Not just the post-9/11 Americans who get spooked everytime Bush somberly warns about them “terr’rists.” You and me too: We’re habituated now to mocking Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi et al, and decrying the ignorant Americans who just don’t know, so ignorant are they. We howl, we snarl, we mock, we scoff. And not just against the Bush administration and its patsies. As if that weren’t enough, we howl, snarl, mock, and scoff at each other.
“Conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. […] Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.” – Emma Goldman, Patriotism: a menace to liberty
“Conceit, arrogance, and egotism”: That also describes my attitude last night as I mocked the disgusting rhetoric of Mary Matalin and Ari Fleischer on the Sunday talk shows.
But the problem with my mocking is that it only satisfies you habitués here, who of course will agree with me. (Let me dare reveal that it was a safe story to write; nobody’ll get angry with me here for mashing Mary and Ari. Now, if I’d posted that at Free Republic, well. …)
However, my mockery does not go towards piercing the heavy veil of rapturous fear-induced stupor in which most Americans pass each day as they exhalt patriotism and never doubt that the evildoers are out to get us. They won’t be receptive to my tone, my words, my “attitude.”
So how do we reach them? How do we pierce their veil? … continued below ….
How do we level the playing field and — instead of feeling superior to them because we’re the “real patriots” who see the truth about what this country is doing to the world — reach out to these other Americans? For example, how do we put essential, serious works such as BBC’s documentary series, The Power of Nightmares, into every American home? If every American saw that documentary, they’d realize they’d been duped. (And those of you who have seen this extraordinary video know that the narrators and the producers never once mock those who don’t know the history of the Neocons and how Neocons use fear to drug the masses. No, there’s no sense of superiority; they’re simply educating whoever watches their documentary.)
And how do we (and throughout, I include myself) — how do we, instead of spending vast amount of energy on insider squabbles, that mean nothing except to a few, choose to look outward and try to transform?
How do we, instead of acting like a dysfunctional family that knows too many of each other’s past acts and mistakes – and instead of grinding each other to dust in long disputes that to any outsider would appear wholly strange and definitely make them feel shocked, and leave this site, never to return (and, most assuredly, those who witness those long fighting sessions will never to return to BT, nor would any reasonable person expect them to be attracted to such anger) – what if, instead, we concentrate all of our mighty energy on making our world better?
Emma’s words: “Conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.’ Well, patriotism does not only refer to allegiance to the United States (or any other country). It also can refer to allegiance to one’s own instilled view of the world. Your view of the world, my view of the world, others’ views of the world: The one thing that unites every one of us is that we each think OUR view of the world is superior to the other.
We salute the flag waving in the heady wind above our own mouths.
One of the dangers of patriotism, as you all know and Emma Goldman most certainly knew, is that it serves to SEPARATE us from each other, and from all others. We each become sovereign powers — with an emphasis on the word power — desirous of holding tensely, fiercely, and unyieldingly to what WE think, and to hell with the rest.
As you all also know, we have serious work to do. Let’s start with the NSA spy scandal. It’s but one issue. However, there’s some powerful prose that’s being written about it that can motivate us — and perhaps join us, as one, putting aside for a while our own complaints about each other and everything else to which we object.
Please bear with the long-ish quotes. We’ll get to the point soon enough.
With relentless urgency, the American people are being habituated to the prospect of several interrelated upheavals — new war, new terror attacks — and the predetermined result of these events: the final, open establishment of presidential tyranny, a militarized “commander state” where executive power is beyond the law, and endless war endlessly prolongs the “emergency measures” of the authoritarian regime.
Making a virtue of necessity, the Bush administration has used the exposure of its illegal wiretap scheme to ratchet up the level of terrorist scaremongering, accelerate its drive toward a military attack on Iran and publicly proclaim its long-held covert doctrine of executive dictatorship. Of course, “commander rule” is already the de facto state of the union, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made clear to the Senate last week, when he refused to deny the notion that the president can contravene any law he chooses under his authority as commander-in-chief. And we have often detailed here the tyrannical powers that President George W. Bush has already bestowed upon himself without objection from the U.S. political establishment, including the power to jail anyone without charges, hold them indefinitely and have them tortured — or simply murder them in an “extrajudicial killing.” The scope of Bush’s claimed powers — arbitrary sway over the life and liberty of every person on earth — far surpasses that of the most megalomaniacal Roman emperor or totalitarian dictator.
But a militarist state must have war: to justify its draconian rule (and those $550 billion “defense” budgets), to find new fields for dominion and swag, and to seal with blood its illegitimate compact with the people, seeking to make them complicit in its crimes, which are committed in their name, for their “security.” We see the latter clearly with the transgression in Iraq, where even mainstream opponents of the illegal war can be heard to cry: “Oh, it’s all so dreadful, but we’ve gone too far to turn back now, sacrificed too many lives; we’ve got to see it through.” This is, of course, just a pale echo of militarists’ own position, that dazed and hollow moral nullity induced by greed and murder, best expressed by the ancient Scottish “Commander-in-Chief,” Macbeth: “I am in blood stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
Fortunately for the militarists, Bush has promised war in abundance. … Chris Floyd, the Moscow Times and St. Petersburg Times columnist at his blog Empire Burlesque
Is there anyone who can more eloquently spell out the crisis than Chris Floyd? But, as we know, the average American will never see Floyd’s words. After all, he’s not even published in a U.S. newspaper. He gets few visitors to his blog, a fact he lamented last year until several of us let him know how much his blog means to us, and how badly we wanted him to keep going.
Those of you still with me, please now read this from Glenn Greenwald today:
… Republicans [claim they] want this scandal to last as long as possible because it will only benefit Republicans politically and damage Democrats by highlighting their vulnerabilities.
While spouting that bravado, the Administration’s actions reveal that they fear this scandal and want more than anything for it to disappear. At every turn, they have tried to prevent a meaningful investigation … […]
But the NSA scandal continues to dominate the news. Every day brings more conflicts, more disputes, more internecine fighting among Republicans. Indeed, Republicans are all fighting with each other on virtually every aspect of this scandal – when have we ever seen that? […]
Over the weekend, both Specter and even Pat Roberts [GOP majority chair, Senate Select Intel committee] made clear that they would not accept the only solution which the White House will even consider — namely, the absurdly deferential DeWine proposal to exempt the NSA program from the requirements of FISA. Now, Linsdey Graham, too, has made unequivocally clear that he will insist upon judicial oversight for any future eavesdropping, something the White House cannot and will not ever agree to: […]
[Sen. Pat] Roberts, by preventing an up-or-down vote, succeeded in blocking the hearings only temporarily … Read all of “The dying scandal that keeps growing,” Feb. 20, 2006
Now, imagine this: We find a way — I don’t know how! It’s just an idea right now! Ideas never have to begin by being practical!
(1) We get the highly instructive, and easy-to-follow BBC documentary, “The Power of Nighmares,” aired on major television channels. (Also, I have a bootleg copy.) We get it hosted in movie theatres and on college campuses everywhere. (Some people have done this already; it was recently shown here in my little town at the public library to a packed crowd, and JPol told me he saw it at a community DFA meeting last fall, near Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
(2) We rescuscitate the now-dormant Patriot Act/ACLU groups that sprouted up in communities all over this nation during late 2001 and 2002. We meet, we decide on actions — hopsfully with a national backing — such as passing resolutions, again, that oppose the about-to-be-reenacted Patriot Act and NSA domestic spying. We get stories in all the local newspapers, on local radio and television stations.
(3) We keep doing what we’re so good at: We write. We send LTEs. We talk with our friends and relatives. We e-mail each other. We expend our precious time and energy on our blogs towards these goals. Just like we did for the Twelve Days of Alito (a brilliant endeavor if ever there was one).
Status quo: We can continue to attack each other. I can continue to censor myself by posting only the safe stories that I know you’ll love — like that Matalin story — because they are based on a mockery of Bush et al.
Consuming ourselves with family fights and accusations, and alienation through argument from the other, has a strikingly similar effect to what Professor Alfred McCoy, an expert on the CIA’s development of torture techniques, says to Amy Goodman about “the most famous of photographs from Abu Ghraib, of the Iraqi standing on the box, arms extended with a hood over his head and the fake electrical wires from his arms.” McCoy says “In that photograph you can see the entire 50-year history of C.I.A. torture. It’s very simple”:
He’s hooded for sensory disorientation, and his arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. And those are the two very simple fundamental C.I.A. techniques, developed at enormous cost.
By growing narrower and more inward through alienating arguments, we become “disoriented.” By disassociating from each other, and accusing each other, and bringing up painful issues and past mistakes, we indulge — yes, indulge — in “self-inflicted pain.”
And this all makes me very sad and occasionally ashamed. Especially when I have been a participant in group- and self-destructive attacks. What if I instead honed all of my energy to imagining — and then accomplishing — great ways to share we we’ve learned about the NSA story to more and more Americans?
What if we all did that?
Can we begin?
My caring, highly tuned-in family physician and I discussed it last week. I cried so many tears and screamed in pain, telling him how horribly I’d felt about the fall-out from my cartoon story. And I told him that I’m writing like shit. And I told him that ALL I want is for my mind to calm down — just calm down a bit — so I can write well. (And, by the way, the reasons for that, some rather horrific family events that go far beyond my mom’s death and brother’s illness, are things I’d never share here; only BooMan, my daughter, and my doctor plus a couple other people — none of whom, I’m sure, would ever breathe a word — know simply because right now I don’t feel safe reliving the pain publicly.)
And my doctor listened, laughing because I kept saying ‘Fuck” and when I admitted to him that I know I’m hypersensitive.
Then I said to him that it’s okay to type fuck on blogs. His eyes opened a bit. He said nothing. I still think it’s okay to type fuck on a blog, but — you know — he’s a cool guy. He probably says fuck himself. He’s wildly LIBERAL, and he’s heartsick especially about environmental degradation and global warming. He is an activist for saving our national parks.
Just so you know, every time I see him, my doc and I “blow” half of my patient visit time talking politics because it interests us a hell of a lot more than my various physical maladies.
But, what if he came to this blog for the first time (I don’t think he’s ever been here), and he saw a story by me in which I typed fuck in every sentence? What if he read this writing from last night: “This Mary Madgalan is no holy virgin mama when it comes to selling GOP/Neocon bullshit spin …”?
Would he read it? Oh sure. But would he print it out and mail it to his liberal mom in the Midwest? I doubt it. Would he forward it to his sibling who works in Washington, D.C. in a major government agency? No.
So am I short-circuiting a potential audience by how I write and talk? Am I more likely — more slowly, for sure, because “respectful speech” won’t ignite the habitués who already agree with me mostly — to gain a larger audience, over a longer period of time, that may spread the word?
Here’s a start: As I’m typing this, I’m listening to Amy Goodman’s daily hour-long news program, Democracy Now!. I usually watch or listen every day.
Darndest thing. I can’t recall ever hearing Amy swear. Or even bash or condemn a single Bush official. And, most certainly, she NEVER yells at, or mocks, a guest. Ever. She is unfailingly polite and cerebral.
She does it all by presenting fact after fact, story after story, guest after guest, and she always directs the conversations to a respectful atmosphere for discourse. If people interrupt each other, she enforces civility. She only allows rational, informative, equal conversation. And she creates a show in which the facts and the stories are so devastating that they can stand on their own without screaming, without yelling, without obscenities, without overt condemnation of other guests.
She’s an example.
Maybe I can become an example.
But it’ll be damn near impossible not to type “that chickenshit chickenhawk Cheney.” I’ll work on it.
Let’s see. How’s this instead?
“Vice President Cheney regaled the Wyoming legislature with stories of his days as a legislative intern, college student, and young husband during a historic period when tens of thousands of other young men who could not obtain deferments were sent to Vietnam. The young Mr. Cheney was fortunate to obtain five deferments and, when those had expired, found his young wife Lynne, an English teacher, pregnant with their first child. Her pregnancy forestalled Mr. Cheney’s having to enter the Army.”
Better?
And, as my friend Real History Lisa just wrote in an e-mail about her gratification that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, many of whose votes she’s not liked and who regularly makes her gnash her teeth, had come around on Alito, voting against cloture and Alito. Real History Lisa then wrote this:
I think too often activists want to find the perfect leader, instead
of BEING the perfect constituent…!
I like chickenshit chicken hawk Cheney better. For purposes of alliteration only. Plus it’s always better to speak the truth.
Your last quote goes to the heart of the issue. We need to find a way to get the vast majority of Americans to become citizens again rather than taxpayers and consumers and spectators of televised tripe.
Since when I talk about the beginning of Plato’s Politeia (badly translated as Republic, Constitution is closer to what the original meant), Not very many people stick around,….hmmm, why could that be…..I’ll try to make this quick. Socrates transforms a bunch of spectators into searchers. It seems to me that this is precisely the point of your diary. What can we do to regain our shared citizenship, and become doers rather than watchers, participants in our shared destiny rather than subjects of whatever the wind may blow.
I think the only way to do it is to make all our experiences equally valid and important to the meaning of America. Of course, I haven’t a clue about how to do that just some vague bubblings below the surface.
Hey, that’s a great idea. Mind if I stick around and watch to see how it turns out?
I have an idea…
Uh-oh. Does it involve an anvil and rope?
POOF
Now, now, object boy …
Okay. I’m going to e-mail or call the woman who “birthed” the city and county resolutions against the Patriot Act … and who brought us a brilliant panel of experts from the ACLU, media, etc. before an overflow audience in the biggest meeting room in our town.
Maybe she can call up her old group from 2002. Darcy was in that group, and helped write the resolution. We can do it again. We need to.
Susan,
I just want to say you soooo rock!
I will be launching my own online journal is a month or two (as soon as I can clear my schedule), but this is the kind of story I want to feature. I think this kind of thing is terribly important to discuss, so I am posting this here:
The New York Times does not like criticism from someone so they blackball his students? (Is this even legal? Didn’t they just admit to illegal activity?) Also, did they learn this tactic from the Bush administration?
When did the Times become this kind of paper? Was it Sulzberger who started this? or is this the influence of Bill Keller?
In any case, do not challenge the Times because there will be consequences. Maybe, in the future, the Times will begin taking hostages. You know, they’ll grab one of the daughters of Arianna Huffington to make sure she only writes positive things about the paper.
How disgraceful! There seems no low to which the NYT will not sink.
that is an important story. As a person that grew up in NJ reading the NYT’s everyday I find it triply insulting.
C-posted.
Boy Howdy, Honey!!! Attitude is Everything. You can always save your angst, invectives, and best curses for comments.
You are so right. We need to stop taking things personally and giving things personally, which would be both sides of the same coin. Everyone has at least one raw nerve that Bush and/or his policies repeatedly irritate. That is the energy we need to direct towards educating ourselves and others, spreading the word… not wasting energy on each other. We chase our tails when we do that. We don’t have the luxury of being able to indulge in elitism, either. Every citizen of this country is in just as much jeopardy as I am Fact is, not all of them know that.
As for coming together locally, that is the first and perhaps the most powerful thing we can do. I also think that you are correct in assuming that the NSA Spying is THE ISSUE to push. I’m in, sister. Hallelujia! It’s time to take this choir to the streets!
Can I get a snack first?
In keeping with our new policy of genteel daintiness, I hereby vow to stop referring to our VP as big Dick. From now on, he is ‘Shotgun Cheney’ to me.
as Thomas More said, which is why I think the neocons are fair game for mockery. But this is not the same as mocking the American people, and in fact is quite far from it. You see, the red-staters, fence-sitters and Free Republic types have been duped by the Administration, just as much as you and I and everyone else here. They might be willing dupes, or they might be True Believers, or they might just have been lulled into submission by the entertainment/industrial complex. It doesn’t matter; they’ve been had, and they just don’t realize it yet. (If they do realize it and continue being had to share in the power, that’s different and it makes them fair game. But I think the number of people falling into that category is pretty small, all things considered.)
I like to think that if they just realized what their lives could be like if they got rid of the Bush crime family and started demanding a government that would give them basic health care, basic education, basic retirement and the like, they’d do so in a heartbeat. But maybe I’m just being naive, or sounding like a bargain-basement Marxist, which I’m not. (Actually, I’m a Groucho Marxist. But that’s a different story.)
Our own denial is our most formidable adversary.
Susan…
You ask:
“So how do we reach them? How do we pierce their veil?”
We don’t.
It is not GOING to be pierced until they begin to suffer.
And that suffering MAY have to be as severe as the suffering of the Germans and Japanese during the last stages of W. W. II and the immediate popst-war period.
Sorry to say this, Susan…but it has reached that point, I believe.
Even the so-callled “opposition” is in on the game.
So it goes.
Reid and Schumer backstab Hackett. “Opposition”#1
DKos goes along with the program. “Opposition”: #2
I think that Howard Dean was the last major party anti-machine candidate with a real shot at winning who will even get THAT far.
All the media spin in the WORLD will not hypnotize someone whose children are starving, and that is what it is going to take.
REAL hardship.
Sorry.
From Osama bin Laden’s…or whoever wrote it…latest missive to the American people (Associated Press version. Jan. ’06):
You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don’t let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.
In that there is a lesson for you.
Listen well.
They are not kidding.
AG
P.S. I heard that Matalin thing on Air America last night in the car. Just a bunch of pros doing thir spin jobs on each other. Not an ounce of truth in ANYTHING being said. INCLUDING the “good guys” Bullshit. Rotten on BOTH sides.
Cold as ice.
I agree that we are “past the point of no return” as far as being able to achieve any sort of comprehensive rehabilitation of our society without first descending much further into suffering and tragedy.
Embracing the inevitability of the massive and disruptive change that awaits us would help us make the transition, but there’s still so much denial in the way of accepting that sort of reality.
Absolutely right, AG. Of course.
That said, a manner of civil engagement on the part of individuals, with regard to OL community discourse or any other type, is bound to continue in light of (or despite) the inevitable — so the means & methods of that engagement remain deserving of address.
I’m sure this will offend you mightily. But sometimes that happens.
The kind of cynicism you exhibit here is spiritual death. (And no, I’m not a wing nut Christian, not even a non-wingnut one).
Many times people mistake cynicism as a kind of world weary yet superior point of view that illuminates their wisdom. However, it’s just resignation. It’s not wisdom, it’s not above the fray of the naive who just don’t know how much the world sucks. It’s just giving up.
The whole point of life is to find meaning that is shareable among all of us even when all of us is comprised of thorough-going idiots, bastards, chickenshit chicken hawk pricks, cynics, wing nuts, comatose consumers, and people who suffer. A twentieth century Austrian political philosopher who by the name of Eric Voegelin said that we bear our citizenship in a particular society as a condition of actualizing our humanity. He fled Vienna just in front of the Gestapo, went to England and ended up in America. He had written a book called Race and State. The Nazis liked the sound of that book until one of them actually read it. Then they came after him. When he arrived in our country, he found a different kind of problem. Nobody here really gave a rip what he thought. We’re not big on thinking, just doing. Each case illuminates his point.
The source of all meaning in history is the individual human soul. New meaning, the kind that might transcend cynicism, wells up from the spiritual depth through some concrete human being who then faces the almost impossible task of sharing that meaning with the rest of us. When we opt out of this, we die.
Good points. Interesting to see a reference here to Eric Voegelin, the scourge of gnosticism and inventor of the maxim “don’t immanentize the eschaton.” I saw Voegelin give a speech in the early 1970s, and at one point I intended to slog through his works. At the moment, that seems about as likely as learning ancient Babylonian.
Voegelin is a genius, but unfortunately a Germanic one which means that he must have prided himself on being as obscure as possible and writing interminably long sentences in English. My dissertation chairman was a student of Voegelin’s when Voegelin taught at the University of Munich in the 60’s. Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics was an eye-opener for me. For me, the best of Voegelin is the first three pages or so of the Introduction to his first volume of Order and History. It’s not a pronouncement on the meaning of things, but a look at the way that we give meaning to our shared lives.
I am not sure that this reply was aimed at me.
But if it was…I take no offense at all.
You suggest that “The kind of cynicism you exhibit here is spiritual death.”
Actually…I am not in the LEAST cynical, long-term.
I believe in the triumph of evolution, in the ongoing growth of the life of Life on every level of the universe. This “belief” is based on a liifetime of observation plus studies with people who are part of a tradition that goes back thousands of years.
This sort of evolution goes in fits and starts. A step back, three to the side, nothing for a while, then a giant step forward. Repeat until…until what? I don’t know if there even IS an “until”.
Infinity HAS no “untils”.
On a small, personal level…I would like to see that evolution continue here in America. We have been at the growing edge of Life for well over 200 years, and I carry the blood of literally thousands of people who have lived and died here as part of that adventure.
So I do what I can.
I make…and increasingly, teach HOW to make…a certain kind of art, and I write on this blog.
Tthat’s all that i can do, right now.
However…I see a crisis coming.
So it goes.
The people with whom I have studied teach the idea that war, destruction and pestilential happenings of that sort travel around the globe just like bad weather. When it’s really about to go down, all’s you can do is warn others and then attempt to survive. Mr. Voegelin saw the approaching storm in Europe, warned of it as well as he could, and then he cut and ran.
I understand his position.
But…there is ALWAYS someplace where Life continues to grow.
That’s my take on things, anyway.
See ya somewhere…
AG
Yes, I made those comments in response to yours. This is the problem in having these kind of really wonderful conversations through a blog, we miss out on nuances, make unfounded conclusions and write something off base. Thanks for such a gracious response.
By the way, Susan…congratulations.
You write “Even WE Are Habituated Sheep”.
Much as you may dislike being told to wake the fuck up…you are getting there.
Crying?
Painful, ain’t it?
You may not believe it, but I’ve been there.
Before I started to write on the blogs. (I got there a little early. But then…I live on the outside anyway, pretty much. I had less to lose.)
Spontaneous crying jags as I realized the truth of the matter. Just like you, my dear.
Being reborn is painful.
And it’s hard to get up in the morning sometimes. Especially when you realize that you are almost all alone.
But…you are NOT alone.
Others are waking up too.
Top o’ the morning to ya!!!
Today is a good day to fight.
AND a good day to die, if need be.
Spread the word.
AG
(“I don’t care if I DO die do die do die do die... Johhny Cash in a concert at Folsom Prison in the early ’60s. Yup.)
Arthur, with respect, I find your tone patronizing towards me. Please correct me if my perception is incorrect.
You aren’t aware of what I was crying about — many, many things.
And maybe, because you don’t know me or my history, I was born, born again, died, born, died again, born again — all of it, many times, a long time ago.
Find my tone as you wish.
But continue to find yourself.
AG
AND…neither do you know MY history.
We all have thing to cry about, Susan.
Choose yours as well as you can.
AG
Look, I’ve been here a while, have my own blog. Few people read my posts here, even fewer see my blog. I would hardly elevate myself to high-flying pundit, but here is how you get the attention of those not currently interested. Realize that most people are not political junkies, they do not check into various blogs numerous times during the day. You get the attention of the uninterested by focusing on nuts and bolts issues, everyday concerns/events. As an example, I’ve noticed that the price of gas seems to anger left, right and those in between. (I did a diary of the conversion of a wingnut, a conversion based upon gas prices.) Focus on health care, the plight of unions or education. Most people are not interested in the Plame timeline, though we may dissect it here. Most are not surprised about corruption in congress, they expect it. We here hang on every new revelation but this is not consistent with the general populace. For most it is the universal concerns/issues and not political maneuvers. (note: Though I hate to reduce corruption to an also ran, most just don’t have our interest.) While most would agree to see the end of our illegal invasion, most are not focused on the maneuvering that brought it about. They simply want to see the end of an expensive military action and bring our soldiers home. (Framing?) But you get the point.
exactly, framing
You’re absolutely right aboutthe vast majority of people not paying much attention to things like the Plame business or even the wiretapping stuff. Most are attenmtive to things that don’t require much interpretation or cognitive analysis. Money, safety, preserving the lifestyle, etc.
I would add only that, in general, while many do think about “issues” and regard them as important, in the end most people don’t really “vote on the issues” so much as they vote based either on their fears or on how secure they feel in turning over their decisionmaking authority to someone else who’s promised to look out for their best interest.
My experience is many people, the majority of people, vote based on sentiment, not reason. Bush got votes because people trusted the identity of Bush his handlers crafted and portrayed. People wanted someone else to do their thinking and decisionmaking for them so they wouldn’t have to be bothered to do it for themselves. This mental laziness in the public psyche was expertly exploited by the propagandists runingthe Bush campaign.
Most voters, sadly, are quite eager to surrender their civic autonomy to their leaders; they want to be sheep, because it’s easier than being self- determinant, (and, of course, the kicker is that when things go wrong, they can always blame the one they put their trust in, conveniently avoiding taking responsibility for anything upon themselves).
Karl Rove and the rest of the machine know all this quite well.
along those lines. The undecided voters, who have the power to change the power structure, need to be convinced of the truth that Bush has not made them more safe. That is his only strong point according to all the polls and it is weakening. Protection from terrorism is something that the average voter is concerned about.
Here are a couple of diaries to prove the point that GWB has made America and the world more vulnerable:
Ghandi
Mine
This ports thing – turning over port operations to the UAE company? This is a good one. I visited my folks today, and we were watching the NBC network news and my mom and I were just HOWLING with laughter over that story and the coverage.
It’s another one of those “Dead-eye Dick” Cheney moments…people who aren’t wonks or political addicts get it.
hijackers were from United Arab Emirates. Maybe this is one of Bush’s perverse rewards.
Is it a ‘fait accompli’ or is Bush just testing the waters, so to speak?
A pack of Congress Critters is so p.o.’ed that if they can’t break the contract, they are threatening to “freeze” it, whatever that means.
I had the dubious pleasure of watching that creepy Chertoff trying to defend the deal. Yup, he’s doin’ a heckuva job…
Does this have any connection to the clients of his in a trial, maybe pre-9/11 where terror financing money was questioned? I forget the names now but a large sum of money was never accounted for.
It may also be a way to ‘compensate’ for a few of their citizens that have been gitmo-ized.
I’ve had over 60 “Letters to the Editor” published in various papers over the last 2 1/2 years. When I write for traditional establishment paper I basically ttranslate my more direct and irreverent vernacular into a form that is basically acceptable within that print media’s orthodoxy.
Sometimes this is difficult, sometimes not. Often, however, when I’m frustrated in my attempts to fully articulate the strength of my feeling while having to channel the language into an acceptable, sometimes seemingly homogenized form, I think of the writing talents of someone like James Wolcott, who, without using any of those “expletives” that are shunned in so-called polite media, can still cut to the quick with amazing skill.
Letters are powerful, one LTE represents at least 100 similar opinions out there (they used to say.)
I think I know what you mean about the writing style. They like short catchy sentences and content that is to the point.
I even had a verse from Gerard Manley Hopkins printed in a LTE. They phoned me to check on the ellipsis.
This was the last letter I had printed in the NYT. (It seems like it was only a month or two ago but I see it was last June. How time flies!)
Brooks’ original op-ed to which I responded was so outrageous in it’s fawning duplicity I yelled out loud when I read it I was so angry. The first several replies I wrote were so strong in language that I knew they’d never reach print, yet I really wanted to make a point that had a chance of being read by several thousand people, so, in time I manged to write this. There was one other sentence included which the NYT edited out. I figured they might but I included it anyway because I always wantto push the envelope to some degree. (I don’t seem to be able to find a copy of the original submission but the sentence they deleted was something to the effect that; “Sending the message to the people in Africa that it’s better to die from AIDS than have sex with a condom is hardly something for either the Pope or Mr. Bush to be praised for.”)
The Sentence is good too BUT you wrote the words “sex” and “the Pope” in one sentence. How could you! I m aghast.
Not really, but remember what happened to Sinead O’Connor in NYC?
It was deliberate (sex/Pope)! I’ve been trying since BushCo seized the White House to get a sentence with the words “cult” and “Bush” in it published, but alas, no success.
Finally now, after all this time, I’m starting to see more references to the cultic nature of the whole Bush thing, but of course so much damage has been done already.
Another phrase I’m still trying to get into print in traditional media is “weaponized ignorance”. No luck with that one yet either.
I don’t know the Sinead O’Connor story you refer to.
Is ‘cabal’ a synonym for ‘cult?’
Sinead O’Connor dares to criticize the Pope.
Actually as she was booed off the stage, the other musicians on stage came forward and embraced her and led her away. I think the video is on Dylan’s “Rolling Thunder” documentary. She recovered and continues to sing, sing, sing.
No, cult and cabal have different meanings. A cult is generally an organized groupwith leaders and followers, (or teachers and students or novitiates), in which it’s fair to say theres a doctrine or dogma of sorts and an organized program for getting the followers ormembers to buy into that doctrine.
A cabal can be any grouping of people actively sharing and pursuing a common interest, though when cabal is the word used to describe such a group, it’s usually used to connote a propensity for secrecy or concealment.
I regard both the current Pope Ratzinger and his predecessor JP II as responsible for committing massive crimes against humanity.
I particularly deplore the visit Pope Paul made to South and Central America where he tried to set back family-planning by exortations against birth control to the impoverished Mexicans.
When people spoke out about Nicauragan atrocities at one of his rallies, he yelled at them “silencio” three times. My Nicauragan friend cried when he told me of the experience.
Yes! A perfect example of his relentless assault on the ability of humanity to live free of his authritarian dogma.
I can’t even think of a punishment severe enough for him and his like-minded overly-aggressive cronies, except perhaps that, if there is a hell like the one they purport to believe in that they spend the rest of eternity there.
Susan, I fear you’re missing the point. Think of it this way: behavioral change precedes attitude change. What brings about significant change is that someone starts to behave differently, and then another, and then another even in the face of despair and probable defeat.
Blogs are in and of themselves massive filters. They attract those who need to be there, who want to be there. They not only don’t serve to convert the apostate, they virtually exclude their opposites.
They serve to motivate, reassure, structure, organize, direct, analyze, and otherwise interact with the base. That’s as it should be. If you want to converse with your adversary you need to find a different theater.
If your passion, your analysis, your fear, your words bring one more person out to the field to work the field we will all be way ahead of the game.
Yes, indeed. Your points are valid.
However, if we become, on our blogs, how we’d appear at — say — a wedding reception or some such formal event where one is usually on one’s best behavior (until one drinks too much), we will “model” behavior that we can easily carry with us everywhere.
We can be polite and kind to each other without much trouble, can’t we? And that’s certainly not been the case many times on blogs… and I don’t find it very productive. It also drives away MANY good people — people who write me e-mails complaining about the anger, the accusations, the rudeness — and who just don’t come back. We have to want to be attractive. I’m not saying we’ll always BE attractive. But we can aspire to it. If Amy Goodman can pack together a powerful show that has me gasping — but she can do it while always being calm, polite and rational — then so can we.
In theatre, it’s often the lines said most quietly that have the most impact, and hush the audience in shock.
I’m with you Susan, as long as making this an inviting place doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree. I would venture to say that I have learned A LOT from some of the threads here that have been “difficult.” If we’re going to be a community for each other – its going to get difficult at times. I think that’s a problem with our culture right now – we have a hard time sticking together through the tough times. But I could do with a little more civility in the disagreements sometimes.
So you would rather George-Clooney type discussions rather than Michael-Moore discussions? I agree that Clooney is more effective. His films are more informative and will be remembered as classics long after Moore’s.
We need both! Clooney type to educate in a way that inspires strategic thinking; Moore type to remind us in a visceral way that we must not lose sight of the fundamentals; that it’s perfectly OK to be outraged and that sometimes we need to be radicalized in a way that shakes us loose from the creeping torpor that happens when we become too complacent or lazy.
in this essay, it’s hard for me to know what to start… I’ll begin by totally agreeing about the personal in-fighting I’ve seen on the site lately. We only have to remember the prime directive, “Don’t be a prick,” and we’ll get over petty grievances and if some don’t, well, they’ll move on elsewhere.
Now, I do disagree with you on a couple of points:
Mockery is an excellant weapon against arrogance and incompetence. We should continue to make fun of Dick and George at every opportunity. I’m sure it bothers them a great deal more than reasoned debate.
One of the reasons that I read blogs is that most of their writers write like real people talk. They say, fuck, shit, and damn just like regular folks. I would hate for you to temper your writing style by imagining that you are speaking to some genteel gathering. This ain’t a church function; we’re mainly friends here and if you can’t get raunchy with your pals then you’re taking self-censorship too far. So don’t go all prissy on me and continue to be the witty, forthright, sometimes outraged, sometimes devastated sensitive soul that you are.
Finally, and this is my most important comment, I don’t feel superior at all to my fellow citizens. I feel cursed by paying too much attention to how things are now. I envy them and wish I could go back to not knowing what’s going on. I keep trying, actually, to walk away from this involvment with the truth but I’ve become addicted to it. It seems important to keep my eyes open so I’ll know the exact moment we drive over the cliff.
I know most citizens aren’t stupid; They are just too busy with their lives to read as much as I do. And, they are too set in their ways to listen to me no matter how politely I approach them. The Repubs are in a state of blind denial and refuse to accept my point of view. The apolitical ones think current affairs are boring and think I’m very nerdy for caring so much. So, blogs have a specialized audience and attract others who are already converted to their point of view. Don’t change your style to bring in new recruits; it might drive away your existing fans.
First, Blogs are not conventional media, that is, they are not driven or shaped by ratings, revenue and rules (read: censorship). By default, they have become the Old Faithful of alternative media if you will. Conversation and debate, in real time, with as much of the immediacy and emotion of a face-to-face dialog, much of it extemporaneous, as is possible given the constraints of the medium. To equate the language and challenges inherent in that process to that used in other forms of informational media is, to my mind, disingenuous.
Positing that the style or language one would use in a public forum as more acceptable or appropriate presumes that we are incapable of tempering our language and tailoring it to the situation. I assure you that when I engage in public forums, either political or as part of my profession, I am quite capable of making a point without resorting to profanities and name calling…or perhaps I should say, I know how to call people names, expose hypocrisy or lack of knowledge in a more civilly accepted fashion.
Additionally, it is my view that those who find the language used for the expression of opinion offensive, especially here at BT, probably are not open to the object of the discussion to begin with. We vehemently criticize the fundies, the GOPhucks and any other group for attempting to impose their personal beliefs, value systems and preferences upon us or anyone else; why would we modify that opposition and self-censor? Given the flame wars, verbal attacks and mendacity available at numerous other stops in the blogosphere, BT is an oasis of civility.
I am not given to massive outbursts of profanity, nor do I engage in ad-hominem attacks. That said, I will not chastise anyone who does the former, nor will I condone the latter. So, if you indulge yourself in a bit of cathartic language, you are well within the bounds of my world.
Peace
Be both.
Reach more being an “example.”
But maintain your edge by being a mutherfuckin rebel now and then.
Right on, you bastard.
Great diary.
Is there any chance of getting a few examples, no personal accounts to rekindle flames, but something to identify the line between disagreement and infighting? Blogs are relatively isolated by their nature-prone to popular opinion and at times it seems like any disagreement is a perceived attack. We forget that we own our reactions.
…here’s an additional thought I wrote for a comment in here but didn’t post. It deals with talking to Conservatives.
As an example, after a lengthy impartial explanation of the forces at work in Iraq, the person turns to me and says something about the troops were supposed to come home after ‘Mission Accomplished’. The understanding went no further than the fact we won in a 3 week invasion and the troops should have been home after Bush said it was done. That Conservative had already turned the corner in moving away from GWB and any other negative comment on Iraq started bringing the defenses back up.
Another point is to not expect an apology or an admittance of being wrong to come from any of them. Sometimes it can be started by owning up to our own gulliblity on a topic that allows a graceful admission from the other side. It’s also good to remember we’re all on the same side.
BooMan has just posted a story about Sherron Brown (and Hackett). I haven’t read it yet, but that’s surely an issue over which we can disagree … and we could get into some ugly swipes at the Democratic party, Brown, etc., etc. Even each other.
How about we use his story as a testing ground, and see how calmly we can discuss it without ripping each other or Democrats in general?
Just an idea.
Well, Susan, what a diary! :o)
You are to be commended on bringing some things to the forefront.
I suggest we stop acting like a battered wife. We seem to be trying to be condependent on all that bothers us about this administration. We cry, bitch, jump around from one topic to another in trying to make it seem like we really do see the light, but after we see the light, what do we do????? we continue to bitch and complain. I suggest we stop this complaining and get to work leaving this sob and his cronies behind in this world.
I have been both battered and codependent and sometimes, I want to fall back into this grove. It is so very easy to behave that way, you know.
Listen, geew depends on this from us and his followings. They allow him to be like this. Once they stop him from being like this he will swither back under the rock he crawled out from under. OH he will state his religion is what makes him the best of the best and theleader, but in fact it is that religion tha tis his enabler of his habits. Evne Laura at one time threatened him to square himself away or else. and he did. He can not be away from her for very long until he falls back into this rut of behaving like a child.
Shall I go further in this rhetoric? I think you all know what I am saying.
Thank you.
And you happen to know of whom I was thinking part of the time I was writing this.
Excellent Post Susan! Some powerful insights to give us all pause. The comparison to a dysfunctional family seems very apt to me. If we (collectively) are who we like to claim to be, we should be about increasing our numbers daily. As you have pointed out, this does not happen through prolonged arguments here. It does not happen through use of unnecessary profanity (although at times, I think we would all forgive a provoked slip of the tongue)either. Looking for more effective ways to communicate with our conservative friends, independent voters, and wavering Democrats should be one of our primary concerns here.
The NSA spying issue is a big one for all bloggers for obvious reasons, Obvious to us, but to lots of folks, an issue that does not “hit them where they live” (yet). So this may be the issue that can become a starting point.
I appreciate the courage that it took to write this. I have been so upset the last ten days or so, over some of what I have read here, I have logged out of Booman on two or three occasions with the thought of never coming back. Today, thanks to you I am encouraged, and willing to hang around and watch a while longer.
very thoughtful post, thank you. one suggestion: some posters refer to “Joe Six-Pack” – usually strikes me that the poster has some stereotype in mind that doesn’t conform to any reality i’m aware of from actually knowing people. it’s not a helpful term.
Both these stereotypical terms promote the idea that people named Joe drink six packs of beer, and/or are average.
There is a gentleman who posts here named Joe. Well, he is not really named Joe, but he chose it as his nickname, and he is not average and I have no reason to believe that he has ever had a six pack.
It would be politer to use a more upscale term, like “Beaujolais Joe” or “Exceptional Joe” in order not to give the impression that the writer considers him or herself to people named Joe. Or sexist, since the term “Joe” negates the very existence of all ladies named Josephine.
n/t
Tim Russert gave her 1/3 of the broadcast for her spin and no one questioned her. NBC did go easy on her.
But others do not: