First of all, I haven't forgotten about my last post or the points everyone raised. I've been giving it all a lot of thought and am still chugging through things in my head--and should probably post more of those deliberations so it doesn't look like my brain only operates once every week or two.
Today, though, I am moved to blogging by a post on dKos, which links to this delightful bit of news from Kentucky:
Groups called RNC Not Welcome, Counter Convention, Shut It Down NYC and No RNC Clearinghouse are using the Internet to orchestrate a living hell for the 5,000 or so delegates and alternates coming to New York City for the Republican National Convention.
But my favorite part came at the end:
This sort of thing is nothing less than the gravest stupidity. Puerile, infantile shit-stirring masquerading as constructive activism, and indulged in by people who lack the imagination or sense to channel their efforts into something less likely to play right into the hands of the RNC. I've done real activism. I've walked streets and gone door to door, raised money and registered people to vote, and advocated for causes I believed in. I've been insulted, assaulted, and condemned as a traitor by those whose contempt for activists is such that they see no difference between legitimate, peaceful activism and this rubbish. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you're thinking about participating in this sort of disruptive nonsense, step back for a minute and think about it: What are you trying to accomplish? What is your goal? Do the results you desire (and your realistic chances of achieving them with these methods) outweigh the damage you will do to the legitimacy of your message? Are you comfortable knowing that your actions will be used against Kerry, against the Democratic Party, against liberals in general, and against everything you actually claim to fight for?
Reality check: if you think you're accomplishing anything except annoying a lot of people who are probably basically decent, and providing Bush and Rove and the SCLM with gift-wrapped photo ops and talking points, then you're delusional. Worse, you're the particular breed of delusional who does more harm to your cause than good, and should probably stay as far away from NYC as possible for the next week.
Show up. Make your voice heard. Stand up and be counted. But don't break shit, don't get violent, and don't think you're being clever or useful by thinking up quasi-legal ways to fuck with other people.
If you really want to make a difference, go home and put your money where your mouth is: vote.
...I think.
A shift has been occurring in my thinking over the last year, and it is one which I have only recently managed to quantify or describe--if only to myself.
Regular readers--all four of you--will no doubt have noticed that I haven't blogged for a while. It's certainly not for lack of time anymore; I work third shift in a NOC where I have roughly ten hours a night to vent my spleen in any way I choose. Nor is it for lack of news--the misadventures of the Bush administration and the eventfulness of the world provide no end of potential fodder.
No, the biggest reason is this: I have been undergoing an ideological crisis, questioning a great many of my assumptions and forcing myself to rethink cherished positions in the interests of intellectual honesty. And while this would seem to be great blogging fodder, the truth is that I haven't felt like subjecting myself to the kind of flogging that people like Andrew Sullivan get when they agonize publicly over their dearly-held beliefs.
I have long been a staunch liberal, pretty much across the board. In many ways, I still am, and that's unlikely to change: I'm extremely socially liberal (chances are my private life would curl your shorthairs and scorch your eyes), take a fairly dim view of organized religion, believe strongly in the right of gays to marry, and think that there is much good the government can accomplish that the private sector cannot or will not. I'm still outraged over Bush's theft of the 2000 election and scandalized that so many of the key players go unpunished. And I still find George W Bush to be the most abhorrent and dangerous American president in my lifetime, for reasons too many to enumerate.
But valid as I believe many of those reasons to be, I have become increasingly fed up with the dogged stupidity and partisan blindness of the reactionary left. It's not as if there's not a commeasurate amount of stupidity on the right--it's just that the left's stupidity is beginning to irritate me more because it undermines the credibility of things I hold dear, and threatens the security of the United States as much as the willful ignorance evident in Bush's policies.
The fact that something comes out of Bush's mouth or benefits Bush's re-election chances does not make it de facto wrong, but you wouldn't know that to listen to so much of the blogging left. Every setback in Iraq, every example of Muslim persecution, every bomb that goes off in a market is held up and trumpeted almost triumphantly, as if the fact that people dying and Iraq's continued slide into the next Afghanistan were a good thing simply because it vindicates their opinions of Bush and their predictions about what a colossal foxtrot-uniform invading Iraq would turn out to be.
I will name no names. This is not a callout to specific players on the left, nor am I interested in burning my bridges. I realize that some are genuinely trying to report the news that they find, and don't take any special glee in digging up yet another example of how Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket. But for those who have ever felt that twinge of "yay!" when you see something going wrong in Iraq because you realize it hurts Bush's re-election numbers--and for chrissake, be honest, how many of you haven't?--re-think your priorities, and be ashamed. I have, and I am.
I have long been a strong advocate for international law and institutions, and idealistically, I still am: I believe that civilized countries work best within a framework of multilateral cooperation, and that agreed-upon standards of civilized and lawful conduct between nations are a necessary ingredient for world stability and peace.
But much as my liberal idealism compels me to strive for the achievement of that aim, I have a strong streak of realism that has finally demanded I acknowledge uncomfortable truths: that uncivilized nations and stateless actors will not feel compelled to act within the constraints which civilized peoples have laid out for themselves. It has always seemed self-evident to me that gun control is of limited utility when criminals will always find a way to acquire banned weapons--why, then, do we suppose states and individuals inclined towards criminal acts on the international stage will be swayed by anything less than the credible threat of enforcement?
I speak here, mainly, of the United Nations Security Council, and of its rapidly dwindling relevance to ensuring safety and peace in the world. I speak from the heart here when I say that many on the left seem to regard the UN Charter as some sort of holy text, equal to the Constitution--and that the will of the UN and the conclusions of the Security Council are the first and last word on right and wrong in the conduct of nations. I've been guilty of this, too: I once wrote a long treatise on why the Iraq War was in violation of international law.
There are many reasonable arguments that can be made against the decision to invade Iraq, and there was indeed a campaign of relentless dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration in their attempts to sell it to the American people. But for those who think "international law" or the existence or wording UNSC resolutions are a serious argument for or against taking action, put it to the Clinton test: how did you feel about Bosnia? Rwanda? Considering the ability of any veto-wielding country to shut down a resolution authorizing action contrary to their own narrow interests, and given the historical abuse of that veto by Russia, France, and the US to do just that, is the question of whether or not the use of military force is authorized by the UN truly a serious argument as to whether or not force should be used?
One would think the lessons of Rwanda and Bosnia would teach us otherwise.
Do not misunderstand: I am not advocating wholesale disregard for international law and treaty, nor am I defending the kind of hamfisted thuggery that it pleases the Bush administration to call "diplomacy". But when thousands of people are dying in wholesale slaughter, or an unstable regime poses a direct and unequivocal threat to our security, we must be able to say to the world: "We want to work with you, but we cannot stand by and do nothing."
It is through these and many other thoughts that I've come to an uncomfortable realization: I'm starting to drift, ideologically, into the territory of those I once disparagingly referred to as "neoconservatives". On fiscal policy, I'm pretty much right in the center: I tend to think government should stay out of the lives of the people as much as possibile, but I think there are things that the private sector is unable to do as well, or (as in the case of business and corporate regulatory policy) unwilling to do in a way beneficial to the whole. I am, as I pointed out above (and as anyone who knows me will attest) extremely socially liberal. But over time I've been drifting further and further rightward into hawkish territory on foreign policy. I'm not sold on the wisdom or morality of toppling regimes to achieve geopolitical advantage (we have a fairly dismal track record at that), but I do think there is truth to the notion that democratization in the Middle East will produce salutory results in terms of our security, is necessary in order to remedy the social and cultural conditions that allow Islamist terrorism to flourish, and is ultimately the morally right thing to do. And there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement about the proper means for doing so.
More to come as I continue to think this through. This is an ongoing process.