My (polite) gripe with one of the Clark arguments

[HFishbine]

When Clark supporters posit that the electorate is going to look for someone who can present a better alternative to fighting the war on terror, and that Clark would embody that more than any other dem, I have a problem. Here it is.

One of the things I repudiate about the Bush administration is not just the man himself, but the paridigm they've created. As Carol Moseley Braun (and others) have noted, Bush et al work to foster a climate of fear. It works to their advantage. They lie, distort, and dissemble in order to let, or sometimes encourage, fear to motivate support for their extremeists policies. What I'm hearing from Clark supporters is that Clark could better capitalize on the climate of fear than other Dems.

But hold on. I refuse to play on an artificial field. You might call me naive (and some probably will), but I'm not ready to capitulate to the Bush world view.

I want to live in a country where policy is oriented toward a future of optimism and hope founded on our proven abilities to think, create, and dream; not a world where policy is guided out of fear and mistrust relying on blind nationalism, rhetoric, and an eyes wide shut view of our neighbors and the world.

There may well be other good reasons why Clark should merit serious consideration, and I'm keeping an open mind. But the argument that Clark can better manage a Bush paridigm doesn't cut the mustard. I won't be jumping aboard the Clark train if the plan is to beat Bush at his own game.

[pruner]

1. very well said

n/t

[Pepperbelly]

2. How about this?

"Terrorism is a multilateral problem. You cannot defeat it in one nation. You need international police work, teamwork, international harmonization of laws against terror, a whole series of things. You act unilaterally; you lose the commitment of your allies to make it work. That's the one thing that will kill you in the war on terrorism."

"Much of the terrorist network draws support and resources from within countries friendly or allied with us. And here there are very real limitations to the use of American military force. What we really need are closer alignments... Through greater legal, judicial, and police harmonization, we need to make the international environment more seamless for us than it is for the international terrorists we seek."


Doesn't sound to me as though Wesley is buying into ANY of Bush's crap. And there is no denying that now, after Whistle-ass's bungling more than ever, there are terrorists in the world that mean to do harm to you and me. I like Wesley's vision of dealing with it.

Wesley's paradigm is far different from Whistle-ass's or the neo-cons.

[HFishbine]

3. With All Respect, You Confirm My Concern

What you quote is simply Clark's alternative for going after the evil-doers. If anything, it reinforces my concerns as stated above.

What about changing the whole paridigm? What about working to create a country and a world where we are no longer so despised that we don't even have to worry about being the target of terrorists; or have you swallowed so much of the Bush fear snake oil that you think that is an impossibility?

[Pepperbelly]

16. Do not be ...

condescending.

In case you did not realize it, whether you or I like it or not, historical policies and the historical imperative have created a climate in which terrorism florishes. Whistle-ass's crazed invasions have exacerbated the problem, turning Iraq into fertile fields of hatred and anger. The Holy Land languishes in the same condition, violence breeding violence.

Hell, yes ... every sane person would prefer a world in which that did not exist. But merely wishing it that way does not create it nor have I heard ANONE make any suggestion regarding how to ameliorate the problems that lead to terrorist actions and somehow destroy the roots of terrorism.

So where does that leave you, my condescending friend? What is your proposal?

Abandoning Israel is not the answer. Why? Because then the Kurds still have issues, the Kosovars have issues, the Irish have issues, the Japanese have issues. There is no end to it that I can see.

So dazzle us with your acumen and tell me what we should do.

[HFishbine]

18. My Goodness

I wasn't being condescending. I was merely pointing out how your views reinforce my concerns, that's only condescending if you're insecure of your position and/or unwilling to give some thought to mine.

You make my point again in this post (and it's not being condescending to point that out -- merely expedient.)

You wrote: "nor have I heard ANONE make any suggestion regarding how to ameliorate the problems that lead to terrorist actions and somehow destroy the roots of terrorism."

Exactly! Give me a candidate who has the answer and I'll vote for him or her.

In my opinion, being as polite as I can be on a keyboard, you typify exactly what I'm talking about: that Bush has so embued our national thinking with fear, that it seems impossible to even contemplate an alternative to confrontation. The fact that you write ""there is no end to it that I can see," is a condition of the disease.

There must be an end to it. One way or another, there will be.

[Pepperbelly]

26. delightfully ...

quick to sidestep I note, even though I withdraw my condescending label if I was mistaken.

However, that still leaves us exactly ... nowhere.

The hard fact is that there are many people who have or believe that they have grievances against one country or group or another. Wishing it was not that way does not change anything. Whether you want to ascribe it to a Bushlovian paradigm or not, there is and has always been a need to protect our country and make it safe. I suppose that we could click our heels together three times and wish it not so but I do not think that will be particularly successful.

Do you think that there are no terrorists in the world? Do you think that the country should protect itself from terrorists IF you agree that terrorists exist?

I am sorry but I believe you position to be nonsensical.

[HootieMcBoob]

29. I don't have the exact quotes but...

I encourage you to go to the different sites that feature clarks speeches and media appearances. I think digitalclark.com might be one. I've heard him speak many times and the substance of his speeches are precisely what you mention above. He says that we are much safer when the rest of the world looks toward us as a source of what they can aspire to. How much we need allies. How we are in deep shit right now because of the chimp's horrible diplomatic skills. He would not have gone into Iraq in the first place but now that we're there, he's the one person with the skill to get us out properly. I think the people who have these questions about Clark just haven't listened very closely to what the man has to say.

[Donna Zen]

31. He's giving a major foreign policy speech 9/19

If you check a draftclark website they have his Seton Hall address from 5/2002. He puts forward that bombs are not the answer. He sees America's strength as 3 fold: Economy, the People, and the Military...he doesn't see the military as the most important.

“The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets…It’s not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It’s really going to be found in changing the conditions. It’s going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy… Our best protection is not going to build a wall around America. It’s not going to be to create a missile-defense impenetrable shield. It’s going to be, instead, to create a community of common values and shared responsibilities and shared interests in which nations and people get along. That really is ultimately the only protection.”

http://www.temple.edu/cenfad/strategicvisions-3-1.html

[Avalux]

4. HFishbine, if you think

Clark will capitalize on the current climate of fear and take over as fearmonger then you haven't spent any time listening to him or reading about him. You've got it backwards. Clark's experience, knowledge and vision will enable him to use diplomacy to solve international problems instead of using a heavy hand. He's all about dialogue and debate, moving forward, understanding, ideas.

You said this:
"I want to live in a country where policy is oriented toward a future of optimism and hope founded on our proven abilities to think, create, and dream; not a world where policy is guided out of fear and mistrust relying on blind nationalism, rhetoric, and an eyes wide shut view of our neighbors and the world."

If that's the kind of country you want to live in, then listen to Clark. The two of you think alike.

[HFishbine]

6. Okay

I am listening. It's a message I desperately want to hear and if you're right, I'll vote for Clark in a heartbeat. My commentary was directed at one of the arguments I've seen supporters make here -- that Clark would have greater appeal to a frightened electorate, and that is contrary to what I'm hoping for. But, I'll give Clark a chance for sure to paint his own views.

[quaker bill]

5. I agree

But, if a combat decorated 4 star liberal is the only way to get it done, count me in.

Clark seems a very intelligent man. He is articulate. He speaks with seemingly meaningful concern for important social issues.

He completes his thoughts as well as his sentences. (in contrast to GWB)

Government exists, in part, to promote our national security. He has credibility in this regard.

But he also seems to understand the critical point, that we are more secure having strong relations with our friends and allies (and perhaps making more of them) than we can ever become by making more weapons.

I like them all better than Bush. I have sent money to some and am likely to send more.

Clark deserves a shot at it.

[RichM]

7. "But we're little helpless victims; only a big strong soldier can save us"

I completely agree with you. I've made the same point repeatedly, if somewhat less politely.

The Clark candidacy rests on accepting many aspects of the rightwing view of the world.

It plays on the idea that in times of trouble, we should naturally look to the military for solutions. It emphasizes the prestige of the military; enhances its stature, even while exploiting its stature.

It's also infantilizing. It sends the message to the public: You should vote for this guy, because he's a big famous general. His specific program is not emphasized; that's made distinctly secondary. The selling point is 98% that he's a general, & 2% that he's expressed some modestly liberal positions.

I would like an America where I heard about the military less, not more. I don't want it front & center. I don't want it looked to in times of trouble. I want its funding cut & the Pentagon investigated. Nominating Clark -- even if he personally is a nice chap who, unlike most military guys, is not a right wing nut -- is going to lead to yet more militarization of the national culture.

[diplomats]

14. Why don't you wait until he actually declares

and find out what he thinks about all these issues? As usual, you're insulting and falsely stereotyping people who support Clark. I'm not aware of a single Clark supporter on DU who bases his or her support "98 percent" on the fact Clark is a retired general. That's total crap. (BTW, I hope you realize the vast majority of voters have no interest in cutting the Pentagon budget two years after we suffered the biggest terrorist attack in history. You're entitled to your opinion, but in the post-9/11 world such a political stand by a Dem candidate would be political suicide).

[dfong63]

28. bravo

[G_j]

41. even when you leave Clark out of the discussion

the fear paradym exists in the way many of us view the coming election.
..being so scared of Bush that people go with candidates primarily who they think can "beat Bush" rather than choose them based on if their policies would be best for the country. That mind set really depresses me and I won't accept it.

The original post brings up some important points.

give me hope and inspiration, not fear

How often are good decisions made based on fear?

[wndycty]

8. I think Will Pitt the other week talked about the "I"

You know, what "I" want, what you want. Like it or not, whether its Bush* and his fake war in Iraq, Al Queda or the war on terrorism, we live in country where an the majority of voters believe that the nation's security is the most important thing. Bush will seek to exploit this issue and if the Democrats don't take that issue off of the table he will win. By running Clark the Democrats not only take that issue away from Bush* they have a chance to redefine it.

If you have paid any attention to Clark he is too is is pissed that "policy is guided out of fear and mistrust relying on blind nationalism, rhetoric, and an eyes wide shut view of our neighbors and the world."

I encourage you to look at what Clark has said on many bedrock Democratic issues, you would find that he is more progressive than most people give him credit for.

[dfong63]

27. a bedrock dem doesn't take 6 months to tell us which party he's in

[newsguyatl]

9. i'm so glad you brought up this point

and articulated it so well...


it's been on my mind all day... and as well, it's the reason kerry has dropped next to last on my list after his carrier announcement, playing the war card and letting the bush cabal set the tone and climate...


your point is very well taken and one that will certainly be up for debate. and most likely, one that determine the outcome of this election.

[carpetbagger]

10. It sounds like you would benefit from a Clark candidacy.

You're pissed that the GOP's able to play this ridiculous game of "patriotism". I'm pissed. If you don't want to play the game, it would make sense to make the game a losing proposition for the GOP. If we can do this, the election becomes one about what to do about the problems, foreign and domestic, facing America.

From my perspective in the heart of Texas, Bush is still quite popular, but none of his supporters can really put their finger on why they like him, save for a few of my anti-abortion friends. It's purely about impressions and vague personality factors. I'm sure it's the same around the country, although I'm heartened that there are fewer know-nothings in most other places.

In an election about issues, we thrash them, and we thrash them if they don't compromise with us after the election, should they remain in the majority in Congress. Yeah, Clark will be demonized by the right, but the credibility factor will be less, and a repeat of 1992 is possible, where we kept pounding our vision, and all they could do is call us names, literally ("Bozo" comes to mind).

[theshadow]

12. I think the Right will have a harder time...

demonizing Clark than any other potential Dem candidate, don't you?

[carpetbagger]

25. They'll demonize anyone, but their boy won't shine so bright.

Bush has a number of things that give him a generic advantage, none of which have anything to do with running a government. I think Clark's got the personality to beat Bush among the 40% of voters who really have no clue whatsoever about what's going on.

That, by the way, is a hard pill to swallow. In person, I sound much more like Howard Dean than like any of the other candidates.

[theshadow]

11. Your goals and fighting terrorists can co-exist.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (George, Dick, Rummy, and John) are using the fight against terror as a means to justify varied and unsavory assaults on our freedom. The alternative isn't to sit back and do nothing. We can regain all of those wonderful characteristics that you brought up in your message, and which Bush has arrogantly squandered. I would hope that a person with intelligence, leadership skills, and ethics could do that while still guiding a course of action to defend ourselves from attack.

[KoKo]

13. Well, if he doesn't have a strong "Domestic Agenda" I don't know how he

can hope to run. He will be mowed down by the other contenders who have a track record we can look at as to how they will be stewards of our country domestically if they are elected.

The War.....isn't the only thing a President has to deal with. The Clark supporters (according to a thread of theirs I was just on).....don't seem to be able to articulate in" one paragraph" what Clark will do for our Domestic situation which Bush and his Supply Siders have put in peril. The Clark supporters keep asking me to link to Draf Clark sites to find out what he thinks.

So.........as I said on the other thread....it isn't all about who has the biggest or more attractive "cod piece" to display to Americans.......it's all that "other stuff that affects our daily lives" which is important also.....:-(

[diplomats]

17. KoKo, I believe someone provided links on another thread

about Clark's positions on issues.

[KoKo]

22. Could you maybe sum them up here.....?

Thanks. :-)'s

[Julien Sorel]

19. Maybe he should simply....

say... whatever he thinks.... :shrug: people want to .... hear .... :) .... at the .... time.... :( :shrug: and then change.... it as soon .... as .... he finds.... out it's politically.... un...popular :thumbsup:... it ... :shrug: .... seems to.... :toast: work.... for some.... candidates.... :evilgrin: :hippie:

[oregonjen]

15. That's not how I see it.

I don't think it capitolizes on fear. Clark has the ability to stand up to AWOL in a debate about character. As far as I am aware of, he can run circles around Bush's past. The republicans trash character. That is how they work. They cannot trash Clark's record. Clark however, can stand up to a stellar military record and be proud. I just hope that he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet. The repugs will find it and run.

[billbuckhead]

20. Clark may be able to stand up to the Military-Industrial complex.

Clinton and even Carter really had little control over the military. Let's face facts, Clinton had to appoint a Republican as Secretary of Defense. Most of our candidates would be in a similar position. Clark knows the defense department landscape like his hometown instead of like a map. He knows the people and not just the titles. Democrats must have a leader who can reform the military industrial complex or America will continue to swing toward the fascism defined by Mussolini. Remember that Eisenhour was the one who warned us about the military industrial complex. Just because someone was a military man doesn't mean they can't be a progressive.

[Pastiche423]

21. "They cannot trash Clark's record"

Like they couldn't trash Max Cleland's record? The combat hero that lost three limbs in Viet Nam?

Btw, who knows if Clark has the ability to stand up to whistle ass in a debate? He has yet to debate anyone. Plus, Dean has already proven he can.

[oregonjen]

23. In my eyes

In my silly stay-at-home works part-time mommy eyes, I want somebody in office that will bring back the country that I grew up in. I don't know where Clark stands on domestic issues. If he runs, I want to listen and then make a decision. However, as of right now, he is the best person to stand up to the neo-cons that have taken hostage what we all cherish. I will make my decision on who I think will be the biggest threat to the Bushies. Ousting them is the primary goal.

[billbuckhead]

24. They were able trash Max Cleland in Georgia, they couldn't do it in.....

most states. Democrats need to target states that aren't dominated by fundies and gun nuts. It's a narrow window but so are most beach heads.

[oasis]

30. The GOP forced unfair recall election in California. Think of Clark

as the Democrat's "Bustamante" on a national level. We need Clark as insurance to guard agianst four more years of Bush's failed domestic and foriegn policies.

[Mz Pip]

32. Just the opposite

No one is better suited to call BushCo on the climate of fear he has created. Clark has seen the worst of war. He knows what it is about and certainly would be a good judge of what is phony and disingenuous.

It's not about capitalizing on fear. It's about letting people know that all this fear mongering was opportunistic. That is a good thing in my mind.

MzPip
:dem:

[Dookus]

33. thanks for the ...

politeness.

Much appreciated in these candidate threads.

I will disagree with you. I think this is all based on a conflation of "military" with "militaristic", and I think that's entirely unfounded.

We now find ourselves under the most militaristic administration in a very long time (perhaps ever) and they're all chickenhawk civilians. Having a military background, it seems, is not necessary for being a hawk. In fact, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that people who've experienced war are reluctant to start new ones.

That being said, Clark can fight Bush on the issue of national security WITHOUT APPEARING WEAK. That's the key. ANY Dem candidate who has no military record is automatically at a disadavantage on issues of national security. It's unfair, yes, but it's the truth. Clark can propose EXACTLY the kinds of solutions we were all gung-ho for here on DU without appearing like an appeasing panty-waist.

A four-star general can work with the UN - can cooperate with France - can build an international coalition - WITHOUT giving the appearance of sacrificing our own safety or sovereignty. It's precisely BECAUSE he's a general that he can implement a progressive foreign policy, probably more progressive than Clinton's.

All of this is true because he will be immunized against the charge of being "weak on defense" which is the republican mantra against any Dem who thinks international cooperation is a good thing. A lot of centrists like Bush because they think he's "tough" - not because they agree with what he's doing. Well, Clark can do the opposite of Bush while appearing a helluva lot tougher.

And as I've said before, anybody who grew up in Arkansas and graduated first from West Point with a name like "Wesley" is pretty damned tough :)

[copithorne]

34. From what I've seen of Clark...

...he directly addresses the climate of fear that the country is in and calls on Americans to move forward from that. And the guy does it in such a reassuring way.

I think every candidate has to have a message about the meaning of 9/11 and our response to it. Clark has presented the strongest message and my own candidate, Dean, should look at how he does it.

[Dookus]

35. yup!

Clark won me over when he talked about the international outpouring of sympathy and support we received after 9/11 and how Bush squandered it.

Clark understands international relations. I don't know off the top of my head, but I would guess he's spent more time living abroad than any other President has - at least he's in the top 3.

W., like his father, squandered an amazing opportunity. When the Cold War ended, I felt we needed a REAL leader. Somebody who would articulate a policy for a post-cold-war world. Just like in Iraq, we had a plan to win the war, but no plan for the victory. Thus, we had no idea what to do with the world after the Cold War. This led to the problems in the former Yugoslavia, the degradation of the former Soviet Union, and most importantly, the distribution of WMD's to anybody with a high bid.

Bush41 blew the end of the Cold War. Bush43 blew the war on terrorism by insisting we do it alone.

[Democat]

36. It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the masses think

If Americans decide, based on Bush propaganda or their own real fear, that they want a strong military leader, then we have two options:

1. Offer one
2. Lose

Maybe it's not fair. Maybe it's not right. But if it is the issue that this next election comes down to, our only choice is to respond accordingly. There may be "better" candidates, or there may not, depending on who you ask, but we need a winning candidate.

We need to put winning above almost all else in 2004 or America is going to pay dearly.

I might be in the minority here, but I would vote for Joe Lieberman over Bush in a second. Why? Because we cannot let Bush win, no matter what.

[Dookus]

37. You're right....

And I don't think you're in the minority.

Plus, i suspect Clark will turn out a lot more liberal than Lieberman.

[Democat]

38. I think Clark will be a good candidate

I also think Dean would probably be a great candidate. We just can't ignore what voters want from a president during the "war on terror" that Bush has been promoting nonstop. Iraq is not going away for a long time, no matter who gets elected.

It has been said here before, if Clark can't beat Dean, then he doesn't deserve the nomination. I think that's a fair statement.

I suspect Clark will become the front runner in a short amount of time.

[Dookus]

40. of course that's right....

to me, it's self-evident.

I like Dean, though nobody believes me because I prefer another candidate. I think Clark has almost identical policies to Dean, but Clark has the added benefit of being a 4-star general. He also has a better demeanor under pressure and a cooler presence on camera. I agree that Clark, if he decides to run, will jump to the front of the pack before the first primary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. "It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the masses think."

Bingo....

"We must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

-Edmund Burke

National security/the war against terrorism will be a threshhold issue in the 04 election. If you don't believe me look what happened in 02 when * successfully diverted the attention of the American people from a weak economy to troble abroad...

Also, Hank Fishbine presents a false dichotomy... It is possible to fight terrorism while addressing it's root causes... * is working hard on the former while ignoring the latter...

A prudent anti-terrorism policy would try to stop terrorism while addressing it's root causes which include:

finding a just solutiion to the Israeli-Palestinian problem

(and)

respecting the sovereign rights of the Arab and Muslim people

I think some of Bin Laden's grievances against the west are so fundamental as to be non negotiable but that's for another thread...

[HFishbine]

42. Thanks everyone

for your considered replies. I have a better understanding of the Clark appeal now. What I see now, that I didn't before, is that Clark presents an opportunity to take the security debate "off the table." That's legitimate.

Now, if he combines his experience with an optimistic view of a hopeful future, one that repudiates Bush's climate of fear, and gives credence to progressive policies, Clark will indeed be a compelling candidate for this voter.

Thanks again.