Sunday, December 05, 2004

Iraq and the division amongst Liberals

Matthew Yglesias on Liberal Hawks vs Liberal Doves -
A failure to reconcile is going to lead to a situation where the public face of progressive politics continues to oscillate wildly between the non-credible (Michael Moore), the spineless (Joe Lieberman), and people whose ideas have little-to-no connection with liberalism (Brent Scowcroft or, at best Zbigniew Brzezinski). It's honestly not a tenable situation and it masks the fact that a sensible consensus exists on forward-looking issues that are viable both as politics, policy, and liberalism.
I think this is a somewhat more constructive approach to working towards dealing with anti-liberal threats, such as violent religious fundamentalism, than the conversation No Right Turn is having with various straw men.

The difference between hawks and doves cannot be characterized as "those who think it is about nothing more than force" vs "those who understand that it is fundamentally a war of ideas". One does not have to agree with Bush's intervention in Iraq to note that he is saying Democracy Is The Answer. But in the mean time we have to deal with people who have no scruples and no liberal values.

While it is possible to argue that ideas won the cold war, it was the threat of force that enabled that to happen. At present there is no other option than to confront the likes of bin Laden with as much viloence as necessary. But there are very few arguing that this is not a battle of ideas.


Blogger Genius said...

Meanwhile on the right we have conservative hawks and conservative isolationists (i.e. "I'm not spending any of my money to help anyone else").

5 December 2004 at 8:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home