PPI vs. Kos? - democracyarsenal.org

August 13, 2007

PPI vs. Kos?
Posted by Shadi Hamid

I'm not going to rehash the discussion regarding the ongoing "divide" between the DailyKos "wing" of the Democratic party and the DLC "wing" (for a taste, see here and here). However, I must say that I find the divide, whether real or perceived, somewhat baffling. I don't know, but maybe I'm one of the few people left on the planet who likes both Kos and the DLC (yes, simultaneously). I don’t see why the two camps have to be mutually exclusive.

I like Will Marshall, Mark Ribbing, and feel they’re doing some important work. (Full disclosure: I recently wrote a policy report for PPI). But I also like the Kossacks because they want to stand up to Republicans and fight fire with fire. They understand that the Republicans have, it seems, done all they can to destroy our country and shred our constitution, and they’re sick of Democrats backing down and taking it. Well, good for them. I'm sick of it too. (For example, we should be absolutely engraged that congressional Democrats allowed the recent Bush wiretapping bill to pass. It was nothing less than a surrender, and represented the worst political instincts of the Democratic party. We should not play politics with our constitution, but that's precisely what we did.)

In my more angry states, I sometimes wonder, like the Kossacks do, if Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are toeing the line between "bad" and "worse than bad" rather precariously. In my view, the word "evil" should be employed sparingly, if at all. It's poisonous to our political discourse, so I have no intention of going there. But let me also say that when I saw Rove speak in person, I came out genuinely frightened. It was one of the most chilling political experiences I can remember. And then I started watching clips of Cheney on youtube, and thought to myself: it's not just that I disagree with this guy - I honestly feel that he's a genuinely bad person, and that he's actively undermining our constitution, and, by extension, the very founding ideals of this country.

In an ideal world, I wouldn’t want to be too partisan, but, for reasons beyond my control, I am a product of partisan battles. I have seen what Republicans have done to this country in recent years, and I believe that we must fight back. But, at the same time, I also believe that there is a real war on terrorism (lowercase), and that there is a generational struggle ahead of us that requires that America remain the preeminent power in the world, and that we use our power (non-military, please) to promote the ideas and ideals that we hold dear. These two strands of thinking, if anything, go together. To put it more simply, there is a way to be both "tough" on the Republican party, and "tough" on national security.

August 13, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200e3933b4e5b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PPI vs. Kos?:

Comments

"here is a generational struggle ahead of us that requires that America remain the preeminent power in the world,"

I think you gave yourself away with this remark. Why the "requirement"? This is either a plea to maintain the American Empire or a variation on the Whiteman's burden. The US is about 4% of the world population and consumes 40% of the resources. Even the EU has a larger population and economy.

It is impossible for the rest of the world to even approach half of our rate of consumption - there just aren't enough resources. So at some point there will be resistance to our consuming more than our "fair share". There are two responses:
1. We can try to continue to force others to deal with us on terms favorable to the US.
2. We can scale back our consumption level to one which can be sustained by means of local production and balanced reciprocal trade.

The first option (the one preferred by the majority of the US population, even if they don't acknowledge it overtly) has been failing since the end of WWII. We have not "won" a single war since then. We can destroy societies, but we can't make them do what we wish. In addition the wars we have lost have been with insignificant powers. A military confrontation with a stronger adversary would be devasting.

The second option will require people to cut back on consumerism and materialism. So far no one is willing to give up their SUV's. In addition our capitalist/consumerist economic system is based upon continual growth and is incompatible with a steady-state economic model. There are only a few fringe economists looking into the implications of this. I suggest reading some of the papers of Herman Daly to get a taste of their work.

Posted by: robertdfeinman | August 13, 2007 at 01:33 PM

To put it more simply, there is a way to be both "tough" on the Republican party, and "tough" on national security.

The PPI approach is not tough. It is weak, soft-minded and sentimental. It is based on an inadequate reading of the current global situation and the chief security challenges facing the world's people; on a a nostalgic and backward-looking understanding of the place of the United States in the the contemporary world; on a failure to come to grips with the long term threats to US security posed by unsustainable and low value-added investment in an global garrison system that belongs to a vanished era; and on infatuation with half-baked philosophical vagaries and poetic legends and sagas as opposed to solid empirical grasp of social and economic reality and human behavior; on a mindlessly timid incapacity to challenge economically entrenched, yet outmoded and debilitating institutions of US political power; and on a cowardly craving for the false comfort and security of the center, lowing among the herd.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | August 13, 2007 at 03:57 PM

Umm, what "Kossak" believes there isn't a real war on terrorism? That's a total straw man.

Posted by: Dan | August 13, 2007 at 04:36 PM

The Democratic Neocons now emerge........

Posted by: Nutjob | August 13, 2007 at 04:41 PM

Just as the Chinese Communist Party seeded the Chinese Nationalist Party with dedicated communists prior to the Long March, and used them judiciously to undermine subsequent Nationalist attempts to wipe out the communists during and after the Long March, so have progressive institutions been undermined from within by neo-cons masquerading as liberals.

Time to judge liberals by their actions, not their affiliations.

Posted by: Deadeye Dick Cheney | August 13, 2007 at 04:47 PM

Bah. This is piffle. Smoke and mirrors.

You lost me at liking will marshall and then supplied your own coup de grace with the "I wouldn’t want to be too partisan" hoakum. Why not? There is nothing wrong with partisanship per se. At least if you're right. This is more crap to undermine a truly progressive movement.

And not even well written crap at that.

Posted by: ice weasel | August 13, 2007 at 05:05 PM

Well, that's nice that you like Kos and the DLC just the same. Next time you're hanging out with Will and the chaps with the DLC, please thank them for enabling the illegal war, perpetuating the strawman of the Islamofascist Empire, and being complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You know, all in the interest of "national security" and all that. (When was Iraq going to invade America? Oh, and who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, again? I forget ...)

Much obliged.

Posted by: Sinfonian | August 13, 2007 at 05:11 PM

Snerk. Don't worry, Shadi. There are worse things than being attacked by people who call themselves (accurately) 'Nutjob' and 'Ice Weasel.'

Posted by: Howl | August 13, 2007 at 05:21 PM

This is piffle and you are either obtuse or mentally challenged. Get that drool getting ready to drop from your lip .

Posted by: piffle | August 13, 2007 at 05:24 PM

Well, I don't know about "liking" one side or the other, but Harold Ford, head of the DLC, said on FoxNews that we're in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, which is more than sufficient reason to doubt his judgment, or his honesty, or both.

Posted by: Jim | August 13, 2007 at 05:34 PM

something tells me you wouldn't be nearly as accommodating with dkos if the dlc still had influence.

Posted by: linda | August 13, 2007 at 05:35 PM

also.... you say we should all be outraged at Dems for caving on the FISA bill last week: Almost every Dem Senator who caved is a DLC "leader" (Salazar, Carper, Pryor, Nelson CFL Lieberman) and most of them have been rubber stamping Bush on his most Constitutionally repulsive moves (MCA, AUMF, Alito, Gonzales....)

Posted by: Jim | August 13, 2007 at 05:42 PM

If any of the commenters from Eschaton would like to comment on the substantive points of my post, then that would be great, and I'd welcome a respectful exchange of ideas. Also, be sure to check out my response to Atrios: http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/the-wrath-of-at.html

Posted by: Shadi Hamid | August 13, 2007 at 06:10 PM

In the last sentence of your post you state: "To put it more simply, there is a way to be both 'tough' on the Republican party, and 'tough' on national security." The implication from your post is that the Kossacks are the example of being "tough" on the Republicans and Will Marshall and the DLC as being the example of being "tough" on national security. It is the latter part of that implication that is the most infuriating. The DLC has been absurdly wrong on national security and has stridently attacked every one that disagrees with them. Furthermore, you also seem to be buying into the DLC playbook that advocating a military response makes you "tough" on national security. I disagree. President Kennedy chose not to use military force during the Cuban missile crisis. To do so, he had to stand up to Curtis LeMay and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who were advocating for a military response. He displayed toughness in saying "no". I thank God that George W. Bush wasn't President during the Cuban missile crisis and I thnk God that Will Marshall wasn't there to give President Kennedy advice.

Posted by: squid696 | August 13, 2007 at 07:24 PM

"there is a generational struggle ahead of us that requires that America remain the preeminent power in the world"

Huh? With all due respect, this is garbage.

Posted by: The One True Serious Liberal | August 13, 2007 at 07:54 PM

If any of the commenters from Eschaton would like to comment on the substantive points of my post, then that would be great

Posted by: Shadi Hamid | August 13, 2007 at 06:10 PM

The ostrich sticks its head in the sand when faced with threats.

Shadi, the Atriots have come and picked every substantive piece of meat off the incredibly meager bones you provided and left.

From your friends at the DLC being the cave-in on domestic surveillance in Congress to this American Exceptionalist view of your place in the world's rotation.

Instead of writing further responses, if you were smart you'd find a rock and crawl under it for a long time and meditate on democracy and political development in countries until you have an epiphany about why the notion you have about "us winning in Iraq" is the absolute wrong frame.

Posted by: Tom - Daai Tou Laam | August 13, 2007 at 09:38 PM

OK, sure thing Shadi. I'll pretend you can be taken seriously.

Because the answer to O'rielly's question is "We win in Iraq when we stop squandering our resources and lives and prestige in a futile effort to put the hornets nest back together. That is the only victory left to us. Proving that we know when to stop digging the hole."

There is no other answer. There is no way to "win" - thy can't even tell us what winning is supposed tolook like. There is no one to surrender to us. There is nothing our military forces can do to make the country better. There is nothing we can say that Iraqis will believe. There is no way we can encourage a political solution.

Every moment we are in Iraq weakens us. If you really believe "that there is a generational struggle ahead of us that requires that America remain the preeminent power in the world", then you should recognize the simple truth in this - Osama openly stated it was his goal to bleed America like the mujadeen bled Russia, and we have obliged him in every way. Every day in Iraq, we oblige him more. Not only are we playing Al Qaida's game, we are losing it.

There, I have taken you seriously, and answered your stupid post as if it should be taken seriously.

Posted by: Mysticdog | August 13, 2007 at 10:14 PM

As a person largely ignorant of who you are and what you do this is what I get from reading this post:

You are willing to say nice things about people who pay you.

Your writing is very much on the pedantic side of prissy and you are an equivocating dope. I would explain it to you, but I don't think it's worth my time, and I freely acknowledge my time ain't worth much.

The Democratic Party will struggle for as long as people like you (or should I say, such as you?) are considered to be acceptable representatives for the media. I'm sure they are warming up a seat for you on Fox News even as I write this.

Posted by: Ed Sanders | August 13, 2007 at 10:54 PM

There is no war on terrorism, lower case or not. Do you believe also that here is a "War on Drugs"? (The DLC does) Terrorism, more precisely islamistic terrorism is a big policy problem. But it is mainly a police and intelligeny agency problem. And if you to go the roots, it is a problem of politics in islamic countries; yourself wrote so in your paper.
And rein in your american chauvinism. Preeminence of the U.S. has nothing to do with this problem.

Posted by: IM | August 14, 2007 at 09:25 AM

oh dear.

you've pooped on a good blog, and now it's getting tracked all over the house. what a mess...

Posted by: fat sam | August 14, 2007 at 01:12 PM

Posted by: runescape money | November 25, 2007 at 12:15 AM

lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold
lotr gold

Posted by: cheapgold | November 29, 2007 at 03:38 AM

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas 血管瘤肝血管瘤音乐剧北京富码电视富码电视富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁自清洗过滤器过滤器压力开关压力传感器流量开关流量计液位计液位开关温湿度记录仪风速仪可燃气体检测仪 wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
 eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

Posted by: runescape money | December 02, 2007 at 07:36 PM

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Hellgate London gold . I do not know how to use the Hellgate gold ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy buy Hellgate Palladium . We all love game, if you want to play it, please cheap hellgate gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have game.

Posted by: Hellgate London Palladium | December 24, 2008 at 08:58 PM

When you have aoc gold, you will become strong. With conan gold, you can upgrade and admire by others. You can use age of conan gold to start the journey of the world. So, do not hesitate, let us move to buy cheap aoc gold

Posted by: conan gold | January 06, 2009 at 07:52 PM

On account of I have habbo credits , I am not afraid of the lonely. At that time I do not know the meaning of it. Later I buy habbo gold .

Posted by: habbo gold | January 20, 2009 at 12:40 AM

You can buy Atlantica online Gold in the game king world to attract a lot of MM still a lot of places because cheap Atlantica online Gold.

Posted by: buy Atlantica online Gold | March 04, 2009 at 12:39 AM

I usually buy 2moons dil through Internet and advice from my friends, so I gain a lot of cheap 2moons gold and harvest in life.

Posted by: cheap 2moons gold | March 19, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 29, 2010 at 02:39 AM

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

Posted by: rado watches | February 26, 2010 at 08:12 PM

I am so with you FRANCK MULLER Watch

Posted by: bvlgari watches | February 26, 2010 at 09:55 PM

Interested in Vacheron Constantin Watches? Well have you ever thought about buyingreplica Patek Philippe watches? They are just as great,replica Omega watchesif not better, but much more cheaper!Rolex replica watchesWe only choose the best and reliable quality of watches for you to choose from, and have super fast shipping!

Posted by: endeavor29 | August 05, 2010 at 02:57 AM

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use

August 13, 2007

PPI vs. Kos? Posted by Shadi Hamid

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Disclaimer

PPI vs. Kos?
Posted by Shadi Hamid