making an attack on liberatarians being opposed to Bush's wire taps but implying all conservatives in the process. Who fucking cares about libertarians? And they're only a small marginal part of conservatives.
Not only that but Steele is a real ass for arguing that racism doesn't really exist anymore in America. He gets the eternal gas face for ever saying that shit in my book.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
[/b]
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so."
Rock I gotta hand it to you, you kow how to stir up a shit storm. I bolded the part that really gets at our fundamental disagreement.
Some liberals maybe knee jerk in their response to US agression in the world, labeling any war oppressive. I, who spent the last half of my senior year attending grad classes at Harvard and then worked as a research assistant studying the development of Islam in America with one of Harvard's most celebrated professors, Diana Eck, am not one of those liberals. I believe in just wars. I think that violence is necessary sometimes. If you would like to understand how I understand an appropriate American response to a threat like Al Qaeda, I recommed this article . IF you are not into reading the whole thing here is a paragraph that I think summarizes my views of "power" and "victory" in the context of American foreign policy. (a quick disclaimer, attending Harvard, or for that matter Stanford, hardly means that you are any smarter than any other well read American. Trust me I saw it with my own eyes.)
But before Vietnam, and the disappointment and confusion it spawned, liberals did have a clear story of their own. In the late 1940's and 1950's, intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr and policymakers like George F. Kennan described America's cold-war struggle differently from their conservative counterparts: as a struggle not merely for democracy but for economic opportunity as well, in the belief that the former required the latter to survive. Even more important, they described America itself differently. Americans may fight evil, they argued, but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible. Knowing that we, too, can be corrupted by power, we seek the constraints that empires refuse. And knowing that democracy is something we pursue rather than something we embody, we advance it not merely by exhorting others but by battling the evil in ourselves. The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world. [/b]
What what bothers me most about your constant critique of liberals is that liberals are irrelevant right now. Conservatives control congress and the executive branch. The sad state of affairs we are in at this moment (failure in Iraq, record defecits, environmental roll back) is solely the responsibility of the conservatives.
Motown has Steele pegged to a tee. What is most annoying (and seems most comforting to most "conservatives" such as yourself) is that Steele's thesis explicitly implies that Blacks have problems that they need to take responsibility for (poverty, crime, poor educational achievement-you know the list) and that whites need to stop feeling bad about this and hold blacks accountable rather than examine if they have any responsibility in these matters. AS Neibhur and Keenan point out- people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.
What 2 or 3 major issues do you think Liberals are wrong about??
That's not fair. You know the liberals don't have any major platform issues right now.
My point was, why do you accuse us of wrongly bashing conservatives in general when we're questioning a single conservative's actions or motives, but then you rush to defend a single conservative when he wants to bash liberals in general? For someone who's supposedly non-partisan, you strangly seem to have no patience for liberals and an infinite patience for conservatives. I'm not saying that's a fact, just a casual observation.
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
When Steele says:
And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war[/b]--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.
Isn't he implying that this liberal mindset is in fact hindering the war aginst Islamists? Why else would we be fighting a war with "managerial minimalism" "beyond the passions of war" if it wasn't for this liberal white guilt?
Again, he seems to be liberal bashing to a very conservative group who likes basing liberals over something that liberals actually have very little say over.
What 2 or 3 major issues do you think Liberals are wrong about??
That's not fair. You know the liberals don't have any major platform issues right now.
My point was, why do you accuse us of wrongly bashing conservatives in general when we're questioning a single conservative's actions or motives, but then you rush to defend a single conservative when he wants to bash liberals in general? For someone who's supposedly non-partisan, you strangly seem to have no patience for liberals and an infinite patience for conservatives. I'm not saying that's a fact, just a casual observation.
I obviously have tremendous patience for Liberals, especially since I agree with them on many major issues.
What I have no patience for is people who ONLY agree with the far left OR the far right AND automatically dismiss anyone who even suggests that an opposing philosophies ideals might have any creedence.
Quite frankly I have no idea what Steele's political association is or if he even has one. The fact that he wrote a book that some/many Conservatives agree with is not reason to automatically dismiss him.
And to use statements like "He doesn't think racism exists" when I have not read, nor has anyone here shown, any proof that this is his opinion, is unfair and biased.(I know YOU didn't say this but it's part of the thread).
And if this was indeed just the "questioning of one SINGLE conservatives actions or motives I might agree with you, but EVERY conservative view ever expressed here on SS has been met with this kind of dismissive attitude and is sometimes followed with a "Bring that shit to RushLimbaugh.com" as if this is a Left Wing website and to suggest anything else is improper.
If shelby steele really did say that racism no longer exists he is truely an idiot. Can anyone quote him making this claim?
Last night, I'm ready to go to sleep. I turn on the radio for a quick second and who the fuck is being interviewed but Shelby Steele. He's coming out with a new book about race. He said the following 3 points were in his book:
1) He was 100% sure that racism no longer existed in America. He said that blacks could become and achieve anything they want without race holding them back.
2) He said that racism still effects people psychologically however through white guilt. He said whites don't actually feel guilt, but rather it's an unconscious influence on how they treat blacks. It works 2 ways: 1) blacks don't listen to whites because they associate all whites with past racism. He called this a loss of moral authority. 2) because of this unconcious guilt, white political leaders do not ask anything of blacks. He specifically meant that white political leaders never ask blacks to be responsible for anything.
3) Racism also has an unconscious influence on blacks because they feel that they are victims of white racism even though it doesn't exist anymore. Black political leaders only talk about how they are victims of whites and therefore should get handouts as payback, and individual blacks don't work hard or take responsibility for anything they do because they feel like they are victims and can't achieve because of the white man.
He said the EXACT same thing in 1990 when he came out with his first book.
What 2 or 3 major issues do you think Liberals are wrong about??
That's not fair. You know the liberals don't have any major platform issues right now.
My point was, why do you accuse us of wrongly bashing conservatives in general when we're questioning a single conservative's actions or motives, but then you rush to defend a single conservative when he wants to bash liberals in general? For someone who's supposedly non-partisan, you strangly seem to have no patience for liberals and an infinite patience for conservatives. I'm not saying that's a fact, just a casual observation.
I obviously have tremendous patience for Liberals, especially since I agree with them on many major issues.
What I have no patience for is people who ONLY agree with the far left OR the far right AND automatically dismiss anyone who even suggests that an opposing philosophies ideals might have any creedence.
Quite frankly I have no idea what Steele's political association is or if he even has one. The fact that he wrote a book that some/many Conservatives agree with is not reason to automatically dismiss him.
And to use statements like "He doesn't think racism exists" when I have not read, nor has anyone here shown, any proof that this is his opinion, is unfair and biased.(I know YOU didn't say this but it's part of the thread).
And if this was indeed just the "questioning of one SINGLE conservatives actions or motives I might agree with you, but EVERY conservative view ever expressed here on SS has been met with this kind of dismissive attitude and is sometimes followed with a "Bring that shit to RushLimbaugh.com" as if this is a Left Wing website and to suggest anything else is improper.
1) Shelby Steele WORKS at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. It is a world famous conservative think tank.
2) I read his first book and I just heard the guy on the radio last night. He claims that racism no longer exists in America. This is what made him famous in the first place with his first book. Just because you haven't read his work or heard him say it doesn't mean it's unfair, biased or doesn't exist.
I just found the radio interview on the net. Steele doesn't say that racism doesn't exist, but that race will not stop blacks from achieving anything they want.
Because race exists in black victimization and white guilt he says that its still there, but not "really" there.
I read the whole article and I actually can see how it fits right into what Steele is saying. The country has gone from one end of the spectrum where blind patriotism and a feeling of American moral and intellectual superiority and a "might makes right" attitude has now swung to the opposite end of the spectrum where guilt for these things has made people feel that ANY agression towards an enemy is considered evil and taboo. You may not feel this way personally but it IS the overall view of the Far Left.
Rock I gotta hand it to you, you kow how to stir up a shit storm.
While it takes at least two to create a shit storm, doing it here is as easy as stating that anyone who is part of, revered by or associated with the Conservative segment of our society is anything but a flaming idiot.
The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world.
In what way has America ever "inspired" the Islamic world??
What what bothers me most about your constant critique of liberals is that liberals are irrelevant right now. Conservatives control congress and the executive branch.
While I understand that criticizing those in power "may" accomplish more than criticiizing those who aren't, to say that Liberals are beyond criticism because they are not CURRENTLY in power is absurd. You would see me here being critical to Conservatives on topics like Abortion, Drug Policies, Censorship, etc. but no one ever comes here to defend their viewpoints on these topics. SS members hold very few Conservative views while I actually have a few and am not embarrassed or too intimidated to state them.
Since you have spent time studying these issues and are certainly better versed than I am on these topics just tell me this....
What Conservative in today's society is on point about War, racism or any other of the volatile topics discussed on the regular here at SS.
Last night, I'm ready to go to sleep. I turn on the radio for a quick second and who the fuck is being interviewed but Shelby Steele. He's coming out with a new book about race. He said the following 3 points were in his book:
1) He was 100% sure that racism no longer existed in America[/b] . He said that blacks could become and achieve anything they want without race holding them back.
I just found the radio interview on the net. Steele doesn't say that racism doesn't exist[/b] , but that race will not stop blacks from achieving anything they want.
Because race exists in black victimization and white guilt he says that its still there, but not "really" there.
Dude...now I'm REALLY confused....did he say it or didn't he???
If Steele wants to crictize liberals ok, but you just said yourself that this opposition to speaking of victory is actually about the "Far Left." When has the Far Left really played a role in American politics? He's trying to paint liberals with the Far Left. If he were to critique liberals on their actual positions towards Iraq, the fact that they can't agree on anything, that, in my view would be legitimate. If he wants to critique liberals on always going for huge government programs and bureaucracy to answer any question, that would be legitimate to me. But to say that liberals are like Leftists and can't fight a war against Islamists because they think that it will oppress people is a crap argument.
And if you want some conservatives who have different views there's Pat Buchanan who is against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives from the beginning. He sees it as empire building. There are some conservatives who are for the legalization of drugs, etc. etc.
He said that race won't stop blacks from achieving anything in America, but that racism still exists as a power relationship between whites and blacks in their minds unconsciouslly. Whites have white guilt and blacks have victimization. It's socialized into American society so racism still exists, but only in people's minds. There are no real barriers to people of color being successful in America anymore based upon their race.
I'll try to make this my final thoughts on this long winded thread.
1) Steele is talking about ideas that actually exist amongst Leftists that most acts of American power are oppressive.
2) What he's trying to do though is paint Liberals with this opinion when it is not a mainstream Liberal idea.
3) He's doing this working for a very conservative think tank, and I see his criticism as being very partisan. It would be like if I criticized liberatarians and tried to say that their's was a mainstream conservative idea.
4) If you want me to agree with something Steele said, I agree that there are black political leaders who use the race card as a power play against whites.
5) The main problem with Steele's ideas about race is that he takes it as a personal form of discrimination amongst people. He's ignoring the much more powerful forms of cultural and institutional racism. Why do most black women have straight permed hair? Why do a lot of Latinos have their daughters bleach their hair or put lime juice and such in it to lighten it? Why is dark skin amongst some Latinos looked down upon as being too Indian? Why do police pull over black men more often? Why do banks red-line people of color? etc.
Comments
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this?
Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so."
I haven't said anything anti-conservative in this thread. I certainly wouldn't ever be so boneheaded to suggest that all conservatives are full of shit. It sometimes seems like every argument here about politics comes down to you claiming partisan politics is clouding everyone's judgement but your own.
agreed
My point is what POWER does the Left hold in America or with this administration?
He's saying we can't achieve victory because of this liberal white guilt. Where are the liberals in power that are doing this?
Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so."
Liberals think "victory" is politically incorrect. Is most of America conservative or liberal right now? I would say conservative, so he's talking about a liberal minority who hold limited political power in America.
If our president and Congress talk about victory all the time, and I would think that if you asked, an overwhelming number of Americans would say that they want victory over Islamists too, than what is the point of his whole argument that some liberals feel guilty and can't talk about "victory"?
His implied message is that these liberals are somehow constraining our efforts at victory, and thus preventing us from achieving it. By implication, these liberals can neither talk about victory, nor fight for it against Islamists because it doesn't fit their world view.
Where does he say "we can't acheive victory"??
I re-read this and there is nothing at all about acheiving anything.
He's simply commenting on a mindset that is held by alot of people, that a military victory over the ideals of Islamic extremism is impolitic amongst some Americans.
You're reading what you want into his writing in order to discredit it.
" Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so."
Liberals think "victory" is politically incorrect. Is most of America conservative or liberal right now? I would say conservative, so he's talking about a liberal minority who hold limited political power in America.
If our president and Congress talk about victory all the time, and I would think that if you asked, an overwhelming number of Americans would say that they want victory over Islamists too, than what is the point of his whole argument that some liberals feel guilty and can't talk about "victory"?
His implied message is that these liberals are somehow constraining our efforts at victory, and thus preventing us from achieving it. By implication, these liberals can neither talk about victory, nor fight for it against Islamists because it doesn't fit their world view.
I agree...he's talking about people with limited political power...does that make what he's saying wrong???...no not one bit.
What's the point though? They are not really effecting the war on terror nor this administration that's fighting it so who fucking cares if they can't talk about victory????
He just seems to be doing some liberal bashing about a group that doesn't hold any say right now. Not only that, but in case you haven't checked, but the so-called liberal party of the Democrats are all over the place on what to do about Iraq, but pretty much agree that we should go after Al Qaeda and terrorists so it seems like he's talking about a very small minority within liberals and leftists who are pretty marginal in the big picture of American life.
Again, what's the point?
Simple Yes or No
Under any concievable circumstance, is it possible to attack Liberal ideals AND[/b] be correct at the same time??
You can have last word....I'm done/too drunk
If you want me to go off on liberals I can. I can go off on the Democrats' pretty much pussy stance towards Iraq, or I have a really fucking pitiful and stupid story of bleeding heart liberals, racism, and Cambridge, MA's mayor and schools, but those are all other stories.
My point with Steele is that he's talking about a very small group of liberals who basically have very little support as almost everyone would be for beating the terrorists. When he talks about these white guilt liberals who can't talk about victory I'm thinking independent book stores, public access radio, and Leftists, etc. However, he seems to be implying that there are in fact a lot of liberals who are like this, which I don't think to be true, and he's also making it to a very partison group of hard-right conservatives in the Hoover Institute, who'll just eat this shit up.
It's like me making an attack on liberatarians being opposed to Bush's wire taps but implying all conservatives in the process. Who fucking cares about libertarians? And they're only a small marginal part of conservatives.
Not only that but Steele is a real ass for arguing that racism doesn't really exist anymore in America. He gets the eternal gas face for ever saying that shit in my book.
Rock I gotta hand it to you, you kow how to stir up a shit storm. I bolded the part that really gets at our fundamental disagreement.
Some liberals maybe knee jerk in their response to US agression in the world, labeling any war oppressive. I, who spent the last half of my senior year attending grad classes at Harvard and then worked as a research assistant studying the development of Islam in America with one of Harvard's most celebrated professors, Diana Eck, am not one of those liberals. I believe in just wars. I think that violence is necessary sometimes. If you would like to understand how I understand an appropriate American response to a threat like Al Qaeda, I recommed this article . IF you are not into reading the whole thing here is a paragraph that I think summarizes my views of "power" and "victory" in the context of American foreign policy. (a quick disclaimer, attending Harvard, or for that matter Stanford, hardly means that you are any smarter than any other well read American. Trust me I saw it with my own eyes.)
But before Vietnam, and the disappointment and confusion it spawned, liberals did have a clear story of their own. In the late 1940's and 1950's, intellectuals like Reinhold Niebuhr and policymakers like George F. Kennan described America's cold-war struggle differently from their conservative counterparts: as a struggle not merely for democracy but for economic opportunity as well, in the belief that the former required the latter to survive. Even more important, they described America itself differently. Americans may fight evil, they argued, but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible. Knowing that we, too, can be corrupted by power, we seek the constraints that empires refuse. And knowing that democracy is something we pursue rather than something we embody, we advance it not merely by exhorting others but by battling the evil in ourselves. The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world. [/b]
What what bothers me most about your constant critique of liberals is that liberals are irrelevant right now. Conservatives control congress and the executive branch. The sad state of affairs we are in at this moment (failure in Iraq, record defecits, environmental roll back) is solely the responsibility of the conservatives.
Motown has Steele pegged to a tee. What is most annoying (and seems most comforting to most "conservatives" such as yourself) is that Steele's thesis explicitly implies that Blacks have problems that they need to take responsibility for (poverty, crime, poor educational achievement-you know the list) and that whites need to stop feeling bad about this and hold blacks accountable rather than examine if they have any responsibility in these matters. AS Neibhur and Keenan point out- people in glass houses ought not to throw stones.
If you're asking me personally, hell yeah...
Conservative ideals(ie.Bush Admin) are wrong(imo) on Abortion, The Drug War, Illegal Immigration, Censorship, etc., etc.
What 2 or 3 major issues do you think Liberals are wrong about??
That's not fair. You know the liberals don't have any major platform issues right now.
My point was, why do you accuse us of wrongly bashing conservatives in general when we're questioning a single conservative's actions or motives, but then you rush to defend a single conservative when he wants to bash liberals in general? For someone who's supposedly non-partisan, you strangly seem to have no patience for liberals and an infinite patience for conservatives. I'm not saying that's a fact, just a casual observation.
When Steele says:
Isn't he implying that this liberal mindset is in fact hindering the war aginst Islamists? Why else would we be fighting a war with "managerial minimalism" "beyond the passions of war" if it wasn't for this liberal white guilt?
Again, he seems to be liberal bashing to a very conservative group who likes basing liberals over something that liberals actually have very little say over.
I obviously have tremendous patience for Liberals, especially since I agree with them on many major issues.
What I have no patience for is people who ONLY agree with the far left OR the far right AND automatically dismiss anyone who even suggests that an opposing philosophies ideals might have any creedence.
Quite frankly I have no idea what Steele's political association is or if he even has one. The fact that he wrote a book that some/many Conservatives agree with is not reason to automatically dismiss him.
And to use statements like "He doesn't think racism exists" when I have not read, nor has anyone here shown, any proof that this is his opinion, is unfair and biased.(I know YOU didn't say this but it's part of the thread).
And if this was indeed just the "questioning of one SINGLE conservatives actions or motives I might agree with you, but EVERY conservative view ever expressed here on SS has been met with this kind of dismissive attitude and is sometimes followed with a "Bring that shit to RushLimbaugh.com" as if this is a Left Wing website and to suggest anything else is improper.
Last night, I'm ready to go to sleep. I turn on the radio for a quick second and who the fuck is being interviewed but Shelby Steele. He's coming out with a new book about race. He said the following 3 points were in his book:
1) He was 100% sure that racism no longer existed in America. He said that blacks could become and achieve anything they want without race holding them back.
2) He said that racism still effects people psychologically however through white guilt. He said whites don't actually feel guilt, but rather it's an unconscious influence on how they treat blacks. It works 2 ways: 1) blacks don't listen to whites because they associate all whites with past racism. He called this a loss of moral authority. 2) because of this unconcious guilt, white political leaders do not ask anything of blacks. He specifically meant that white political leaders never ask blacks to be responsible for anything.
3) Racism also has an unconscious influence on blacks because they feel that they are victims of white racism even though it doesn't exist anymore. Black political leaders only talk about how they are victims of whites and therefore should get handouts as payback, and individual blacks don't work hard or take responsibility for anything they do because they feel like they are victims and can't achieve because of the white man.
He said the EXACT same thing in 1990 when he came out with his first book.
1) Shelby Steele WORKS at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. It is a world famous conservative think tank.
2) I read his first book and I just heard the guy on the radio last night. He claims that racism no longer exists in America. This is what made him famous in the first place with his first book. Just because you haven't read his work or heard him say it doesn't mean it's unfair, biased or doesn't exist.
Because race exists in black victimization and white guilt he says that its still there, but not "really" there.
While it takes at least two to create a shit storm, doing it here is as easy as stating that anyone who is part of, revered by or associated with the Conservative segment of our society is anything but a flaming idiot.
In what way has America ever "inspired" the Islamic world??
While I understand that criticizing those in power "may" accomplish more than criticiizing those who aren't, to say that Liberals are beyond criticism because they are not CURRENTLY in power is absurd. You would see me here being critical to Conservatives on topics like Abortion, Drug Policies, Censorship, etc. but no one ever comes here to defend their viewpoints on these topics. SS members hold very few Conservative views while I actually have a few and am not embarrassed or too intimidated to state them.
Since you have spent time studying these issues and are certainly better versed than I am on these topics just tell me this....
What Conservative in today's society is on point about War, racism or any other of the volatile topics discussed on the regular here at SS.
Dude...now I'm REALLY confused....did he say it or didn't he???
If Steele wants to crictize liberals ok, but you just said yourself that this opposition to speaking of victory is actually about the "Far Left." When has the Far Left really played a role in American politics? He's trying to paint liberals with the Far Left. If he were to critique liberals on their actual positions towards Iraq, the fact that they can't agree on anything, that, in my view would be legitimate. If he wants to critique liberals on always going for huge government programs and bureaucracy to answer any question, that would be legitimate to me. But to say that liberals are like Leftists and can't fight a war against Islamists because they think that it will oppress people is a crap argument.
And if you want some conservatives who have different views there's Pat Buchanan who is against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives from the beginning. He sees it as empire building. There are some conservatives who are for the legalization of drugs, etc. etc.
1) Steele is talking about ideas that actually exist amongst Leftists that most acts of American power are oppressive.
2) What he's trying to do though is paint Liberals with this opinion when it is not a mainstream Liberal idea.
3) He's doing this working for a very conservative think tank, and I see his criticism as being very partisan. It would be like if I criticized liberatarians and tried to say that their's was a mainstream conservative idea.
4) If you want me to agree with something Steele said, I agree that there are black political leaders who use the race card as a power play against whites.
5) The main problem with Steele's ideas about race is that he takes it as a personal form of discrimination amongst people. He's ignoring the much more powerful forms of cultural and institutional racism. Why do most black women have straight permed hair? Why do a lot of Latinos have their daughters bleach their hair or put lime juice and such in it to lighten it? Why is dark skin amongst some Latinos looked down upon as being too Indian? Why do police pull over black men more often? Why do banks red-line people of color? etc.
This is the same mentality that causes black students who study and excel in school to be labeled as "acting white".