- Bryan Caplan bemoans the fact that the anti-war movement isn't more pacifist. I think it's to their credit that they're not. He also tries to make it a partisan issue... I think that case is somewhat weak, although I suppose it's understandable if you think all anti-war movements should be pacifist. I have a comment on the post.
- Arnold Kling makes a point I've often made on here: health reform should have had a much more substantial dose of federalism.
- Jonathan Levin wins the John Bates Clark Medal.
- A question - has anyone read Tullock's The Organization of Inquiry? What did you think?
Posts
His point was that Johnson did not face protests nearly as severe as those that Nixon did.
ReplyDeleteThere is most definitely a significant partisan element to war protests; just as there is with any foreign policy area the public pays attention to.
ReplyDeleteIt would be better if they were more pacifist; it would help in taking down much of the edifice of the current warfare state.
I think the hard core anti-war movement that was active under Bush and is still active under Obama is essentially pacifist, but very liberal as well (for the most part - not entirely).
ReplyDeleteI think the rest of the anti-war movement that is not active under Obama (myself included) recognizes the significance of a major troop withdrawl, a re-emphasis on a far more just war, and a pull-back of the troops that remain from the major cities.
That's a real policy change that a lot of non-pacifists that were against the Iraq war (myself included) acknowledge and consider sensible.
I don't see a lot of evidence that partisanship has all that much to do with it. The ones that are no longer actively anti-war generally like the changes that have happened, and the ones that are still protesting are largely liberal and pacifist. Where is the partisan component Gary???? Certainly there's some partisanship for some people, but the broad strokes of the the trend in the anti-war movement has hewed fairly closely to ACTUAL policy changes.
I think the rest of the anti-war movement that is not active under Obama (myself included) recognizes the significance of a major troop withdrawl, a re-emphasis on a far more just war, and a pull-back of the troops that remain from the major cities."
ReplyDelete(a) There was already a major troop withdrawl underway under Bush after the 2006 election (so that is not something Obama did, so he gets zero credit for it - facts are rather amazing things).
(b) There has been no re-emphasis on a "more just war." The U.S. continues to torture people, we continue to put people into black holes into which they disappear, we continue the practice of rendition, we continue to kill civilians in Afghanistan in large part as a result of the use of aerial drones, etc.
(c) "That's a real policy change..."
Bullshit. What there has been is smoke and mirrors and willingness by those who opposed Bush to simply ignore all the reporting which has gone on that demonstrates that Obama has had little significance as far as military practice is concerned.
(d) "I don't see a lot of evidence that partisanship has all that much to do with it."
That really isn't that surprising Daniel.
(e) "The ones that are no longer actively anti-war generally like the changes that have happened..."
What changes pray reveal? You'd have to believe the self-serving Obama and Obamaphile rhetoric to think that changes have actually occurred. And you call me naive.
When it comes to Obama and foreign policy there is a lot of epistemic closure by most Democrats. Most Democrats like to avoid a lot of unpleasant facts about this Presidency, including of course his illegal and unconstitutional use of force against Libya. Obamaphiles are like Officer Barbrady from "South Park" - "nothing to see here, move along."
ReplyDeletere: "Bullshit. What there has been is smoke and mirrors and willingness by those who opposed Bush to simply ignore all the reporting which has gone on that demonstrates that Obama has had little significance as far as military practice is concerned"
ReplyDeleteNo Gary - not bullshit. A 75% reduction in troop levels started under Bush and continued under Obama, and a substantial reduction in the combat activities of the troops that remain is real. If that's bullshit to you I have to question how much you really care about justice, stability, and peace over there. You seem to care more about scoring your political points against the Republicans and the Democrats than you do about real change on the ground in Iraq for Iraqis. You may think it's bullshit, but I think it's major progress (not perfect yet) towards addressing the issues that were disconcerting for me from the very beginning of the war. Some pacifists for whom the very presence of U.S. troops are a problem are not happy, but I'm not a pacifist and to me it matters more what those troops are doing any why they're there.
"No Gary - not bullshit. A 75% reduction in troop levels started under Bush and continued under Obama, and a substantial reduction in the combat activities of the troops that remain is real."
ReplyDeleteA 75% reduction isn't a 100% reduction; thus it isn't any sort of real policy change (indeed, it is exactly the sort of thing that the architects of the invasion wanted in the first place - permanent bases in Iraq where a large number of U.S. personnel could be stationed). We remain there with permanent bases just as we do in South Korea and lots of other places. A real and significant policy change would be for the U.S. to withdraw all its forces from Iraq, all of its forces from Europe, etc. No, Obama is engaged in the same policy that every U.S. President has undertaken since Truman - America as "world cop," "keeper of the peace," as the essential nation - with the warfare state and military-industrial complex there to back that up. Backing away from that is not a pacifist agenda, BTW, it is just a very different way of engaging with the world than the current consensus in D.C.
Somewhat related...
ReplyDeleteBrian Doherty discusses the anti-war right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uHuu-a3FfU&feature=player_embedded#at=23