Re: No Fear

1

I guess "Spackerman" doesn't make the NYT Style section cut. I dread seeing a post by "[redacted*]"

[* let's pretend I have some shred of pseudonymity left - Becks]


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
2

I can't figure out what to excerpt

"He takes policy positions that are a break from both rigid orthodoxy and the Bush administration. And everyone says it's a gaffe! That just encapsulates everything that's wrong about the foreign-policy debate in Washington and in Democratic politics."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
3

Everyone who enjoys that article should subscribe to the magazine, where you can read articles such as: my article in the back.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
4

2: or this:

[Obama and his advisors] envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

A great piece, although I did keep wincing as the most interesting things reported were said by Samantha Power.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 2:09 PM
horizontal rule
5

this is cute, the world peace piece
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhSjtXKsSJQ


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
6

If Obama wins the general Power will be back.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
7

Nice, smasher.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
8

Shouldn't there be full disclosure when linking to housemates? What does the blogger code of ethics say about this sort of thing?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
9

It says: Link the hell out of them by any means necessary so they can pay their share of the internet bill.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
10

8 - For friends, I try to give disclosure. I'm lazy with housemates, assuming you all know the deal.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
11

Also, I redacted 1, Timbot.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
12

If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."

So, so smart. So friggin' obvious. The average dude who isn't part of an extremist group but is okay with them is probably okay with them because they're providing food and water and protection.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
13

The average dude who isn't part of an extremist group but is okay with them is probably okay with them because they're providing food and water and protection.

You know, the frustrating thing about this is that it's not like it's a new insight. I remember doing a paper in college on the history of Islamist movements in various MENA countries (more than 10 years ago!), and every single source I read made EXACTLY THIS POINT.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
14

the frustrating thing about this is that it's not like it's a new insight

Good lord, yes. Or rather, no, it's not. Extraordinarily frustrating to read, say, accounts of 70s-era foreign policy mistakes and see so clearly that for some-odd decades now, you'd think we had amnesia.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
15

13: It's obvious to people who don't study history but just pay attention to, like, the news.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
16

12–15: And yet Spaq's piece represents a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 3:59 PM
horizontal rule
17

15: Absolutely. A lot of the sources I was reading were things like articles in Newsweek.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
18

I don't see how even the "national greatness" types could argue against the policies as spelled out in the article. This is the kind of thing that keeps me thinking that I may even vote for this guy.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 4:49 PM
horizontal rule
19

John Derbyshire, ladies and gentlemen!


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
20

You know, the frustrating thing about this is that it's not like it's a new insight.

Indeed. OTOH, when you're dealing with people who haven't quite reconciled themselves to the Magna Carta....


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
21

18: Careful, now. This atricle represents just the kind of reasonable argumentation that the Antichrist would use to ensnare us. Probably best to stick with the confused, old white guy.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
22

And so does the "article". ... furrfu!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
23

Damn, I knew there was a catch. Confused old white guy it is!


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
24

Crooked Timber has picked up Apo's Obama Anti-Christ meme, 3 1/2 years late. At my URL.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
25

19: I know I've damaged my credibility around here by evincing too much understanding for deplorable right-wingers, but I have to confess to a certain sympathy for J. Derbyshire.

For one thing, I appreciate his disarming honesty. He is the true voice of the Tory Id, unpolluted by any scruple or fidelity to the GOP talking points of the day. In that sense, he provides a valuable public service, much as Grover Norquist does w/r/t Republican thinking on fiscal policy.

For another thing, when I read his denunciations of homosexuality, I infer with a certain confidence that he was mercilessly buggered by older boys at his English boarding school. His palpable disgust at the thought of acts of sodomy shows the finely textured detail of a man who has been an unwilling participant in anal/oral penetration.

Because he loathes the American culture of the therapeutic self-revelation, we will probably never get to read accounts of these experiences in the pages of The Corner. But hopefully one day someone will write the appropriate Derbyshire slash fiction (from an appropriately sympathetic perspective, naturally), so that The Derb might finally come to be at peace with himself and his past.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
26

24: I feel kinda bad for the wingnut Domer. Here he is, posting in the college paper at age 30 or 31, trying to be 'new' and 'shocking', only to repeat a three-year-old Internet joke.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
27

Crooked Timber has picked up Apo's Obama Anti-Christ meme, 3 1/2 years late

Publication turnaround times are long in academia, John. It's one of the reasons for tenure.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
28

"The Wingnut Domer" would be a good name for a blog.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
29

26: In the piece itself, WD laments that he has been late to the party in his other attempts to write about Obamabub.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-24-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule