Article

2004-02-26

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2004-02-26 00:01|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Khatami's vision will be missed, for sure. But the conservatives are aware of their new status as the "everyman of Islamic society". With that in mind you'll see real progress! Nay sayers be damned.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-26 1:11:59 AM|| 2004-2-26 1:11:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This reminds me of Saddam's election victory a couple of years ago.

Posted by Tom 2004-2-26 9:44:39 AM|| 2004-2-26 9:44:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm starting to get really tired of the Western media's use of the word "conservative" to describe these Islamic Fundamentalists.

I am a "conservative", by which I mean I believe in classical liberalism and laissez faire government.

Conversely, I'm tired of left-wing socialists labelling themselves as "progressives"...as if they have a monopoly on progress. Tell that to students in the US public schools...

Posted by mjh 2004-2-26 2:49:09 PM|| 2004-2-26 2:49:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Oy - we've got at least 3 working definitions of liberalism - 1. so called classical liberalism, with laissez faire 2. used for what in late 19thc europe would be called radicalism - anti - laissez faire and redistributionist, but not quite socialist - blame David Lloyd George and the Lloyd George liberals. 3. The definition i prefer, in larger history, which includes EVERYONE in between the classic anti-democratic conservatives on the one hand and the Marxists on the other - so it includes BOTH laissez faire liberals and lloyd george liberals - both ronald reagan and Ted kennedy. Thats a disagreement within the broad parameters of 19th c liberalism.

and for conservativism - we use it for genuine old tory distrust of liberal secularism and democracy - you get that in Buchanon, and occasionally a wiff of it in George Will we use it for the "liberals" of definition one - and we use it for anyone trying to conserve an existing political/social system from Russian communists to iranian mullahs - its a synonym for status quo defender.

and all complicated by the levels of status quo. Is someone taking down a bureaucracy that was trying to change the private sector a radical (vis a vis the bureacracy) or a conservative (vis a vis the larger society)

Basically i would accept that labels change with time and place, and are specific to the situation. Im a liberal on blogs like this - in reality im really seen as more of a moderate in American society today - and 30 years ago my views would have been conservative. IN europe today theyd be conservative, if not reactionary.

Im a hawk on the middle east, but among my Jewish and Israeli friends im a moderate dove (as i am on this blog - at LGF im strong dove)
Religiously some jews see me as a modernizing heretic - while i have relatives who think im orthodox.

Make your own label - me, im a third way neo-liberal with social democratic tendencies, sympathies to neocon foreign policy, modified by limited neo-Wilsonian internationalism. And thats only the start. If you can be described in a word, your too simple.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-2-26 5:25:49 PM|| 2004-2-26 5:25:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 When the other side totally jugs elections, it's time to get nasty. Never thought I'd say it, but let's start shipping arms to Oom.

Posted by mojo 2004-2-26 6:14:03 PM|| 2004-2-26 6:14:03 PM|| Front Page Top

08:01 gromky
07:06 Shipman
02:06 SON OF TOLUI
02:02 SON OF TOLUI
01:31 SON OF TOLUI
00:28 Polonius
00:06 Lucky
00:05 Tibor
23:40 Steve White
23:20 GK
23:20 Matt
23:20 CrazyFool
23:18 tu3031
22:55 anymouse
22:53 Old Patriot
22:37 tu3031
22:36 Rawsnacks
22:08 True German Ally
22:04 True German Ally
22:00 Anonymous
21:54 Cyber Sarge
21:52 whitecollar redneck
21:51 Denny
21:48 chainhead