Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Iraqi elections coverage

I am not impressed by the media coverage of the elections in Iraq. It is, somehow, a ho-hum affair. They don’t know how to talk about (or don’t want to). But Pajamas Media is covering them, and so is the Belmont Club (good picture). Here is Austin Bay’s coverage. It looks as if the turnout will be above 70%. Maybe CNN will note that this is quite impressive. Maybe.

UPDATE: It is estimated that turnout was over 70%. Impressive.

Discussions - 32 Comments

The media is dominated by Democrats, which is to say, by statists. It is no surprise if statists aren’t particularly excited about self-government. Shameful, but no surprise.

Setting the partisanship of the MSM aside, I think it is rather telling that the Iraqi elections are receiving so little coverage. The elections in Iraq are becoming more of a non-news story every time they happen. If the elections were the exception, that would be news. Instead they are becoming the rule in Iraq. The lack of coverage is a tacit admission of their success.

Apparently “Canada” has elections all the time too, does anybody hear about them? (Perky “Canada” is a nation located due north of the United States. Most good atlases will have a map of it.)

What are you people reading? If I see one more purple thumb, I’m gonna implode! Purple thumbs on cnn, purple thumbs on Newt Gingrich, purple thumbs on ABC, NBC, CBS. A seventy percent turnout! Why don’t you actually look at the media that you complain about, instead of repeating this tripe, unexamined?

From the looks of things, Iraq runs a better election than Florida does....

purple INDEX FINGERS, not thumbs. Got any pictures of people with purple thumbs? All I’m seeing is index fingers.

I love hearing liberals invoke Florida even now. That’s going to bother you people for decades. Sweet.

Seriously though, let it go. It’s just as pathetic as conservatives still whining that Clinton should have been removed from office during the impeachment trial.

Why Fung, you are absolutely correct...the Iraqis DO run a better election process. After all, those don’t have millions of illiterate/senile Democrats to contend with.

Yeah, losers, let it go already!!! So the Republicans stole the election- not exactly a big deal, is it? People steal stuff all the time! OK, yeah, he’s the absolute, hands-down worst president in American history, but so what? That Florida stuff was like, years ago. GET OVER IT!!!

Dain! I’ve missed you! And thank you for making my point for me, as usual, better than I can make it, myself. These elections will go so much smoother if we can just get rid of the checks and balances that slow down the fascist juggernaut. Maybe a nice secret prison to twist a few spines, send a message to the rest.

Dear "Actually",

Where are you seeing these images of purple fingers? Not in the MSM, certainly?

Thanks for the correction!

You sound pretty defensive about Iraqis voting Fung. Feeling a little guilty rooting for the Baathists?

A traitor like Fung, feeling actual guilt over rooting for totalitarians? Come on, that’s not the Fung we’ve come to know. You see, only Fung knows how people should vote. According to him, since we can use age/race/gender etc. to predict voting patterns, would should have assumed that Al Gore stole...er, I mean won the election.

For anybody truly interesting in knowing the real story of Florida 2000, I recommend Bill Sammon’s book How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election. A real eye-opener, and an innocculant against people like Fung.

In case you missed it "Ditto" (or should I say Phil? Maybe J Montgomery? Too ashamed to even use the pseudonym that you normally snivel under?), every recount done by every news agency inspecting the Florida ballots found that Bush won the election under every standard considered for recounting. Most of the recounts showed that using the standard that Gore wanted, the margin for Bush actually grew. There was no theft.

And yes, you should definitely get over it. But you probably won’t. Which is fine because it makes your party look silly which only helps the GOP. Keep up the good work!

Sorry to burst your bubble, and upset your notion that it’s impossible that there could possibly be more than one lefty who gets a masochistic kick out of visiting this blog, but I’m not "Ditto." As far as your speculation that I (or any of the libs, lefties, left-of-Limbaughs that visit here) am "too ashamed to even use the pseudonym that (I) normally snivel under," that’s a pretty laughable accusation for someone who cloaks him/herself behind a freshman-clever Ayn Rand reference.

I hardly think that Fung was engaged in "snivelling" when he noted that Florida didn’t run things well down there in 2000. If there was one thing that Republicans and Democrats largely agreed on, it was that the way that Florida ran things was rather sub-par, even if, by the time it was all over, Bush got Florida’s electoral votes.

a thumb from an index finger?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: As your various lunatic drivelings on these threads have amply demonstrated, you also can’t tell your butt from a hole in the ground, or sh*t from shinola.

Now, now, let’s not be too hard on Fung. He’s got degrees!

And, Jmont, I can’t stand Ayn Rand...I think of her as the anti-Marx, meaning that she was just as out-to-lunch as he was. Adam Smith was one of the first to admit that "fellow feeling" was necessary for an economy and a society to work properly. This is the major reason I’m a conservative and not a Libertarian...the invisible hand is no substitute for a solid moral foundation.

Dain, why are you sharing your opinions about Ayn Rand with me all of sudden? Um...okay...thanks!

Why? Because I find the whole Libertarian/Objectivist faction embarrassing, and because you brought it up. I think that if some of the more reasonable Leftoids understood real conservativism a bit better they’d understand that we aren’t their enemies (unless, of course, they really are totalitarians who want to use the power of government to reshape our culture -- I see no justification for wanting that at all, and it is dangerous).

Dain, there is nothing embarrassing about believing in liberty. It is certainly a better option than the lefty defeatism of Fung and J Mont.

Dain wrote:

"Now, now, let’s not be too hard on Fung. He’s got degrees!"

LOL! Yes, how could I forget Fung’s higher degrees, as in his higher degree of drooling leftist hysteria, his higher degree of self-blinding hatred for President Bush and pretty much anybody to the right of Michael Moore, his higher degree of pompous pseudoscientific pretension, and so on. Higher degrees indeed.

Chris L...does Rand really believe in liberty? After reading a great deal of her work in the past, and subsequently living a lot of real life, I concluded that she was an extremely angry, narcissistic person who was essentially demanding that the world recognize and honor her abilities. This message was conveyed via her characters, who were always these capitalist HEROES who were being victimized by the world. Man, it was cartoonish!

The bottom line is simple...entrepreneurs need HELP realizing their visions, and they should amply reward such help. A little humility and humanity (both missing in Rand) would go a long way.

I was not talking about Rand. I was referring to this line: "I find the whole Libertarian/Objectivist faction embarrassing." That’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?

No, why do you say so? Libertarianism is a step-child of Rousseau, and as such is joined at the hip with Liberalism. Their assumptions about human nature, and their worship of the individual as the bedrock of society, is embarrassing. Moreover, their knee-jerk "market" fixes for just about everything gets tiresome. What of it?

Moreover, their knee-jerk "market" fixes for just about everything gets tiresome.

Oh my God, I agree with Dain!

All of you have unfairly labeled me one of these unthinking Libertarian folk. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The market is better than alternative systems of creating economic growth, but it’s not a panacea for every problem -- only people who need ’recipes’ for living life insist on monocausal schemes (very much like religious thinking, I’m afraid...ideology and religion are joined at the hip, after all).

But, of course, I think Liberals are just as obnoxious and in error. Most social problems do not arise from a conspiracy of the "haves," the market’s inequalities are not necessarily the worst of all possible worlds, and the use of government to remake society is inherently totalitarian (and therefore disrespectful to the citizenry).

Both Libertarians and Liberals are, in essence, simple-minded fools. Have a nice day, Phil.

A bit touchy, aren’t we?

Yes, ’we’ are. Shove off, mate.

You and your pal Fung have more in common than you are willing to admit.

Jeez Dain, I try to reach out and offer a little olive branch- pointing out that we actually agree on something- and you respond with an angry tirade about how dumb liberals and libertarians are. In several different posts, you have accused Fung of being an angry person, while claiming that you are quite happy- but this kind of response makes me wonder if you have some unresolved issues. I know you won’t divulge personal information, but I’m guessing you have a libertarian ex-wife, or maybe adult-children who have (gasp!) betrayed you by becoming liberals. What else could explain the knee-jerk hostility and utter loathing toward anyone who’s not a conservative?

I don’t think my post was angry or hostile. Liberals and Libertarians are simple-minded fools. Why do you assume it is either hostile or angry?

On the other hand, the simple-minded sniper above doesn’t rate any better response from me. Such people jump in, drop their stink-bombs, and flee. Who needs ’em.

Dain said "...only people who need ’recipes’ for living life insist on monocausal schemes (very much like religious thinking, I’m afraid...ideology and religion are joined at the hip, after all)."

Was this a slam against the religious Dain? It certainly could be interpreted as a dig against Bush’s evangelical base. I know that you are not really much of a believer (I believe you’ve described yourself before as a "scientific conservative"), but I thought you were always quick to come to their defense, not to paint them as simpleton sheep.

Separately, you said "...the use of government to remake society is inherently totalitarian (and therefore disrespectful to the citizenry)"

Would this rule apply to President Bush’s domestic "faith-based initiatives" or to the Bush administration’s current endeavor to remake Iraqi society as a liberal (and incidentally, hyper-capitalist) democracy?

What does "hyper-capitalist" mean? How would this differ from plain old vanilla capitalism?

Jmont, my view on the Religious Right has always been that their view of human nature is close enough to reality to make their "monocausal" worldview a reasonable proxy for reality. Moreover, I admire Christianity because it is an important corrective to crazy ideologies. It teaches that man cannot save himself, that government is not the final answer, and that "fellow feeling" (thank you, Adam Smith) is ultimately the thing that makes social life livable at all. This focus on personal transformation isn’t always effective, of course, but it often keeps our societies from trying out crazy ideas like "the socialist man," "the master race," and other secular promises of salvation. So yes, if push came to shove I’d line up with the Christians.

As for Iraq, is it totalitarian to overturn a totalitarian government and give people the right to direct their own affairs? Interesting question, and one complicated by the need to transform a society to defend your own nation (e.g., Nazi Germany, Japan). I would argue it isn’t, but I can see the alternative points of view.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/7655