posted
An article by Richard Cohen in the Post. We differ on a huge range of political beliefs. But on this we agree. It's worth reading the whole thing:
quote:I nevertheless cannot bring myself to hate Bush or, as someone here told me, to consider his possible reelection as a reason to leave the country. In fact, Bush haters go so far they wind up adding a dash of red to my blue, pushing me by revulsion into a color I otherwise would not have. For instance, I have just read Nicholson Baker's novel "Checkpoint," an audacious and repellent work about whether the assassination of Bush would be warranted. What concerns me is not one man's loss of perspective but the milieu, the zeitgeist, that produced it. Lots of people must have told Baker he had a capital idea -- a book that just had to be published -- and with alacrity. He was Paul Revere in print.
I bump into these anti-Bush alarmists all the time. Recently an extremely successful and erudite man I much admire told me he viewed the upcoming election as something akin to September 1939, the time when World War II started and, among other things, European Jewry was all but snuffed out. I add that bit about the Holocaust because the man I was talking to had been born a European Jew. I could hardly believe my ears.
...
The demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty if it hasn't already. It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place. It squeezes the middle, virtually forcing moderates to pick which bunch of nuts they're going to join. It's hard to know whom to loathe more -- religious zealots who would censor my reading and deny me the fruits of stem cell research or fervid hallucinators who belittle Saddam Hussein's crimes (or even Sept. 11) and wonder, in the throes of perpetual adolescence, whether the assassination of the president would not amount to a political mercy killing. It's all pretty repugnant.
(Bugmenot is down, so I can't post a username/password. There are some floating around out there.)
posted
I'm not sure what bothers me more, that I completely agree with the description of the people in that snippet and that some of them are my (more excitable friends) or that I think you are trying to use this as a defense of a campaign that has had the Vice-President say that voting for John Kerry meant that the terrorists would attack again because he wouldn't do anything to stop them.
One of the things you try to do in sports is to get inside your opponents head, either by making him afraid of you or by making him angry. Either way, this makes them vulnerable. They tend to lose sight of the actual goal and effective ways to acheive it in preference to things that the work out the state you've gotten them in.
In this case, there is a lot of anger against President Bush and the Republicans. Much of it is justified, some of it not. However, I think many people have let this anger twist their views of politics so that 1) they view President Bush et al. as "evil" people and 2) they have given up the goals that they had for the goal of hating and striking out at President Bush and company.
This serves no one's purpose, except maybe for the demogouges in the Pro-Bush camp who want to paint any opposition to them as the work of extremist nutjobs.
I remember in the days leading up to the current Iraq invasion, I got in a conversation about the possible war with one of my friend's dad, who is a semi-prominent activist (e.g. he has spoken in front of the U.N. on a couple of occasions). At the time, I believed what the Bush administration was telling me about WMD in Iraq, especially most tellingly Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. where he laid out the case that not only did the U.S. know for certain that Iraq had WMD, but we had good evidence that they were engaged in actively hiding them from inspectors. I explained how, given this information, I felt that it was necessary to invade Iraq because they obviously had WMD and inspectors wouldn't work because the Iraqi's were successfully hiding them. His reponse was 1) to say that President Bush and company were lying about their evidence and 2) after I had met all his other objects, he resorted to repeatedly, in the face of my objections, calling me an imperialist and saying that I was a happy supporter of George Bush. That became his argument.
Anytime an argument against a person relies almost solely on labeling them, it's a loser. This happens on Hatrack too often for my tastes. It makes up the bulk of OSC's recent columns. And it seems to constitute the primary methods of persuasion of both sides i nthe coming election. George Bush is not the devil and the hall resounding from the "Flip-Flop" cheer during the Republican national convention should have made any person serious about politics ashamed.
And what's worse is that, for my mind, the hate-filled denounciations of both sides are largely passing by very important issues.
As I stated above, Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. was the thing that really convinced me that going to war in Iraq was very important. The thing is, the ranting activist was right. Powell himself later admitted that the evidence he gave was pretty much a lie. This is terribly important in terms of the criticism of the Bush administration wokring to deceive the U.S. and the rest of the world into supporting the Iraq invasion. This was the evidence that convinced me that inspections weren't going to work and also resulted in the U.N. resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq. However, you don't hear anything about it in the mainstream criticism. Instead it's all about the simpler and more emotionally laden issue of "Are there WMDs?" This gives Bush-haters the opportunity to gloat that they haven't found any WMDs and seem unlikely to ever find any. The thing this ignores is that it isn't a good reason to distrust President Bush, unless you already distrust him, because everybody thought that Saddam had WMDs around. However, the big issue with the Iraq invasion was not, as the pro-Bush demogouges have tried to paint it, whether we should intervene in Iraq or instead sit around with our thumbs up our butts and let Saddam, who everyone pretty much admits was a power-mad dictator, do whatever he wanted, but rather what kind of interventions should we be using.
Threre are plenty of other issues like this where demonization of the other side has caused people to target their concerns on things that may make the other side look bad (or only let the people work out their hatred), but miss things that are actually important.
Demogougery is always wrong. It attempts to short-circuit people's critical thinking and works largely by turing 3 dimensional people into 2 dimensional things. It should be opposed on general principle and not just when it's used against something you support.
I think that the anti-Bush crowd should be ashamed of the tactics that they are using and also should seriously reconsider the issues while trying to be less focused on hating Bush. However, people who use this as a reason to support the Bush administration are somehow missing that they are at least as willing and even eager to use demogougery as their opponents.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you are trying to use this as a defense of a campaign that has had the Vice-President say that voting for John Kerry meant that the terrorists would attack again because he wouldn't do anything to stop them.
posted
Because of other instances where you've engaged in what I saw as Bush apologetics and because you made no reference to how this was a major issue for both sides. If I misread your intent, then I misread your intent, but there are plenty of people both here and in the real world who would use this information this way. If what I said doesn't apply to you, it certainly applied to them and should be said.
edit: Also Dag, I've never seen an instance where ypu've been concerned with the immature criticisms of Bush because they were instrinsically immature and counter-productive. From what I've seen, you've been concerned with disproving their often ridculous claims, in effect supporting President Bush, and not in the problems inherent in the ridiculousness of their claims. Again, maybe my read is innacurate, but that's the impression that I've gotten.
posted
This is another example of it. First, because I support Bush, I'm engaging in "apologetics." Second, because I post this opinion, I'm somehow excusing something.
Do I need to list everything I disapprove of that might be related in some way to avoid this kind of charge?
posted
This article simply asserts that the case against Bush is too strong, but gives no reasons why. WHY isn't it a reason to leave the country?
After all, this is an administration who unilaterally invaded two nations, and has said we are allowed to do that. They have insisted it is okay to kidnap foreigners and put them in "camps" just because we suspect them to be terrorists. They have insisted it is okay to torture these people. They have argued it is okay to hold prisoners who have committed crimes, just as long as they think it helps their war on terror. They have essentially asserted that other nations do not have national sovereignty and that we have the right to decide their fate, that their people do not have human rights if we suspect they are terrorists, and that our own citizen's rights only go so far as national security allows them to. No?
WHY is this not grounds for such alarm?
There are clearly SOME accusations that make no sense, I might add. Bush is not out just for his own personal oil supply, for instance. And Bush is, contrary to certain opinions, not an evil supervillain. However, such accusations are always present with extremists on both sides. (It's not hard to find equivalent ones among Republicans - or even Zell Miller .)
posted
Dag, When Bill Cosby decried many of the problems he saw in the American Black community, people leaped to criticize him because many racists would use his arguments as support for teir own views. I was against that, because Cosby has long built up his credibility as a supporter of the American Black community.
Are you honestly suggestign that it is completely unreasonable for me to take a view that, when you post a thread that says "This is what I've been trying to get at..." and then post an article that says that many anti-Bush people are behaving liking raving fanatics without any reference to the widespread examples of this from the pro-Bush peple, that you were trying to paint this raving fanaticism as a problem in regards specifically to anti-Bush people and not as a widespread problem in American politics?
If you write about problems in a specific group (especially when they are specifically contrasted with another group with the same problem) without reference to those problems in other groups, you can easily be seen as trying to imply that this problem is specific to this group.
If you want to talk about the problem, talk about the problem. Don't focus on how this problem is in one specific group of people that you happen to disagree with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You are saying that calling someone Evil is not facing the reality of the situation. It diminishes the real person being accused and diminishes the accuser.
This is not a "Anti-Bush" problem, because all of these Anti-Bush people came from somewhere.
I believe a lot of them were created when people like Rush Limbaugh and other conservative hacks started the Evil Name calling on anyone who was liberal or non-conservative.
When a person is attacked, their first response is to attack back. So everytime a conservative calls a liberal an idiotic fool (which happens often on shows like Limbaughs), they strike back by bashing the apparent leader of those conservatives.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: After all, this is an administration who unilaterally invaded two nations, and has said we are allowed to do that. They have insisted it is okay to kidnap foreigners and put them in "camps" just because we suspect them to be terrorists. They have insisted it is okay to torture these people. They have argued it is okay to hold prisoners who have committed crimes, just as long as they think it helps their war on terror. They have essentially asserted that other nations do not have national sovereignty, that we have the right to decide their fate, that their people do not have human rights (if we suspect they are terrorists), and that are own citizen's rights only go so far as national security allows them to.
Given that most of these things have been done by other administrations, how is leaving the country going to help solve these problems or stop these abuses of power?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:edit: Also Dag, I've never seen an instance where ypu've been concerned with the immature criticisms of Bush because they were instrinsically immature and counter-productive. From what I've seen, you've been concerned with disproving their often ridculous claims, in effect supporting President Bush, and not in the problems inherent in the ridiculousness of their claims. Again, maybe my read is innacurate, but that's the impression that I've gotten.
Then you haven't been looking. I spend more time doing that on this forum than dealing with substantive issues, because I've decided to avoid the substance until the conversation is on a productive plane.
posted
Dag, I haven't been around all that much lately, so I may have missed the cases where you've done that. I probably shouldn't make statements about people's participation in a forum that I haven't paid adequate attention to. I appologize for that statement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are saying that calling someone Evil is not facing the reality of the situation. It diminishes the real person being accused and diminishes the accuser.
This is not a "Anti-Bush" problem, because all of these Anti-Bush people came from somewhere.
I believe a lot of them were created when people like Rush Limbaugh and other conservative hacks started the Evil Name calling on anyone who was liberal or non-conservative.
When a person is attacked, their first response is to attack back. So everytime a conservative calls a liberal an idiotic fool (which happens often on shows like Limbaughs), they strike back by bashing the apparent leader of those conservatives.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. And Rush is definitely part of the problem.
I posted this article specifically because it is an example of someone who's partisan motives can't be questioned.
After all, questioning the partisan motives of the opposition is step 1 in this negative process, isn't it?
posted
If that was your intent, I still maintain you went about it in a bad way. A simple reference to this being a problem throughout American politics would have protected against people from both sides who would see this as being framed as a reason to support Bush.
I'd say one of the first problems with politics in not so much people questioning other people's partisan motives, but rather people who are unwilling to stand on principle and instead focus on the bad behavior of the opposition to deflect criticism from the bad behavior of their own side. No one (except for the hordes of evil liberals bent on destroying the family that OSC is always writing about) supports this behavior when it's done by a six year old, but it's par for the course in American politics. For me, this unwillingess to stand up against bad behavior when it's done by people are your own side is probably one of the fundamental problems with not just American politics, but American culture.
edit: If that's the issue that you were trying to get at, I completely agree with you. However, I don't think that you were at all clear in doing so.
posted
The article lists the reason not to support Bush right in it. It complains about this behavior at least partly because it might help Bush get elected.
The accusations of partisanship allow reasonable arguments to be easily dismissed by both sides. They are particularly corrosive because they state right up front an unwillingness to engage in dialog.
posted
And yet partisanship is extremely prevelant and is an insidious problem in political discussions. That's why I think that identifying the underlying principle as a standard that any side should be held to and/or acknowledging the faults of opposing sides is very important to demonstrate good faith and to create a grounwork for the discussion that it inhospitible for the multitude of partisans who would try to turn it to their advantage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[I gear this toward the "leaving the country" comment in the article snippet, although it applies to other characterizations in the rest of the article as well. This one, though, sort of caught me eye. ]
1. I'd supplement Mr.Squicky's point that this frenzy is widespread along the range of the political spectrum with the note that the article doesn't represent the range of those who criticize the current administration well. Yes, R Cohen is singling out the fanatics, but is line is a blurred one, and not everyone who considers leaving the country is going to pop a cap off at the president on the way out. People have a lot of different reasons for what they do, and it's often useful to be very careful (extra-careful, even overly careful) about being specific on who's being tarred with the brush.
2. I'm pretty sure most people who voice intention to leave the country if Bush gets re-elected won't do so. For many, I expect, it is a rhetorical device.
3. For goodness' sake, if someone who desires to leave the country is fanatical, irrational, or otherwise foaming in any other way, why on earth would anyone do anything to try to keep them here?
4. I find it interesting that we do not put those who leave other countries to come to the US under such scrutiny of motive, even if they come from other developed countries. The subject of whether they are disloyal to their homelands (much less whether they are rabid wing-nuts) doesn't even seem to come up. It's just interesting, that's all -- I'm not in a position to draw any conclusions from the observation.
All that being said, I'm glad you found a thorough articulation of your message, Dagonee. Having the words to say it means a lot in understanding your own positions as much as debating them with others.
[ September 16, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I too agree with you on many points you made in the thread. Never before in my brief life thus far have I seen a line drawn so distinctly. Once a person declares their support for either Bush or Kerry, an opposing voter more often than not stereotypes that person and judges them (if I may say so so gently) undeservingly.
To support one of the two main political parties has never been so polarizing as far as how a person is judged by their peers.
I am frightened and quite honestly not in the same arena politically to say much more. A while back though, I voiced my frustration here about which was the lesser of two evils, Bush or Kerry. I would not be satisfied with either one was my conclusion. However, if I read your frustration of the opening post, I too find the demonizing of the Kerry camp more offensive than the mud-slinging of the Bush camp. After that, I plead ignorance.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny. I read this article and thought of posting it here, myself. I think I could have done so without being attacked for some supposed 'agenda'.
I don't think we should be in Iraq, and I never did, but the extremes he talks about scary. It's somehow okay to write a book suggesting a moral reason to kill the president? That is just horrifying.
I heard one take on this 'anti-Bush hysteria' that I found rather compelling. It came from Ben Stein, which shouldn't surprise anybody, but I digress. Basically, he said that a lot of the anti-Bush sentiment comes from the fact that he is a safe target. I mean, HE'S not cutting people's heads off for disagreeing with him, or writing books advocating killing him, etc. The people who are actually doing the killing are more likely to be really evil, but their show of strength has cowwed the vestigial primate in all of us.
I'm not saying I agree with that assessment entirely, and there is NO QUESTION in my mind that this country could have a better leader than GWB. But the idea that there may be some basis in truth here, truth we are not willing to accept about ourselves.
I hate politics, and I basically think that if these are the two best choices to lead us-- in the whole of the U.S.-- then we are totally screwed. Effed around the corner and down the bend. I mean, really. We get to pick which white millionaire bastard calls the shots. That's good, but neither man fills me with an excess of hope.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It squeezes the middle, virtually forcing moderates to pick which bunch of nuts they're going to join. It's hard to know whom to loathe more -- It's all pretty repugnant.
Amen. Or whatever. I am so fed up with stories that twist and ooze on BOTH sides of the "line" that I would like to see them all go away and a clean slate.
It really came to a head here in Washington - on the local level - with this "new" Primary system. Voters were allowed to vote a Republican ticket, a Democratic ticket, or a Libertarian ticket. You could not vote across the board for the CANDIDATE that you felt would do the best job.
Needless to say, with my vote already discounted, I didn't even bother. And come the General election, I'll get to vote across party lines, but that does not mean that the people I would have liked to see progress to the generals made it.
posted
I think it's probably human nature to take statements in context of other statements made by that person. Since you don't discuss politics here, Olivia, (except for the fingers in the ears thig ), I don't doubt that it would have been interpreted more neutrally.
I agree that Dagonee was misinterpreted as having a particular intent. It seems pretty clear, at least to me.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The people who are actually doing the killing are more likely to be really evil, but their show of strength has cowwed the vestigial primate in all of us."
That is, I'm afraid, a load of crap.
Frankly, most people I know who are vocal in their opposition to this president would be as vocal to their opposition to Saddam Hussein were he THEIR president -- until, of course, they were killed for it; they're just that kind of people. The difference, if there is one, is that we as Americans are not responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein; we are not culpable for their misdeeds. We are, however, culpable for any misdeeds we commit in trying to remove them. And we are also responsible for our selection of president, and his behavior in office. So I think people protest the president's actions more loudly than they protest Hussein's precisely because Bush is OUR president, while Hussein does nothing in our name.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: there is NO QUESTION in my mind that this country could have a better leader than GWB.
Well, that much is certain. I am not convinced that the Democratic party nominated said individual.
You know, a lot of people threatened to move out if Clinton were reelected. I don't know anyone who actually did. And before I had kids, I thought of assasinating Clinton. The thing is, I realized it was something I shouldn't mention to anyone, much less write a book about.
P.S. Squick, are you seriously suggesting that Cheney is the first VP to say something incredibly untrue and stupid? :Final Jeopardy music: Personally I think Cheney is the second worst decision Bush ever made - I took out the worst so that Olivetta wouldn't have to change hers.
posted
Pooka-- We are in complete agreement (except for the assassinating Clinton part ). Don't faint.
Meant as a reply to Tom:
And the end result is an argument that boils down to "Give the guys with the machetes what they want."
{I'm not saying it is necessarily the truth, but when we try to deny that our animal instincts exist AND are capable of motivating us, then is when we are in greatest danger of being really stupid.}
The comment it brackets is not meant to be political. This is something I have found to be true everyday life. Pretending that I'm not motivated by animal 'gut' reactions on some level, and even rationalizing reasons why whatever I feel I need to do is right, can lead to some pretty awful, knee-jerk actions.
That's why I found the argument interesting, though I'm not sure of it's application.
Personally, I've never had a president whose actions I thought really spoke for me, and I don't expect to EVER experience that.
Maybe it IS time to replace one incompetent with another (of, perhaps, less visible incompetence currently). But saying, "We don't feel this way because we're animals, We feel this way because we're morally outraged" is oversimplifying just as much as saying, "We only feel this way because we're animals."
posted
"The difference, if there is one, is that we as Americans are not responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein; we are not culpable for their misdeeds."
And why are we not, if we have the power to stop them? I've always maintained that we have the obligation to prevent people from harming or killing other people whenever we can, and not doing so makes us culpable for whatever they do. And also that we have an obligation to do the right thing even if everyone hates us for it, which was why I didn't bat an eye when Bush gave up trying to get the UN in on the war.
Of course, I suppose you could ask me where that attitude got me, and you'd have a point. But I got those ideas from presumed first principles, not from consequences, and I don't see how to discard them.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Effed around the corner and down the bend. I mean, really. We get to pick which white millionaire bastard calls the shots. That's good, but neither man fills me with an excess of hope.
Survey says?
74.
I couldn't agree more. Keep in mind, GWB and JFK are 9th cousins. GWB and Al Gore also had a common ancestor.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've always maintained that we have the obligation to prevent people from harming or killing other people whenever we can, and not doing so makes us culpable for whatever they do.
You must have really loved "The Village" then. I don't think we become "culpable" unless they have shown an extensive history of doing whatever it is we fear they may do.
quote: GWB and Al Gore also had a common ancestor.
posted
"I've always maintained that we have the obligation to prevent people from harming or killing other people whenever we can, and not doing so makes us culpable for whatever they do."
Do you believe in arresting a murderer's neighbors? When someone is killed, do you put the witness to the electric chair?
While it's fairly easy to say that watching a crime and doing nothing is on one hand reprehensible, I think it's pretty obvious that we do not as a society equate it to anything AS reprehensible as the crime itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afraid I didn't see "The Village", Pooka. If you're implying that my position implies we should lock people up on the off chance that they might do something bad, I think that's taking it to a fairly absurd extreme. I agree with you that such interventions should be limited to situations where we can be reasonably sure what's going to happen.
But Iraq was such a case. We knew that Saddam had a habit of brutal torture. We had the power to take out at least one such dictator, and therefore we had the obligation to do it. The only question at that point was whether we chose the correct dictator to remove.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are varying degrees of responsibility, Tom...an unarmed person watching a sniper with a machine gun isn't obligated to do much more than call the police, to take one extreme. OTOH, if I knew a bystander had a gun of his own on his person, and the training to use it well, and didn't make the attempt to shoot the sniper down, I'd be rather angry with him.
And while clearly society doesn't do much to enforce this responsibility, perhaps it should. A stiff fine, at the bare minimum. It's absurd to watch someone beaten to death and not even call for help.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to believe that I am culpable for the misdeeds of any government or individual government official. Except, of course, when that government official was me. Boy, am I glad THAT's over.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I actually agree that I am responsible for the actions of my government in the same way that a captain of ship *shifts uncomfortably, refuses to admit she is thinking of Star Trek 6* is responsible for the actions of his crew.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But my government doesn't HAVE to do what I tell them to. They may, but only if my vote and voice is part of the majority.
It's a flawed analogy. A midshipmen goes on leave and kills somebody. Yes, that reflects badly on the ship's Captain, who would probably be involved in the midshipman's punishment at some level. But the Midshipmen's sin is not HIS sin. Responsibility and guilt are two different things.
I am no more guilty for what happens in Iraq than I am for what happened in the Oval Office with Clinton's cigar.
What America does in the world reflects on all Americans, whether it is big business or actual government. Much of the world's opinion of America comes from its 'Imperialistic' big business. For which I have ZERO responsibility. It still reflects how people percieve me as an American. Not fair, but that's the way it is.
None of that has anything to do with anything my confessor would need to hear about (if i had one). That's my distinction.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* But they are acting in my name - in the name of the American people. That's me. Maybe it isn't the initial act for which I am culpable, for allowing them to represent me after it is done? An election where that leader runs again for the same job becomes not just a selection of the next leader, but a vote of confidence for actions performed.
In which case, I would become responsible for those actions as soon as I put my stamp of approval on the by voting for the leader again.
posted
Yep. Which is, I think, again why some Americans complain more loudly about the perceived injustices committed by their elected leaders than they do about injustices committed by leaders they did NOT appoint.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus- I can see your point and yet the person (assuming not a cop) who shot the sniper would wind up having to defend himself. Right?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mass mailing is finally done - I get to come up for air. I feel like I'm coming in very late on this. I'm like Cohen, the author of the article - Bush is not my choice. But I do get worried over the shriller voices in the anti-Bush crowd. They remind me too much of the Clinon-haters with their conspiracy theories, books and videos.
And Clinton-hating didn't work out too well for the Clinton-haters, did it?
It gives me an excuse, once again, to quote from my favorite source:
quote:First, there are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world; there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or the time. To know these is basic to a pragmatic attack on the system. These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police "pig" or "white fascist racist" or "mother_____r" and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, "Oh, he's one of those," and promptly turn off.
The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience - and gives full respect to the other's values - would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag whiile the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirations, and he would have conveyed this to his audience. On another level of communication, humour is essential, for through humor much is accepted that would have been rejected if presented too seriously. This is a sad and lonely generation. It laughs too little, and this, too, is tragic.
posted
If that's the way this culpable/responsible circular logic thing goes, then I'm still not culpable or reponsible, and neither are the majority of Americans.
I Really don't get why anybody would get worked up over that idea, unless I'm just completely misunderstanding you.
Must go help son finish his project on otters.
P.S. Probably won't be 'round Hatrack much for a while, just so ya know.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Clinton-hating didn't work out too well for the Clinton-haters, did it?
No, it didn't. And no one would listen to me when I told them that. And then they nominated Dole!
And I love the quotation from the book.
As to the general direction the thread has taken, I have to agree with Tom that as participants in a democracy we should be louder about our own leaders than others.
While I think it's fair to point out that Sadaam would still be in power and demand that be taken into account when analyzing if the war was a good idea, it's unreasonable to accuse most people who were against the war of "wanting Sadaam to still be in power." (I'd guess the charge would be fair against Ba'athists.)
My main worry is that political discourse is becoming impossible in this country. And political discourse is an essential ingredient for a democracy.
posted
The banished lexicon thread, with it's talk of phrases such as "I don't mean to be rude," made me realize something. I hate "pre-defending" of potentially controversial messages. I try to stamp it out of my own writings, and it sets my teeth on edge the instant I see it in someone else's writings.
This is almost definitely the reason I didn't add a "simple reference to this being a problem throughout American politics" to my original post. I know the regulars here know my political views. I wouldn't expect a single sentence in my post to cause them to change their views about this post at all. If som people think I'm the type to use such an attack to further Bush's reelection chances, my saying this one sentence wouldn't change their opinion, because their existing opinion of me contains its own expectation of disingenuousness on my part. If others expect fairmindedness (but not neutrality) from me, then the sentence adds no new information for them, either.
posted
And I still maintain that without my contribution to this thread (or someone else with a similar contribution) your job of communication would have been pretty poor. Maybe I'm wrong. Dan attributed an argument to you that, for all I could see, I was the only one who made. Maybe other people were able to read a different and more complete from what you wrote.
It is definitely partially about pre-defending things from misintrepretation, but it's also about clearly communicating what your point is.
If I started off a thread saying "This is what I've been trying to say" and then presented an article talking specifically only about black people on welfare who were abusing the system and didn't offer further elaboration, I think that I should expect people to at least consider that I'm talking about black welfare cheaters and not welfare cheating in general. In my perspective, that's a pretty good analouge to what you did Dag. Not only that, but one of the parts of the article you quoted directly referenced supporting Bush because of the antics of these people. If your intent was to talk about the general problems, I think you did a bad job of clearly communicating this. But then again, I'm just one person.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It took me a couple of rereadings and puzzling through what I know of Dagonee to get to a more well-rounded understanding, Mr. Squicky. On at least the first read, I was startled by having exactly the same reaction you did.
I think careful prefacing is very helpful, and it is not the same thing as disingeuous blather to excuse rudeness. It's also (I think) why we [have? had?] a tradition of requesting that people state their own opinions in their own words, at least as a summary, alongside any provided chunk of material that someone else wrote. [Even when it seems perfectly clear to the poster! We found something like "I agree with this article because ..." or "I thought x,y, and z were points particularly well-covered here, unlike elsewhere in the general debate" to be helpful in furthering discussion. ] Too easy to have unintended meanings read into it otherwise.
This used to be common enough that the request to include at least some of your own commentary with block-quoting from other sources made it onto several versions of the FAQs.
You aren't alone, M. Squicky.
[ September 17, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edit to add: this reply was to MrSquicky - Sara wrote her reply while I was typing mine. Darn that quick-fingered Sara, anyway! )
*shrug*
I dunno - Dag's intent seemed clear to me, but he's also one of the Hatrackers I whose postings I'm most familiar with. So it's hard to step back and figure out if it was as clear to others not having that context. (I also went and read the entire article - because I'm a different person, I might have chosen an additional paragraph, maybe the last one to post as well.)
In the meantime, personally, I'm much more interested in what the article has to say. Are the "demonizers" of Bush doing as good a job of sabotaging their goals as the "demonizers" of Bill Clinton? (OK, Cohen didn't bring that up, but I think it's a lesson those of us on the left should learn from.)
I won't be voting for Bush. There is too much that has happened on his watch that is disturbing to me - almost everything with the Iraq war, including the idea that you can fight a war without calling on people to sacrifice, and instead push massive tax cuts and deficits that will result in truly unbelievable defunding of important social programs in the next ten years.
But I don't think I'm going to convince anyone who is on the fence by comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin - and I think they're over the top myself.
I prefer to think of the Bush administration as British colonialism reincarnated.
Now there's an analogy to play with - especially since that particular comparison is probably closest to how much of the Arab world views us these days - rightly or wrongly.
quote:Squick, are you seriously suggesting that Cheney is the first VP to say something incredibly untrue and stupid?
Every once in awhile someone says something that just so perfectly proves my point that I gotta hope that somewhere there's a recording angel or something giving me a point. In this case, why would you think that I'm trying to say that pooka? Actually, more important to that, how is the actions of other vice-presidents in any way relevant to what Dick Cheney does? To put it in the context with which I've referred to this sort of thinking, if all the other vice-presidents jumped off a bridge, would that means that it was ok for Dick Cheney to do so as well?
And yet there's an expectation that we should take these incredibly juvenial defenses as serious. -"Bill Clinton dishonored the office. -"Yeah, but so did other President, so let's fight about that."
-"Fox News is extremely biased." -"Yeah, but so is the New York Times, so let's fight about that."
-"This college only supports things biased towards liberals." -"Yeah, we need to fix that by making sure they support things biased towards conservative."
etc.
The problem in each of these cases is not being dealt with. President Clinton did a bad thing, regardless of what other people did. News that is filtered through a bias, no matter what it is, is bad news. A college that teaches a party line instead of objectively is giving you a bad education.
I'ts getting to the point where I really wonder how many politicians during the time of race-baiting really were all that prejudiced against blacks. Right now, I think we're in a period of party-baiting. I don't think that the people really pulling the strings are necessarily in their honest opinions anywhere near as hostile towards the people they are painting as so bad. Instead, I think that it's likely that they are much more interested in maintaining their own political power. The apologetics and reframing of things they do is not honest, even in intent, but are rather attempts to misdirect people's attention away from what is actually important and attempts to make people feel that they are essentially helpless unless they support one party or the other.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
