I’d Really Like to Know Why You Beat Your Wife
Maybe Dale Franks just doesn’t recognize the stunning bad faith in his Questions For Our Liberal Friends post that Dave Shuler found so uplifting and Oliver Willis treated with perhaps more respect than it deserved. I wouldn’t bet that way, but it’s possible. And while many of the questions themselves are attempts to impose double binds, and the presumption that what’s left of Dale Franks’ tendency in American politics still gets to do the interrogating is cheeky, some of the other questions make a decent entry point into the matter of, well, how do we get ourselves out of the hole people like Dale Franks dug us into? But before going the Willis route of taking Franks’ exoteric purpose at face value, let’s shove the bookends together. Early on:
And let’s dispense with silly arguments about whether we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Much, much later:
Oh, yeah, and one final question: What if you’re wrong?
I mean, you’re advocating a policy change that will have wide-ranging effects. It’s not enough to say that everything will be OK. You have to show your math. You have to explain why you’re not just whistling past the graveyard.
Because, if we do what you say, and we get a replay of events worse than the 70s, that’s gonna be…disturbing. And, keep in mind that you are essentially betting the future of left-liberalism’s credibility on national security on the outcome of that policy. There’s a reason why the Democrats were kept away from the national security switches and levers for 12 years after Jimmy Carter, and were only allowed to return when we were having a holiday from history in the 1990s.
Got it? Consequences for thee, but not for me! What the United States actually did to the roaring sound of the cheers of Dale Franks and the rest of America’s Security Moms and Republican publiicity team is all “shoulda woulda coulda.” On no account are we to dwell on the past for which they are responsible. But what the United States might do at the urging of us peaceniks, is a whole other matter. No “shoulda woulda coulda” for you, hippie! You’re on the hook. There’s a crucial principle of personal responsibility for other people at stake.
What a great deal. I can hardly believe I’m rejecting it with a contemptuous snort.
Comment by Wild Pegasus —
May 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
And let’s dispense with silly arguments about whether we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
On to Iran!
- Josh
Comment by Thoreau —
May 26, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
“Coulda, shoulda, woulda” and so forth are very important matters, because our stances on those issues determine whether we’ll make the same mistake again.
D. A. Ridgely had good responses.
Comment by Mona —
May 26, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Well said, Jim. That was my position exactly when I read Franks’ outrageously arrogant, chutzpah-filled “inquiry.”
I’ve had my (temporary) fill engaging the neolibertarians who now think I’m the Wicked Witch of the West, or that is what I would have said, only more shrilly (as ever.)
That, and that as one who had supported the war because she listened to the wrong people — people like Dale Franks — I don’t feel entitled to say what we should do now, save for one point: the people I listened to before — again, men like Dale Franks — are the least qualified to hold forth now, much less to criticize those who have been tragically been proven right.
When did being right stop counting for anything? And since when do those who spent years demonizing those who warned of this bloody mess have any business now just saying “spilled milk, water over the bridge” & etc. How about a humble apology?
Comment by Apprentice to Darth Holden —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
“Coulda, shoulda, woulda†and so forth are very important matters, because our stances on those issues determine whether we’ll make the same mistake again.
Well, of course, but that’s if you’re into reason, logic, and intellectual honesty.
Our buddy Dale is most definitely not into any of those things, which makes him typical of his ilk.
Contemptuous snort, followed by a swift backhand, I think.
Comment by feckless —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
These people were as wrong about WMD’s as Chamberlain was about treaties with Hitler.
Chamberlain staked his reputation on that treaty and when he was proven wrong he had the common decency to STFU and retire from public life.
If noone had to listen to Chamberlain after 1939, why do we still pay attention to the american taliban?
Comment by miasmo —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
As Jon Stewart said, “If you don’t like The Blame Game, it’s usually because you’re to blame.”
Comment by c4logic —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
If there is one thing that is obvious about the people who put us in Iraq: they don’t like to think very hard about formulating a policy. They don’t like the idea of risk assessment. The don’t like the idea of risk mitigation. We have seen this from top to bottom on every single policy initiative they’ve confronted–including Katrina. When everything is before the facts-apriori–don’t be surprised to be blind sided by reality. We used to call this approach stupid. We used to call it reckless. We used to call it foolish. Let’s face it. The people who put us in this military adventure, and the ones who want to keep us in it, are pathetic morons with delusions.
Comment by Apprentice to Darth Holden —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Chamberlain staked his reputation on that treaty and when he was proven wrong he had the common decency to STFU and retire from public life.
Chamberlain was an honorable man.
We are not dealing with honorable men.
Comment by dave™© —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Shorter moronic brownshirt fuck: How we fucked up is nothing compared to the way you let us fuck up!
Christ, what a fucking maroon…
Comment by Peter Principle —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
“Coulda,shoulda,woulda” = 3,444 dead American solders.
But they’re just hired cannon fodder, after all.
Comment by ofom —
May 26, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
you know, I don’t tend to view everything through the lens of gender politics. But…
Sometimes I really think that the best model for explaining the modern Republican party *is* that acts like an abusive husband. And, alas, the press and Dems act like the battered wife.
Franks’ stance is exactly what you’ll here from a bullying husband: “listen, bitch, I know I just drove our car into the living room, but do you remember that time you were driving ten years ago and you ground the gears? Do you remember what an atrocity that was, how it showed you should never be allowed to drive again? And so I took the keys away from you–for your own good!”
The main tactic is to keep the woman in a state of abject, humiliated depression and helplessness, so afraid of a beating that she cowers at her own shadow. And thus puts up no resistance.
And that’s pretty much where the MSM and the Dems are still, to this day.
To be perfectly honest, it was pretty much where I was circa 2002-2003. I had doubts about the war, I worried that we were being led into a morass. But I have spent my whole adult life being blamed for Vietnam, and you know, it gets tired after a while.
So I guess I thought: fuck it. Maybe they’re right and it’ll be a cake-walk. Maybe they’re wrong and they’ll have enough rope to hang themselves. But I’m too scared to stand up for what I think is right.
I regret it, and wish I’d done otherwise. Even more, I wish the Democrat leadership would do otherwise, now. They’re getting better, but it’s a slow process of rehabilitation.
Comment by TB —
May 26, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Generally, here’s what I say to people like that:
“Who cares what you think? You’re a conservative. You’ve had how many years of running things, and where has it gotten us?
You’re wrong, just flat out wrong about everything.
I would no more listen to what you have to say about what should be done in Iraq anymore than I’d seek mussolini’s council on Ethiopia.”
Comment by arkieology —
May 26, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I’d really like to know why you beat my wife.
Comment by Southern Beale —
May 26, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Oh yes, well done. This is a much more sly version of the “IOKIYAR” we routinely get from the right, but it’s IOKIYAR nonetheless. And near as I can tell, that will never, ever change until the kooks, cultists and Kool-Aid drinkers are shoved back onto the sidelines of the national conversation where they belong. We’ve been dominated by the lunatic fringe for far too long.
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 26, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
“that Dave Shuler found so uplifting”
That link is broken. (Does the fact that 14 people have commented without noting this mean that none of them actually click on links? Or what? This always puzzles me.)
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 26, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
It means that you, Gary Farber, are a star. I fixed it just now. Thanks for the pointer.
Comment by Biff Spaceman —
May 26, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
these dimwitted right wingers argue just like drunks who want to convince you why it is a great idea to go drink some more right now and maybe find some drugs. What have sober people done for the cause of drinking and drugging? What have you sacrificed for my drug habit? I don’t have a problem, you are a downer. No fun at all. So what if I puked, ran over a dog, slapped a waitress, started three fights I can’t finish, frotted up the prime minister of Germany, gave the Chinese the keys to a spy plane, let my friends drive a nuclear sub into a boatload of Japanese teenagers, those aren’t signs of impaired judgement, it’s YOUR problem. You are just socially retarded, see? You should loosen up and have a few belts too.
When they get to auterotic self-asphyxiation I wonder if I will have the will to stop them.
Comment by Scott Ahlf —
May 26, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
A libertarian site?
Aren’t libertarians just repugs that like to grow dope?
I liked Ayn Rand when I was 16. I mean, you become a hero
for being a complete azzhole. Is that cool or what when you are 16!
However, some grow up, and move away from such simpletons–
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 26, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Well, my cobloggers and I are libertarians. I can’t speak for them, but I don’t grow anything. My wife is working on roses and tomatoes, though.
Comment by Molly. NYC —
May 26, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Sometimes I really think that the best model for explaining the modern Republican party *is* that acts like an abusive husband. And, alas, the press and Dems act like the battered wife.
Ofom @ #10 – Great analogy, except that I think the press acts more like the in-laws who keep telling the wife it’s her fault for not being submissive enough.
In this analogy, I suppose the lefty blogs would be the divorce lawyer who notes the bruises and surreptitiously slips a business card into the wife’s hand.
Comment by Mona —
May 26, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Yes, and libruls/Democrats are all godless communists who hate the troops and America, just like Rush sez.
I grow nothing, except maybe weary of this annoying, pig ignorant stereotyping of libertarians that flies from both left and right.
BTW, Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, as she would be the first to insist (and did insist). She despised libertarians and demanded that all moral human beings had to adhere to her philosophy of “Objectivism.” Most libertarians are not Objectivists — I sure as hell am not. You might want to pick up some F. A. Hayek, tho, and learn something about actual libertarianism.
Comment by Dave Schuler —
May 26, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Two short points, Jim. First, I think that some dialogue, however imperfect, is better than no dialogue. I try not to judge motives. I didn’t try to psychoanalyze Dale; I didn’t try to second guess Oliver. I’d rather see us exchanging ideas than tossing brickbats.
Second, I was extremely disappointed at how little discussion there was before the passage of the Authorization to Use Military Force (which I opposed). What I did see was lots of political calculation on all sides and, frankly, I’d like to see less political calculation and more deliberation on the merits from our Senate. That was the real motivation behind my post. I have no hidden agenda. What you see is what you get.
Comment by Mona —
May 26, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Uh-huh. Well, I voted for Bush in ‘04 and supported the war until sometime shortly thereafter. I have apologized publicly several times, and acknowledged my error.
But moreover, even when I supported the war, I didn’t denigrate those who disagreed as anti-military or “defeatocrats” or as Chamberlains who fail to realize it is Munich again, as has been all too common over at QandO and among “neolibertarians” in general — where it is even ok to “question the patriotism” of those who oppose the war in Iraq and insist that, by definition, they do not support the troops. When they want to admit they were wrong to defend the correct assessments they mocked and the motives they derided as ignoble, then we can talk of singing Kum Ba Yah.
Personally, I find the anti-war people who take the position that nothing I can do can expiate my sin very frustrating and unfair — and those exist. They will never allow me back into the circles of the civilized.
But I’m more disgusted by the likes of Dale Franks, and the assumptions in his post that Jim decimates.
Comment by kelley b. —
May 26, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
“…There’s a reason why the Democrats were kept away from the national security switches and levers for 12 years after Jimmy Carter…”
Yes. Elliot Abrams, Ollie North, and the rest of the ex-Bush CIA Iran-Contra crew that sabotaged the Carter presidency.
Comment by sglover —
May 26, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
Gotta say, JH, having caught Ron Paul at the GOP gruntfest, er, “debate”, and having subsequently watched “my” Democratic party hand the Idiot Prince another fucking blank check — I’m beginning to see your libertarians in a different light. I’m convinced libertarian economics are deranged, but right now turning away from empire is the priority, and the major parties won’t go within a light year of even discussing the topic.
Comment by sglover —
May 26, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Sorry, but I don’t get this at all. If this is a topic that’s been beaten to death already, feel free to ignore it. But how was Bush 2005 any less incompetent or untrustworthy than Bush 2004? Hell, even in 2000 it was pretty clear that the little fuck was an empty suit.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 26, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Hi Sam!
Mona, you should put together a FAQ
Comment by Mona —
May 26, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
sglover: Jim is right, I need a FAQ. But the short version is: the Padilla case was bothering me a lot, and then Schiavo happened post-election. The Terri Schiavo derangement made me crazy and I took a look, long and hard, at who I was in bed with. It may be a personal thing, but that’s just how it went for me. Then in December of ‘05, after all the implications of torture, we learned Bush had been violating a federal criminal wiretapping statute for years.
I do not fathom how at that point a decent, well-informed citizen could continue in the error of supporting Bush, nevermind the hell that was unfolding in Iraq.
Comment by Steve J. —
May 26, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Libertarians sound just like Sean Hannity!
Who knew?
Comment by Steve J. —
May 26, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Yes, and libruls/Democrats are all godless communists who hate the troops and America, just like Rush sez.
We’re also Islamo-Fascist lovers!
Comment by Mooser —
May 26, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
You guys and women should not disparage the point of view of the armchair warriors, after all, to talk about the deaths of soldiers and disasterous defeats as “water under the bridge” is the perogative of only the most aristocratic and the political elite. Only those who pull the levers of international power can take such a lofty view. Indeed, they must.
Or maybe they’re just assholes.
Comment by fred —
May 26, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
It depends on which Libertarian you’re talking about: it’s a general political stance, not a straitjacket. Ron Paul is a Republican through and through, but he’s not Darth Vader.
Re the Franks article: I thought the interesting para was this
The obvious answer, the one he seems to be fishing for, is “But Dale, they’re BROWN people! Of course they can’t govern themselves!”
Comment by Troy —
May 27, 2007 @ 12:18 am
I’m a left-libertarian — desiring a libertarian order free from democratic idiocracy as much as practicable. Which, absent georgist LVT, is not very much I’m afraid, since minarchy and concentration of wealth go hand-in-hand.
Speaking as a left-lib, however, Ron Paul’s quote about the poor being able to get free medical care via the emergency room really rubbed me the wong way . . . reality-challenged glibertarianism at its finest.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 27, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
“Chamberlain was an honorable man.
We are not dealing with honorable men. ”
It’s not just that. It’s also that people in his own party (people like Winston Churchill) came to feel that it was impossible to support him any longer. And that is what forced Chamberlain out: the reality that his fellow Conservatives had withdrawn their support.
So what the hell is wrong with the Republicans? Where is the Republican equivalent of Winston Churchill, someone who will now say to Bush, “I am sorry, but even though we belong to the same party, I can no longer support you.” ???
Comment by LarryE —
May 28, 2007 @ 12:57 am
I know I’m probably coming too late to this party to get any dessert, but I figured I’d mention that my answers to the questions are here.
Comment by Jon H —
May 28, 2007 @ 1:02 am
“So what the hell is wrong with the Republicans? Where is the Republican equivalent of Winston Churchill, someone who will now say to Bush, “I am sorry, but even though we belong to the same party, I can no longer support you.†???”
Same answer: we are not dealing with honorable men.
Comment by bobbyp —
May 28, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
“It’s not just that. It’s also that people in his own party (people like Winston Churchill) came to feel that it was impossible to support him any longer. And that is what forced Chamberlain out..”
Well, that and a little problem in France.
Comment by Mark —
May 29, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
In response to Mona, Ayn Rand did not say that moral people “had to adhere” to Objectivism. Rather, she described the world, and and in so doing created her philosophy–which includes a definition of the moral. At most, one could say that Ayn Rand considered people who didn’t adhere to her philosophy to be immoral–which is a far cry from the implication of compulsion in Mona’s comment.
Comment by JP —
May 29, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
“Chamberlain staked his reputation on that treaty and when he was proven wrong he had the common decency to STFU and retire from public life.”
-People forget Chamberlain also had the *executive* decency to admit his mistake while in office by declaring war to protect Britain’s interests and citizens – policy concerns that played a significant part in the invasion of Iraq (unless you’re one of those monofocal fools who thinks the whole thing was about oil, the intelligence was faked, etc.). Moreover Chamberlain couldn’t retrospectively carp and criticize over policy failures made by Churchill (of which there were many) because the poor man died only a few months after the Battle of Britain.
Comment by Rod Maingot —
May 30, 2007 @ 2:48 am
I’d like to second Mark’s comment regarding Ayn Rand – she certainly would be against coercing anyone into adopting her philosophy. I believe the way she would have put it is if you don’t agree with her philosophy (after having gained a full comphrehension of it), you weren’t quite worthy of it anyways.
Further, regarding Scott’s comment regarding Objectivism (I mean, you become a hero for being a complete azzhole. Is that cool or what when you are 16!). How can you be described as an ‘azzhole’ when you use absolutely no force against anyone? That is the essence of Rand’s philosophy.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
“the presumption that what’s left of Dale Franks’ tendency in American politics still gets to do the interrogating is cheeky”
I laughed in agreement when I first read this, but I think I’ve now changed my mind. The reality, which Franks knows well, is that it is his faction that’s in power right now. That puts them in the position of asking the questions. It doesn’t matter that they’ve been tragically wrong about everything, his faction is still in power, and still calling the shots. Dale Franks may not be in power, personally, but on an emotional and intellectual level he identifies strongly with the folks who are in power, and he’s one of the supporters who, in some small way, those in power depend upon. And it is normal, I think, that those in power do the interrogating, no matter how wrong they’ve been in the past.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 3, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Lawrence, I’m sure that is indeed the psychology.