Peas in a Pod
June 6th, 2007 | by Craig |I don’t know if you would classify Pervez Musharraf as a “right-winger,” but he’s clamping down on the press, too.
In my mind, the difference between Pervez and Hugo is that you won’t find many — if any — folks on the dextra jumping up to defend Musharraf.
25 Responses to “Peas in a Pod”
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 10, 2007 | Reply
Not knowing what the dextra is, I’m at a disadvantage. But Musharraf enjoys the unqualified support of the Bush Administration, Clinton before him. Democracy doesn’t matter, you see. It’s only if these guys play ball.
As I’ve said before, your opinions on Hugo are interesting, but since you have no standing to comment (being a right winger and all), are irrelevant.
By Craig on Jun 10, 2007 | Reply
Usually, though I disagree with you Mark, you make sense.
This doesn’t.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply
In my own clumsy way, I was saying that anyone on the right wing has no standing to criticize left-wing governments for any shortcoming, as you have let so much stuff go on without comment by right wing governments, Musharaff being but one example in a long litany. So your interest in the shortcomings of the Chavez government in Venezuela are interesting, to say the least! But irrelevant.
Some days I don’t make sense.
By Matt Singer on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply
I clearly missed the numerous actual leaders of the “left” in the U.S. lining up to back Chavez vocally. I also am somehow missing your attention to the fact that Rudy Giuliani’s firm represents Citgo, Venezuela’s state-owned firm. So, it’s a Republican who is probably the highest profile politician closely affiliated with Senor Chavez.
I will say this, a number on the left, including myself, are not fans of Chavez. But we’re also not big fans of the sort of heavy-handed interference in foreign powers that was involved in the attempted coup on Chavez. Polling in Venezuela shows Chavez fairly popular, in large part because he opposes U.S. imperalism. Their might be a lesson there for folks on the modern American right, who seem to think of themselves as God’s gift to the world.
And Mark is right — the Bush Administration has been among the best friends to Musharraf’s Administration. If the Republican President isn’t a good example of “dextra,” I’m not sure who or what is.
By Craig on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply
>If the Republican President isn’t a good example of “dextra,” I’m not sure who or what is.
In that case, I can’t help you. With stuff like “Immigration Reform” and NCLB, the only people who think GWB is on the right are those who are so far left that the center seems downright authoritarian.
By Craig on Jun 11, 2007 | Reply
Excellent! Since you are a left-winger I deem your opinions irrelevant from this point forward when you say anyting about “right-wingers!”
Saves a lot of time and effort, dunnit.
I feel so liberated.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
Usually, though I disagree with you Craig, you make sense.
This doesn’t.
Bush can objectively be put on the right wing in the extreme with tax policies aimed exclusively at relief for the wealthy, anti-environmental policies, preemptive war (for which German officers were hanged at Nuremberg), abrogation of treaties, signing statements, injection of religion into government, on and on.
Bush is a right winger, through and through. As I’ve noted before about Bush, he cheapens anything he comes in contact with, the office of Attorney General being only the most recent example.
That you allow a minor deviation from right wing dogma here and there to brand him as a non-righty speaks volumes about you. I assign your previous comment not just to the wrong box, but to the absurd bin.
By Matt Singer on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
So if the leader of the Republican Party is a bad example of the mainstream right in America, to whom should I look? Pat Buchanan? James Dobson?
Do tell, Craig.
By Craig on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
Since you are not a right-winger, I deem your opinion irrelevant.
I like the way this works. I’m glad you thought of it.
By Craig on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
Since Bush’s poll numbers are flagging as is the opinion of the Republican party in general, it stands to reason that he and the Republicans really doesn’t represent mainstream conservatism, yeah?
If I were wondering what the mainstream right was all about, I might consult, oh, I dunno, maybe just a regular guy trying to raise a family who self-identifies as a conservative.
Where would we find someone like that? I wonder. I wonder.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
That’s your answer? One liners are supposed to be poignant.
By Craig on Jun 12, 2007 | Reply
I’ll try harder next time.
By Matt Singer on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply
Ah — so you don’t claim Pervez Musharraf, ergo the modern right doesn’t embrace him.
I don’t embrace Chavez, ergo the modern left doesn’t embrace him.
Using your standards, the post is still moot.
And Bush still has a net positive approval rating from self-described conservatives. At least, he did a month ago (couldn’t find more recent data — if you’ve got it, I’d love to see it).
By Craig on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply
Matt, are you being deliberately obtuse? I have to think that you are.
You asked for a good representative example of the right. I offered myself as one, as opposed to the examples you gave.
For a quick comparison, you might try the following searches to get a feel for what folks on either side of the aisle are thinking about the respective dictators.
[dKos](http://www.google.com/search?q=site:dailykos.com+hugo+chavez&hl=en&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&start=10&sa=N)
[Red State](http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aredstate.com+musharraf&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial)
Unless, that is, you don’t think that dKos represents mainstream leftism.
By Matt Singer on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply
I’m sorry, Craig, but are you being deliberately obtuse? You’re really claiming that the Republican President still supported by a majority of American conservatives isn’t a good example of mainstream conservatism, instead I should look to the blogs.
Meanwhile, I’m googling for Chavez on dKos (whose publisher, notably, grew up in a war-torn Latin American country and may have some perspective on the U.S.’s involvement in certain civil wars down there) and all I’m finding are some non-recommended diaries saying that denying a license to a media outlet that openly supported a coup isn’t really the end of the world. If an American media outlet started openly agitating and actively supporting a coup in the U.S., wouldn’t that be tantamount to treason and a hanging offense?
Hell, Cindy Sheehan diaried at Daily Kos and by her own account got attacked by the commenters for meeting a “nasty communist dictator.”
Meanwhile, the criticisms of Musharaff that I read at RedState mostly have to do with him being a weak ally in Bush’s wars. Assumedly, that same complaint would apply to people who oppose things like rendition, torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, etc.
I mean, shit, Craig — do you really want to go down the path of asking whether the modern American left or the modern American right has more in common with dictators? Stalin disappeared people. The Bush Administration is cool with it. Last I checked, Clinton (of whom I am no big fan) didn’t suspend habeas corpus, he didn’t authorize torture, he didn’t describe the Constitution as just a piece of paper.
If looking at all of this crap through your narrow ideological lens makes you feel better, fine, but it’s modern American conservatism that is having love fests with totalitarian policy, not modern American liberalism.
By Craig on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply
You’re accusing me of looking through an ideological lens?
Puh-leeze.
By Steve T. on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
Damn, Craig. That was quite the takedown. You might want to try responding to it.
Or not.
By Cammy on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
I thought he already did.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
It’s a little like arguing with a light post, except that the light post is occasionally illuminating.
Craig is stonewalling. He’s got nuthin’.
By Cammy on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
So you need a 500 word response to understand what he’s saying?
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
Just an intelligible response. Please, break the code for us. -
By Cammy on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply
I’ll leave it to Craig to do that.
Or not.
As much fun this “discussion” has been, I have more important things to attend to now. Namely, my kids….
By Craig on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
Probably not, inasmuch as Singer is wanting me to defend a position I’ve never advanced, i.e., that modern conservatives are plumb tickled with the Bush administration. Further, a 52% approval rating (+/- 3%) among conservatives (in May) is hardly a ringing endorsement. To gauge Bush’s support among conservatives, you really need only listen to the Republican “debates” and see how often those guys refer to Bush vs., say, Reagan. They’re trying to get their base back.
As all of you seem to forget, I’m not a very staunch defender of the Bush administration, even though I’ve been saying that pretty much since day 1. There are policies that I agree with, to be sure, but on the whole? Eh, not so much.
By Mark Tokarski on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
I keep forgetting - there are the Bushies, and there are the conservatives. I used to say taht Barry Goldwater was the last conservative, and that he was rolling in his grave so much over people stealing the title that they finally put him on a spit. But I was being kind - I don’t know if Goldwater was a conservative anymore than Reagan. I just believed that becuase he wrote a book once with the word “conscience” in it.
Dwight Eisenhower was the last conservative, I think. ‘Ceptin’ Craig.
By Matt Singer on Jun 15, 2007 | Reply
Then my problem, Craig, is that you use terms that have fairly widespread meanings, use them in a different way, and then present arguments that are misleading to people who use words in common ways.
Using your definition of “liberals,” only about 3% of America qualifies. Using your definition of “conservatives,” maybe about 15% qualifies. The other 82% of us are the “middle” I suppose. And while I’ve been more than happy to state that I think my positions are more mainstream than yours, I don’t think I fit into a political grouping comprising 82% of the country.
If we accept either self-identification or historical identification, identifying Bush as a modern American conservative is extremely fair. Bush is a defender of Musharraf — your statement is untrue.
Similarly, you imply that the modern American left is supportive of Chavez, when really a very small fraction is — and it’s a portion that holds relatively little power.
Similarly, you recently attacked the Democratic Congress for supporting impeachment, when the reality is that a fairly large segment of the populace does support impeachment (albeit not a majority), but the bulk of Democratic members of Congress in a position to do anything about it do not support impeachment. In fact, your original link was to a Democrat in Congress rebuffing pressure to impeach. Your follow-up link was to an article about a marginalized member of his own party (Kucinich) pushing for impeachment.
In all of these instances, you’re making misleading generalizations or implying misleading generalizations. If you want to know why I’m posting so much on it, it’s because I find it damn frustrating and intellectually dishonest. Words mean things.