The “McCain is a Racist” Meme

OK.. I need to be careful what I say here because I haven't really looked at this issue with regards to McCain... First let me say that I don't know if McCain is personally racist. But I DO think he is a political racist... by that I mean his political agenda has been more of the typical GOP agenda and favors whites and wealthy, at the expense of minorities and low income Americans.

So rather than attack McCain on whether he is a racist or not, people should take him to task over his policies and positions on issues which are important to minorities and low income citizens.

Oh, and as far as McCain campaigning in all types of regions- I view that as a "Johnny-come-lately" political tactic. I think it's going to be a close race in Nov. and he needs all the support he can get. McCain also wants to take away ammunition from his opponents (he can now say that he campaigned in "black" areas- or where ever. Thankfully most of these people he is targeting are smart enough to see his ploy. Though it still takes away that ammo Dems can push.

I think the only Dem response (whether from Hill or O) would be something along the lines of, "I welcome McCain's attention to these issues which are important to our citizens. These are issues I have been working on for years and it is good to see that McCain is finally addressing these concerns after spending the last 25 years in public service."

Or something like that. Just my thought.

This is how stupid political battles begin.
Someone on the left says something about McCain for which he has no rational proof, he just 'knows, because he has a gut feeling.
Then, someone on the Right, picks that up and says: "See, that's how demented the Left is. "

Then everyone rushes in, taking sides, bringing up past insults ans making new accusations.
In a flash, both sidesare arrmed with ocean-wide brushes with which to paint the other side and the hate in the air is enough to make you keel over.

This being the forever campaign season, I suppose allowances have to be made.
Still, I wish some things said by some people were just allowed todie a natural death caused by nonreaction.

This racist meme sounds like a coordinated smear.

I note that Yglesias was at that progressive blogger conference the weekend past exploring ways of hitting McCain. This was the one that floated the (I think aborted from the reaction) plan for progressive bloggers to go to war with the media for positive stories about McCain.

Dennis, this racist meme sounds like a product of the same brain trust. Throw everything...however farcical and without foundation...at the barn door and hope something will stick.

Runasim is right about the outcome. If Yglesias & Co. keeping pushing this...the Right will ratchet up the level even more: e.g.... Obama hates white people. After all, he only has Black friends. Obama really hates Asians and Hispanpics. When was the last time he campaigned for Asian American votes. Obviously he despises them yada yada. Same evidence as for "Racist McCain" meme.

If "Racist McCain" is the starting point of the election campaign...where will it end?

It is humorous that someone who attended the Dalton School and Harvard and works at an all white magazine is accusing someone else of not liking blacks. Maybe when elite whites send their children to school with blacks, Hispanics, and illegal aliens, they will have begin to have credibility when discussing racism. Even Senator Obama is not so progressive that he send his children to public schools.

By gum, an actual moderate post, where someone takes a look at what's going on, analyzes the causes and possible reasons in a way that assumes the other side isn;t inherently evil or stupid for doing it.

I almost thought I was reading a tmv post from six months ago.

McCain may not be a racist, but he does have a desire to kill Arabs and occupy their land, and his supporters will most certainly play on xenophobic and racist themes to try to defeat Barack Obama.

chris, that's one of the most offensive and ridiculous comments that I've ever read. And here I was agreeing with belli for a moment there.

I will agree though, good post, Dennis (you can't be held responsible for the commenters.)

Personally, I'm wondering if the "Republicans are racists, see? See?" meme is going to be less potent now that the intramurals have forced Democrats to see how all of this works.

I just noticed that Yglesias is pushing the ageist smear on McCain re: "Old People Strategy" - this morning as well.

I suspect I was right. We will be seeing the outcome of that Left Blogger weekend conference for days to come...a Blogger "Smear-a-Day" on McCain...to see what will stick or the media will pick up on....

McCain the Racist. McCain the Old Man. McCain the Senile. McCain the Ultra-Right Wing Fascist. McCain the Adulterer. McCain the Corrupt.

McCain the _____________ (insert own smear here. You too can be an Yglesias! )

Forgot, of course: "McCain the closet Democrat" meme

That intended as a Mindfreak against the Republicans, uneasy with McCain's liberal aspects.

Of course, the "McCain the closet Democrat" meme contradicts "McCain the Ultra Right-Wing Fascist Warmonger" meme.

But so what? Keep smearing, and hope eventually something sticks.

And its only April. . . . . .

CStanley,
Did you find it at all offensive when McCain joked about bombing Iran? What about when he repeatedly and intentionally characterized all our enemies in Iraq as being part of Al Qaeda and as being recipients of aid from Iran?

John McCain has become the scapegoat.

No.

No, no, no. No. No.

I'm pretty sure you've heard all about Obama's church and how racist it is against white people. I'm pretty sure you've heard how Clinton slept her way to the top.

You seem like a very genuine person, Mr. Sanders. But are you going to keep falling for this stuff?

Marlowe,
McCain used to have some socially liberal policy positions. After more than a year of rightwing ass kissing, the only survivor seems to be climate change.

And McCain is a warmonger. It's not a meme. He's consistently called for more troops in Iraq, permanent bases, an expansion of the war into Iran, attacks on North Korea, etc. For someone who knows the horror of wars first hand, he seems surprisingly willing to subject his fellow citizens to them.

chris: the bomb Iran joke was tasteless, and quite similar to Reagan's joke about bombing the Russians which he made when he didn't realize the mikes were on. In both cases, I didn't completely lose respect for the men or blow their remarks out of proportion even if I felt they had crossed the line of good taste.

And how did one gaffe get to be "repeatedly and intentionally characterizing all our enemies in Iraq as being part of Al Qaeda and as being recipients of aid from Iran?"

And I still don't see you providing any evidence of racism in ANY of that. Being bellicose doesn't prove a racist motivation.

CStanley,
The difference is that Reagan didn't really want to nuke Russia. McCain, on the other hand, has taken an extremely belligerent tone towards Iran.

Did you hear that McCain made that same "gaffe" (a.k.a. lie) at least 4 times, including after he was corrected by Fightin' Joe?

"Personally, I'm wondering if the "Republicans are racists, see? See?" meme is going to be less potent now that the intramurals have forced Democrats to see how all of this works."

I guess I'm not up to speed. I don't know what that means exactly.

While smearing a particular Republican is ridiculous, it is not ridiculous to note the racist undertones in many conservative positions on issues.
Partly, this is due to the fact that the Southern Democrats bacame Republicans because of civil rights legislation. In this case, it's a regional, not a party phenomenon.
Mostly, IMO, this is due to a lack of imagination and an inability to accept something 'different' as equally valid. They accept blacks only if they dress like them, act like them and think like them. If not, then the racism, still strong in this country, rises to the surface.

The rest of the statement sounds like a warning. Where does that leave sticking to principles, though? The smear on McCain is unfounded and stupid and it shoudl stop for that reason, as a matter of principle, not because of consequnces. Lots of political smears are stupid, like the one of Obama, and that should stop also.
Considering consequences is a tavtic, not a principle. Pragmatically speaking, consequences should be considred. extremely seriously.
But tactics and principles should not be made synonymous.

chris, I can't recall if I've ever seen you mention your age, so I'm not sure whether or not to partially excuse you for seemingly having no knowledge about the Reagan era. Have you no clue that Reagan was CONSTANTLY criticized by the left for his belligerent tone toward the USSR? I was in college at the time, and believe me, there was no shortage of people voicing the exact concerns about him as you are now voicing about McCain. There were frequent demonstrations, protesting the fact that he wouldn't consider unilateral nuclear disarmament. There was an aura of abject fear that he was taking us to the brink of WWIII and nuclear holocaust (does the TV drama "The Day After" ring a bell?)

But gee, that all ended badly and the left was vindicated in their criticism, weren't they?

As for the gaffe, I'm sure you are also aware that quite a few people have argued that he wasn't inaccurate in those statements.

Are we done deflecting the subject from your charge of racism and how that relates to bellicosity?

C Stanley,
I didn't say he was a racist, just that he wants to kill Arabs and occupy their lands. Or, at the very least, has said as much publicly. McCain's self-professed spiritual guide is someone who says Islam should be destroyed. Take that for what it's worth. I personally don't think he's a racist. He just loves war, which is reason enough to oppose him.

And I'm still dismayed by your attempt to equate McCain's joke with Reagan's. Reagan's was made to radio technicians off the wair. It was not supposed to be broadcast. McCain, on the other hand, was speaking to an audience and clearly being filmed. And just because Reagan didn't end up bombing the USSR, doesn't mean that McCain won't bomb Iran. Should we not take McCain's bellicose rhetoric toward Iran at face-value? Should we assume he is a liar?

As for the gaffe, I'm sure you are also aware that quite a few people have argued that he wasn't inaccurate in those statements.

It was a lie to repeatedly say that Al Qaeda in Iraq was being trained by the Iranians. I'm aware of no credible source that has said otherwise. Even the nutcases at Fox News have admitted it was a misstatement, although they continue to characterize it as a "gaffe."

Good thing the Democratic primary has shown how race neutral that party is. I mean, only Republicans can be racists, right? And by corollary, all racists are Republicans, right?

Oh, CS, you know better than to feed the trolls. And how are you? We don't see much of each other these days at TMV, huh?

"Should we not take McCain's bellicose rhetoric toward Iran at face-value?"

We should put jokes into perspective when the bellicose attitude expressed in the joke is not what is outlined in his stated foreign policy:

Our counterterrorism efforts cannot be limited to stateless groups operating in safe havens. Iran, the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism, continues its deadly quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy, including the United States and Israel, or even to pass nuclear materials to one of its allied terrorist networks. The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions. If the United Nations is unwilling to act, the United States must lead a group of like-minded countries to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as restrictions on exports of refined gasoline, outside the UN framework. America and its partners should also privatize the sanctions effort by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize the regime in Tehran, whose policies are already opposed by many Iranian citizens. And military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.

He has the same kind of conservative realpolitik view that has been shared by many past presidents of both parties. Peace through strength. The military option is the last resort but it's not taken off the table in negotiating with a country that poses a threat to us or an existential threat to our allies.

You obviously disagree with that, but it's disingenuous to insist that he wants to "bomb Iran" and "wants to kill Arabs". I guess the Bomb Iran joke is generational too, and was more acceptable to joke that way back in the day (this was a huge hit on pop radio stations during the Iran hostage crisis.) I don't think anyone of my generation thought much of the fact that the question he got reminded him of that song- though it was probably poor judgment being in the position he was in, to quote it in that context.

Hi AR! I'm good thanks, and you?

More lies from McCain: "Iran, the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism, continues its deadly quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."

Our intelligence community said otherwise. The Iranians have said otherwise. The IAEA has said otherwise. That's realpolitik for ya.

Actually, Chris, what our intelligence community said was spun as though it said otherwise, and even Europe (certainly no bastion of neoconservatism) is troubled by that.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.c...

C Stanley,
I don't see where that article says what you claim about it being spun to a different conclusion and when it mentions the fury of European allies, it fails to mention who they are. All it does is quote an Israeli hawk.

About the potential for spin:

Paradoxically, America's NIE raises the alarm about just this sort of eventuality. The 16 intelligence services that signed the report concluded that Iran has the scientific and industrial capacity to build a nuclear weapon if it chooses, and that “at a minimum” it is keeping the option to do so open. But, whether by accident or design, the report was written in a way that allowed the finding about weaponisation to suck attention away from the uranium work, which diplomats had spent years trying to stop by means of painstaking diplomacy. Iran may not yet be home free, but the international campaign to stop it getting the bomb that many countries think it wants is on the point of failure.

And here's another article which mentions European diplomats expressing concern that the NIE report not be overinterpreted, lest it harm the efforts to keep the pressure on Iran through sanctions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

We're straying a little off-topic, but my contention is that McCain is lying about Iran if we believe the conclusion of the NIE. You said the NIE was being spun contrary to its conclusion. The Economist and WaPo article don't say that, they say the NIEs conclusions could be exaggerated and thus cause an unwarranted (in their opinion) modification of our stance toward Iran.

I'm saying that the NIE report doesn't draw a political conclusion (and it's not supposed to do that, BTW), but your assertion is that it does and that McCain is thus "lying". In other words, what you call "conclusion" is exactly what I (and the WaPo and Economist articles) call "exaggeration that could cause an unwarranted modification of our stance toward Iran." You claim that we must modify our stance if you say that continuing suspicions about Iran's intentions are based on lies.

And yes, we are getting way off topic, plus I will have to sign off soon so I won't be able to continue the discussion much longer.

Repeating momma runasim:
This is how stupid political fights begin.

From McCam to the NIE ireport n a few easy steps.

Well, in this case I'd think that it's a positive development to go from a campaign smear to a discussion about real issues (although I still criticize Chris for using the smear of racism to segue into "he wants to kill Arabs" which is neither true as far as I can tell, nor does it make sense since McCain's stance on the Iraq War could just as easily be spun into 'wanting to defend some Arabs against other Arabs' and if one wanted to make a nasty attack on the Dem candidates one could say that they want to walk away after we've created an environment for Arabs to kill one another.) All of that, of course, would be what you've called a stupid political fight though, runamism, and that's why I responded to Chris' statement the way I did.

Alright, I retract the statement that he wants to kill Arabs. But he is being cavalier with the specter of killing them. And in the interest of fairness I'll add the N. Koreans to that list as well.

Well, the broader point there Chris is that it's wrong to impugn motives of anyone with hawkish tendencies as though that represents a desire (or even caprice toward) killing, just as it's wrong to say that anyone who opposes war is unpatriotic or siding with our enemies. Both are oversimplifications which wind up making it impossible for people who hold opposing viewpoints to debate and potentially find common ground. Most hawks would still prefer to use soft power and diplomacy whenever possible, but they believe that those things only work when our real enemies know that military power is still on the table to counter any potential power plays that they might make. People like me who hold those positions would ask you to presume that those are our true motivations, just as I presume that you aren't secretly rooting for Iran to develop a nuke and blow Israel off the map or to kill our troops in Iraq.

Well, the broader point there Chris is that it's wrong to impugn motives of anyone with hawkish tendencies as though that represents a desire (or even caprice toward) killing, just as it's wrong to say that anyone who opposes war is unpatriotic or siding with our enemies.

There are differences between those two charges. War invariably means killing. When your stance is always more war, more troops, more bases, etc, that means you accept there will be killing, unless you're incredibly naive. Like I said, it was wrong of me to say that McCain "wants" to kill Arabs, etc. However, I still maintain that he shows little or no concern over the deaths that will logically result from his wartime policies.

Opposing a war on the basis of a cost benefit analysis and/or moral principle has nothing to do with patriotism or loyalty.

chriswww- again you show that you either disregard or don't understand the integration of hard and soft power that underlies most hawks' positions- the 'peace through strength meme. Wanting more troops and more bases isn't a call for more war, it's a call for force which can maintain the peace through stability and protection of our own interests as well as that of our allies around the world. You assume that having more troops stationed around the globe means that we'll fight more wars, and that's simply not the case. In fact many of us believe that pulling back too much is what leads to extremists filling the power void, and eventually that erupts into violence.

BTW, for a GREAT insight into this philosophy, I recommend the following speech by Robert Gates:
http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=2032

I don't see much evidence that McCain's philosophy varies much from this. If you do, you'll have to have something other than a joke made in poor taste to prove that he wants to start wars.

again you show that you either disregard or don't understand the integration of hard and soft power that underlies most hawks' positions- the 'peace through strength meme

I understand the concept, but I don't see it being actually being practiced by our preeminent hawks like Bush and McCain. They refuse to actually engage in any diplomacy with our enemies beyond the threat of force. "Stop building nukes, then we'll talk, and if you don't, we'll blow you up." That's not an integration of soft and hard power, it's belligerent arrogance.

Wanting more troops and more bases isn't a call for more war, it's a call for force which can maintain the peace through stability and protection of our own interests as well as that of our allies around the world.

Wanting more troops and bases in a country filled with people that hate us, that are shooting at us everyday and that think we're infidels occupying their holy lands is a call for more war, or at the very least it betrays a surprising lack of knowledge about the Middle East on the part of McCain.

You assume that having more troops stationed around the globe means that we'll fight more wars, and that's simply not the case.

It seems to be empirically true in our case.

In fact many of us believe that pulling back too much is what leads to extremists filling the power void, and eventually that erupts into violence.

Funny how putting our troops in Iraq has created the opposite effect.

Having military bases in stable parts of the world is a waste of manpower and money. Our bases in Germany, Italy and Japan serve no purpose. Do you honestly think those countries would be filled to the brim with "extremists" if we left?

And more to the point, having those bases in countries where we are not wanted, like Iraq, stimulates violence. Ultimately, they are counterproductive.

As a final point, we have a right to defend ourselves but it is not our place to police the world.

"Stop building nukes, then we'll talk, and if you don't, we'll blow you up." That's not an integration of soft and hard power, it's belligerent arrogance.
Except that no one is saying that, other than McCain's bad joke (the first part is true enough, because the alternative is to say, "OK, let's talk even if you are building nukes")

Funny how putting our troops in Iraq has created the opposite effect.

Not at all surprising that when a strategy is implemented very poorly, you get poor results and that makes it very difficult to see whether or not the underlying concept was the correct one or not.

As a final point, we have a right to defend ourselves but it is not our place to police the world.

A lot of our treaties and alliances suggest otherwise.

As far as having bases around the world being a waste, does that mean you think that we should severely contract the size of our forces, or just keep them here at home? Because the latter doesn't strike me as a terribly wise move (I don't see where it would save that much money and would certainly be a lot more costly and difficult to deploy if/when necessary.) The former is something I'd just have to COMPLETELY agree to disagree on- if you're that much in favor of a smaller military footprint then we'll never find any common ground on our viewpoints on this.

Wanting more troops and bases in a country filled with people that hate us, that are shooting at us everyday and that think we're infidels occupying their holy lands is a call for more war, or at the very least it betrays a surprising lack of knowledge about the Middle East on the part of McCain.

You mean like a surprising lack of knowledge of how countries might respond to presence of US military bases, like Kuwait, for example? Sure, the extremists use this as a rallying cry against us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an equal or greater number of people in the Middle East who want us there or at least are completely acceptant of our presence.

chris: It occurred to me that the distinction you made between a hawkish position and a dovish one doesn't hold true, because in both cases it all depends on whether or not the policy is implemented wisely. An extreme pacifist could certainly end up putting American lives at risk, and in some cases pacifists will tend toward appeasement policies that eventually blow up into larger wars or lead to a war that might not even have happened if a more hawkish policy had been followed to begin with (because again, when hawkishness is done right, the threat of military force is used to create diplomatic leverage which sometimes causes enemies to back down.)

So really, in both cases, the important thing is whether or not someone pursues a policy wisely, and in both cases when that fails, lives and peace are at risk. In neither case do I assume bad faith on the part of voters who align themselves with candidates on either side though; I assume that pacifists believe that those policies will work and that they truly don't see a great risk of backfiring, rather than believe that they 'hate America' or ridiculous things like that. I might, however, sincerely believe that they are wrong, just as they might obviously believe that I'm wrong about military force creating the leverage sometimes necessary to achieve peace and stability.

Except that no one is saying that, other than McCain's bad joke (the first part is true enough, because the alternative is to say, "OK, let's talk even if you are building nukes")

It's been what Bush, McCain, Lieberman, etc. have been saying for months now. It's also part and parcel of what you're calling the integration of soft and hard power.

Not at all surprising that when a strategy is implemented very poorly, you get poor results and that makes it very difficult to see whether or not the underlying concept was the correct one or not.

The underlying concept of what? Forcing a democracy on Iraq with our military? There isn't a proper way to implement that kind of concept, leaving aside the various moral and legal arguments against doing so.

A lot of our treaties and alliances suggest otherwise.

I know of no treaty that allow us to wage wars of choice/preemption.

As far as having bases around the world being a waste, does that mean you think that we should severely contract the size of our forces, or just keep them here at home?

The size of our military and "defense" budget is indefensible in my opinion. It's not that I don't think we should have a military, but it's primary mission should be actual defense, not intervention or national building or occupation.

You mean like a surprising lack of knowledge of how countries might respond to presence of US military bases, like Kuwait, for example?

Come on, Kuwait is very different from Iraq. It doesn't have the internal strife, it's a fraction of the size, it's not full of religiously important sites. Iraq is a lot more like Saudi Arabia. We had to pull our bases out of there, remember?

C Stanley,
Historically, war is bound up with extremely negative and usually unforeseen consequences. Even the best planned and executed wars will likely end with a great many civilian casualties and expensive damage to property and infrastructure. That's why war should always be the last option and reserved for self-defense.

To put it another way, the probability of a war accomplishing anything but death and destruction is incredibly low. It was a bad idea to invade Iraq if your goal was to transform it into a democracy, because that was the least likely of any of the predicted outcomes.

To put it yet another way, you, McCain, Bush, Lieberman, etc. have an unrealistic faith in the ability of military force to accomplish non-military goals.

chris: Is it not possible to discuss a general foreign policy without it being about Iraq? For the record, you might want to read my critique of the Bush doctrine in the comment section of this post:
http://poligazette.com/2008/04/02/john-mccain-a...

Maybe that will clarify for you that I'm not defending Bush's entire foreign policy, not by a long shot. One reason I pointed you to the Gates' speech is that I'm much closer to him than to the pre-Gates' WH stance. I think he 'gets' the integration part much better, and I think that had he been Sec Def all along we'd be much better off. And I think that Bush appointing him (whether through his own evolution of thinking or being forced into it by the '06 whupping) does indicate a change in course. No one is taking the military option off the table, because it would be foolish to give Iran a blanket promise that we're not going to bomb strategic targets or even invade if we felt that the security of the region or our ally Israel demanded that. But that's not the same as saying that 'we are going to bomb you." Basically the difference is that if Iran is not a threat to us or the region, then we're not a threat to them.

Looks like I didn't end that bold tag. My apologies.

Looks like our posts crossed; hopefully if you read my last one you'll see that I reject your lumping my policy beliefs are the same as Bush's or McCain's or Lieberman's. And if you take your stated beliefs to their logical conclusion, then there isn't a candidate that you could support either because none of them are going to shrink the military or avoid all wars.

"I am not surprised that some Democrats are doing this"

Why would anybody be surprised, on this site or anywhere else?

Is it not possible to discuss a general foreign policy without it being about Iraq?

It's a key component of McCain's foreign policy. If you'd like to talk about our last big counterinsurgency campaign we could always talk about Vietnam.

No one is taking the military option off the table, because it would be foolish to give Iran a blanket promise that we're not going to bomb strategic targets or even invade if we felt that the security of the region or our ally Israel demanded that.

The military option is never off the table for legitimate self defense. Iran's possession of weapons, weapons research or weapons factories does represent an imminent threat to Israel, the United States or the region as a whole. It'd be great if they didn't get them, but you, McCain and other hawks shouldn't be so willing to start a war over it.

And if you take your stated beliefs to their logical conclusion, then there isn't a candidate that you could support either because none of them are going to shrink the military or avoid all wars.

It's too bad that no 'serious' candidate is willing to question the bloated military budget. There are candidates (Obama & Clinton) that are at least, rhetorically, reluctant to engage our military in new conflicts. And for the record, I don't support avoiding all wars, I just don't think we should be starting them.

I think the concept of whether we should "start" wars or not is more complex than that, Chris. If you clicked over to read my comments on the Bush Doctrine, you can see that I no longer think that preemptive war is a sound concept. But, to use that ubiquitous example of a war that almost everyone agrees was just, what about WWII- would it have been wrong for the other nations of Europe to have refused to give in to Hitler's territorial demands earlier (taking a different course than they took with the Munich agreement which ceded Czech), and were they wrong for declaring war on Germany when it invaded Poland, for example?

Obviously each situation is different and I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison (certainly not trying to invoke Godwin's law :-) ) But your philosophy seems to indicate that only when a country is attacked can it then respond- while I say that when there's an attack on an ally one should respond, or when there's a real threat to regional stability. That's based on a belief that just as in the physical world, nature abhors a vacuum, so too does human nature abhor a power vacuum in the geopolitical world. If the democratic nations don't step in to police the world, then the dictators will have free reign.

I can't tell from your arguments whether you agree with that at all- but even if you do, I realize you might interpret differently the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear intentions. I guess I'm trying to figure out how far apart our positions are, and whether you disagree on the specific applications or on the more general principles.

One thing too, is that I think you take the same information that I do and analyze it in a completely opposite manner. You feel that other countries will look at our actions and see belligerence, and that this then leads them to take a more belligerent stance (in a sense, you seem to feel they're justified in those opinions.) Yet I see Iran's actions as belligerent, and I think we have a right to interpret them that way and react- which justifies our 'bellicose rhetoric' in the sense that it's defensive (defending the status quo which protects our ally Israel) rather than offensive (as though we refuse to coexist peacefully with Iran.) It's the fact that you interpret the US actions and rhetoric much more harshly than the Iranian that we conservatives find disturbing; after all, no matter how much you apply a critical lens to the two governments, I don't know how you could possibly view the US as having worse intentions since we STILL uphold human rights and freedoms to a far higher degree than govts like Iran do. I can see where you might argue that people on 'my side' take American exceptionalism too far (and I'd agree there's a danger of that- the ends doesn't always justify the means and we shouldn't get a free pass.) But on the other hand, you seem to see no danger of taking things too far in the other direction and assigning all of the moral responsibility on the US.

would it have been wrong for the other nations of Europe to have refused to give in to Hitler's territorial demands earlier (taking a different course than they took with the Munich agreement which ceded Czech), and were they wrong for declaring war on Germany when it invaded Poland, for example?

The answer to that question depends on how you view the arena of collective self defense. But it's clear in any case that Germany initiated the conflict. They made the territorial demands, they invaded Poland. But if you take the beginning of that war and analogize it with Iraq or Vietnam, the U.S. and France becomes the Germans, because we started the war free of any imminent threat.

But your philosophy seems to indicate that only when a country is attacked can it then respond- while I say that when there's an attack on an ally one should respond, or when there's a real threat to regional stability.

I agree with you except for the last part, "or when there's a real threat to regional stability." That's a little too vague IMO. It reminds me a lot of what our president's often say about "protecting American interests." Before you start killing people, you better be defending lives, not stability, not geopolitical interests, but actual lives.

If the democratic nations don't step in to police the world, then the dictators will have free reign.

How very un-conservative and Wilsonian of you :-) It's not our right to tell other people how to run their countries. Dictatorships are bad, but our focus should be on promoting peace and prosperity, not necessarily democracy.

It's the fact that you interpret the US actions and rhetoric much more harshly than the Iranian that we conservatives find disturbing;

I don't know how an unbiased observer could come to any other conclusion. We're the ones invading countries, pushing for harsh economic sanctions and threatening more military action. How many people would look at the situation in the Middle East and believe that the Iranians are a greater threat to stability than we are?

I don't know how you could possibly view the US as having worse intentions since we STILL uphold human rights and freedoms to a far higher degree than govts like Iran do.

The US gov't may or may not have good intentions. But even if the intentions are good and pure, they are still based in a misplaced sense of imperial entitlement. It's the idea that the world is ours to control and change as we please.

But on the other hand, you seem to see no danger of taking things too far in the other direction and assigning all of the moral responsibility on the US.

When we are the ones initiating the conflict, we must assume moral responsibility.

Iran isn't promoting instability by supporting Hezbollah? It isn't threatening military action and actually engaging in it by proxy when it does so? And acting bellicose with rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map?

You think the bias all goes one way, I see it going the other way in your interpretation. I'm willing to grant that the truth probably lies somewhere in between, but then when you look at the underlying fundamentals of respect for human rights in our country vs. Iran, I think we deserve more benefit of the doubt.

I realize that an interventionist foreign policy goes against some schools of conservatism, and I have no problem with saying that I'm not a libertarian on foreign policy, for example. I accept that on the concept of promoting regional stability, that the lines can be drawn in different places and care must be taken not to allow that to become a rationalization for pursuing our interests at the expense of others (as we've done in the past by supporting dictators in the interest of stability.) But I disagree with you about defining it on the basis of actual lives at stake, because freedom, autonomy, and quality of life for those individuals matters very much too. If not going to war means allowing a dictator to ruin the lives of millions of people, have them live in fear, abject poverty and squalor, then I don't find that choice to be morally superior to going to war to try to change that (keeping in mind of course that we don't always have the option to go to war to change things, if doing so ends up in a power vacuum like in Iraq.)