The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 3 of 20
I wanted to expand on my comments abotu binary choices. I see several different sets, and some of the posts here have been very helpful in illustrating them.
I used the example of taxes, should they be raised or lowered. One poster countered that he questioned whether they should even exist at all. And offered as a proposal to do away with taxes. And I started to argue that I don't see such as a viable option, for reasons you have probably already read, and if not, are irrelavant to this post.
Because what did not occur to me at the time, was that my opponent in that particular discussion had not proven whether there were not binary issues. But had simply provided a different set of binary options. Do we get rid of taxes, or not?
Again, another binary choice. Any time a proposal is made, the options are to accept, or reject that proposal. After that is settled, we can get down to details about what modifications, alterations or changes are needed in the original proposal, or if the thing should be tossed out altogether. But still with each change, or even tossing out, it comes down to a binary choice. Do we incorporate this change or not? Do we toss it out or not?
Another poster asked about "taking the bitter with the sweet" and I kind of blew past it at the time. (I am a slow typist, and long winded when I do type, if that makes any sense, and there is a time factor involved.) What I failed to bring up effectively is that yes, there is bitter and there is sweet. BUT, I take the view that you add the pluses, subtract the minuses and then look at what you got overall. Do things come out in your favor, or not? So again it reduces back to a binary choice.
Some consequences I don't like, but sometimes that is simply the cost of doing the things you want to do done. Sometimes its worth it, sometimes, not so much.
Also, something that Republicans painfully learned in 92, is that if you have two candidates that are almost, but not quite, advocating principles and positions you agree with, you have to vote for the candidate with the greater appeal to the rest of the population. Otherwise, you end up splitting your votes between those two candidates, and allowing the guy you least wanted in office to win.
Some of us voted for Perot, and we all ended with Clinton. Some voters in 2000 voted for Nader, and we all ended up with Bush. So sometimes you have to settle for half a loaf, because going for the full loaf means not getting anything at all.
Also, some appear to see things on a more absolute scale than I do. To me, the central question regarding any policy proposal is "Will this make things better, or worse?" We can quibble about definitions of better and worse, and in some respects there is a large element of subjectivity going on. (I.e dependent on a specific individual.) So again, I weigh the benefits, against the risk and detrimental results and make my choice accordingly. But in the end, it comes down to a binary choice. "Is this better, or worse" than we had before.
To a large extent, most policies issues come down that way. You compare the likely consequences of a proposal to what you have, and are likely to have, as a result of the policies that are in place now. Will this change be better, or worse. Even if the new policy is not perfect, even if it does things you might not like, you still have to look at whether the benefits outweigh the detriments compared to what is in place now.
Rarely is it a question of whether this or that policy is perfect, acheives some idealized standard of perfection, or 1000 percent efficiency, without no costs nor detrimental consequences. It is usually a comparison between what you have now, and what you are likely to get as a result of the change.
I think I understand where all this "grey area" stuff comes in. Like I said before, it seems more an excuse to inaction rather than a helpful or useful concept. In my experiences, with enough thought, you can boil down most questions of politics into binary or at the very least, a small number of options and ch
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You've asked which is most upsetting, and my answer is that I'm upset by both equally. The problem with making comparisons of degree is that we're demonizes the enemy, making him less than human, and therefore easier to commit acts against him that we wouldn't ever countenance otherwise -- that's the point.
Yes, I know that is what the enemy is doing to our people, too -- demonizing us and making us less than human in their own eyes so that they can commit acts of attrocity against us, like beheading our soldiers and dragging the bodies of our soldiers through the streets. It sickens me. I want us not to become them. This is not just "abstract intellectual standard" -- when we start acting like thugs, we become thugs.
Torture produces very little usable intelligence -- ask the guys at Gitmo who know. What it produces is baseless witch-hunts. If you're torturing a guy, he'll say anything to stop the torture. If the torture is bad enough, he'll sell out his own grandmother. I'm not convinced that even a single life has been saved by torturing dubious information from the prisoners. Can you give me the name of a single person who's life has been saved?
Please watch out for using hyperbole -- it weakens your argument and it's just plain silly. No one sees all US troups as "baby killing marauding thugs." In fact, I've never heard of a single soldier called a "baby killing marauding thug," much less all of them.
Causing a person to believe his genitals will be ripped off by a vicious dog attack or hooding him, putting him up on a box with hands outstretched and attaching electrical wires, making him believe that if he drops his hands or fall of the box he will be electricuted, or beating them, in several cases, to death -- these are the acts of torture I'm talking about. You can't say that this is not torture, no matter how much you would like us to believe they only made them dress in women's panties.
Your argument re: not punishing the guilty is a straw-man argument. No one is saying that the guilty should not be punished, certainly not me. I'm just saying don't torture people and act in accordance with the rules of war. These rules protect our people. By breaking these laws, we are alienating every civilized country (those who would otherwise be our allies) and encouraging our enemies to act with impunity as well.
You've stated that you are concerned with suspected terrorists clogging the judicial system if we allow them protection under our rights. We're mixing apples and oranges here, but I'm glad you brought it up anyway. In Iraq and in Gitmo, the issue is the treatment of prisoners and the question is whether or not they are covered by the Geneva convention. In the United States, the question is whether or not persons arrested are entitled to Habeus Corpus and the due process of law. Although these are very different, they are related issues. I'll address them separately.
RE: the Geneva convention: Article 5 states, "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." What 'competent tribunal' has determined that these detainees do not fall under such protection? Until such a tribunal meets and determines that these people should not be protected, any acts committed against them in contradiction of the Geneva Convention may very well be war crimes that may be legitimately tried by the international courts.
I'll get to the issue of the Geneva convention in a moment. First, the issue of due process of law in the US. I'm personally more afraid of our rights being taken away from us in the name of protection, than I am of being inconvenienced by clogged courts. Please do a little research on what happened in Argentina after WWII. There were terrorist attacks. The government started restricting rights
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
...
I used the example of taxes, should they be raised or lowered. One poster countered that he questioned whether they should even exist at all. And offered as a proposal to do away with taxes. And I started to argue that I don't see such as a viable option, for reasons you have probably already read, and if not, are irrelavant to this post.
Because what did not occur to me at the time, was that my opponent in that particular discussion had not proven whether there were not binary issues. But had simply provided a different set of binary options. Do we get rid of taxes, or not?
Ok, you're getting a little closer to what the point I was apparently unsuccessful at making clear was, but still not quite there.
This thread had been focused on generalities of partisan politics, not about debating specific policy issues. I was not attempting to make any argument about whether taxes are legitimate or not. I was not addressing whether I felt taxes were necessary or not. I doubt anyone cares what I think about taxes in the context of this discussion.
I was merely trying to point out how the binary nature of the question leaves out other, equally legitimate and debatable points of view. I included not only the idea that taxes are not legitimate in the first place, but also the very different point of view that there is no such thing as personal property and that everything is under control of the state. These are not either/or questions, they contrast with each other as well as the 'some taxation' point of view.
My hope was to illustrate how the question itself had already determined that those other points of view were not legitimate. There is immense power in framing the questions that are to be debated. We've all seen the power of that in biased political surveys where the questions themselves are skewed to a particular answer.
Yes, issues are most frequently presented to us as binary choices, but it is important to keep in mind that many of the options have been artificially eliminated before the question is asked - as a way to maintain power.
There is a common piece of parenting advice for raising toddlers. When getting a toddler dressed in the morning it is recommended that a parent offer the child a choice between two acceptable options (presenting a binary choice), rather than simply asking them what shirt (of all the shirts they own) they wish to wear. This way, the toddler feels like they are in control of what they are wearing, while in reality the parent has maintained control over the child's outfit.
In light of the original topic of this thread, the binary choice created by the two major parties contributes to the demonization between them, because as the public notices, "Hey, why not the green shirt?" the major parties are forced to ratchet up the rhetoric in order to keep voters from jumping ship completely. They say, "Forget that we don't address issues that are important to you - look at the evil monster that will be in control if you vote your conscience!!!!" (And just look at the venom aimed toward Ralph Nader.)
The argument that the two party system is an inevitability because most issues are binary issues also loses its relevance when you realize that there is often no connection between the different issues that the two major parties use to define themselves. In fact, there are many issues that the two parties agree on, and therefore do not even bring up.
Quote:
Also, some appear to see things on a more absolute scale than I do. To me, the central question regarding any policy proposal is "Will this make things better, or worse?" We can quibble about definitions of better and worse, and in some respects there is a large element of subjectivity going on. (I.e dependent on a specific individual.) So again, I weigh the benefits, against the risk and detrimental results and make my choice accordingly. But in the end, it comes down to a binary choice. "Is this better, or worse" than we had before.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
basic definitions
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20voting%20systems
%20topics
voting
http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm
instant runoff
http://www.fairvote.org/factshts/irv.htm
other voting schema
http://accuratedemocracy.com/
There's much information for anyone who cares to read.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
Ok, you're getting a little closer to what the point I was apparently unsuccessful at making clear was, but still not quite there.
...
I was merely trying to point out how the binary nature of the question leaves out other, equally legitimate and debatable points of view. I included not only the idea that taxes are not legitimate in the first place, but also the very different point of view that there is no such thing as personal property and that everything is under control of the state. These are not either/or questions, they contrast with each other as well as the 'some taxation' point of view.
I do see where you are coming from. I disagree strongly still. At best, you can say that it boils down to a small number of potentialities, as far as policies and ideological positions go, but that does not mean its an open ended argument, so full of "shades of grey" that folks are paralysed into inaction. Nor does it mean we continue the argument till the end of time.
Its not that a lot of opposing views are rendered invalid or "illegitimate" by any existing power structure. What is occuring is, as I was trying unsuccessfully to point out, people hear these proposals and reject them already. The minority ideologies have been heard, and simply turned down by the majority of voters. That is why they are minority positions. They ain't got the people to support them.
Its not because the system is rigged against them, nor voters are toddlers, or sheeple. People are pretty smart, and usually don't need marching orders from any existing power structure. Its not because even though those proposals would work, they are rejected as "not being invented here" type of thing. A lot of folks do think about these issues, and reach conclusions about them. Even folks in both of the major parties look for new ideas and such to bolster their own ability to weld power.
Part of the problem is that folks have no responsibility to justify their rejection of a political policy. You may never know why they rejected you. For some of the more militant, angry, and fanatical groups, the problem is even worse, in that folks may not even feel safe discussing their reasons for rejection. If they think you are nuts, they simply won't listen nor tell you why they won't listen to you.
You want to blame this on the two major powers. But not long ago, the Libertarian party ran a candidate that was blue. He had been taken, what a lot of folks percieve as a quack medical cure, and because of that, his skin turned blue. Folks laughed, some even tried to listen to what he said. But his action conformed to a perception of a crazy person, one disconnected from reality at the outset, and that made it extremely difficult to take him and his policies seriously.
Now you can chalk this up to an irrational bias all you like, but how do you deal with it? Do you blame the stupid voters for their prejudice? Or do you find a different spokesman, a different means of making your arguments?
It is nice to think that we are right and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, bigoted, or what have you. To refuse to see failure as our fault, and blame some external source. Imagine conspiracies against your views and your party. But it does not garner support, nor does it fix the problem. In fact, it can actually make things worse.
You think you are right. Well, so do a lot of other folks. You cannot coerce them into siding with you, especially in a democracy, and especially with secret ballots. That means you have to rely on persuasion. If you don't do a good job of persuading people, you have to look internally to fix it. Looking externally, at things that, even if true, you cannot change, is useless.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly. But you have to ask yourself how much of this is our doing, and how much of this is the enemies doing? If you are cutting the heads off of folks, parading mutliated corpses around town and the like, I would argue that you are making demonizing yourself. You are demonstrating the risks and threat you pose to others. And that is the real issue.
Originally posted by Honey:
You've asked which is most upsetting, and my answer is that I'm upset by both equally. The problem with making comparisons of degree is that we're demonizes the enemy, making him less than human, and therefore easier to commit acts against him that we wouldn't ever countenance otherwise -- that's the point.
We don't attack friends, nor innocents. We don't go to war without cause, or reason. I say this as human beings in general, rather than Americans specifically. I am sure that Saddam had his own reasons for invading Iran during the 80's and Kuwait during the 90's. He saw them as threats, or at the very least, having something he wanted.
You don't want us to become thugs, and yet you seem to gloss over the very simple and higly relavant fact that before any of us knew one thing about the prison abuse scandals, the military had already taken care of it. The personel invovled were transfered away, and many of them were being processed through the court marshall system, before the pictures became public. Thugs don't do that. And has been pointed out by a few Iraqi bloggers, such "torture" was a day in the park under Saddam, and such perpetrators would have been promoted, rather than prosecuted. So I don't think that danger is all that real.
As for the "baby killing" comment, sadly I have heard just such verbage come from one of our local "peace" demostrators. I know it does not reflect the views of the majority of the anti-war crowd, or at least their spoken rhetoric. (What goes in the mind, well, I ain't a mind reader.) But it is a meme that is out there, and it damaging to those same 'peace' protestor's position.
And again, you have to look at exactly who these prisoners were. They have been described as "High Value Targets", in other words upper eschalon members of Saddam's government and the present insurgency. These are not innocent folks you are worried so much about.
As for breaking the rules of war, you have a point in that adherence does minimize the risk and threat to our people, as well as innocents. However, if one side refuses to follow them, and uses those rules to kill you, you are still dead. You can complain about it being unfair, but if it works, and you are dead, there is not a lot you can do about it.
I am all for the Geneva convention. But I also realize that sticking to it can actually hurt us, get our troops killed if the enemy refuses to follow it. Launching mortar attacks from protected sites like mosques, hiding behind civilians while you snipe at our troops, these are clear violations of exactly those rules of warfare. So I would be far more comfortable if your rage were more directed at them, than us.
And as I pointed out before, if one side refuses to follow the convention, the convention itself become null and void for BOTH parties. The first one to launch an attack from a mosque is guilty of a war crime. The destruction of that mosque, (or just one section of an exterior wall to the grounds of said mosque) to stop that attack is NOT a war crime as defined by that very convention. Even though it may be a protected site, it loses it protection the second armed forces start using it for military purposes.
Quote:As well you should be, and its not that I consider this a baseless concern. But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself, if you have to waste resources to help those who want to kill you get away so they can do it again, then the rules don't work.
I'm personally more afraid of our rights being taken away from us in the name of protection, than I am of being inconvenienced by clogged courts.
Your trying to make a legal argumen
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon,
Well said. Well said indeed.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon, I think that your viewpoint is restricted by "either/ or" thinking. For example, you pose the choice:
Quote:
But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself
forcing the discussion into an "either/or" mode (you can have only protection OR freedom but not both) without exploring the vast middle ground. And while it's true that I can mentally construct situations where that would be the case, I don't think it reflects ground-truth. Furthermore, if I were to take your position to it's extreme (sacrificing any liberty for total security) it would quickly devolve into an Orwellian nightmare. What I think it really comes down to is how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for how much security.
Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hoping for a reply. I know it seems arcane, but I hope y'all humor me because I think this is THE reason why we can never seem to reach a conclusion!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
Your insight is brilliant. I'm still considering that nobody (Drakon et al) is so consistently evasive unless it is purposeful. But maybe you are right and the more charitable, and meaningful, explanation is there is such a pervasive blind-spot in their thinking they CAN'T get the obvious. Even when it's put plain in front of them ...
In any case, while a 'same to you !' reply to this post wouldn't surprise me, I don't think you will get any reply to yours. Which is too bad, b/c as little as I fathom your interest in dissecting issues with them, you seem like an honest person who sincerely means the invitation.
Aside from that, I think you posed a basic and important question.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME