What is a Liberal?

I’ve asked this question before in a similar context, but it bears being asked again, especially in the light of two recent stories. In an AP story yesterday, the reporter seems to think “liberals” want us out of Iraq immediately.

On the issue of Iraq, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton has been buffeted by competing forces within her party. Many elements of the party's liberal base want an immediate or timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while others feel such a position may weaken the party's electoral chances this year and in 2008.

…Last week, many in the audience of a more liberal group http://home.ourfuture.org/ booed Clinton when she said she opposed setting a fixed date for troop withdrawal.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s article yesterday again paints “liberals” as the ones wanting us out of Iraq.

Liberals wanted a firm date for troop withdrawals, but others argued for a more moderate approach that would urge, but not compel, Bush to start a drawdown this year. Efforts to reconcile the two camps failed, resulting in the competing measures that were voted on yesterday.

I consider myself a proud liberal, though I like many others have been using the term “progressive” because I think it’s more accurate: I believe in making progress toward a more cooperative, compassionate society that demands both individual and societal responsibility rather than the “live-and-let-live” idea that the word “liberal” connotes. But I oppose setting a public deadline at which time we pull out troops from Iraq. For all the opposition I had before the war, broadcasting a near-term date for withdrawal is unwise, in my opinion. I think the president should say that he’s given the Iraqis clear goals on troop training, governmental progress, etc. that he’ll adhere to, and publicly say that our commitment in Iraq is not open-ended. Does that make me a “moderate”?

And what’s a conservative on this issue? Conservatives have historically shied away from foreign entanglements. And with the war’s decreasing popularity, at what point do those “staying the course” become “extremists,” defined as someone who takes a position farthest from the center?

Finally, at the NDN conference I attended the past two days (more on that later), virtually everyone used the word “progressive.” Even the group that booed Hillary Clinton for her stance on Iraq, uses “progressives” on its web site, instead of “liberal.”

With the media so willing to use the conservatives’ term “death tax” to describe the inheritance tax., why can’t they use the term “progressive” for our side?

Comments

[Bob]

Why do I have the sinking feeling that we won't ever be doing any standing down?

Because we don't know what "standing up" means, just as nobody has ever articulated what "winning the war on terror" would look like.

[srfrjo]

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.

Why do I have the sinking feeling that we won't ever be doing any standing down?

[Bob]

Pretty good article.

Today, however, our presidents do not hear unvarnished, de-politicized military advice, and the situation has never been graver than under the current administration. Presidential interviews with generals are essentially pre-scripted, with vetted talking points--political courtiers control access to the president and determine what the president will hear. Only the president himself could change the situation by demanding to hear a range of military views (without commissars at the shoulders of the generals). President George W. Bush, who has chosen war as a policy tool, may be the American president most isolated from sound military advice.

[Brian]

Doesn't it scare you that our commander-in-chief wants no part of the important decision as to when we back off and withdraw troops? I think the Dems should yell bloody murder whenever he says that, as I'm sure the Pentagon brass does in the quiet of the offices and bunkers in the Green Zone.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I think that you mischaracterize the process. A president should have a good relationship with his top generals and should try make sure that they give him honest and competent advice. The final decision is his, of course. If it is working this way, the Pentagon brass are probably very happy. I just worry, sometimes, that this is not how things work anymore.

[Bob]

Still, I think it would be obvious that when a nation's leader asks for a timetable for an occupying force's withdrawal, one would at some point expect talk of, you know, actual dates and stuff. Time. Date. They're kind of interrelated.

Funny, srfrio, and oh so true.

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.

Doesn't it scare you that our commander-in-chief wants no part of the important decision as to when we back off and withdraw troops? I think the Dems should yell bloody murder whenever he says that, as I'm sure the Pentagon brass does in the quiet of the offices and bunkers in the Green Zone.

By the way guys, thanks for keeping it civil. I know this stuff can cause tempers to flare (I'm always trying to squash mine).

[Brian]

srfrjo,

You are right, I was unnecessarily chippy with you - my apologies.

Now, on to the fun part.

As for what gave me the idea that you thought dates were the most important part of the plans, well that would be your use of the term "timed withdrawal" twice in your post. The problem with the timetable argument is that the timed schedule is not simply relying on dates. The conditions in Iraq will supercede the calendar. The quotes that I provided make that clear.

You further say the following: Look, Bush has stated repeatedly that we are not leaving while he is President and it is up to his successor to fix his mess. They have no plan, or at least not one they're willing to share with the rest of us.

The first sentence is, as far as I can tell with a cursory search, not exactly true. This story from the NYT (Worldwide Edition) seems representative. Saying that he does not see our troops leaving before 2009 is not the same as saying that it simply won't happen.

You say that they have no plan, but here is the Pres. speaking last November: Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.

The second part of our strategy is a political strategy. Iraqis are moving forward in building a democracy. A month ago, millions of Iraqis turned out to vote for a constitution that guarantees fundamental freedoms and lays the foundation for lasting democracy. In a few weeks, Iraqis will vote again to choose a fully constitutional government to lead them for the next four years. Iraq is making amazing progress from the days of being under the thumb of a brutal dictator. Think about this: In two-and-a-half years, they've gone from tyranny to an election for a transitional , to the ratification of a constitution, to the election of a free government. The Iraqi people are proving their determination to build a future founded on democracy and hope, and the United States of America will help them succeed.

You may not like the plan or think that it is insufficient, but it is a plan, nonetheless.

I think that I owe you an extra apology, by the way. I was the commenter who linked here from WaMo. To send you here and then backhand you like that was uncalled for. So I apologize once again.

[srfrjo]

First of all, sorry for the wrong Drum link. Here's the one I meant to provide. On to your comments...

Umm, yep. I read them both. All the way through even. Just out of curiosity, Brian, did you actually bother to read my comment, because you completely distort what I 'advertised'. I know I'm asking you to read to the end of one whole sentence and to understand English, but...

Sounds like dates aren't actually the most important part of this plan.

Where exactly in my comment did I say dates were the most important part? I did focus on the whole timed withdrawal aspect, which is what the Dems put forth and exactly what the Repubs have loudly called cowardly for the last two weeks. The second Dem (the more popular one, not Kerry's) proposal only said we should beginning redeploying, with no date set for us getting out completely, thus allowing for flexibility in the face of unexpected awful events occurring. Just like the Iraqi plan. Still, I think it would be obvious that when a nation's leader asks for a timetable for an occupying force's withdrawal, one would at some point expect talk of, you know, actual dates and stuff. Time. Date. They're kind of interrelated.

Hmm, not exactly as advertised, srfrjo.

to my statement of...

...our top commander in Iraq has leaked info stating that we are actually going to perform a timed withdrawal?

Which is exactly what the article says. The article says that we have a withdrawal timetable (there's that tricky word again) with actual dates like "this September" and "December 2007", which I assume we're really going to follow through with (if they're not lying for political reasons) unless things get a lot worse. Which is very similar to what the better Dem proposal also called for.

Look, Bush has stated repeatedly that we are not leaving while he is President and it is up to his successor to fix his mess. They have no plan, or at least not one they're willing to share with the rest of us. The Dems have been calling for a change of course, some sort of real, tangible plan, and have been mocked relentlessly for it. Now the Administration is basically doing what the Dems asked for, so I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. So linking to commentary asking a real question why the media can't see this obvious and important point is me whining that the media is/are mean to Dems/Liberals and being silly. Whatever. Way to not respond to the point and throw in an ad hominem.

Thanks much for the patronizing tone by the way. I came over here based on a Political Animal commenter's recommendation and to check out a slightly different point of view from my own, and I was asking what I thought was a legit question. I'll resist replying to your tone and personal attack in kind.

Oh, and it's doubleplusextrasilly with no spaces.

[Brian]

Just out of curiousity, srfrjo, did you actually bother to read the stories to which you linked?

Here's a revealing passage from the MSNBC article:

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security,"

Sounds like dates aren't actually the most important part of this plan. Maybe they'll actually asked for date, but they have not at this point. I'm not exactly sure why you linked Kevin Drum's post on Kos and newspapers.

Let's read from the NYT article you linked:

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces.

Hmm, not exactly as advertised, srfrjo. I know I'm asking that you read all the way to the fifth and third paragraphs, respectively, but is that too much to ask?

As a final note, whining that the media is/are mean to Dems/Liberals, makes you sound doubleplusextra silly.

[srfrjo]

What is your opinion now that a) the Iraqis themselves have asked for a timed withdrawal and b) our top commander in Iraq has leaked info stating that we are actually going to perform a timed withdrawal?

Who's idea was that again? And who smeared them for it over the last two weeks?

[Brian]

Maybe they're trying to do you a favor.