There's an implicit pretense here that the Republican Party remains coherent. The Southern Republicans stand pretty far, in revealed ideology, from the old line Republicans.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim at November 11, 2006 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

Parties shift over time. Isn't it strange to think that the party of Lincoln, once demonized and hated in the South, is now the darling of the South (though, an ever-so-slightly dented darling down there in this election --- even in the South the Democrats made some slight gains).

Anyone who claims you've always been a stealth Democrat, Greg, obviously hasn't been reading your blog for very long. I've been peeking in here over the years and I have always found your commentary quite cogent even when I disagreed with it --- and the fact that you would stay with Bush even in 2004 (as you say, gulp!) should be proof to anyone that your party loyalty runs VERY deep. I can still remember when you made your "if it turns out that X is the case, I'm going to get off this bus" comment (X did in fact turn out to be the case --- something to do with Abu Ghraib as I recall)... I think I and a number of others were thinking --- you're still on the bus? This broken-down bus with no wheels and an engine on fire?

I have been a lifelong Democrat but I've always tended towards the center. During Reagan I used to think here was a terrible President ... but Bush II has made Reagan, Bush I, and even Nixon seem like saints and geniuses by comparison. I mean, really --- pretty much every president in recent memory, no matter how I might have disliked them at the time, would be a tremendous relief after six years of this guy. I find myself waxing nostalgic about Goldwater at this point! That's how far it's gone!

There used to be an honest debate between the two parties in which there was some sort of modicum of agreement on what "America" was, even if there was a strong divergence in policy. Bush II has destroyed that, for some time, perhaps ... hopefully not forever.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 11, 2006 04:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

Very impressive of you to have supported Reagan as an eight year old!

Posted by: Rex at November 11, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

I assumed McCain did what he did with Bush/Cheney on torture so as not to be blamed for any GOP losses (and permanently destroy any chance to be President). Not exactly moral stedfastnest, but it a tactical retreat. Had he held his position, it would have changed nothing at the time. I think it would be more likely for McCain to act in abolishing torture if he won the Presidency than it would be for any Democrat to do it.

I am still not sure McCain will survive the primaries. If you check out the conservative straw polls, McCain is showing poorly. Rudy is doing great--but that is because many GOP and conservatives have not wrapped their heads around the fact that Rudy is socially reflects NYC attitudes about gun control, abortion, and other hot button tickets. I do not know his stand on torture--but my guess its pretty close to that of McCain's. McCain's best shot at being nominated is if the GOP thinks they will lose if he is not.

I am predicting a McCain-Rudy or McCain-Romney ticket for the GOP in 2008.

Posted by: Joe at November 11, 2006 05:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_markshea_archive.html#116321054953424688

Mark Shea expresses a lot of displeasure with Bush's torture positions.

Posted by: Joe at November 11, 2006 05:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

As for all the related poo-pooing I've espied of late of Brent Scowcroft (another predictable target as the Bush 41 restoration gains speed), as someone in love with coddling dictators . . .

Coincidentally, I just came across this article, linked from Matthew Yglesias's blog, by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/935lhpfm.asp?pg=2

'The [Baker-Hamilton] commission may argue that our goal in Iraq should be stability rather than democracy, as if the administration would not long ago have settled for stability if it could have found a way of achieving it.'

Posted by: David Tomlin at November 11, 2006 07:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

Okay, I get supporting the Republican in 1980 - 2000.

But why did you support Bush in 2004?

Surely the basic outline of the Bush administration that caused you to support the Dems this year were crystal clear in 2004? Oh, sure, there were lots more examples of every tendency, and each was pushed to further extremes. But the basic outline of incompetence, disrespect for the constitution, and on and on, seemed perfectly clear.

Have you written something that might explain your thinking on this? I'm genuinely curious. I get those who supported Bush in 2000 but were disillusioned by 2004, and I even (sort of) get those dead-enders who still support him. What seems puzzling is how one could be enough of a dead-ender to support him in 2004 but not so much as to keep one loyal in 2006.

Posted by: Stephen Frug at November 11, 2006 10:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, I don't have a serious problem with Bush One's foreign policy conduct, either, mostly.

But more to the point: why aren't you a Democrat? Isn't it funny that you're rooting for an increasingly rare rational republican needle in a haystack of belligerent antirationalists, but ignoring a democratic party built almost entirely on a tradition of equitable, sensible, realistic policy decisions?

It must be your opinions on domestic policy that keep you a rooted Republican, although again, I don't know why - you seem too intelligent to believe in "starving the beast" and supply-side economics as a sensible approach to an essentially just and prosperous society.

Posted by: glasnost at November 11, 2006 11:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

I consider the vote for Dems in this election as a vote for reason, not necessarily an reallignment of party affiliation. But, as many of the Republicans voted out were moderates, the far right conservatives may continue to set the Republican agenda. If this is the case, you may see on a long-standing basis a broader Democratic coalition, not just on foreign policy but on many domestic issues as well. On purely domestic issues I think you'll find that Democrats today are currently more open to honest debate, as this administration has opened their (my) eyes to the virtues of smaller government.

Posted by: Tim at November 12, 2006 12:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

One presumes that M. Belgravia has distaste for left economic policy that crops up with that party and dislikes the wooley headed naivete of the same Left in FP. To understand that Right Bolsheviks took over a center right party does not mean one has to love wooly headed fools.

On the other hand, when he wrote this about the Euro press in 03, he was himself a fool. There was much evidence for those who wanted to look (although the shrieking of the Left and its hysterics of course did not help one focus).

Regardless, chin up mate, the Right Bolsheviks are their own kind of wooley headed idiots.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at November 12, 2006 12:42 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

Thought you would appreciate this quote, from Thomas Jefferson:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300

Posted by: Matt at November 12, 2006 02:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Seriously, Greg, what part of Bush 1 diplomacy and statecraft did you find most impressive; Cancelling the elections in Algeria, which
gave the GIA an excuse to wage a decade long insurgency. letting
the Iraqi Shia have their own taste of the Anfal campaign against
the Kurds, Scowcroft toasting the butchers of Tienanmen, six months after it happened. Allowing the Lebanese people to be
sold out to Syria, in the Taif accords, (Mssrs Brahimi and Bandar
were party to that; the former also devised the unwieldy electoral system that Iraq labors under) in exchange for the absolution
for their part in Pan Am 103. I'm sure I've forgetten some great
move that made the world love us a little more, but I think I've
covered the basics here. Bringing about that fraud in Madrid, which
led to the legitimization of Arafat in Oslo, there's another prize to consider. I hear James Webb, among others want us to talk with
the Iranian mullahs and the Syrian foreign nomeklatura in order
to settle the Iraq matter. I'M sure they can find another Baathist
retread to hold the nation together; like that figurehead they found
for the Fallujah brigade, who allowed the place to become jihad
central. After all, we never really went after them for the bombings
on the Corniche, and the other consular locations, as well as the
Beirut airport marine barracks; bygones be bygones, et al.

Posted by: narciso at November 12, 2006 03:42 AM | Permalink to this comment

>>(lest we forget, he nailed Iraq and how it would play out pretty solidly before the war in the pages of the WSJ, didn't he)?

For chrissakes, Greg. Scowcroft has said that about nearly every military action for the last 15 years. There's a reason Andrew Sullivan used to give out the Scowcroft Award for egregiously bad predictions about the Afghan War. You keep saying the same thing about every military action, you're bound to eventually get something right. Scowcroft and other realists have been wrong far more often than they have been right. In recent years realists have become almost completely unwilling to do anything. They downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism because they have no solution for it. (I spent enough time listening to professors at a school full of well known realists) They show no imagination in trying to prevent things from occuring, and only know how to play one role: that of damage control.

I like Bush 41 - and I like Jim Baker ok too. But they were wrong on Iraq in 91 - Gates even admitted this in recent years. They get credit for "managing" the democratization of Eastern Europe. But too often people make it out as if this is proof of some great love and respect for the transformative powers of democracy on behalf of the Bush team. ("Scowcroft doesn't dismiss democracy - look at Eastern Europe".) The reality is that Eastern Europe was going democratic after the fall of the Soviet Union whether the Bush team liked it or not. The fact that they successfully managed that transition in no way implies that they believe in the changing power of democracy. In fact, Bush and company actually tried to prevent certain areas of the former Soviet Union from going in the same direction. Simply put, I'm not a fan of Scowcroft. I don't think he coddles dictators because he's evil. I think he just adheres to an ideology that promotes extreme cynicism above all else - even when its not warranted - and doesn't seem to be aware of the backlash that often comes from this cynicism.

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2006 04:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

"There's a reason Andrew Sullivan used to give out the Scowcroft Award for egregiously bad predictions about the Afghan War."

So how's that Afghan war been going lately?

Posted by: Jon H at November 12, 2006 05:27 AM | Permalink to this comment

Some realists supported the Afghan war (the Cato Institute folks, for example). I do think there's a strange tendency, however, for people to become enamored of specific foreign policy theories, rather than applying ideas from multiple perspectives and deciding which approach works in which case. I'm a Democrat who is generally opposed to unnecessary war --- and I tend to think the realists had the right idea on this Iraq war --- but I don't agree with the realists' Machiavellian tendencies --- sometimes going to war for ethical or moral reasons is better in the long run. Not always. It depends.

For that reason, I supported the Gulf War, I even thought Bush could have gone in and taken out Saddam then (because the world opinion was ripe for that -- at the time). I read an Iraq expert who really understood the situation on the ground who had the same opinion --- Bush 1 might have suceeded in getting rid of Iraq in 91, but by the time Bush 2 got around to it --- it was too late. Times change, situations change --- thinking has to change.

I supported the Kosovo operation, I supported the Afghan war, but I was vehemently opposed to this Iraq war. I find it odd that there are so few people who called it this way --- most of the people who thought Iraq would be a disaster also thought the same about previous wars. Strangely, there were some "liberal hawks" in favor of THIS war who were opposed to Desert Storm and Kosovo --- the relative success of those wars, idiotically, changed their opinions about war "in general" apparently, and they swung around to support this one.

What is up with that? War is neither always a mistake (though it is always regrettable in some sense), nor is it always a good idea. It depends on the circumstances of the very specific case. We shouldn't get mired down in dogma, allegiance to a specific theory or party or ideology --- look at the situation as it is, with an open mind, and figure it out. It takes intelligence and a willingness to see a new situation for what it is: a new situation.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 12, 2006 06:37 AM | Permalink to this comment

Correction --- I meant getting rid of the Iraqi government in 91! Not "getting rid of Iraq" ... although Bush 2 may well have succeeded in getting rid of Iraq by the time he's done...

Posted by: Mitsu at November 12, 2006 06:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

"I did end up supporting Reagan in '80/'84, Bush 41 in '88 and '92, Dole in '96, and Bush 43 in 2000 and (gulp) 2004."-Gregory Djerejian

Reagan was a southwestern conservative, Bush 41 part of the patrician northeast and Dole was a protege of Nixon.
Your vote for Bush in 2000 confirmed the republican party as a southern party. Congress being southern since 94'. Political parties reflect temperment, and regional temperment more than ideology.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken

Posted by: DonkeyKong at November 12, 2006 08:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

This is building into an interesting argument, though strangely, building from an irrelevant question about Greg's party allegiances. My impression of Bush 41's foreign policy was that it generally derived from a Realist understanding that when you are a satisfied power and global power shifts are moving your way, you ought to make as few waves as possible. Realism doesn't always call for passivity, though. As I recall, there was pretty broad support for the Afghan war, only the anti-impreialst left fringe and the isolationist right fringe really opposed. And quite right too.

Posted by: matt at November 12, 2006 08:12 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, realists like Mearsheimer thought the Afghan war would not succeed (he even wrote that he felt the Northern Alliance wouldn't be able to achieve victory). On the other side, I have left-wing friends who were opposed to the Gulf War, Kosovo, the Afghan war, AND this Iraq War. (I should point out, however, that very few of them espouse the sort of extreme views that right-wing folks often ascribe to them, i.e., "surrender to the terrorists" or anything of the sort --- they want to win, too, but they do tend to be more uniformly antiwar than I am).

Pragmatic centrists seem to have been the only ones to have called it the way we did --- the first three of these had a good chance of success (although one must note that the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan, partly through lack of attention from us), and the last had little or no chance of success. What is the foreign policy theory of pragmatic centrism? I suppose it boils down to: regardless of what your ideology, party, or theory tells you, reality has a way of kicking you in the ass if you aren't paying attention. Every situation is complex and multifaceted, and what worked before might not work the next time --- what failed before might not fail the next time. It depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes intervention is a bad idea, sometimes it can work. There are no universal magic rules that can give you the answer --- you have to do the hard work of looking at the particular situation, and do your best to predict the outcome. It includes not only military factors but political --- and that's what I've found so absurd about this administration --- the fact that they fail to understand that war is political. If you go in illegitimately with made-up rationales, then you're going in with a vast disadvantage. It matters WHY you go in, and why other people think you're going in. Insufficient justification is a military liability of huge proportions, and that's a factor that we pragmatists take into account, and ideologues frequently miss.

Greg here has shown that he has the soul of a pragmatist but he had perhaps a too generous supply of party loyalty (contrary to these skeptical emails he's been getting). It was evident he could see what most of us saw --- Bush's policy in Iraq was melting down --- but he voted for Bush anyway in 2004, despite the defection of some of his Republican peers (most famously, Andrew Sullivan, of course, but a number of others as well as we all remember). I hope, however, he, and the rest of the world, can learn a valuable lesson about the virtues of pragmatism from this episode --- when your rationality conflicts with your party loyalty: go with your rationality. Party loyalty won't save you when reality comes knocking.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 12, 2006 11:44 AM | Permalink to this comment

I wonder whether the theory of pragmatism applies the same in other areas?

Every situation is complex and multifaceted, and what worked before might not work the next time --- what failed before might not fail the next time. It depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes murder is a bad idea, sometimes it can work. There are no universal magic rules that can give you the answer --- you have to do the hard work of looking at the particular situation, and do your best to predict the outcome. It includes not only technical factors but social --- and that's what I've found so absurd about this administration --- the fact that they fail to understand that murder is social. If you murder illegitimately with made-up rationales, then you're murdering with a vast disadvantage. It matters WHY you murder, and why other people think you're murdering. Insufficient justification is a liability of huge proportions, and that's a factor that we pragmatists take into account, and ideologues frequently miss.

Yes, it fits. When you kill somebody and the neighbors all think he had it coming, it isn't nearly so serious. But when you kill somebody because you want his guitar or his house or his pocket change, they'll be much less sympathetic. You have to look at the specifics. There's no universal magic rule.

This is all quite true and I agree with it, but when I said it in high school the counselor told me I was a psychopath and I learned to keep my mouth shut.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 12, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

As someone who thinks proclaimed affiliation with any one set of beliefs makes one an ideologue and therefore better suited to defending a god's
ostensible existence to infidels rather than writing pithy commentary on the peculiar relations governing the two - I find charges of apostasy somewhat absurd and beside the point.

Which is why I suppose in learning that you voted for Bush in 2004 I wonder if politics is just not able to abide reasonable opinions: given the
limited choices not voting for either candidate in 2004 would have been the reasonable thing to do but then I suppose that reveals the incoherence underlying the process - and I guess in that sense charges of apostasy start to make an absurd sort of sense.

Posted by: saintsimon at November 12, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

Just to let you know, posts like this ("Yes, I'm really a Republican, but the party left me so now I'm rooting for the Democrats") are extremely boring. And you aren't going to persuade the die-hard Republicaner that you're really and truly a Republican, anyway. So why bother trying?

Just to remind you, there are other parties. You don't have to choose between Republican and Democratic candidates. You can choose not to vote for either Republican or Democrat. Or, you can do what I did. Prior to 1980, I generally voted Republican (yes, even after Nixon's defalcations). But after I learned during the Reagan administration (obviously before your time) that the Republicans would talk a good conservative game, but would pretty much botch up everything, I voted for a third party candidate, or, if none was available, I would write somebody's--anybody's--name in. I usually chose the Libertarians, but pretty much any other candidate would do. It was a protest vote, of course, but it was better than voting for Republicans. Or Democrats such as Bill "snake oil salesman" Clinton.

Posted by: raj at November 12, 2006 02:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

uniquely reckless

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 12, 2006 03:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

raj--

What's your objection to Clinton? In policy terms, that is?

Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 12, 2006 03:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

Jay Ackroyd at November 12, 2006 03:46 PM |

What's your objection to Clinton? In policy terms, that is?

DADT and DOMA are the primary ones--but I have a personal interest in those measures. And, recall that, after Clinton signed DOMA, he advertised the fact of his signing it on Christian radio stations during the 1996 campaign. I might bring up his support for NAFTA, but that's a bit complex in a comment thread.

I totally opposed his getting the US involved in Bosnia and Kosovo even under the auspices of NATO, because it turned what was intended to be a defensive alliance--NATO (note Article 5 of the NATO treaty)--into an offensive one, without a Congressional ratification of the implicit amendment. I will never forgive him for that.

Quite frankly, given my southern upbringing, I could tell that Clinton was a a snake-oil saleman fairly early on during the 1992 campaign. And nothing since has changed my mind.

Posted by: raj at November 12, 2006 07:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

raj: The problem with the "third party option" is it isn't an option at all in our system. It essentially boils down to not voting, which is perfectly fine if you really think there's no difference between the two camps. If we had a parliamentary system or even a runoff system, voting third party might make sense --- but otherwise, if you want to influence policy, you have to choose between the two most likely candidates who can win. Note that this isn't always the Democrat and the Republican --- Green Party candidates have occasionally won local elections, and in CT and VT, neither major party candidate won. But --- if the third party candidate has no chance, then there's literally no point in voting third party in our system.

No politician is going to advocate the optimal policy in every situation. No politician will agree with every position. The question is, which politician will do the most harm to the country? I don't look for optimal government, I look for non-disastrous government. Clinton gave us that, and a balanced budget, and aggressive efforts to secure the country (they stopped the New Year's bombing of LAX, for example). Not perfect, sure, and he also signed things he probably didn't even believe in to score political points --- but at least he was on top of policy, he knew the details, he paid attention, he was smart.

>psychopath

Like I said --- I'm a pragmatist --- there are many factors to consider in every situation. If people think someone "has it coming to them" but you act as a vigilante rather than go through the courts, then the long term consequences are a breakdown of civil order, for various obvious reasons. I think Bush 1, reviled as he was on both the right and the left, had it right when he decided to use the one due process system we have (flawed as it is), the UN, to decide to act against Saddam. Once the process was in motion he probably could have continued on to Baghdad under the auspices of the UN resolution, although one can argue that would have been an expansive interpretation of it. Regardless, however, he did involve the UN and it worked in that one instance.

Using the UN is a pragmatic move --- for some reason, people around the world seem to respect it more than they respect unilateralism. It's hard to know exactly why, but again --- symbolism matters. For example, UN blue helmets were greeted fairly warmly during the Kosovo conflict on one of the borders of that war, but when the UN mandate ended and the same soldiers exchanged their uniforms for NATO uniforms --- the locals became hostile. Same soldiers, different symbolism. Politics matters in war.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 12, 2006 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas,

Re your "psychopath" comment: You just can't anthropomorphize nation states and expect them to act to the same moral standards as people. They act under different circumstances with different constraints, and with trade-offs that invariably have consequences that wouldn't be acceptible for individuals. Nations kill people, lock them up, take their money, etc internally. Externally they have trade policies that starve foreigners, pollution that poisons them, exports that damage cultures and imports that render foreign countries dependant on decimating their resources or exploiting their workers in unhealthy environments. And that's not to mention war.

You know that Winston Churchill line about how democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others? It's no joke - every form of government stinks; democracy is just the best of a bad lot.

But having said that, some are much better than others, internally and externally, and along with doing unbelievable amounts of harm, nations can do unbelievable amounts of good. By fighting the Cold War and setting an attractive example, the U.S. brought something like half a billion people out of bondage. By setting a good example and buying their shit, the U.S. played a key role in bringing another half a billion people out of poverty in China over the last two decades.

Mitsu,

Sure, a dose of pragmatism is a good thing, but pure pragmatism is an illusion. Certainly you're right that believing too strongly in an ideological approach is often a way to duck serious consideration of serious problems and often goes disasterously wrong. But if you can't get meaning out of the past and apply it to current problems, you're even more lost and likely to screw up. In practice, pragmatists tend to deal with immediate problems without due consideration of longer term consequences, and they tend to deal with one issue in a way that subverts what they're trying to do with another one.

Posted by: Matt at November 12, 2006 11:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

>without due consideration of longer term consequences

I disagree. To me, the definition of pragmatism is "what works" --- and what works includes what works in the long term. In this respect I distance myself (somewhat) from the "realists" who tend to be, to my mind, inured to a theory of foreign policy based primarily in a version of pragmatism tied to the short term. We've seen a lot of discredit heaped upon the neocons for their breathless faith in democratization at the point of a gun --- but the idea that long-term benefit ought to be factored into any pragmatic calculation is, in fact, eminently pragmatic. In other words --- my point is there is no SINGLE principle that ought to win every time.

Realists tend to overemphasize making the best of a bad situation, going for incremental, short-term goals. Neocons tend to overemphasize grand idealistic projects while oversimplifying the situation on the ground, thereby leading to failure. Leftists tend to be overly cynical about the motives of the powerful, always ascribing some nefarious self-interest into the plans and policies of the wealthy nations and actors. Etc.

The problem is, they're all right, sometimes, and all wrong, sometimes. In fact, each of these viewpoints has something going for it. Any given situation is a combination of factors --- there's Halliburton shenanigans going on with Iraq, but it wasn't only about that. Helping democracy sometimes does work (it certainly did in Japan and Germany), sometimes it's naive to think it will just pop into existence once the dictator falls. Realist caution is sometimes very well advised, but not always. Sometimes short-term considerations overwhelm any attempt at long-term planning -- but a true pragmatist always takes the long view into account.

For example, one of the reasons I supported the first Gulf War is that it established a precedent that the world, acting together, would prevent and reverse an act of unprovoked imperialist aggression by a tin pot dictator. By doing so, I felt, other dictators would be deterred, heavily, in the future, by the threat of similar united world action. I am never enthusiastic about war, but I thought that war, properly executed, could forestall more violence in the long term.

An appropriate response to any situation of course has to learn from the past, but not assume that the past is easily repeatable. Iraq is not Japan or Germany --- the neocons were idiots to think that the relatively orderly transition to democracy that happened in those two countries would occur there. You have to actually look at the situation as it really is ... not as you imagine it to be in some adolescent History Channel fantasy. That, to me, is the advantages of pragmatic centrism over the other theoretical tendencies that have a certain vogue appeal in the think tanks of the country.

Posted by: Mitsu at November 13, 2006 05:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

Funny that Greg should report getting so much e-mail from Republicans disgruntled at his disgruntlement with the GOP and its leadership, while his comment section's contributors seem to be coming mostly from the other side of the political spectrum.

I don't doubt that he is getting the e-mail he claims; I just think it's worthy of comment. For a great many Republicans standing by the party's leader, at least if he is President, is very important at all times. I suppose this is not an argument that lends itself to a comment board like this one; by its nature it is one that commends itself, if it does at all, to Republicans only.

Party loyalty, of course, has its uses. In the United States, no administration could easily function without it. There is a question, though, as to what its limits ought to be. President Reagan understood that limits did exist and needed to be respected, for example limits imposed by the constituencies of some Republican legislators who had to oppose some of his administration's proposals, and he succeeded politically at least as well as George W. Bush has. Institutional limits to party loyalty also exist in Washington. Bush and his team have sought to test these limits much more aggressively than had earlier administrations, for example during the effort last year to have the Senate change its rules to allow easier confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees, and they have been, in turn, tolerant of Republicans in Congress who claimed party loyalty as a shield against accusations of unethical conduct or worse.

This to me puts one component of political life, loyalty to the leadership of one's party, in an exalted position it should not have. It is too easy for the unwise or the unworthy to abuse party loyalty if unqualified fealty to the current leadership is the only criterion used to assess one's standing in the party. I admit this is a convenient position for me to take, as a Republican whose loathing of the Bush family dates back at least to the 1988 New Hampshire primary. It is possible that were I in a position of political leadership myself I would take a very different view; fortunately for my efforts to maintain intellectual consistency, such a position appears not to be in my future.

Posted by: Zathras at November 13, 2006 06:50 AM | Permalink to this comment

Mitsu at November 12, 2006 10:33 PM |

raj: The problem with the "third party option" is it isn't an option at all in our system. It essentially boils down to not voting, which is perfectly fine if you really think there's no difference between the two camps.

That's why I refer to it as being a protest vote. There usually isn't an option "none of the above," so the only way of registering a "none of the above" vote is to vote for a third party. Not voting at all is totally ambiguous--it could mean that the voter is content with the status quo.

Clinton gave us that, and a balanced budget, and aggressive efforts to secure the country (they stopped the New Year's bombing of LAX, for example).

I don't know who the "they" are that you are referring to, but it is far from clear that the Clinton administration had much if anything to do with stopping the New Year's eve bombing of LAX. As far as I can tell, it was pure serendipity.

That isn't to suggest that good things didn't occur during the Clinton administration. But it is also not particularly obvious that similar good things would not have occurred had Clinton not been in office. Illustration: I don't give St. Ronald, he of Reagan, or his acolyte GHWBush credit for the downfall of the Soviet bloc just because they were in office when it occurred.

Posted by: raj at November 13, 2006 12:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

Raj, we treat our politicians kind of like good-luck charms. People have done this throughout history. Like, when people in ancient china had good years they'd pay lots of taxes to the king. When they had famines, floods, plagues, etc they interpreted that as a sign from Heaven that they should revolt and get a new king. This gave each king an incentive to do whatever he could about the disasters he could do something about....

So the natural thing is, when we have disasters like 9/11, Katrina, and the iraq war we throw out incumbents and give somebody else a shot at preventing such things. When good things happen we let the politicians take the credit -- and we smile -- because they're sure going to get the blame when things go bad. That's why we threw out Reagan for the Reagan Recession. that's why we threw out Bush for 9/11 and the failed wars. that's why ... huh. I guess it's OK if you're a Republican.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 13, 2006 01:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gregory:

It's nice to become acquainted with a reasoned and sane Republican for a change. My only criticism of you is your overuse of "doubtless". It's not necessary. If we understand enough of what your saying to not doubt what you're about to say then it's not needed.

Bush 41 was a major prick in a lot of ways - mostly as a campaigner, though his tie-ins with Iran Contra and his placating the cultural Right with the anti-abortion "gag-rule" for family planning organizations are among the major strikes against him - but his foreign policy was largly reasonable and responsible. In some ways, on Israel for one example, he was much better than Clinton. If Gates' appointment is a sign of his influence and leads to an effective response to the mess Jr. has brought about, I think ignoring the Reaganite/death squad baggage from the 80s is worth it.

Posted by: Clay Fink at November 13, 2006 02:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

Mitsu: "I disagree..."

It's hard to imagine what you disagree with in my comment, since I seem to agree with virtually everything you said in yours. The only distinction was that I said pragmatists tend to opt for short term solutions that are more likely to have negative long term consequences. Your rejoinder, that pragmatists can think pragmatically about the long term as well, may be theoretically true, but in practice often isn't. Also, I don't think the Germany and Japan analogies were top of mind for Neocons this time around. Germany and Japan took enormous effort, money, and long term commitment to turn into democracies, even if the process was relatively smooth. No, the analogy was Eastern Europe, which democratized pretty successfully, from a U.S. perspective, on the cheap.

Posted by: Matt at November 13, 2006 05:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

Mitsu, your concept of pragmatism has a strong similarity to a stock market strategy my broker used to recommend. It went, "Buy low, sell high."

Sure, if you correctly predict all the consequences of your actions, then you can choose the ones that will have the best consequences. The trouble is, people make mistakes about that.

Bush didn't say "I know that iraq is going to turn into a disgusting quagmire but I'm going to do the invasion anyway because getting into a quagmire is the right thing to do." He believed it would help him get re-elected etc.

Saddam didn't invade kuwait knowing it would result in over a decade of sanctions etc. He thought he would get a good result.

Olmert didn't start a war with hezbollah over a routine provocation because he thought it would hurt him. He thought he'd have a fine cakewalk that would establish his credentials as a warrior.

Etc. Everybody wants pragmatic results. Ideologues tend to believe that their ideology will inevitably lead to material rewards in the long run. Nobody has a good track record for predicting the long run.

Posted by: J Thomas at November 13, 2006 07:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't doubt your come-to-Damascus moment for a second, because the pre-conversion and post-revelation Djerejians seem so completely at odds with each other. Ironically, however, I suspect that's also the source of apparent cynicism about the strength of what appeared to be your earlier convictions. What I struggle with most when reading your blog is not your radically altered state, per se, but your condescending antipathy toward who have not similarly changed course and the profoundly ad hominem nature of your policy critiques. Emotionally fraught arguments are quite inconsonant with any claim to the neo-realist mantle -- as is the very concept of democratization, by the way.

Seeing you recapitulate your Republican past would be amusing if it weren't so emblematic of current public discourse across the board. In posting to comment sections on this side of the internationalist divide -- like your very own! -- I've found that laying out my own non-conservative credentials has become the tedious quid pro quo for actual intellectual exchange. Absent a litany of careful disclaimers, legitimate arguments, as well as simple, reasonable, differences of opinion, are regularly dismissed -- with varying degrees of virulence -- as partisan cant.

I'd suggest that everyone on the current stage is more complex than the caricatures which abound, including those you describe as "rapturist end-comers a la frothing Schiavo brigades" and "fanciful neo-con utopians" and "rabidly under-informed 'more rubble, less trouble' know-nothings" brandishing their "neo-colonialist bayonets." Do you really listen to yourself? Is it really any wonder that former fellow travelers might question your former sincerity?

Posted by: JM Hanes at November 13, 2006 08:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Is it really any wonder that former fellow travelers might question your former sincerity?

They should be questioning their own sanity. If they haven't gotten a clue by now, what's wrong with them?

Posted by: J Thomas at November 14, 2006 04:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Here's to Chuck Hagel in 2008!
http://hagel2008.blogspot.com

Posted by: Charlie at November 15, 2006 04:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Personally I don't give a rats patootie what party you register for as long as you are a sane, critical thinker and willing to reevaluate your assumptions, thoughts, etc. in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: ET at November 20, 2006 09:21 PM | Permalink to this comment