Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

The irony of Karl Rove's now infamous commentary on liberals last week is in how much the truth is the diametric opposite of what he suggested.  Since I've been spending so much time lately blogging about conservative psychology, I would be remiss not to comment on the dysfunctional militarism of radcons.  It this militarism that is one of the chief reasons it is conservatives that weaken America, not liberals.

One of the defining traits of the current conservative mindset is a truly bizarre self-identification with the military.  This self-identification has a highly protective attitude toward the military and its purrogotives.  It also has created an "us vs. them" mentality in them, were it is impossible of people like Rove to comprehend how liberals could deal effectively in military policies.  

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

What's so facinating about the current trajectory of the Bush administration is the psychodrama that is playing out before our eyes.  Today, Annie Lamott does a pretty good job of explaining where the whole crowd is at.

I'm still thinking a lot about the possible ramifications of a McCain run for the presidency.


The first thing that comes to mind would be a cautionary nod to Democrats. Its becoming more and more likely, imho, that we may be witnessing the early rumbling of the eventual implosion of the Bush administration. Most liberals will logically assume that this will favor them in the next election--and they may ultimately be right. However, its important to really understand what exactly will be the collateral damage of such an implosion.

Yeah I know it sounds crazy. It this point in American history, these two group of people could be future apart. But one thing to keep in mind is that it has not always been that way. One of my favorite parts of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" is the chapter in which Frank relates the radical history of Kansan rural evangelicals, the animated spirit in the movement that brought us the closest we ever came to Socialism. And they could, believe it or not, be radically progressive again, given the right circumstances.

There's been some brief mentioning lately in the media about the potential realignment possibilities Environmentalism may hold for the Democrats to peel off some of the huge segments of Republican voting evangelicals. Mostly, this sort of talk gets little notice, and probably rightly so, since the circumstances for any real shift would have to become far more rip. Nevertheless, in the long run, perhaps much sooner than many people think, an environmentalist argument could become quite salient for evangelicals.

It's hard to argue that it's not.  When national opinion polls show clear support for progressive approaches to issues, yet the Republicans hold large majorities in both houses of Congress, one tends to draw that conclusion.  With all the commentary in Democratic circles about rhetorical positioning and framing, this would seem to be a major aspect of the current environment that is almost always ignored.

Ruy Teixeria's webpage pointed me to an interesting article in Mother Jones this past week, on this very subject.  The author, Steven Hill, writes:

I don't know why I feel the need to add my voice to those calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq.  Maybe I'm a little concerned about how insistent the call is becoming.  Maybe I'm a little afraid that if we do it to impetuously, as we did going in, we may cause ourselves even more problems than we have now.  

One thing is certain, and that is, as opposed to when we went in, we need to seriously think through the consequences of our actions and try to understand our alternatives within a truly holistic view of our grand global strategy.  

This week a few members of my family were in town.  It was great to see them all.  I had not seen some of the them for over two years.  

I spent a great deal of time talking to my brother and my step-father about politics and the state of the country, both of whom are white, evangelical members of the working class which has caused such angst among Democratic Party leaders and strategists.  My step-father was particularly interesting to talk to.  As a 27 year employee at General Motors, Bob's perspective was extremely enlightening to me.

There can be no further denial. Martin Peretz has become the crazy grandmother in the attic of The New Republic.  For years now, because of his partial ownership in the magazine, he has been able to steer its editorial policy and writing selection toward an increasingly bizarre and idiosyncratic ideological agenda.

Peretz would like the Liberals who read his magazine to believe that what he has to offer is an honest critique of the Liberal perspective.  There is little, however, in his writing that conceals the contempt he has for Liberalism in America.  Not only does he parrot all the standard lines from the Neocon litany of complaints against Liberalism, but he either conspicuously ignores or unwarrantedly rejects the relies Liberals make to the Neocon critique--another Neocon tendency.  

Two weeks ago, Peretz published a rather bitter and overly zealous critique of Liberalism suggesting it has no new ideas.  It was a highly simplistic piece that left out a hell of a lot of context, the coupe de grace coming at the end with a pathetic summary of Liberal foreign policy thought.  He writes,