I like a lot of this, particularly when you criticize Obama’s portrayal of Gandhi and King’s “idealism” as not being suited for dealing with “the world as it is.” Spot on!

I think I disagree with the reasoning about WWII. I LOVE pacifists. I agree with them 99 times out of a hundred. You point out a lot of civilians were killed in WWII, so maybe even though the cause may have been “just,” perhaps it was not a “just war”?

Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese militarists were determined to seize vast areas of land at gunpoint, at bayonetpoint. This was clear long before the US joined the war effort. Perhaps the people in Manchuria, Ethiopia, Holland, France, Poland, Russia and the Jews of occupied Europe could have practiced disciplined Satyagraha in resistance to the invaders?

I WISH that could have been true, but I think armed resistance was the proper response. Just focusing on Hitler: the Germans were determined to ruthlessly seize and clear vast tracts of Europe and were not going to allow trivial humanitarian appeals to derail their efforts. Fascism celebrates brutality and enslavement in an unashamed fashion.

Which does not mean I support all the actions taken by the US and its Allies in prosecuting that war. But WWII may have been justified according to the criteria of the “Just War Doctrine.”

With Afghanistan, you have a situation where the immediate cause of the war: safe harbor provided for Al Qaida by the Afghan government, may arguably be a legitimate “casus belli.” But that is merely ONE criterion for determining if it would be a “just war.” Most relevantly, there must be a reasonable expectation that use of warfare would likely lead to an improved situation. I do not think the US intervention satisfies that criterion, though it MAY have justified a quick, limited military attack upon Al Qaida training camps or leadership meetings, either to seize them for trial or as punitive attacks to deter future attacks upon Americans.

YMMV, of course.

I liked seeing him in Farenheit 9/11

“Evidence?”

Evidence?

All of this makes any frank and public conversation about a Single-Payer system of public health impossible

At his town hall meeting today, Obama denied that he is or has promoted single payer, despite videotaped evidence. Also, the meeting was scripted and limited to supporters. How can an honest dialogue take place when the President of the United States is a liar who silences all dissent?

Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Keith Olbermann rightly discuss the question of just whom these angry mobs are comprised.

Tonight on Olbermann, Harris claimed that the opponents of Obama’s healthcare plan were “racist” because they opposed change — and that opposing change is racist because the opponents of the 1960s civil rights legislation opposed change. Under her argument, opposing any legislation would be racist because all legislation effects a “change” in the law. Do believe this sort of argument, which characterizes all one’s political opponents as racist without proof or logic, encourages civil public debate?

While I might agree, I think it is important for people to understand that issue was not part of the OCC’s decision, which narrowly limited itself to his “active opposition” to the Civil Rights plank of the State platform. The OCC did not have to pass judgment on the broader question of Mike’s bonafides as a “Democrat.” It limited itself to saying his opposition to equal rights for gay and lesbian couples was at odds with the platform and was serious enough to merit public criticism.

Had the OCC decided Mike’s work against Civil Unions made him a “bad” Democrat, they did have the authority to end the relationship. They would have had to make a broader assessment of Mike’s political activities to decide if it is in the Party’s interests to continue our relationship.

I agree with you that many of critics of the OCC’s reprimand don’t understand, or don’t care, that membership in a political party is voluntary and requires the mutual consent of the wannabe member and the rest of the membership. Under the bylaws of the Democratic Party, it is the county organization, the OCC in this case, which speaks for the collective membership as to whether to agree to continued membership, whether to break off the relationship or whether to impose sanctions for a member’s violation of our rules.

Those who say the OCC is violating Mike’s “freedom of speech” are actually saying they don’t care about the Party’s “freedom of speech” or “freedom of association.” They are also seem to be saying a person should be free to join a group while opposing its goals and the group should not have the right to protect itself from such a parasitic, or opportunistic members.

Since many of Mike’s defenders are members of conservative, nay, REACTIONARY churches, how would they feel if an atheist, satanist, Hindu or Jew were to join their church, only to use their membership as a means to work against the church’s positions? They would rally to protect their group against the unwanted intrusion. In most churches, the matter would NOT be handled democratically, with due process protections. The pastor would act unilaterally and the “flock” would go along “faithfully.” The Democratic Party followed democratically agreed upon rules, entrusted democratically elected district representatives to make the decision, and democratically voted to reprimand Gabbard. They gave him the lightest sanction available to them under their Rules. The alternative of dismissing the charges, would have established a precedent that the Party has no authority to hold elected officials to account for their opposition to parts of the platform.

And, it worth noting, they did not find Mike in violation for his “failure to support the Platform”– the standard in the Rules. The raised the standard, finding him guilty of “active opposition” to the platform.

I think the did well under the circumstances, behaved moderately, as against the hotheads clammering for Mike’s expulsion. Those who criticize the decision are either representing the views of elected officials who object to the Party having ANY authority over them, even if is exercised rarely and moderately, those who are hostile to the Democratic Party, and/or those who are hostile to ANY political party, viewing all parties as disruptive of some sort of civic-minded non-partisanship whereby “people of goodwill” come together to resolve our “common problems” in a process undistorted by partisan rancor. This “non-partisanship” is, in my mind, a destructive myth, fostered by “centrists” content with social decisions being made by those controlling the marketplace and means of communication.

Every “democracy” using political parties as the means for articulating the struggle of competing interests and negotiating their resolution–or at least, the victory of one coalition over the other. As a practical matter, those who are hostile to political parties, are really hostile to the workings of a pluralistic democracy. They may fantasize about a non-partisan alternative, but they cannot point to any real world example.

But keep trying….