Daily Blague

In considering how successful Rove would actually be in rallying conservatives with the Goldwater formulation that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation no virtue", there are a number of important contextual factors. Goldwater spoke at a time (1964) when a large segment of the population believed that there was a credible threat (the Communist movement) to American liberties, a larger segment believed that wartime measures affecting Japanese-Americans during WWII were justified and almost all remembered, and many had made personal sacrifices in, WWII and the Korean coflict. He also had unassailable personal military and conservative political credentials. He also lost in a landslide. In contrast, the war in Iraq was based on an asserted threat that has been thoroughly discredited and continues to be prosecuted incompetently. Blatent domestic incompetence and incredible posturing on a range of non-military issues have eroded the "values and competence" aura that got Bush elected in the first place. After five years no one knows what "compassionate conservatism" means in policy terms, the less after this year's tax-cut driven budget reconciliation. No conservative with a conscience could support the expansion of federal power at the expense of individual rights or the economic waste during this period. Perhaps it is merely faith-based. After the last Supreme Court nomination though, one wonders if even that constituency would answer Rove's call: how, exactly, does illegal spying on Americans protect their "religious rights"? Who in America actually feels safer as a result of the Homeland Security initiatives? The only thing protecting Bush from impeachment is control of the House. With criminal investigations making incumbancy and party leadership uncertain, it may be an extraordinarily contested 2006 election.

I thoroughly agree w/ kroberts comments above. The underlying political realities of the current situation with the "war on terrorism" are no match for they dynamics that were in place when, say Mossadegh was overthrown. There were real fears about the spread of oil, wealth and power to the Communist side.

These days all we have is doubletalk, smoke and mirrors. To whatever extent there IS a threat, it has been only exacerbated by reckless fantasy-driven adventurism and ham-handedness of the current U.S. regime.

Pick your fights indeed. For christsakes, if sanity and decency are not going to attack now, then WHEN pray tell? Opposition in the U.S. has been almost completly cowed, even now, in the face of the bewildering array of emerging outrages piled onto of an array of already known outrages in a way that is dismaying from the outside.

I DO think there is a building dynamic in the U.S. that makes it ripe for a shift and that some sand has already been thrown into the gears. But much damage has already been done.

Yes, please do tell us what fight you WOULD pick. And if you believe you do not have to pick it in advance, that you'll know it when you see it, like pornography, I think you're wrong.

We may be unable to change the terms of the debate. But as long as the debate is about what is being done to protect us from terror, you are right, Karl Rove will salivate. This is why, as Digby and others have written, we need to start treating the whole issue as the concern of cowards.

Thanks for the penetrating comments. This is an ongoing thread that I'll pursue in further posts.
Amy - I don't expect to make up my mind in advance, but I do refuse to take any action that will enhance the appeal of the adversary.
To all - I don't know just who is going to do the impeaching. A movement? I'm thinking a lot about movements these days - Ana Marie Cox says they're the politics of the future. That alarms me, at least preliminarily. As for the Democratic Party, I can't imagine anything more futile than supporting it. It is the Terry Schiavo of current affairs.