The Democrats voted for the Iraqi war because the Dems held that Dems were part of a crucial dialogue between the neo-cons and the Dems. The Dems tried to keep the conversation going and voted for the Iraqi war. For example, Kerry thought the debate was about the UN and the surface debate was about the UN but to George Bush the debate was no debate and just a step towards war. I do think a dialogue with a a lot of rank and file Republicans is doable but assuming all are conversational partners leads to compromises that are in effect surrenders. The disturbed are among us - witness George Bush. Such people have to be treated with decency, be kept from violent actions and there may be 'islands of sanity' upon which such people can be reached but as a general rule seriously consulting with with such people on decisions that affect the fate of nations is a no go. These universal values have only captured a substantial minority or a slim majority of Americans. The percentage is much smaller outside the US and Europe. Maybe 10% of Iraqis hold to these values. One has to have a sense of what can be achieved via these values. Small success are much to be preferred to ambitious plans which are complete disasters. One last point is important. The neo-cons espouse universal values for war. Recently those who have talked the talk of universal values have done great damage to the US. The debate best be limited to those who 'talk the talk and walk the walk'.

Posted at June 19, 2007 4:23 PM in response to Reading for an American Audience

I think the mistake here is trying to say these values are the values of all 300 million Americans. Clearly Bush, Cheney and Rove have vastly different values - unitary Presidency, oil, torture etc. The question is whether a significant debate can occur and I think that at least 40% of the US holds closely to these values that Slaughter talks about, with these values as foundation. I think the debate has to be between those who hold these univerals values which are rather guides for action amongst 'the believers' rather than a basis for dialogue among all. The goal then is to create a world based on these universal values rather than to start a conversation amongst all who can talk.

Posted at June 19, 2007 3:06 PM in response to American Exceptionalism by any other name...

I think a procedural approach to debate has to be taken. There has to be freedom of speech so can debate can take place assuming one is interested in a debate. The Internet has to be set up to allow the free flow of ideas etc. On the other hand I think attempting to win the hearts and minds of the neo-cons via debate is seriously mistaken. Not all individuals are reasonable. Many 'debates' are entered for sophistic reasons simply to score points. There is no real exchange of ideas. Take Cheney. Cheney basically says Dems are soft on terrorism. Debating Cheney on this point is ludicrous. The Dems' time would be better spent rolling large rocks up a hill rather than debating Cheney on terrorism. Cheney has to be excluded from the debate by labeling his views as nonsense. The point is that the possiblity of debate always best be open but one best gear a debate towards those who really exchange ideas. Exchange of ideas is extremely important but only of assistance amongst those who are reality based.

Posted at June 19, 2007 9:31 AM in response to The Idea that Is America

Rorty was sweetly against Truth and Moral Goodness. The key consideration is that Rorty was really against Truth and Moral Goodness but most people only beheld the sweetness.

Another important point is that Rorty was a pragmatist. Pragmatists work towards future goals. One has to assume Rorty worked towards a future where there was no Truth or Moral Goodness. That is far from sweet.

Posted at June 11, 2007 6:42 PM in response to An Addendum to Todd's Euology for Richard Rorty

Will fails to point out these great characters formed by conservatism. George Bush has failed at everything. Cheney tells lie after lie. Tom Delay is corrupt. Newt Gingrich cheated on the wife. Maybe Will could have mentioned Edmund Burke here. The Republican Party is the party of low character and morals. Will is all about shaping the lives of people. Will is the Gary Becker of pundits. Will is for chains that are invisible. Will is for less freedom. Yes, there is no equality. I think there is no way George Bush or Bill Kristol is the equal of TSH. But, of course, there best be equality before the law. Proving inequalities is impossible leaving equality before the law the only option. No judgement is made about intrinsic equalites by liberalism. Equality before the law is the solution to an epistemological difficulty. The world is clearly a better place for those advantaged when the advantaged assist the disadvantged. Assisting the disvantaged is other than an altruistic act. Liberalism is for those liberal.

Posted at June 1, 2007 9:24 PM in response to Fisking George F. Will's "Case for Conservatism"

I think as few assumptions as possible about people is ideal when it comes to economics. I don't think economics needs a lot of assumptions about people. The goals are steady growth, minimal inflation and mild and few recessions. I would add that assisting those who are disadvantaged and as much liberty as possible are also extremely important goals of economics. Clearly these goals conflict with each other. The problem then is an optimization problem. Given this optimzation problem there are certain economic policies and certain economic techniques that have proved efficious. Putting in theories on human nature is thrilling but the difficulty is that now a science of human nature is totally speculative. Economic theory is best and most useful when dismal rather when dealing with the profound problems of human nature.

Posted at May 31, 2007 7:14 PM in response to It's Different for Lefties and Righties

I think the neo-cons are planning a Cold War, a Cold war with China now. The goal would be to get China to withdraw funds from the US and send the economy into a tailspin. Tough times have always been great for security states. The huge deficits are a step towards a security state for the neo-cons. Of course, this is going to take a lot of planning by the neo-cons but the neo-cons have already set the stage with the huge deficits. The ulimate goal of the neo-cons is the destruction of US democracy, of course, rather than winning wars, securing oil or a dynamic economy. The neo-cons are people who push buttons and a security state presents a virtual utopia for the neo-cons.

Posted at May 22, 2007 7:10 PM in response to The cost of the Iraq war

I think had there been some rationality about profits - the mantra was profits were irrelevant all that matters is market share - the Internet would be at least as prominent and influential as the Internet is today. Just because the Internet failed to crash back to Earth that is no proof that a different Internet trajectory might not have reached escape velocity with less fuel expended.

Posted at May 14, 2007 4:21 PM in response to UNCORKING A DISCUSSION ON POP

I don't think the Democratic Party needs a lot of leftists Grover Norquists. The wingnuts have been about corruption and a disconnect from reality as well as about a unified movement. If the Netroots can discipline the left side of the Democratic Party great but the wingut philosophy of winning at any cost and that reality really doesn't matter, spin control is all, is one reason why I vote Democratic.

Posted at May 12, 2007 9:18 AM in response to NOTROOTS