Do Democrats play chess well? Who counters PNAC?

And if we don't...what is it that we do play?

What I mean is...Chess, as a metaphor for Republican politics seems pretty apt. (and I'm sure some chess master can twist the hell out of the metaphor..as can anyone with any metaphor...nonetheless)

The win isn't calculated in terms of immediate pieces...in other words, this ain't checkers (and I know checker fans will say Checkers is plenty strategic...whatever)...the point being, Chess is about strategy that plays out over several or even dozens of moves ahead.

It often ignores immediate gains. It often requires you to make yourself LOOK vulnerable in order to trap your opponent. It often requires you "sacrifice" one piece in order to later gain a more valuable piece. It is cutthroat because it isn't about keeping the pawns or knights or even the queen alive...it's about nailing their king...nothing less in the end.

And reading here at DU...it appears we credit them (the Neocons) with being amazing in their powers of play...PNAC and ROVE appear to set up traps and strategies years ahead...they routinely sacrifice things to get a greater gain. They use almost mystical powers of persuasion and deception to distract us from their real goals. (I'd say this is an overstatement but I see Rove often talked about as if he were smarter than Stephen Hawkings)

And really, this is how politics has always been. Plotting and scheming...sabotaging and setting up the opponent in ways they don't suspect so they trip over their own feet and you are there to capitolize.

Many here at DU regularly attribute these powers to a number of NEOCONs. I'm sure I have a time or two as well.

Fair enough. I tend to believe that this (the chess model) is how most of the senior Neocons do play the game...not the idiot chimp...he's a distraction imho...but the pullers of strings that populate his admin.

That being said...I really find it difficult to believe that for our all vaunted self awareness (we liberals)...we are somehow lacking in a substantial number of truely inspired and strategic chess players of our own. I'm not talking about grand speach makers or statesmen..I think we have a number of people who excel here.
I'm not talking about visionaries or idealists...we have those as well.

I'm talking about the true generals of politics for our side. The ones who are capable and willing (in which case one must ask if they are active) of setting up the republicans in ways similar to how we suspect they set us up.

Is Harry Reid one? Or Kennedy? How about Charlie Rangle?

Or is it the case that the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that they do play chess while we are playing checkers. They only value the outcome...while we focus on each move and as a consequence we don't sacrifice pieces in order to setup the endgame?

I am truly curious about what others here see. Personally I think we're a bit short on this type of inspiration at the top...but I also think we may have some new players coming up thru the ranks.

I often wonder if what many take for timidness or betrayal might *MIGHT* be something else...it might be cutthroat positioning in order to win the whole enchilada. And I often wonder if maybe...they are right...and that to win, one must play this way...not because it is ideal but simply because it is so.

That isn't to say I morally agree with the approach..I have mixed feelings about it. But I do question whether or not we can survive in a brave new world if we only fight in IDEAL ways while our opponents fight in practical ways. I often feel like the game is going on WAY above my head...and that I can't possibly figure out all the maneuvers that are being made...and that my stomach would turn if I did know. But I strongly suspect that I'd like the realistic result of the alternative (that we don't play such games) even less.

So I'm digging. I've decided that I want to have a better handle on who our Roves are...who are scary competent/devious strategists are...so I can watch how they play better than I have been.

It is the people who must root these criminals out. We don't need Roves. Rove served the purpose to help institutionalize this policy. We need the people first to counter PNAC by ousting them from positions of power and replacing them with those who will chart a sound policy for the nation.

The problem is that their opponent keeps wanting to change the rules. They keep losing anyway. Then they make up their own rules. Then they start losing again. Then they try to change them some more until finally they say that the rules don't matter and they win anyway.

Even when you take all the opponents' pieces away except for the king, they'll still declare that you have been checkmated even though you still have your queen and two rooks left.

"The Project for a New Old World".

It's a funny-sounding idea, but it has serious underpinnings - the necessity of rethinking Europe in a post-neoliberal, post-Cold War way and reforming accordingly, and then developing a new language of links with the rest of the Old World - specificaly China.

The biggest problem Europe has with american foreign policy is the fact that it doesn't take into account that the present belligerent attitude to the Middle East creates horrible problems for Europe. Unless that is overcome, the war on terror is lost and PNOW may become much less of a laughing matter.

Editedto add Zapp Brannigan quote:

"If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate."

in office speaks more volumes about the current political situation in europe than any one report could hold.

but in a short overview you could say that the corporatists have won -- they took over the center left and now they will have their way increasingly with the economies in europe.

i think it's time that we look at cheap labour in asia as a gold mine -- and we are in a boom/bust kind of cycle.

this does more to neuter europe's response to bush's irresponsibility and the effects he is having in alienating the mideast than the ''fact'' of pnac -- or pnow.

The German election was if anything a blow for corporatism. Merkel expected outright victory, and now she's shackled into this lumbering compromise government. Right wing governments in France and Italy are in trouble. The Spanish have a rather effective and popular left-wing government. Here in the UK we're in a state of flux and it could go either way. The defeat of the EU constitution - a neoliberal charter if ever there was one - means that a more genuinely popular Europe can now be theorised. In the Middle East, Bush's policy is self-destructive. It will not end well for America. And then there's China ...

I do not think the neo-cons are in turned to it at all. 5 percent of the world just can not rule the world and we are in for a shock if we keep thinking that way. There is no chess game if no one knows the rules or plays by them. What you get is a new game and we as Am. had better start learning the rules and how to play.

Chess in a political sense ecompassess the strategy and dirty tricks and traps that the Neocon's engage in. A competent political chess player understand their opponent will make odd/hypocritical/unfair/deceptive moves. And they figure out out and move to block it or move to exploit it as part of a longer strategy of their own.

Their people are reading the Prince and The Art of War...and they are using those texts.

Do we have any equivalents? Or are we committed to playing by the simple ruleset regardless of what they do...and if so...do we really believe this is viable?

I become increasingly concerned that our idealism can become as rigid and limiting and ultimately defeating as anything we see coming from the opposition if we can't deal with the practical reality of having to deal with what they are doing in an effective sense. All the higher minded ideals in the world won't save you if the guy standing next to you is actually willing to pull out a gun and shoot you in the head.

And they seem willing. Given that...do we have anyone ON OUR SIDE who can play the game as well as they can? Or are we destined to be Roved over and over again until some hopeful time in the future when the masses spontaneously rise up and overthrow their oppressors?

A saying comes to mind here "Old Age and Treachery will Overcome Youth and Skill"

They have a completely different world view that’s alien to normal, healthy people. We cannot possibly understand their motivations and manipulations which is why we will forever be on the defensive rather than the offensive.

If the person playing against them takes the time to understand their patterns and watch their moves. It's the ability to think AROUND your opponent that matters..

It seems like everyone's replying in very rulebound ways. The metaphor isn't about rules...that's part of the distraction. The question is about the ability of our leaders to think strategically. Do we have leaders who understand complex moves, sacrifices, and the goals of our opposition in order to respond effectively to them?

Right now I'd say Fitzgerald is a good example of a chess player...in that he sacrifices small fish to get to big fish...he makes careful indictments to get wins instead of massive indictments which would feel good in the moment but produce less, etc. He's in it for the BIG win, not so much worrying about individual moves, rather looking at a bigger picture. At least that's my sense. Unfortunately, I don't think he qualifies as one of our Leaders because I think the guy is doing his job...not as a Liberal politician, but as an investigator. Do we have any actual Leaders who show half his ability to think things out and act in such a manner?

We CAN 'T head them off at the pass because we don't think like them and can't anticipate their moves. That's the point. They lie, scheme, manipulate, maneuver and disarm in ways that can't be imagined beforehand and are difficult to comprehend afterwards. They are alien beings from a darker, sinister universe where there are no roadmaps.

Having been associated with a true sociopath (and living to talk about it) I speak from experience. Good/evil, light/dark, right/wrong...two diametrically opposing forces where never the twain shall meet.

Scott Peck's "People of the Lie" and Stanton Samenow's "Inside the Criminal Mind" are invaluable resources to understanding the psychological dynamics of how sociopaths interact and prey.

professionally and personally. I've even own "People of the Lie" and "The Psychopathic Mind" but comparing our credentials or experience here do much to speak to the topic.

Being what many here call "sociopathic" or having anti-social personality disorder, Borderline, psycho, etc. doesn't grant mystic powers. SOME people who are sociopathic are above average in intelligence...and many are not.

The issue isn't that they are *crudly* unpredictable or erratic. They are lacking in empathy. They don't relate to the feelings of others. They don't respect laws, restrictions, or authority as we normally concieve of it. But they do act from motives, motives which can be identified and reacted to and prepared for. This makes them dangerous, but it doesn't make them unpredictable...it makes predicting them more difficult and requires one change our Normal frame of reference.

The Topic Question, the point of this thread...is to see if we have leaders who are strategic enough in their thinking to plan around people who plan different from us normal folk. Do we have strategists in our party who are able to keep up with the opposition?

I refer back to Fitzgerald...do we have anyone of that caliber in our leadership?

I think it's also important to recognize that many of the RW/Neocon thinkers probably aren't pathological (though certainly some are)...They are motivated by philosophies that are at least as complex as our own...one can read Strauss and pick up a lot of it. They shouldn't be dismissed with a simple label. They may be wrong. They may be immoral according to our standards. But they are motivated by convictions...many selfish, some not...that we can look at, analyze, and prepare for in order to respond to. That is, if we have a mindset to do so. That's why I'm more concerned with the flexibility and general ability (in the game of politics) our current leaders than I am in the individual issues in this thread.

However you handled your interactions with the true sociopath offers the answer to your question.

Who are our best and most complex strategists? Who among our leadership appears to have the best ability to strategize for the long view as opposed to simply jumping on each immediate opportunity?

*and to answer your question simply, I'm looking for a political perspect not a clinical one and consequently my personal experience does not answer to the above questions.

THEIR BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT!

http://www.health24.com/news/Mind_Psychology/1-930,33385.asp

Normal people are ill-equipped to understand or deal with the sociopathic personality except in a reactive manner.