John McCain dies

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:
When what?

That was my point. This was in regard to your statement on there being no clear divide between north and south. Sure, originally there was not. But at some point throughout the ongoing war, you have to acknowledge there was a divide, even regardless of what the majority thought.

Established by whom? The French? The UN mandate on the cessation of hostilities? There was fuck all legitimacy to the State of Vietnam and you damn well know it.

For starters, do you know who was the one to give recognition of the 'Republic' of Vietnam? France. In 1949. Once again, it was never seen as a legitimate nation barring Western powers. In 1941, the Viet Minh had proclaimed it wanted to create a democratic nation after repelling the Japanese, with a pro-independence platform modelled on the U.S. 1776 DoI.

You do understand that just because the French recognise the regime, does not make it illegitimate? They were a defeated power leaving the country. They had an obligation to pass on the theoretical mantle to somebody, even as an interim measure pending elections.

I mean, I do sympathise with the North Vietnamese, and like I said the Vietnam war was one of the most dubious that the US has been involved in (and that is saying something), but I feel you are coming down far too much on one side of this.

How was it anything like Syria? Seriously, paint me a picture here.

A state of dubious legitimacy and uncertain local support clinging on to territory and backed by a superpower? The fact that regardless of popular support, it is there and it holds that land, therefore there is clearly a state there? This is all tieing back to that earlier point.

Wow, a handful of beneficiaries of a junta worried about pissed off locals retaking their sovereignty, what a shock.

I'll refer you to what Mrglass said above.

But also, no regime can survive with no support. There is a certain minimum level of support necessary to enable functioning of the government. Even the most brutal totalitarian regimes, such as the ones overthrown across north Africa, had quite considerable local support, even if it was just on the grounds that the alternative was considered worse.

No ... Le Duan doesn't actually call them 'communist' in 1960... he does refer to them as 'Revolutionary Democratic Forces' in the South.

In 1960, perhaps. By 1980, you are looking at a very different picture.

Also, the entire reason the US was interested was because of the communist elements. They wouldn't have spent so much propping up a regime and carpet bombing the jungle if it weren't for that aspect.

Because that's precisely who they were. Many of these people were simply anti-Japanese fighters in the past, or opposed the French playing silly buggers in their backyard, and future generations would be people who were fighting a U.S. backed illegitimate government in their country. Once again, it wasn't 'NVA' that simply entered Saigon in 1975. It was NVA and Viet Cong.

Again, originally. But wars bring out the extremists and the nutjobs. Look at how so many of the Middle Eastern rebel organisations get subverted by radical Islamists.

Catnip1024:
That was my point. This was in regard to your statement on there being no clear divide between north and south. Sure, originally there was not. But at some point throughout the ongoing war, you have to acknowledge there was a divide, even regardless of what the majority thought.

It was artificial. As I was saying, no peasant would look at the demarcation of North and South and see that reflected in the political landscape. There were Viet Cong with their homes and their families in the South when they moved North.

This is why in the rampant paranoia of the Cold War U.S. generals truly believed there was a secret communist government hidden beneath the canopy and that if they could just find it they could crush the Viet Cong. Well guess what? Never existed. At bestit was guys moving around with backpacks, sending messages, and word of mouth, and a whole bunch of localized conflicts and spurred on anti-South activity.

It was simply a whole lot of people with a whole lot of reasons to hate foreign intervention in their country.

You do understand that just because the French recognise the regime, does not make it illegitimate? They were a defeated power leaving the country. They had an obligation to pass on the theoretical mantle to somebody, even as an interim measure pending elections.

Of which the French never actually desired. You seem to be under the illusion that the people themselves wanted this. They never did, even the UN recognized this fact ... the Geneva Accords about pushing for a reunification ballot administered likely by strict international observation was predicated on the idea that; "Look, the South is going to tear itself apart..."

This is what both parties wanted. And if President Diem had any belief in the possibility of surviving the fact that his junta was in fact deeply unpopular he would have abided by UN mandates. He didn't ... and neither did the U.S. Neither the French nor the U.S. legitimately tried to stop the State of Vietnam from mass murdering people calling for an end to foreign interference. For years. It was a brutal junta for a reason.

I mean, I do sympathise with the North Vietnamese, and like I said the Vietnam war was one of the most dubious that the US has been involved in (and that is saying something), but I feel you are coming down far too much on one side of this.

Do you sympathise with the Viet Cong? How about the families of Viet Cong who were, in your own definitions then, South Vietnamese? How about the families of Viet Minh persecuted prior to them? You know ...in your definitions, many were South Vietnamese? How about the people that had to make the trek north from the South, for fear of political persecution, for fighting against foreign imperialism from all manner of enemies, that would simply be so easily boxed as 'North Vietnamese' in your current definitions?

Once again, you're pretending there is a simplicity here that didn't exist and frankly it's intellectually bankrupt.

A state of dubious legitimacy and uncertain local support clinging on to territory and backed by a superpower? The fact that regardless of popular support, it is there and it holds that land, therefore there is clearly a state there? This is all tieing back to that earlier point.

The difference being, of course, what exactly? I mean you could make the same critique of the rebels ... backed by, you know... another superpower?

I'll refer you to what Mrglass said above.

But also, no regime can survive with no support.

No ... provably no regime can survive without any support. It can persist awhile with foreign support, however. Even then it's just a matter of time, isn't it? Like ... you know ... the fact that it doesn't exist anymore?

Again, originally. But wars bring out the extremists and the nutjobs. Look at how so many of the Middle Eastern rebel organisations get subverted by radical Islamists.

Oh, yeah--no. See, both my maternal grandparents fought the Japanese in the Philippines. With anything they had. Poisoning their supplies, using their own weapons against them, pulling carts by hand with rice and medical supplies through jungles and mountains. Anything they could secretly procure from sympathisers, to deliver them to the fighters.

People like that are not nutjobs. They're fed up. Once more comparing Vietnam as if to the Middle East does the subject a disservice concerning colonialism in the Pacific.

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:
but he was a good politician who was willing to work across the parties to get key legislation done.

Such as the bill that enabled his heirs to receive a $22 million fortune tax-free.

My god. A conservative voted for a tax cut. What a shocker...

He also spearheaded the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law, multiple bills trying to address climate change, the detainee treatment act, etc.

The guy had a bit over 30 years in the senate over 6 presidents and had regularly worked with both parties on legislation. The guy was a conservative for sure, but made a point to work with everyone he could and reach a compromise when possible. He had a handful of key issues where he was out of line with his party and leveraged it as best he could, sometimes getting something through, other times not.

Supporting Republican or conservative legislation isn't a morally neutral phenomenon. It is a choice and a destructive one. That one forms a political identity-- or political brand-- around that destructiveness is neither here nor there.

But oh, the sorrow!

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It was artificial. As I was saying, no peasant would look at the demarcation of North and South and see that reflected in the political landscape. There were Viet Cong with their homes and their families in the South when they moved North.

All borders are artificial. Except natural ones.

This is why in the rampant paranoia of the Cold War U.S. generals truly believed there was a secret communist government hidden beneath the canopy and that if they could just find it they could crush the Viet Cong. Well guess what? Never existed. At bestit was guys moving around with backpacks, sending messages, and word of mouth, and a whole bunch of localized conflicts and spurred on anti-South activity.

It was simply a whole lot of people with a whole lot of reasons to hate foreign intervention in their country.

I'm not denying that communism was not the only driving factor, but to pretend it didn't exist at all is ludicrous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam

Do you sympathise with the Viet Cong? How about the families of Viet Cong who were, in your own definitions then, South Vietnamese? How about the families of Viet Minh persecuted prior to them? You know ...in your definitions, many were South Vietnamese? How about the people that had to make the trek north from the South, for fear of political persecution, for fighting against foreign imperialism from all manner of enemies, that would simply be so easily boxed as 'North Vietnamese' in your current definitions?

I sympathise with the Vietnamese in general for having their land bombed for twenty odd years. But North Vietnam is a thing. The Viet Cong was also a thing, and was under the umbrella of North Vietnamese led forces.

No ... provably no regime can survive without any support. It can persist awhile with foreign support, however. Even then it's just a matter of time, isn't it? Like ... you know ... the fact that it doesn't exist anymore?

The support for the regime dropped over time. But again, even at the end, thousands of refugees weren't too happy at the prospect of reunification. Yah know.

Oh, yeah--no. See, both my maternal grandparents fought the Japanese in the Philippines. With anything they had. Poisoning their supplies, using their own weapons against them, pulling carts by hand with rice and medical supplies through jungles and mountains. Anything they could secretly procure from sympathisers, to deliver them to the fighters.

People like that are not nutjobs. They're fed up. Once more comparing Vietnam as if to the Middle East does the subject a disservice concerning colonialism in the Pacific.

And the Philippines is one which I don't know enough about to comment on, but don't actually recall any real ideological angle to.

Again, see link above re. communism and Vietnam. See Chinese communist tendencies and the time that passed after the Communists took over. Look at North Korea. See Russia, for that matter (And no, it's not just communists, but these are the examples that were to hand at the time that may get people to prefer a corrupt southern regime). Nutters (i.e. ideologues) have a tendency of taking over in times of strife. Probably because sensible people are hiding. It's not an absolute statement, rather a generalism. The fact that independence movements have existed which do not subsequently lead to nutters in charge does not mean it isn't often true.

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

Such as the bill that enabled his heirs to receive a $22 million fortune tax-free.

My god. A conservative voted for a tax cut. What a shocker...

He also spearheaded the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law, multiple bills trying to address climate change, the detainee treatment act, etc.

The guy had a bit over 30 years in the senate over 6 presidents and had regularly worked with both parties on legislation. The guy was a conservative for sure, but made a point to work with everyone he could and reach a compromise when possible. He had a handful of key issues where he was out of line with his party and leveraged it as best he could, sometimes getting something through, other times not.

Supporting Republican or conservative legislation isn't a morally neutral phenomenon. It is a choice and a destructive one. That one forms a political identity-- or political brand-- around that destructiveness is neither here nor there.

But oh, the sorrow!

You know, some of us want to just acknowledge a man died who played a pivotal role in US domestic and foreign politics, one who made a point that political disagreements, even fundamental ones, should not automatically turn into personal ones. I'm not pretending that I agreed with even most of his political stances, but his purported style of legislating, of gathering legislators together to pass large legislation (even when he really didn't follow it) is a key means of insuring that a representative democracy functions. For those of us watching democracy weaken because elections and leaders keep rewarding those who refuse to engage with the other party in good faith, his death seems to be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican party to be brought back from an overtly xenophobic brink that celebrates racist know-nothingness rather than simply tolerates it.

From your postings here, you do not seem to appreciate that basic level of civility in politics and its necessity to insure a general stability so that legislation can be passed and the government effectively managed. It is because of this, your ideas continue to fail to become policy, because it is an unwillingness to gather more to your cause through persuasion and compromise, rather than demanding fealty to your ideas because of their supposed self-evident rightness, that prevents you from obtaining the majority support needed to make them into reality.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:
Disrespect for John McCain is literally the best thing about Trump.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/john-mccain-was-not-hero-obituary-war-racism-sexism

So...what IS your own opinion of McCain? Cause I cannot tell at this point.

I'm not terribly interested in receiving a warning is MY opinion. ;)

Ah, I had misinterpreted earlier posts of yours as defending McCain, my bad.

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:

My god. A conservative voted for a tax cut. What a shocker...

He also spearheaded the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law, multiple bills trying to address climate change, the detainee treatment act, etc.

The guy had a bit over 30 years in the senate over 6 presidents and had regularly worked with both parties on legislation. The guy was a conservative for sure, but made a point to work with everyone he could and reach a compromise when possible. He had a handful of key issues where he was out of line with his party and leveraged it as best he could, sometimes getting something through, other times not.

Supporting Republican or conservative legislation isn't a morally neutral phenomenon. It is a choice and a destructive one. That one forms a political identity-- or political brand-- around that destructiveness is neither here nor there.

But oh, the sorrow!

You know, some of us want to just acknowledge a man died who played a pivotal role in US domestic and foreign politics, one who made a point that political disagreements, even fundamental ones, should not automatically turn into personal ones. I'm not pretending that I agreed with even most of his political stances, but his purported style of legislating, of gathering legislators together to pass large legislation (even when he really didn't follow it) is a key means of insuring that a representative democracy functions. For those of us watching democracy weaken because elections and leaders keep rewarding those who refuse to engage with the other party in good faith, his death seems to be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican party to be brought back from an overtly xenophobic brink that celebrates racist know-nothingness rather than simply tolerates it.

From your postings here, you do not seem to appreciate that basic level of civility in politics and its necessity to insure a general stability so that legislation can be passed and the government effectively managed. It is because of this, your ideas continue to fail to become policy, because it is an unwillingness to gather more to your cause through persuasion and compromise, rather than demanding fealty to your ideas because of their supposed self-evident rightness, that prevents you from obtaining the majority support needed to make them into reality.

In the end, McCain was a Republican, which means when he looked at the parties available to him, he said 'Republicans share enough of my values' and that I am not ok with.

The Gentleman:
You know, some of us want to just acknowledge a man died who played a pivotal role in US domestic and foreign politics,

Ah, yes, his pivotal role in involving the US in more wars that have cost us lives and hundreds of billions - if not trillions - of dollars, of which we are still embroiled in 5 different ongoing conflicts. We can afford to flush absurd amounts of money down the drain, yet can't even adequately take care of our people.

one who made a point that political disagreements, even fundamental ones, should not automatically turn into personal ones.

Politics has become more personal than ever now that information is so easy to acquire and distribute. For many people it is personal when people hold beliefs like gay people shouldn't be allowed the same rights - marriage, adoption, etc. - as straight people, when racism is still very much alive and entangled with their beliefs, where the prevailing thought is that if you're struggling in life then you've done something wrong and you shouldn't be able to get any assistance. Politics is personal, full stop.

For those of us watching democracy weaken because elections and leaders keep rewarding those who refuse to engage with the other party in good faith, his death seems to be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican party to be brought back from an overtly xenophobic brink that celebrates racist know-nothingness rather than simply tolerates it.

I can't say exactly when, but that nail was hammered in years ago with gusto.

From your postings here, you do not seem to appreciate that basic level of civility in politics and its necessity to insure a general stability so that legislation can be passed and the government effectively managed. It is because of this, your ideas continue to fail to become policy, because it is an unwillingness to gather more to your cause through persuasion and compromise,

We're past civility in politics now, the Republicans have gained much from being blatantly uncivil, the Republican obstructionism of Obama, and Trump's presidency are the ultimate examples of this. Would that we could have a normal government where things like compromise, cooperation, bipartisan coalitions be possible, but we don't. The Establishment Dems keep trying to compromise and persuade, and every fucking time they roll over and capitulate to the Republicans - who refuse to compromise even a little -, offering lukewarm resistance while the Repubs get most - if not all - of the things they wanted. We're done with compromise, it's not working.

that prevents you from obtaining the majority support needed to make them into reality.

Some ideas already have majority support, but face opposition from the politicians in control, readily satisfied to sit and make bank while either removing regulations - in the case of Republicans - or by only barely changing anything to keep as much of the status quo as possible in the case of the Democrats. Majority support in terms of the population means shit all when the powers that be don't want it.

I try to give the dead some respect, at least for a few weeks.

McCain defended Obama by saying he was an upstanding citizen during the decade long Obama Derangement Syndrome phase.

Thoughts and prayers and all that.

Wish I could pretend to care more to maintain the illusion of being a "fair" and "balanced" person.

Ok that's definitely a lie. There's too many better people out there who remain invisible in far earlier deaths. The real worry is whether this is ambivalence or apathy.

Catnip1024:
All borders are artificial. Except natural ones.

Which evades the point entirely. You're wrong. The fact that the majority of guerrilla activity was in the South is proof of that. There was supporters of reunification andthe end of the junta were everywhere. Buddhist monks would light themselves on fire in civil protest.

How the government responded further instigated fighting on its own.

These people that took up arms did so for literally 100s of reasons. Anything from seizures of their land, to mass drafts, to assaults on Buddhists. Every guerrilla had a reason to be a guerrilla, and there wasn't as if some magic unifying trait amongst them. Everybody had a reason to fight, and the junta were simply adding ever more reasons to fight it as time went on.

I'm not denying that communism was not the only driving factor, but to pretend it didn't exist at all is ludicrous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam

No one is saying it didn't exist. I never argued that, you were the one pretending toargue that it was so fucking simple as North vs. South. The fact of the matter was that the people that opposed the Junta were everywhere. Including the South.

I sympathise with the Vietnamese in general for having their land bombed for twenty odd years. But North Vietnam is a thing. The Viet Cong was also a thing, and was under the umbrella of North Vietnamese led forces.

But it wasn't ... that's the thing. There were multiple reasons to fight the junta withinthe South. Such as when theViet Minh returned lands back to the peasants and President Diem effectively stole them from the people who the Viet Minh had restored to their own administration of lands by the locals themselves, and returned them to a collection of wealthy elite.

People were fighting the junta everywhere. And where villagers couldn't fight, were supplying all manner of materiel, grain or intelligence on the movement of ARVN troops.

President Diem had attempted to undermine fighting in the South by forcibly mass conscripting troops in the 60s ... of which only lead to greater materiel falling into the hands of rebels in the South and lead to mass desertions before the fall of Saigon. Within ten days a draft peace had consolidated the cessation of hostilities.

The support for the regime dropped over time. But again, even at the end, thousands of refugees weren't too happy at the prospect of reunification. Yah know.

Thousands ... vs. millions that were happy that the string of juntas had fallen. Merely a year prior the ARVN wasn't as if some ragtag military. It boasted exceptional means to prosecute a civil conflict. But a mix of mass desertions, falling morale, and increasing skirmishes lead to its utter collapse for a reason.

And the Philippines is one which I don't know enough about to comment on, but don't actually recall any real ideological angle to.

There wasn't as if some singular reason to fight the junta in the South. It was a massive combination of affairs ranging from the utter contempt of democratic systems, forcible land seizures, intentionally antagonising Buddhists due to Diem's fanatical Christian bent, and the forcible drafting of soldiers who saw no reason to prop up a government that they themselves saw as illegitimate.

Unless you want to lump in villagers fighting because they didn't want to see more of their people conscripted to fight other Vietnamese who they saw as Vietnamese as merely 'communist' you have no leg to stand on.

And no, fighting an illegitimate military government is not as if a 'nutjob' reason to fight. Fighting a particular strain of violent Christianity seeking to subvert their culture and traditions is not a nutjob reason to fight. Fighting to simply end the war between their own is not a nutjob reason to fight.

There are a million and one reasons why people picked up a gun. 'Communism' was just one of them.

There were a million and one reasons why people picked up a gun. 'Ideology' was just one of them.

These people suffered mass conscriptions, routine coups, land seizures, abuse towards their own, nepotism and corruption in every branch of government, and foreign intervention.

Entirely pragmatic, tangible reasons to fight ... of which were not argued in terms of philosophy but rather the fact that they were being mistreated in any conventional examination. Philosophy dies the second a Christian government conscripts your 17 year old son to murder his own elder Buddhist brother at the behest of a government who has stolen your lands and uprooted your fellow villagers like any number of imperialists of the past.

The Gentleman:

Seanchaidh:

The Gentleman:

My god. A conservative voted for a tax cut. What a shocker...

He also spearheaded the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform law, multiple bills trying to address climate change, the detainee treatment act, etc.

The guy had a bit over 30 years in the senate over 6 presidents and had regularly worked with both parties on legislation. The guy was a conservative for sure, but made a point to work with everyone he could and reach a compromise when possible. He had a handful of key issues where he was out of line with his party and leveraged it as best he could, sometimes getting something through, other times not.

Supporting Republican or conservative legislation isn't a morally neutral phenomenon. It is a choice and a destructive one. That one forms a political identity-- or political brand-- around that destructiveness is neither here nor there.

But oh, the sorrow!

You know, some of us want to just acknowledge a man died who played a pivotal role in US domestic and foreign politics, one who made a point that political disagreements, even fundamental ones, should not automatically turn into personal ones. I'm not pretending that I agreed with even most of his political stances, but his purported style of legislating, of gathering legislators together to pass large legislation (even when he really didn't follow it) is a key means of insuring that a representative democracy functions. For those of us watching democracy weaken because elections and leaders keep rewarding those who refuse to engage with the other party in good faith, his death seems to be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican party to be brought back from an overtly xenophobic brink that celebrates racist know-nothingness rather than simply tolerates it.

From your postings here, you do not seem to appreciate that basic level of civility in politics and its necessity to insure a general stability so that legislation can be passed and the government effectively managed. It is because of this, your ideas continue to fail to become policy, because it is an unwillingness to gather more to your cause through persuasion and compromise, rather than demanding fealty to your ideas because of their supposed self-evident rightness, that prevents you from obtaining the majority support needed to make them into reality.

That's certainly a collection of trite platitudes and disingenuous non sequiturs if ever I've seen one. You would like to believe-- or at least like me to believe-- that our elected officials are not in the pockets of the owning class; that there is indeed value in the two servant parties of capitalism coming together to pass some undefined major legislation. Let's define it; not much is more bipartisan (or on brand for John McCain!) than the defense bill, right? $717 billion a year? Is that the kind of oh so necessary legislation you're talking about?

But enough about that: let's examine the right's descent into overt white nationalism (which was a predictable consequence of the Nixonian southern strategy). With enthusiasm, John McCain hammered in that last nail in the coffin (really more of a sarcophagus at this point) of his party when he elevated Sarah Palin. But what, practically speaking, did that do? Now even liberals like yourself are mildly horrified by our immigration policy. Even sometimes by police brutality (even while Democrats help to pass Blue Lives Matter bills and anti-Antifa legislation-- more of that sacred bipartisanship no doubt). The mask is off; the waters are disturbed.

But oh please, can't we all just blame this on Trump alone!? War criminals like Henry Kissinger and advocates of invasion like Bill Kristol and David Frum are still welcome! #Resist

The fact of the matter is that liberal hagiographers want to cling to McCain because he was cut from the same cloth as them; he was polite about wanting to bomb everything foreign to Kingdom come. He made some anguished noises before voting with the Republicans on [insert horrible thing] anyway. He was utterly performative in his opposition to Trump.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

Okay, I'm done here. We're drifting away from the topic, and since you clearly for whatever reason are so steadfastly on one side of the argument that you can't even acknowledge that various ordinary people may actually have supported a corrupt regime, it'd be a waste of words to continue.

Seanchaidh:
That's certainly a collection of trite platitudes and disingenuous non sequiturs if ever I've seen one. You would like to believe-- or at least like me to believe-- that our elected officials are not in the pockets of the owning class; that there is indeed value in the two servant parties of capitalism coming together to pass some undefined major legislation. Let's define it; not much is more bipartisan (or on brand for John McCain!) than the defense bill, right? $717 billion a year? Is that the kind of oh so necessary legislation you're talking about?

But enough about that: let's examine the right's descent into overt white nationalism (which was a predictable consequence of the Nixonian southern strategy). With enthusiasm, John McCain hammered in that last nail in the coffin (really more of a sarcophagus at this point) of his party when he elevated Sarah Palin. But what, practically speaking, did that do? Now even liberals like yourself are mildly horrified by our immigration policy. Even sometimes by police brutality (even while Democrats help to pass Blue Lives Matter bills and anti-Antifa legislation-- more of that sacred bipartisanship no doubt). The mask is off; the waters are disturbed.

But oh please, can't we all just blame this on Trump alone!? War criminals like Henry Kissinger and advocates of invasion like Bill Kristol and David Frum are still welcome! #Resist

The fact of the matter is that liberal hagiographers want to cling to McCain because he was cut from the same cloth as them; he was polite about wanting to bomb everything foreign to Kingdom come. He made some anguished noises before voting with the Republicans on [insert horrible thing] anyway. He was utterly performative in his opposition to Trump.

As a minority, I am horrified by our police harrassment brutality of black and hispanic individuals. As the child of an immigrant, I find our current immigration policies to be abhorrent and cruel, particularly the post-9/11 changes that turned INS into ICE.

What I did about it was vote for the candidates who were most likely able to change that, up and down the ballot. I voted for the person who said that immigrants were part of our communities, who wanted to give citizenship to those who had been here their whole lives, and who believed in using the justice department to address police brutality rather than encouraging it, and would appoint judges that would overturn Citizens United and the entire line of funhouse-mirror case law written in the back halls of the Federalist Society rather than based on the reality of our world and the constitution. I voted for the person most able to make that happen. And in November I will do that again by voting Democrat.

What made McCain different was his willingness to talk to those whom he disagreed with, often passionately and even with venom, and then try to find common ground. Because in a responsible democracy, that's what you try to do: you find what you can most others can agree on and try to make it a reality. We use our votes to decides who negotiates on our behalf and whose judgment we trust to figure out the priorities. Then their job is to legislate and figure out how to advance those priorities with the priorities and judgment of other representatives who also were given that trust by other voters. It is that back and forth negotiation that has slowly broken down over the last two decades as fewer and fewer voices are willing to reach across the aisle to talk and find solutions that has gotten us to this mess where no real legislating is done and an openly corrupt president goes completely unchallenged by his party. McCain, for his many many faults, tried to hold back that and failed miserably.

You seem to labor under the assumption that you can have liberal policies without liberal democracy. I've yet to see a country where they've done that without it descending into just another form of corrupt patronage that ultimately destroys those polices or the country in the end.

Saelune:
In the end, McCain was a Republican, which means when he looked at the parties available to him, he said 'Republicans share enough of my values' and that I am not ok with.

I do not share the notion that simply being a member of the Republican Party is worthy of scorn (although I feel at certain levels you do become at least a passive supporter of their worser tactics, such as the decades of racial whistle blowing, even doing one ugly add in his 2010 primary). Even if effectively built on a underpinning of racial resentment as the modern party is, there was, until 2016, at least an attempt to counter that with visible minority demographics in key Republican circles such as Michael Steele (who lasted all of one quite successful term before being replaced with the human paste that is Rince Prebus), Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Alberto Gonzales. It's professed ideology has been one of minimal regulation, skepticism of government action, and "effective governance" (which has been effectively absent in practice since Eisenhower), does not create the inherent presumption that the party itself is evil or wrong. Indeed, as a minority approach, such push back can help insure that liberal policy approaches are honed and not just rammed through without proper consideration and study.[1] I don't view support of or membership in the GOP as inherently the same as joining a group like UKIP or the BNP, where the racism, bigotry, and sexism is practically yelled out a bullhorn.

Perhaps it is a naive notion that the GOP can still be saved from its increasingly totalitarian bent (as the recent Florida Primary seems to be demonstrating). I suspect that the 2018 and 2020 cycles will make the final judgment of the party as if it can be pulled from the brink.

[1] My local politics has demonstrated the problems of liberal policy without real legislative push back as several policies aimed at addressing homelessness and housing by the uniformly very progressive mayor and city counsel have found to either not help or exacerbate the problem, resulting in increasing pushback even by liberal voters when a more measured and defined approach would have likely done better.

The Gentleman:

Saelune:
In the end, McCain was a Republican, which means when he looked at the parties available to him, he said 'Republicans share enough of my values' and that I am not ok with.

I do not share the notion that simply being a member of the Republican Party is worthy of scorn (although I feel at certain levels you do become at least a passive supporter of their worser tactics, such as the decades of racial whistle blowing, even doing one ugly add in his 2010 primary). Even if effectively built on a underpinning of racial resentment as the modern party is, there was, until 2016, at least an attempt to counter that with visible minority demographics in key Republican circles such as Michael Steele (who lasted all of one quite successful term before being replaced with the human paste that is Rince Prebus), Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Alberto Gonzales. It's professed ideology has been one of minimal regulation, skepticism of government action, and "effective governance" (which has been effectively absent in practice since Eisenhower), does not create the inherent presumption that the party itself is evil or wrong. Indeed, as a minority approach, such push back can help insure that liberal policy approaches are honed and not just rammed through without proper consideration and study.[1] I don't view support of or membership in the GOP as inherently the same as joining a group like UKIP or the BNP, where the racism, bigotry, and sexism is practically yelled out a bullhorn.

Perhaps it is a naive notion that the GOP can still be saved from its increasingly totalitarian bent (as the recent Florida Primary seems to be demonstrating). I suspect that the 2018 and 2020 cycles will make the final judgment of the party as if it can be pulled from the brink.

Anyone who can still stand to be part of that group is saying they are ok with what they are doing.

[1] My local politics has demonstrated the problems of liberal policy without real legislative push back as several policies aimed at addressing homelessness and housing by the uniformly very progressive mayor and city counsel have found to either not help or exacerbate the problem, resulting in increasing pushback even by liberal voters when a more measured and defined approach would have likely done better.

The Gentleman:
What made McCain different was his willingness to talk to those whom he disagreed with, often passionately and even with venom, and then try to find common ground. Because in a responsible democracy, that's what you try to do: you find what you can most others can agree on and try to make it a reality. We use our votes to decides who negotiates on our behalf and whose judgment we trust to figure out the priorities. Then their job is to legislate and figure out how to advance those priorities with the priorities and judgment of other representatives who also were given that trust by other voters. It is that back and forth negotiation that has slowly broken down over the last two decades as fewer and fewer voices are willing to reach across the aisle to talk and find solutions that has gotten us to this mess where no real legislating is done and an openly corrupt president goes completely unchallenged by his party. McCain, for his many many faults, tried to hold back that and failed miserably.

You seem to labor under the assumption that you can have liberal policies without liberal democracy. I've yet to see a country where they've done that without it descending into just another form of corrupt patronage that ultimately destroys those polices or the country in the end.

This is a comment that we need to revisit more and set up into our hearts. Disdain, loathing, and anger are valid emotions, but not for the betterment of humankind. Therefore they have little place in our attempts to create a better world. And through that, the only recourse we all have is politics.

I admit to being human. I abhor Trump. But while I do abhor him, I will only speak the truth about him. I will not make things up, I will defend him if people say untrue things about him. Even though I believe with every fiber of my being that he has to go, I only want it via legal and logical ways.

This is no communication between both sides because there's no talking. There's talking points. There's rhetoric. There's abuse. There's no hope for compromise in a situation like this. There's just slash and burn tactics. There's bitterness. There's the death of Democracy. Because Democracy only is realized through acceptance and tolerance in order for the amelioration for all of the populous, not just the side that has the most representatives.

I do not agree with all of what McCain has done. I don't agree with all I've done in my life. We were miles apart on many issues. But he fought for what he believed in. Every once and a while he did things that I approved of. But more important than my petty approval, he went out and tried to do what he could. I can respect that, even if a lot of what he wanted went against my sensibilities.

He wasn't a perfect man. But he was a Man. He stood up on his own two feet and took what came. Even if we agreed on very little, I will honor any man who does that. Peace to you, Mr. McCain.

ObsidianJones:

The Gentleman:
What made McCain different was his willingness to talk to those whom he disagreed with, often passionately and even with venom, and then try to find common ground. Because in a responsible democracy, that's what you try to do: you find what you can most others can agree on and try to make it a reality. We use our votes to decides who negotiates on our behalf and whose judgment we trust to figure out the priorities. Then their job is to legislate and figure out how to advance those priorities with the priorities and judgment of other representatives who also were given that trust by other voters. It is that back and forth negotiation that has slowly broken down over the last two decades as fewer and fewer voices are willing to reach across the aisle to talk and find solutions that has gotten us to this mess where no real legislating is done and an openly corrupt president goes completely unchallenged by his party. McCain, for his many many faults, tried to hold back that and failed miserably.

You seem to labor under the assumption that you can have liberal policies without liberal democracy. I've yet to see a country where they've done that without it descending into just another form of corrupt patronage that ultimately destroys those polices or the country in the end.

This is a comment that we need to revisit more and set up into our hearts. Disdain, loathing, and anger are valid emotions, but not for the betterment of humankind. Therefore they have little place in our attempts to create a better world. And through that, the only recourse we all have is politics.

I admit to being human. I abhor Trump. But while I do abhor him, I will only speak the truth about him. I will not make things up, I will defend him if people say untrue things about him. Even though I believe with every fiber of my being that he has to go, I only want it via legal and logical ways.

This is no communication between both sides because there's no talking. There's talking points. There's rhetoric. There's abuse. There's no hope for compromise in a situation like this. There's just slash and burn tactics. There's bitterness. There's the death of Democracy. Because Democracy only is realized through acceptance and tolerance in order for the amelioration for all of the populous, not just the side that has the most representatives.

I do not agree with all of what McCain has done. I don't agree with all I've done in my life. We were miles apart on many issues. But he fought for what he believed in. Every once and a while he did things that I approved of. But more important than my petty approval, he went out and tried to do what he could. I can respect that, even if a lot of what he wanted went against my sensibilities.

He wasn't a perfect man. But he was a Man. He stood up on his own two feet and took what came. Even if we agreed on very little, I will honor any man who does that. Peace to you, Mr. McCain.

McCain is what the worst of the Republicans should be. But he IS terrible and that is why I will not honor him, I will not praise him, and I will not stop pointing this out.

ObsidianJones:
But he fought for what he believed in.

He bombed innocent people, was tortured for it, and then advocated more bombing of innocent people around the globe.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-mccain-reputation-20170727-story.html

The Gentleman:
You seem to labor under the assumption that you can have liberal policies without liberal democracy.

You seem to labor under the assumption that we have some kind of democracy.

The Gentleman:
What I did about it was vote for the candidates who were most likely able to change that, up and down the ballot.

What you did was vote for a slate of people who are (or are paid by the same people as those who were) complicit in things getting this bad in the first place. What you did was vote for a candidate for President who was complicit in pushing the Republicans further right (by, with the assistance of the Koch bros., making it the Democratic strategy to triangulate in the 1990s with 'centrist' racism and subservience to capital). What you did was vote for the very same people who now falsify history to venerate John McCain, George W. Bush, Kristol, Frum, Kissinger, and so on.

What you did was participate in your own small way in losing 2016. They were using the playbook you like. They were building on the legacy you like. A legacy of losing thousands of legislative seats across the country because it was becoming increasingly clear that what used to be a halfway functional party of working people had been subverted; it was now paid to be ineffective in its advocacy of inadequate solutions.

Confronted with the reality of our descent into fascism, you decided to put your support behind the bipartisan consensus that got us here, and the candidate who literally used her influence to try to get the GOP to nominate Trump. And it worked. Great. Good job.

John McCain, as much as anyone else on either side of the aisle, was a central player in the United States coming to this point. He embraced the crazy in 2008 and the Sarah Palin wing of the party has since metastasized. But it's not only his fault; this shit wouldn't be as much of a threat if liberals were doing their job when in power and actually protecting the interests of the poor and working class enough to quieten down the rage generated by capitalism. The fake populism of the right has only worked because the establishment has no credibility and no argument and they have willfully suppressed radical critiques offered by the likes of Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky, instead preferring that people hear the scapegoating nonsense of people like Tucker Carlson or Rush Limbaugh. The powers that be would literally rather see America become a genocidal ethnostate than hear an anti-war voice now and then.

I've been relatively torn on his death precisely because there are so many occurrences (both recently and years ago) he's played a part in in our political landscape that, with the blessing of hindsight, could be said to absolutely be both blunders and displays of malicious malintent towards a number of groups. But at the very least his death and its subsequent proceedings can serve as a reminder that in all the wild idiocy that has occurred within the past several years, that there's still some semblance of tact, civility, and measured thought and intelligence within American politics.

I really do wish McCain would have actually exhibited more (a LOT more) oppositional action before his death to really merit his oft-touted "Maverick" moniker, but it is too late now. In any case, losing another voice within the party that actually pushes back on racist and vile sentiment (also one that takes the opportunity to express the importance of not kissing the ass of the likes of Putin and Duterte), if only in words, really makes me even more cautious about the direction the Republican party will go in from here. You keep having your handfuls of Republican Congressmen that like to pay lip service to the idea that they are not enjoying this presidency and its implications, but they never do a goddamn thing about it. And those same Congressmen often serve as vehicles for Trump to enforce his agenda anyways, out of either tacit support or callous indifference.

However, regardless of any misgivings I have about his performance as a Senator and his policies, he's made a clear and definite impact on the historical landscape of American politics. And though his hawkish policies frustrated me greatly, I do feel that he deserves some modicum of respect in death for a number of reasons (chief among them to me personally being his endurance of torture during the Vietnam War and his commitment to not being an absolute shitbird in his presidential campaigns). I also don't really want to make a habit of pissing on peoples' graves in general when they're not inexorably awful. I can certainly see why some would with McCain, but he really isn't anywhere close to as vile as some of the people we've got bumbling around now in elected office.

I do hope his family finds the strength to continue on, and I wish them all the best. And that he found whatever peace he happened to be looking for. Glioblastoma had to be a terrible way to go and I can't imagine many others exhibiting the endurance he did, especially when considering his age as well.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here