A Serious Question

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I have seen Clark supporters on this board called "bully boys", "brown shirts" and some of Democratic Underground's "most conservative members".

Do these posters really believe that Clark supporters are latent militarists or

that they rightly or wrongly believe Clark is the best positioned candidate to defeat *?


I'd vote for the Dali Lama if he was an American citizen and I thought he could beat *


Peace

9/03

Brian

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I offer only the following

I DO find it interesting that so much groundswell of support has been offered up to a man who only recently claimed to be a Democrat. I understand the restrictions an officer places on himself to at least try to appear APOLITICAL but I also think that with such a fight going on for the soul of the Democratic party, it is curious that many would jump behind someone so soon who claims to define that soul.

I also think many that are charged with being "brownshirts" are charged with that because of THEIR behavior on the threads, not anything to do with General Clark.

There are also many reasonable supporters as there are with other candidates.

[quilp]

8. That is a point of veiw I haven't heard before.

I am not disputing what you say. We've seen a lot of Republican "Trojan Horses". But I take it the Clinton's endorsement doesn't convince you in any way?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. In many respects Clinton helped to continue the concentration

of wealth and the muddying of that soul of the party. Don't get me wrong..he was head and shoulders above Bush but DMCA and the deregulation of the media took place under his watchful eye.

[quilp]

16. I haven't forgotten Clinton and NAFTA, or after eight years we still

never got a healthcare system. And it was his largely his doing we ended up with Bush.

But why do you distrust Clark?

[carpetbagger]

17. Lack of health care was not for lack of trying.

Congress and sheeple blocked that one.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. I don't distrust him ...I simply don't trust him yet

In other words, my trust is earned. He cannot just jump out the gate..say he is a Democrat and expect me to say "Gee that's great i trust you."

While I have NO issue with a former general or former military officer being president (several have been) I want to continue to peruse the field.

I WILL say that Clinton's endorsement is as much CAUSE for me to DISTRUST him as to TRUST him. There are things I completely trusted about Clinton such as his compassion and his earnest in lifting up the poor...on the other hand he bought the deregulation game hook line sinker and whole ocean.

[Cappurr]

2. You got me...

You hafta understand that some posters feel pretty strongly about one issue or another and unfortunately they let their anger out. If any powster calls you or anyone an unpleasant name, just ignore them. They will stop. Or hit "alert" and the admin will stop them.

I like Clark And I an hardly the morest conservative side of DU. But I need to know a bit more about Clark. Frankly, since Gore is not running, I am finding it hard to get excited about any of the candidates. But whichever one wins the nomination will have my vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Love Al Gore-He Was Robbed

Like I said I'm looking for the candidate best equipped to beat Bush....

[BeFree]

4. I think

That all candidate threads should be required to place the candidate's name in the title so that I know I should just pass on those threads so I don't waste time like I did on this one.

[Cappurr]

5. Whatever for?

Are you afraid you might learn something you didn't know from the other threads?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Did I Endorse A Candidate

No...

I think I am on record as saying nice things about all the candidates...

But your little invective at the end was quite telling....


I'll call on my better angels and not take the bait....

<warm and passionate kisses>

Brian

[Cappurr]

9. Brian

My post wasin response to the poster who wanted the candidates names on all the threads so she would have to waste her time reading about those she disagreed with. I replied to her.....not to you. Your posts are always fair and I've never seen you out of line. Im sorry if I offended you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Have Been Bad

On several occasions my darker angels have gotten the better of me but I try to be positive...

[RichM]

7. OK, good question. My direct response would be that

SOME, not all, of the Clark supporters are indeed "militarists," in some sense. However, that is not the most fruitful way to frame the discussion.

What I see as most important are the possible negative effects on the body politic, caused by making a career military figure the party's nominee. Note that this has nothing to do with Clark himself.

If he is the nominee, it sends a message to the public, and this message reinforces important elements of the rightwing view of the world. It tells Americans that they should be very, very afraid; and that when you're afraid, the thing to do is look to the military for solutions. It encourages MORE acceptance of militarism in the public, not less. It encourages LESS public awareness of how dangerous and out-of-control the military-industrial complex really is -- something Americans are already almost entirely ignorant of.

The Clark supporters refuse to explore any of these subtle effects on the public mind that a Clark candidacy might cause. This is my main problem with them. A secondary problem is that they do not frame their arguments in terms of policy; they frame them in terms of "kicking ass" and "making KKKarl drop a load in his pants." I find such arguments unpersuasive (and typical of bullies and brownshirts).

I agree that Clark might conceivably defeat Bush. I just don't think he will make any improvement in the general cultural sickness that brought Bush to power. In some ways, it will AGGRAVATE that sickness -- of which excessive reliance on military force and militarism is certainly a part.

[Cappurr]

10. mmmm

good observations

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. A Couple Of Points

The desire to make Karl Rove "drop a load in his pants" is not endemic to Clark supporters... We all want to see Bush and the detritus that follows him swept from the White House...

You want to change the paradigm from a paradigm of fear to a paradigm of hopefulness.... I believe it might take a military man to help us cross that bridge... Sometimes a reformed sinner is the greatest campaigner against sin...

When I was in Grad School and read Burke I thought he was an authoritarian and trashed him in my finals but now I realize how wise he was when it came to accepting the limits on much we can change human behavior when he opined "that we must take man as he is and not the way we want him to be." National security, rightly or wrongly has become a threshhold issue for most Americans and if we aren't able as a party to successfully address it we will not win...

With the stakes this high failure is a most unpalatable option.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. I agree with you in many respects Rich but some of the most

vocal warnings against MILITARIZING THE WORLD have come from career militarists such as Eisenhower's parting words.

In the late 80's there was a program on PBS called AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR. Between them and the Council on Foreign Relations, they produced a weekly program WARNING of the militarization of society. The reruns still run on FREESPEECHTV.

Here is a snip about the ARMS TRADE from them:

While much attention is paid to the proliferation of the so-called weapons of mass destruction, i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is the ordinary conventional weapons, such as AK-47's, landmines, tanks, and fighter aircraft, which are responsible for the vast majority of casualties in the world's conflicts. As almost anyone who scans the news can tell, conventional weapons are responsible for the death, wounding and uprooting of countless numbers of people each year.


The Center for Defense Information's Arms Transfer Project provides information and analysis on the multitude of issues surrounding the global arms market. The project emphasizes the need to change current U.S. and international policies on arms transfers.


CDI's ultimate aim is to inform concerned individuals and policy-makers in order to help limit and restrain the arms trade.
http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=73

In fact, Admiral Carroll and Admiral Jack Shanahan were signators to the Wall Street Journal AD that ran just prior to this war entitled "Republicans Against the War."


So while I think you are correct on the eerie symbolism being proffered, I would simply caution that many in the military would be LESS likely to wish to militarize society simply BECAUSE they are there and know better.

[RichM]

20. I agree. The effect of it hinges on whether Clark proves a "Smedley

Butler" type of career military guy, or not. Certainly, if he proves to be outspoken in warning against the excessive power of the MIC & the militarization of society, I'm going to have a better feeling about him. (And if he does NOT oppose those dangerous tendencies, but merely exploits the prestige that the military currently enjoys in US society, I'm NOT going to have a better feeling about him.)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I'm right there with you and I agree that is what remains to be seen

and IF SOMEONE IS going to warn against the co-mingling of national security interests with the MIC's interests...what better person to criticize it?

[jonnyblitz]

11. I base my opinion of some Clark supporters on their BEHAVIOR

There is an influx of new DUers who came outta nowhere all of a sudden who appear to be on this mission to squash any decenting views on their candidate and label all with questions as lunatic fringe leftists etc. Lotsa "redbaiting" goin on...

[maggrwaggr]

14. I think Clark is a fine man, BUT when I posted a thread

questioning whether it would be a good idea to have him actually be the Democratic nominee, since he doesn't really represent the Democratic party as many of us would like him to, and in fact, he's barely a democrat based on his past voting record,

MAN I got jumped on by all these paranoid attacks accusing me of all kinds of nasty crap.

I was ready for some debating and even some arguing, but not the vehement rethuglican-like attacks that I got.

It was surprising and weird.

[Terwilliger]

21. Serious answer

I think your "need" to defeat Bush will defeat you.