Hillarysworld

Sanders · Diamond

"The Decider vs. The Agonizer" (11/9)

freespirit · Moderator

My view of Bush is that he is like most right wingers in that he likes simplistic answers. I believe he is a decent man, with a strong sense of morality ( what he believes to constitute morality). But, processing multi-dimensional, complex issues and solutions is just not something he can do well.

The religious right is much like this, IMO (I know I'm generalizing - never a good thing, nevertheless..) Their answers to life are all in their Bible, as they or their pastor interpret it. They're quick, simple answers, requiring little analysis.

IMO, life is just too complex for this. While I absolutely disagree with torture, I'm sure it would be harder to take a firm stand against it if you honestly believed (and I think Bush really believed) that the subject of the torture could, and likely would give you info which would save the lives of many Americans.

Bush says he was convinced that through the use of water boarding, he could get accurate, potentially life saving info, which he says he did obtain. Others argue that the info is unreliable, at best - that torture subjects will say whatever their torturers want to hear. Obviously, an honest look back at documented cases of torture and the results it produced would shed some light. But, the morality question would still exist. No easy answers. None.

Sanders · Diamond

freespirit, yes, I agree. Unfortunately, refusing to come along to the (complexities of the) present, here and now of American situation is what is being peddled as a feature by many aspiring Republican leaders.

As long as ordinary American views modernization and increasing diversity of the nation as contributing to problems and ignore all the good it has done (and some even question if it has done any good at all), peddling fast-forward to the past is working well as an election strategy. Reality be damned.

Life is indeed complex. Especially when we pause to recognize that the land belonged to the Native Americans.

Applying our liberties and rights equally and equitably across the board to all is a huge challenge. Often the right of women with two feet on the ground is severely undermined. The rights and feelings of the Native American is forgotten. There are no "inalienable rights" of superiority of one sect over the other, whether within country or outside.

War is fundamentally barbaric and is "won" only by declaration from one side; such declaration is increasingly a fiction when all bloodshed is clearly visible and storyline cannot be unilaterally manipulated by a nation's administration. War is being waged in the world of perceptions as much as reality. Techniques to get information need to be majorly different in such a world than in WW-II. Moral superiority needs to be maintained at every turn.

As I heard Bush on Hannity lastnight, I said, he comes across as an introspective person who is doing a good job of excusing himself without saying sorry. A lot of what he did and went through were context-sensitive and context-driven; that is understandable. But I wish he had said he regretted at least parts of it that led to some outcomes that were less than desirable. Now, will Iraq make the most of it? Probably. But, road to freedom does not necessarily need to be carved by us Americans, regardless of how highly we might think of our particular brand of democracy. So, I dont expect that history will in the end take all too kind a view of W.Bush's zealot extravaganza with decision-making on Iraq. Burnt bridges are hard to walk across on, and we have W.Bush to thank for it - and that effect on human relations in the world will probably what W.Bush be most credited with.

I hear "honor" and "righteous" from right-wing leaders and cringe. This morning, I listened to a speech by Mike Pence and wondered how those exact words may sound extremist if they came from someone sitting in the middle east. Sorry but none of us can assume that honor is just to be defined by us anymore. No, I do not make excuses for extremism - not from any side. When I heard Pence say that we go to war to win, I said, I hope you do not lead us into a war.

I think the time for waging wars is over. The war is now information war and war for minds as Hillary puts it. Republicans need to catch up with that concept. And, in that world, there would not be torture. We would still have some moral grounds from which to reach out across the oceans to build bridges for the future.

-- Edited by Sanders on Wednesday 10th of November 2010 01:25:33 PM

freespirit · Moderator

I agree that the far right are as you describe the Pubs, Sanders. But, I don't think that applies to all Republicans. The moderate, reasonable Pubs and Dems are drowned out by the catch phrases and simple answers of the far right. I do think there are Pubs out there who would, if they didn't feel they had to pander to far right to get votes, utilize good judgment and reasonable approaches.

By the same token, the far left fails to look at the complex issues, as well. They dwell in the theoretical, and often fail to examine the history, dynamics, and reality of circumstances as they apply their perverted, idealized view of "social justice", redistribution of wealth, etc., In their zeal to appear open minded, to embrace diversity and to be PC, they fail to fully inform themselves of the realities and the ramifications of their proposed policies. Additionally, as we have seen, and as you noted, in 2008, the far left demonstrated that they support the human rights and civil rights of only certain groups, and women were certainly not among the groups about which they're concerned.

They want easy answers too, utilizing reasoning and rhetoric from the 1960s, and refusing to educate themselves about all aspects of a given situation.

Sanders · Diamond

Yes, I meant mostly the far right conservative extreme end. The pub leaders we are seeing and hearing of lately are quite to the extreme right. I was thinking of DeMint, Pence, Palin, Bachmann.

Both extremes are unrealistic. One is into ideological utopia and kumbaya and the other into "our"-way-by-this-book. Neither works well when the reality is that the country is what I call a stale salad bowl.

Our country is increasingly a non-blending salad bowl. The Internet helps people stay in touch with their home country in ways that was hitherto impossible. Newcomers to this country are increasingly unintegrated. This was obvious to me this summer when we had an intern in our home and the person was daily intouch with parents and siblings from the comfort of our guestroom, on google chat at all hours. Silos are on the increase. In such a society, realistic solutions need to be sought where people can learn to get along in ways that are actually workable. There is no kumbaya - it just doesnt work. some blending is necessary to get along, but imposition of one dogma just does not cut it.

For example -- Increasingly there is need for a national language so people at least learn a medium of communication common across people, and it is a good middle of the road approach. But I do not see the need for one religion nor for constant beating on the drums on one religion - it really gets to people. Believe me, I am not religious and lately, I do not like the constant harping on christianity - and it came as a surprise to me that I have developed an aversion after hearing it on the TV so much. This is what happens. It is the pendulum effect. Push it too far - from either side - you get pushed to the other side. Likewise, dont expect me to support a second and a third language. Do not expect me to support religious holidays - matter of fact, I dont support any religious holidays.

Back to the topic on W.Bush - I was hopeful that all the things we heard about his ability to delegate, his executive experience... all will keep him a moderate. Yes, I think for the most part, he was, at least on social issues, a moderate. What surprised me is that he did not dig deep before declaring a war. And, increasingly as I hear him say he regrets not privatizing social security, I wonder.

It is possible that the office of the POTUS and the dynamics of legislating makes them go further into their ideology -- I thought it would do the oppositive. Wishful thinking on my part. What is increasingly clear is the minority views its role as that of becoming the majority - at least that's what we hear the pubs declared in January 09. I was really saddened to hear that.