I had the fortune to find the weblog of Ethan Zuckerman after PopTech! Since then I like to check in on it and found myself responding to his blog. The comments below are mine followed by his response. He seems to be someone with very different views (I prefer to call them conclusions, since our fundamental desires and values are probably close) who can carry on a reasoned conversation. As I mention later to him, "This is one reason I enjoy some blogs - I get to connect with people who seem reasonable but may have very different perspectives.".
>
Nice post - and if I lived closer I too would show up (but a 10 hour drive is a bit much).
I like your consideration that we aren't really red and blue states - but varying shades of purple (mostly).
And I like many of the comments here - listening and reasoning is a great activity - it prevents us from casting people as types.
In lieu of chatting in a bar - here are my reasons for voting for Bush and comments on others' comments.
1) I believe the war in Iraq needed to be fought and fought now. For me first because of humanitarian reasons (to stop the butchery and to free the children, women and men from tyranny); second because Iraq was destabilizing the world (support of many terrorists and their causes); and the war and victory is a major strategic victory of our age (against rogue regimes everywhere who were tolerated and now put on notice ala Libya).
2) I believe that the war was a success when you look at most other wars in history. The winning of the peace is hard and the loss of life is grievious, but less so than other wars such as WWII and the costs and effort of rebuilding Germany. While Bush could do better with winning the peace, it is not the tragedy that it is made out to be. Thomas Barnett's analysis (justifying Iraq and GWOT) is deep and also shows that it is the institution of the American military which must change and will take time - I believe that the process of building a peace force 'sys-admin' is beginning.
3) The Kerry 'base' or super 'Left' is everything it accuses the 'Right' of being and although I believe Kerry could have done a good job, I doubt he could have resisted the pressures of the 'Left' to follow their agenda.
Some examples: (The book references are for people who want deeper understanding about an issue not because that is where I was 'brain washed' - my opinions come from personal experience.)
I consider the Left to be anti-Semitic. (See Dershowitz "Case for Israel" book.)
I consider the Left to be racist, preferring to foster the spurious idea that we live in a racist society and desire to keep African Americans living in a state of perpetual victimhood (See Ben Stein "Can America Survive" book.)
The Left is anti-woman, preferring to run an agenda rather than support respect for women such as women who want to raise children and stay at home or women who abhor abortions or women who are religious. (See Tammy Bruce "Thought Police" book or anything she says.)
The Left desires socialism - often using deception to mask that fact. Socialism (at a government level) leads to some of the worst cases of deprivation of liberty (See Russell Roberts "Invisible Heart" or P.J. O'Rourke "Eat the Rich" books.)
I do admit that socialism works well in a small scale (family, village, even Corporations) where everyone knows each other.
4) The rabid attacks by the likes of Michael Moore, Gore and even Carter were too much. They were preposterous and Kerry gave his tacit approval (such as sitting by while Whoopi Goldberg hurled the worst filth - Bill Clinton has the good sense to censure Sista Souljah). I heard the accusations, most didn't come accross as true. Accusing Bush of 'lying' is one of those - a rational person might agree that he was misled. The accusations of vicious attacks by Bush didn't withstand simple reasoning or was not evident. (I chalk it up to common political rhetoric - not worth bothering about. We can disagree on our viewpoints because we get their through different reasoning - but that is no reason to slander people.)
Are our core values the same? It seemed to me that many in the Democratic camp sacrificed honesty, civility and reason in order to gain power.
A bad recipe that does not get my vote.
Stuart Berman • 11/4/04; 8:19:15 PM
Stuart - Thanks very much for your reasoned response. Rather than a point by point retort - a debate tactic, rather than the conversation over a beer I've been hoping for - let me offer two points of common ground. I also regret that the campaign was as personal as it was. While I personally don't like Bush, having the campaign degenerate to the "Bush is a liar" level does nothing to further conversation or discourse. Shame on all of us, on the left and the right, for falling to that level. It's just too easy - the issues are real, complicated and demand that we put our emotions aside long enough to have conversations.
Second point of common ground - I'm a huge Thomas Barnett fan, and think his analysis is some of the most useful thinking being done today. I watched him speak to a largely blue-state group a few weeks back, and he won over at least 2/3rds of the crowd with his creative pragmatism.
Thanks for posting.
Ethan Zuckerman • 11/4/04; 8:56:08 PM
Recent Comments