Rare Praise for Bill Kristol
Reading Robin Toner's article on progressives debating "new visions" for the movement, I thought Bill Kristol actually made the best point:
William Kristol, a leading conservative thinker and editor of The Weekly Standard, counters that parties are ultimately defined not by big visions from intellectuals but by real positions on real issues.
"Foreign policy is critical," said Mr. Kristol, whose magazine was considered an important influence on the Bush administration's foreign policy. "Do they share a basic understanding that there is a global war on terror, and Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with? Is the next Democratic presidential nominee going to raise taxes or not?"
He added, "It needs to be brought down to earth."
Obviously, I'm not at all sympathetic to Kristol's views on foreign policy, but he's right to say that these are the questions. I feel like the left has a tendency to shift schizophrenically from offering super-detailed policy prescriptions and white papers to offering totally abstract rhetorical formulations. There's a middle ground, where you talk about goals and general approaches to things that seems to go missing.
Advertisement
I don't disagree about your point here, i.e. the importance of stating clear positions on mid-range issues (neither too bitty nor too grandiose and vague).
But does Kristol's quote illustrate that? What exactly would the Democratic position--the not-too-detailed, not-too-vague position--be, that would show that we "share a basic understanding that there is a global war on terror"?
That line of Kristol's fits squarely into the category of "totally abstract rhetorical formulations".
The fact that even *you* heard that and found it more subtantive than an equivalent Democratic pronouncement is evidence of the uneven rhetorical playing field that we face in the country at large. Somehow their empty gestures have resonated, where our empty gestures have seemed...empty. Maybe they resonate because they have a better echo chamber?
Beats me. But I'll grant you the importance of the point, even if l don't join you in giving Kristol any credit.
May 9, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Is the next Democratic presidential nominee going to raise taxes or not?"
Allowing this allows too much. What is the Republican alternative?
Inflate away debt or default?
Also, seconding Tad Brennan above, I am unable to deduce the real position on real issues from the statement "Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with".
May 9, 2006 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be much more impressed with Kristol if he asked: "Do they share an understanding that my war in Iraq is a disaster and listening to my advice about war in Iran would be pure folly?"
We need a global war on idiots like Kristol. He's gotten this country into enough trouble already.
May 9, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is the next Democratic presidential nominee going to raise taxes or not?"
Yes. Definitely he will. I don't see how you can fault the Democrats for being vague on this issue.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
May 9, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The three questions you chose to quote seem loaded to me in a Karl Rovian kind of way--two reflect the "you're either a good guy or you're with the Axis of Evil" mindset of the current administration, and the third is, well, basically asking if the next Democratic nominee for president will be stupid like Walter Mondale and publicly state he's in favor of higher taxes.
"Real positions on real issues," in my opinion, involve a certain level of maturity, honesty and nuance that I didn't see anywhere in the linked article: When Peter Beinart is quoted as saying that "It was the wrong lessons of Vietnam that led the Democratic Party off the cliff into mass opposition to the (first) Gulf War," he seems to be suggesting that Democrats should've lined up in favor of that war, so they could've backed a winner. This is *exactly* the kind of spineless triangulating that makes so many Americans loathe the DNC crowd.
May 9, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do they share a basic understanding that there is a global war on terror, and Iran is a threat that has to be dealt with." I hope to answer to that is "Hell no". Wars on tactics, wars on social problems are fucking disasters. The "war on terror" is doomed to a disaster as long as it is approached as a WAR - just like the "war on drug". In the long run terrorism is a social problem; in the short run it is a police and a diplomatic problem. I'm not saying military force will never be useful against terrorism - but the value will be secondary; and there will be a hell of a lot more occasions when it makes things worse.
Also terrorism is not even in the top ten greatest threats to either the U.S. or the world.
May 10, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curious as to what you (or any here) see as being the top ten greatest threats to the U.S. and the world?
May 18, 2006 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a gesture resonates then one can know at the very least that if they are being bambozeled that they are having such done by an intellegent and capable bambozeler. I don't know about you, but if I'm going to be suckered into something I'd at least like the consolation that it was more the skill of the con artist than idiocy on my part. If someone has a true call and capacity to fullfill the promise of that call then the proper resonance will come naturaly, and even if it is sickly or anemic sounding, if it's seen as genuine it will build strength.
Personaly, while I'm not generaly pleased with much of what most of the supposed "conservatives" are doing, especialy contrasted to their promises, I sence only the most incompetent of duck hunters pretending to toot a kazoo as if it's an acurate media for imitating a duck call, when I hear most democratic candidates and pundits. Which is really sad when I see the intellectual capacity of many on the left. Capacity which can, at times, be frightening to many of my conservative peers.
May 18, 2006 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink