« To The Beach! | Main | Open For Business »

URL Change

Painfull as it is to try and deal with the internet over a dial-up connection, it seems that people should know that the URL of my TPM Cafe blog will, in fact, be:

http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com
and not whatever it is I said before.

May 29, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83458bcce69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference URL Change:

» Good new blogs from Davos Newbies
I've encountered two excellent new-ish blogs in the last few days. John Hagel, who was a senior partner at McKinsey & Co for years, started blogging a couple of months ago. John has an individual, high-powered consulting practice and deals with a l... [Read More]

Tracked on May 30, 2005 4:16:12 PM

Comments

The right is going make great sport of the term'cafe'. I guess we cant begrudge the humorless automatons an occasional sophomoric chuckle. Its what passes for dialectic for many on the right.

Posted by: Michael7843853 | May 29, 2005 2:24:02 PM

I'm glad to see that the last post here begins with a typo.

Posted by: Tim | May 29, 2005 2:34:10 PM

And "painfull" as it is, there are no RSS feeds from that new site.

Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | May 29, 2005 2:35:32 PM

Hey, Matt . . .

I hear you think liberals need to be more "hawkish" and that this specifically means supporting Dear Leader's immoral, decietful, and unjust war in Iraq.

"Liberals" like you are just nothing other than establishment imperialists who are slightly more into the social democratic ideals of the old-time Democratic Party, post-New Deal.

And while we are on the subject, Mr. Liberal Imperialist, when are you gonna get your ass down to the local recruiting station and sign up to fight in this war you support so much.

As someone else pointed out about you on another liberal blog, you are a liberal version of chickenhawk Jonah Goldberg.

As far as I'm concerned, with 'liberals' like you, who needs Republicans.

Oh yeah, when do you plan on signing up to go an fight in Iraq?

I'd like an answer ASAP.

Posted by: Jeremiah Elias | May 29, 2005 5:30:26 PM

Well, Jeremiah, you're misinformed. I don't think Democrats should support the Iraq War. I find in life it's sometimes helpful to know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | May 29, 2005 6:23:33 PM

"Liberals" like you are just nothing other than establishment imperialists who are slightly more into the social democratic ideals of the old-time Democratic Party, post-New Deal."

That old-time Democratic Party, post-New Deal, had two interesting aspects to it:

- It was the majority party.
- It was no less hawkish than the Republicans.

Both of those things disappeared right around the same time, oddly enough.

Posted by: Petey | May 29, 2005 6:42:24 PM

And who woulda thunk that "I'd like an answer ASAP." would get results.

Posted by: Petey | May 29, 2005 6:57:22 PM

Petey, right about the time the Democrats got us into Vietnam?

Posted by: James B. Shearer | May 29, 2005 7:19:15 PM

"Petey, right about the time the Democrats got us into Vietnam?"

No. About the time the anti-war movement hit its peak was the time the re-alignment hit.

There were certainly other factors going on at the time that seriously muddle the equation.

But it's still worth considering that from '32 to '68 the Dems were both hawkish and the majority party in this country. And from '68 to '05 the Dems were both anti-war and the minority party in this country.

-----

And as for the Jonah Goldberg / 101st Flying Keyboardists Brigade charge, I opposed the Iraq war from the get-go, so I'm spared being forced to either go enlist or be somewhat of a hypocrite.

But I did think the case against the war was not as clear-cut as many Kos-types would have. My real objection was that the administration was selling the war almost exclusively with lies, and nothing good usually comes from that. If they had been straight up in making the actual case for going to war, and had leveled with the public about the risks, most, but not all, of my opposition would have been neutralized.

Posted by: Petey | May 29, 2005 7:32:11 PM

And who woulda thunk that "I'd like an answer ASAP." would get results.


!

Posted by: Al | May 29, 2005 9:53:12 PM

Hey Matt, How 'bout a little travelogue action 'bout the Outer Banks. Any cool food consumed? Step on any painful spiny ocean critters? Clothing optional beach? etc.

Posted by: yesh | May 29, 2005 10:51:50 PM

I have no life, obviously.

Posted by: yesh | May 29, 2005 10:52:49 PM

The Coffee House is gonna rock. Schmitt, Lind, and Wittman together - it should be like Led Zeppelin.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: it's Josh's world, and we all just live in it.

The dude invented the serious political blog. (Kaus was never serious.) He brought down a Senate Majority Leader. He single handedly saved Social Security at its moment of greatest peril. And now he's put together something that will probably mark the moment when the political blogosphere went from black & white to color.

Posted by: Petey | May 30, 2005 1:16:26 AM

The dude invented the serious political blog. (Kaus was never serious.) He brought down a Senate Majority Leader. He single handedly saved Social Security at its moment of greatest peril. And now he's put together something that will probably mark the moment when the political blogosphere went from black & white to color.

Yes, were it not for Joshua Micah Mitchell we just might be speaking German here.

Posted by: M | May 30, 2005 1:22:49 AM

I would like to know what exactly 'hawkish' means. With examples, please.

Oh, yeah - and I need this ASAP.

I don't know about the 'old-time Democratic Party', but the US population in general certainly has not been 'hawkish' in any reasonable sense of the word I can imagine. And if being majority party requires funneling billions of dollars every year to the US arms manufacturers, then something must be seriously wrong with the system.

Posted by: abb1 | May 30, 2005 4:57:24 AM

"I would like to know what exactly 'hawkish' means."

Much as with 'extraordinary circumstances', it is open to multiple interpretations. But if I had to take a shot at it in four words, I'd go with:

Not Like Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Petey | May 30, 2005 9:20:40 AM

I'm not a "liberal hawk" for roughly the same reason that defense attorney can't turn around and say "You know what? My client probably is guilty."

The mistake a lot of people seem to make is in thinking that we're all going to reach some kind of consensus, when in fact many important decisions are handled by advocacy. Sure, there are some situations in which it is hard to envision a peaceful and just outcome, but that doesn't make me less of an advocate for peace.

To begin with, I don't think that the side advocating war needs any help. So I'm doing my job sticking to my gut instincts: my gut says that most of the time a peaceful solution would be better--and usually there is no solution that is all that great for everyone, so I'm talking about painful diplomacy, not stuffing flowers into gun barrels. If my gut is wrong in a particular instance, I will leave it to the adversarial arena of policymaking to correct matters. If anything, I should probably help advocate peace even harder, because the balance usually tips to war.

So I completely reject Matt's premise that Democrats should all bone up on pro-war arguments every time a security crisis hits. At the same time, I'm not for purging hawks from the Democratic party. The adversarial system is internal as well as external.

I also agree with the point that as soon as a Democrat like Matt comes out as a hawk, he is by definition a chickenhawk. There may in fact be nothing wrong with being a chickenhawk. Matt could rationally argue that he has more military value as keyboarder than tailgunner. But if we start down this road, we have to accept the validity of Bush's chickenhawks as well. How does this help?

It's worth noting that Bush has accomplished something that has not happened in more than 30 years: he's launched a war with less than spectacular popularity levels. Instead of admiring all our whizbang smart bombs in action, Americans are mostly wondering when it's all going to end. Speaking cynically, this strikes me as a much better time for Democrats to become the Normalcy Party than the part of war forever.

Posted by: PaulC | May 30, 2005 12:19:57 PM

Painfull as it is to try and deal with the internet over a dial-up connection,

See! No wonder I'm cranky all the time.

and not whatever it is I said before.

I like the silent, smooth opening and then the big promotion but hey...(talking about Josh here)

- It was the majority party.

From approximately 1930 to 1994ish.

- It was no less hawkish than the Republicans.

It was more hawkish, if hawkish means invading foreign countries lots and lots. The Democrats used to be the War Party. (Although, strictly speaking, the Republicans were the war party before WWI.)

That old-time Democratic Party, post-New Deal, had two interesting aspects to it:
Both of those things disappeared right around the same time, oddly enough.

Post-New Deal: 1948-1968. Truman (barely), Eisenhower x 2 (R's in control of congress for parts of this!), Kennedy (barely, possibly wrongly), Johnson in 1964, which everyone seems to have convieniently forgotten happened after Kennedy got his head blowed off, and then...Carter, Clinton.

Let's see: FDR came in on the Depression and is famed amoungst liberals for handling thereof, WWII, and then Korea and Vietnam. On the other hand, New Deal majority power was predicated on massive southern support, and loss of majority status for the D's also coincides with the loss of the South under Johnson.

But then, I could argue that the confluence of the depression and the fad for communism/socialism (worldwide at the time) culminated in the New Deal and then WWII and then the awakening and the challenge to communism. Problem being there is that while the American people were disposed in that direction to begin with, they maybe decided, after traveling down the road a piece that they didn't like where they were going. Also known as whiplash. Whereas as liberals as a social grouping [not individually] continue to believe that the things that were the fad in the middle 20th century are still popular and should be brought to their ultimate conclusion. Whatever that is, exactly.

One could point out that George Bush has built his foundation of sand on 'spreading democracy', and spending profligately - the only major distinction here between that and the New Deal is the cutting of rather than the raising of taxes. And thus, effectively Beinart is arguing for George Bush with much higher taxes. Coals to Newcastle? Snow to Eskimos? (ex-squeezle me, Inuit)

There may in fact be nothing wrong with being a chickenhawk.

In the moral sense? I wouldn't argue Matthew is a chickenhawk. But if he were, there are two basic problems: not knowing what they hell you're talking about because you've never served or even maybe had to take serious physical risks or killed anything (which is far more problematic than anything else, neo-cons very specifically included) and the issue of noblisse oblige. Notably, John Kerry had that one down cold. Fat lot of good it did him. (Actually it did him a fat lot of good - about 8-9% worth of good, I'd estimate.)

Quite a pickle.

ash
['Oh, and hey, I admire Josh. I am just not convinced that this TPMCafe thing is a good move in the global sense, as opposed to (perhaps?) being a good personal move for Matthew AND Josh.']

Posted by: ash | May 30, 2005 1:21:05 PM

"I also agree with the point that as soon as a Democrat like Matt comes out as a hawk, he is by definition a chickenhawk."

So anytime anyone over the age of 18 is in favor of a use of military force, if they don't go enlist, they're a chickenhawk?

Given the popularity of the Afghanistan operation, I guess that means the 200 million Americans who supported the war but didn't enlist are all chickenhawks. That's a lot of chickenhawks.

"Speaking cynically, this strikes me as a much better time for Democrats to become the Normalcy Party than the part of war forever."

There is a world of separation between 'hawkishness' and 'war forever'.

Much like the Republican Party has a racist contingent, the Democratic Party has a pacifist contingent. The similarity between the two is that in order to win elections, both parties have to reassure voters that those contingents are not calling the shots.

The electorate has an aversion to leaders who they suspect won't be willing to use force when merited.

Posted by: Petey | May 30, 2005 10:15:00 PM

ash,

The majority coalition can lose elections.

The Democrats had the majority coalition in the 50's when Eisenhower was President and the Republicans briefly held the House. Similarly, the Republicans had formed a majority coalition by the 70's despite the Democrats holding the Presidency, House, and Senate.

It's worth noting that after '68, the Democrats were able to hold on to Congress only by running against the Democratic Party. It became commonplace for Democratic Congressional candidates to refuse to appear with the Democratic Presidential nominee, which was quite different from the pre-'68 situation.

Posted by: Petey | May 30, 2005 10:26:23 PM

Watching this site's posts disappear is like watching Jim Carrey's memories disappear in Endless Sunshine of the Spotless Mind...

Posted by: Petey | May 30, 2005 10:40:17 PM

Hope you're having a dolphin poking good time.

Posted by: Japan Air Lines | May 31, 2005 2:05:28 AM

So anytime anyone over the age of 18 is in favor of a use of military force, if they don't go enlist, they're a chickenhawk?

Maybe not, but what's the qualitative distinction between somebody like Dick Cheney having "other priorities" during the Vietnam war and Matt--and it's probably better for all concerned if he doesn't enlist--advocating a hawkish position while almost certainly not planning a military career of any kind.

Matt could conceivably wind up as a White House advisor in ten or twenty years. He'll probably continue to advocate a more ready use of military force than I would. He might have some very good reasons, but if he never served, I don't see the qualitative distinction between that and being a chickenhawk.

It seems that the chickenhawk slur is applied selectively. I would claim it has no meaning at all, but I'd be interested in hearing why Matt could never be a chickenhawk.

Finally, your analogy between racists and pacificists is about the most offensive thing I've read on this board in a long time. While I don't claim that US interests would be well served by appointing someone like Daniel Berrigan to a cabinet post, it's clear that the antiwar movement is working towards an ideal of a better world for all people. To draw any kind of equivalence between racism and pacificism is disgusting.

Posted by: PaulC | May 31, 2005 10:24:41 AM

200 million Americans who supported the war but didn't enlist are all chickenhawks. That's a lot of chickenhawks.

Well, what did Bill Maher get in trouble for saying back in 2001? We're the nation that lobs bombs from far away. You're right, that's a lot of chickenhawks, though I tend towards the chickendove side most of the time. As I recall, nobody really asked me if the Afghanistan war was the best reaction to 9/11, and I certainly didn't get a veto over it. I'm hawkish enough to say there was some logic to it, but I wasn't exactly cheering it along.

Posted by: PaulC | May 31, 2005 10:37:26 AM

And, yes, I do know it's spelled "pacifist" but for some reason the long misspelling looks fine to me when proofreading.

Posted by: PaulC | May 31, 2005 11:04:04 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.