Sunday, November 26, 2006

I agree that Larison has a point of view worth discussing, Victor

Regarding the role of institutions in societies, the exportability of democracy in the absence of these institutions, etc, etc.

My reference to him as Mark's "paleocon patron saint" has to do with the fact that Mark has been relying on him of late to make his polemics for him without actually understanding the issues that are now in contention. Your own post provides a pretty good illustration of this so I'm not going to add to it, but let me just make this point: I do not, at a fundamental level, believe that Mark understands the issues that he is so cavalier to make pronouncements on at this point, whether it be torture or the war in Iraq.

And given that the lady doth protest too much at the insinuation that I consider him a paleocon, I gave my explanation for using the term here and would ask him to explain why he doesn't consider it a valid criteria for placing him, however creepingly (because, again, he doesn't understand the issues) in that particular slot.

As for Mark labeling me as an ideologue, I expect that it has to do with his contention that the only reason that those of us not in the "accepted" category to disagree with him on issues of torture and the like could possibly due so have to do with the fact that we are currently in the tank for the Bush administration. Even ignoring the issue of torture, one would think that my contention that Rumsfeld must go and that the US needs more, not less troops, would be disagreement enough with the stated views of the administration and most of its loyalists to establish my independent credentials. Failing that, I am going to go out on a limb and say that my endorsement of John McCain as my preferred presidential candidate in 2008 isn't exactly the mark of a hard-core Bush supporter. Unlike, you might say, someone who bought into the conservative conspiracy theory that bin Laden was dead from 2002-2004.

No comments: