SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Bad Analogies

THE PLANK DECEMBER 5, 2006

Bad Analogies

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

It's fun, if predictable, when pundits make bad analogies between current political trends and historical circumstances. But White House stenographer Fred Barnes's book review in the new Weekly Standard sets a high (low?) water mark. The book under discussion is Jennifer Weber's history of slavery-friendly Northern Democrats who opposed Lincoln's war policy, known as Copperheads. Here's Barnes:

 

They undermined the war wherever they could. ... More broadly, the antiwar faction's vituperative opposition hurt the ability of the Union army to carry out the war effectively. ... The analogy with today is between the Copperheads and Democrats who oppose President Bush on Iraq and are critical of the war on terror.

Weber draws no analogy with Democrats today. She sticks to history. But I think the analogy is inescapable. ... And Democrats today have offered no real alternative, merely a seemingly irresistible impulse to retreat from Iraq.

 

A "seemingly irresistible impulse" to retreat from Iraq? Let's just say the Democrats who hold that position did not develop it in a vaccum. --Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 39 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

39 comments

Trying to find any basis in reality in any of the musings of "The Beetle" is as hopeless an endeavor as I can possibly imagine. Finding logical faults in his writing makes striking out the pitcher seem a colossal achievement in comparison. Still, it's all good, snarky fun. The only scary thing is that there are still people out there who take him seriously.

- Brent

December 5, 2006 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans are good very good. Oh by the way I have this friend in Nigeria that needs your bank account information to process a large loan transaction please call time is of the essences etc.

- cowiche

December 5, 2006 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not just that there are good reasons to want to withdraw (although I don't support withdrawal, only a Barnesian could think that anyone who has this position could only be at the mercy of illogical, unreasonable, unstatable forces). Isn't there, ahem, also a slight moral difference between the position of Copperheads and the position of modern-day anti-war Dems?

- epicciuto

December 5, 2006 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and not just Democrats -- are feeling that irresistable urge to quit Iraq. That was the meaning of the last election. Maybe Barnes should reflect on that.

- purcellneil

December 5, 2006 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is reads a lot like Channy's figments...

- MrCookie1

December 5, 2006 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as Bananas are to manure.

- stgla

December 5, 2006 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it really *is* a civil war...

- williamyard

December 5, 2006 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kondrake at the theater the other night and I had a (luckily) resistable urge to give him a sound thrashing, 19th century style. Jackasses the lot of them

- bdballard

December 5, 2006 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...to Democrat Copperheads in 1864. An analogy I have often made on these pages. The Civil War had been long and frustrating for the Union side. And only because Lincoln got the right generals on the case in the nick of time, and won some critical battles, did he win re-election in 1864. Had he not, Lincoln would have lost the election to Democrat McClellan who although pro-war, would likely have caved to his anti-war party after election and sued for an armistices. Effectively splitting our nation in half forever. With untold consequences, not just for us, but for the world. The main difference between Civil War Copperhead Dems and many contemporary defeatist Democrats is that they are not sympathetic with the Jihad as the old Dems were sympathetic with the Confederacy. There are, though, plenty of old Lefty Dems who are chronically in sympathy with any enemy of the United States as they have been since the 60s. Chotner has nardly proved why Barnes' analog is so faulty.

- ChanRobt

December 5, 2006 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks channy for making my point...

- MrCookie1

December 5, 2006 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, a vote for Democrats is not only a vote for terrorists, but also a vote for slavery. And Chan really did come in on cue, didn't he?

- dubyadoubte

December 5, 2006 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ummm...Can one really ignore that support of slavery is an extremely different moral position than support of the end of a war?! Again, they call the left moral relativists?! Sorry for so much shocked indignance punctuation (?!). But I really am shocked, and reasonably indignant.

- epicciuto

December 5, 2006 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yep, I doubt if even Minnesota Fats could have lined up this one so directly into the corner pocket...

- MrCookie1

December 5, 2006 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

... and we're going to keep it clean, what of the Republicans' impulse to reduce government revenue, in time of war and of peace, in times of surplus and of deficit, in times of expansion, recession, and recovery. Tax cuts are patient, tax cuts are kind. They do not keep any record of assets and liabilities... Sorry to throw an actual fact, and a nonsensical Bible allusion, into a discussion of a Beetle column, but that one's been on my mind of late.

- spoonman

December 5, 2006 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this a nickname for Barnes?

- epicciuto

December 5, 2006 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...synchronicity. the Democrats also opposed the first Gulf War which was entirely unambiguous. and only shut up because we wont it quickly. the Democrats support illegal immigration. Anything that threatens us, the Democrats don't mind. So, what do you expect people to think. the point being made by the Copperhead analogy is not that Democrats are currently supporting slavery, as I think you well know. It's that the Democrats' first instinct is to cave. If the Dems were saying, "the war is being poorly prosecuted, what can we do to change our strategy so we can win?" it would be a different story. Instead, the Dems are saying (and many were saying on the first day of the invasion) we haven't won yet, it's too hard, let's get out.

- ChanRobt

December 5, 2006 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dem's aren't against the war just because it's going badly. We oppose the war because it was meant to "disarm" Saddam even though he had none of the weapons that people like Dick Cheney insisted he had. Many Americans can characterize their war position as: "Oops, we went to war based on wrong information." It would be like if we started fighting the CIvil War and found out there was no slavery in the South.

- stgla

December 5, 2006 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But even though our premises were faulty, isn't the United States honor-bound to leave a stable government behind it in Iraq?

- ryanburke

December 5, 2006 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The way you frame the argument, we would be "honor bound" to leave a stable government even if it took 15 years and another 5 million Iraqi deaths. As far as honor goes, of course it would be better to leave behind a stable government than to leave behind the chaos we've unleashed. And I actually agreed with that point of view until this summer. But we can't provide the security necessary to support a stable government without adding many more troops than the president is willing to consider. What's more, our presence may be more part of the problem than the solution at this point, as a target of hatred from various sides. We were indifferent to providing stability for too long, and spent too long treating happy talk as a strategy.

- spoonman

December 6, 2006 at 12:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The incoming Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes doesn't want to abandon Iraq. He wanst more troops there.. "...in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. "Reyes's comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected." "We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies," Reyes said. "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We can't run away and leave Iraq in chaos. Not, just for our honor. Not just for our credibility. And not just because we owe it to Iraq no to leave under these circumstances. The overriding reason we can't leave Iraq in chaos is because it wouldn't be extremely harmful to our interests and to the future of the Western world if we did.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anything that threatens us, the Democrats don't mind. And etc., in the many other ways you've been making this point in recent weeks. So: Americans voted for Democrats over Republicans a few weeks ago, right? (Or maybe you think the Dems rigged the voting machines?) To complete the syllogism, American voters prefer the party that doesn't mind "anything that threatens" them over the party that stalwartly stands for defending them against those threats? If that's your view, then what's your explanation for it? Are the voters (a) stupid, (b) misinformed (seems unlikely, since Bush and other Republicans kept warning them of precisely what you say), or (c) unconcerned about threats to themselves and uninterested in their own defense? I mean, by your account, it has to be one of these, right?

- JSmith125

December 6, 2006 at 2:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but he's generally right. I notice, Mr. Smith, that you did not quarrel with any of Chan's points - the Dems were in the main against Gulf War I, are not against illegal immigration, and now have buyer's remorse in Iraq. They were all for it until it got hard. The voters, conditioned by our easy victories in GF I and Afghanistan (or so it seemed ), and constantly told by the MSM that things are going very badly indeed in Iraq, and in any case with the attention spans of a 3 year old, want out of Iraq, so they voted for the party more likely to lead them there. No surprise there. While the voters writ large are concerned about their defense, the Dem position at its root is to retreat from the Middle East, play 100% defense, and attack only after the US proper is attacked. Many of us believe that we must play at least some offense, and that after we are attacked is too late.

- butchie b

December 6, 2006 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chan and butchie, I guess you guys think all the people who went for the life boats on the Titanic were a bunch of pussies who just freaked out, and if they had just stayed could have kept the ship afloat.

- mghogwild

December 6, 2006 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...and how the war has been subsequently prosecuted. If the voters were against the Iraq war per se, they would have gotten rid of the Republican Congress and Bush in 2004. They didn't. The vote this past November was. 1) Discontent that we have not made dramatic progress in Iraq since 2004. 2) Anger at corruption in the Republican House, the usual corruption associated with a party in power too long. 3) The ugly Republican homsexual scandal soon before the election and the Speaker's ineffectual handing of it. 4) Anger of many Republicans with the large defecits and pork not associated with war costs. 5) Generalized anger of many Republicans with the president's lenient policy on illegal immigration. Although it was irrational to take it out on the House. 6) the normal 6 year malaise that usually loses a president his majorities in Congress at this juncture. Democrats of a certain stripe and the media are trying very hard to make the past election a referendum against the Iraq war. The election was, instead, a referendum this administrations prosecution of that war and the various instances of poor governance by the Republican Congress. The war itself and the condut of the war need to be treated as separate issues.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's an interesting argument. "We" are honor-bound to stay in Iraq. How about this. We impose a war tax that falls most heavily on the dipshits who voted for Bush and the war and we conscript those same people to fight the war. Fit the Bush twins for combat boots now and bring Senator Webb's son home. The people who had the sense to wait and see on WMD or to wait and plan better for the postwar period should not have to sacrifice. If you can find a way to do to that, I'm on board with the long-term occupation and pacification of Iraq.

- stgla

December 6, 2006 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When, during the Cold War, Reagan insisted on facing down the Soviets on big issues like medium range missiles in Europe, the Democrats opposed Reagan's hard line. When Communists took over Latin American countries, Democrats opposed a hard line and counter actions against such threats. (Communists always get a pass from the Left.) When Bush I drew a line against Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait, the majority of Democrats in Congress opposed our taking action. When Bush II moved against Iraq, many Demcrat senators voted for it whill letting the media know they were against it. They didn't even have the courage of their convictions when they voted. When Democrat has occupied the White House and America has been attacked, they have waffled and done little or nothing to retaliate. Democrats have consitantly opposed the enforcement of our immigration laws and the sealing of our southern borderes. They clearly see illegal immigrants as the source of new votes and thus welcome an invasion of 12 million. Democrat presidential inaction: Carter: when a weak Iranian government occupied our embassy using surrogates. Clinton: Refused to allow the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. Retreated in the face of warlords who killed and humiliated our soldiers in Somalia. Failed to respond to the blowing up of a U.S. wrship and of two U.S. embassies. Since 1968, this has been the pattern of the Democrat party. In the light of all these actions and inactions, is it such an overstatement to say Democrats almost never stand up to threats against the United States until they can't avoid doing it politically as in 2002. Clearly there is a forty year pattern of fecklessness, ineffectualness, ambivalence, and hostility to action in the face of every kind of threat and provocation against us.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When, during the Cold War, Reagan insisted on facing down the Soviets on big issues like medium range missiles in Europe, the Democrats opposed Reagan's hard line. When Communists took over Latin American countries, Democrats opposed a hard line and counter actions against such threats. (Communists always get a pass from the Left.) When Bush I drew a line against Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait, the majority of Democrats in Congress opposed our taking action. When Bush II moved against Iraq, many Demcrat senators voted for it whill letting the media know they were against it. They didn't even have the courage of their convictions when they voted. When Democrat has occupied the White House and America has been attacked, they have waffled and done little or nothing to retaliate. Democrats have consitantly opposed the enforcement of our immigration laws and the sealing of our southern borderes. They clearly see illegal immigrants as the source of new votes and thus welcome an invasion of 12 million. Democrat presidential inaction: Carter: when a weak Iranian government occupied our embassy using surrogates. Clinton: Refused to allow the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. Retreated in the face of warlords who killed and humiliated our soldiers in Somalia. Failed to respond to the blowing up of a U.S. wrship and of two U.S. embassies. Since 1968, this has been the pattern of the Democrat party. In the light of all these actions and inactions, is it such an overstatement to say Democrats almost never stand up to threats against the United States until they can't avoid doing it politically as in 2002. Clearly there is a forty year pattern of fecklessness, ineffectualness, ambivalence, and hostility to action in the face of every kind of threat and provocation against us.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...did not seem to be responding, so I clicked 'submit" more than once. Apologies. Apologies

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hogwild, your analogy is way off. Iraq is "floating" it's just not making enough forward headway. It will sink, only if we scuttle it. And, to keep your metaphor going, if we do, let Iraq sink, it will pull us all down with it as it goes to the bottom. Losing, as many responsible Democrats are beginning to say now that they are in power, is not an option.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

....in blood. More blood than when Saddam was in power.

- mghogwild

December 6, 2006 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Saddam, but even so, the insurgents (of whatever stripe)will "win" only if we leave. We are still buying time for the Iraqis to get their government togther, to create the institutions that will serve them going forward. Maybe this means de facto partition, maybe not. In any case, Saddam and his psycho sons are gone, no one mourns; the Kurds are free, we all should be happy about that, and the cost thus far, given the stakes involved, have been manageable. Yes, I know we've lost nearly 3,000, and wounded 22,000 more. Each is a tragedy. But we lost 37,000 dead in a "war of choice" in Korea, which is my pick for an analog to Iraq. We stayed until the South stabilized, and it took them 40 years to become a democracy. We're still there in large numbers, 50+ years later. Iraq may be much the same story - or would if we had any staying power left. We shall see.

- butchie b

December 6, 2006 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...if I don't have to pay for the taxes to cover 70 years of Democrat Party bullshit programs that I don't agree with. I'm all for your selective tax program. Please pass the Chinese menu.

- ChanRobt

December 6, 2006 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think your explanation of the voters' preferences still leaves a gap; it's unthinkable that they would elect a party that favors whatever threatens them, so evidently they either disagree with you about that or you're being just a tad hyperbolic. But it would be nice if you'd quit retailing Rush Limbaugh's lies. Clinton approved the assassination of bin Laden; GW Bush ignored him. (Or do you get your information from TV movies now?) He did not refuse to respond to the attack on the Cole: it happened too close to his leaving office. The FBI was on the case and hadn't yet nailed down who was responsible. (They DID nail that down after Bush took office, and he's the one who then did nothing about it.) Clinton responded to the embassy bombings by launching cruise missiles at a camp where he believed bin Laden was, and apparently they just missed. Republicans sharply criticized him for this. I don't know how many cruise missiles were launched, but however many it was, it was that many more than Bush ever launched at bin Laden. Likewise, in Somalia, it was REPUBLICANS who demanded the immediate removal of the troops; Clinton resisted those demands, working out a plan to turn the situation over to other forces first. (If you don't have Lexis-Nexis, I can find you the GOP leaders' statements from the time.) Oh, and Carter ordered armed commandos into Iran to rescue the hostages. To suggest that it's his fault that that operation failed, or that because it failed he did "nothing," is like saying that Bush was personally responsible for the recent murders at Haditha. Carter was relying on his military commanders, as a president should. Now, which of the facts I've just stated is untrue? If you want to argue that, on balance, despite all this, Republicans are better than Democrats on national security, well and good -- you're entitled to your mistaken conclusions. But any political theory or claim that simply ignores these facts is pointless except for rallying the dittoheads, and just suggests that Cookie is right: you're not serious and not worth arguing with.

- JSmith125

December 7, 2006 at 12:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the Cole attack took place on 12 Oct 2000. There was time for Clinton to respond. I agree with you, that Bush was remiss in not making a public commitment right after assuming ofice to relentlessly pursue the Cole attackers and those supporting them. The denoument of that is we eventually took out one supsected planner of the attack with a Hellfire, and a score of others were tried and imprisoned in Yemen. Some recently escaped. A leader of the Cole conspiracy is in custody in the U.S. Bush eventually did something, indeed. Carter was feckless as I previously said. When the commando raid failed du to bad luck in the night helicopter collison, Carter left it at that. No further action while our territory was occupied and our people tortured. It took the mere threat of Reagan taking office to frighten Iran's government into releasing our people. Doesn't that tell you anything about how Democrats are perceived by our adversaries? Republicans don't have to call leftists Democrats pussies. Our enemiess know they are and act accordingly. Clinton's response to the embassy bombings was entirely lame. As you said, he sent a cruise missile at some tents and also at an aspirin factory. That was it. Then he hid from the problem. In Somalia, Clinton to have relentlessly tracked down the warlords repsonsible for killing our men and killed them. The more publicly, the better. I don't care what sniping his Republican opponents wree doing. Clinton was the president, not them. You prove my point. He was such a wimp that he couldn't carry out his CinC duties in the face of political b.s. from the GOP? How is this a defense of Clinton's courage and resolve? Those are my answers to your facts. Despite your "dittohead" aspersions (what kind of b.s. are you pulling?) I regularly weave in with my unapologetically strong opinions generous helpings of facts, historical references and analogies. Disagree with my conclusions, if you will, but don't rely on that refuge of cowards, wrapping your opponents in Limbaugh paper. As to Cookie, he and I get along fine. Do your own fighting, smith. Don't go hiding behind the kindhearted Cookie. Who himself frequently gets pretty hot under the collar, and often is far heavier on froth than facts.

- ChanRobt

December 7, 2006 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In Somalia, Clinton ought to have relentlessly tracked down the warlords repsonsible for killing our men...

- ChanRobt

December 7, 2006 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know Clinton says something like that. But, the people on the receiving end of the phone calls say they had Bin Laden cornered and were told they couldn't take him out on Clinton's orders. Since Bill Clinton is a convicted perjurer and was disbarred for lying under oath, why should his word, not even sworn testimony, be accepted over another government official's?

- ChanRobt

December 7, 2006 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close