The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 8 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.
Just sayin'. Look into it.
Your last post, Honey, gets at the heart of what I find fascinating about this thread and Drakon's contribution. To me his argument is really the embodiment of demonization, which is to say polarization, which is to say thinking always in terms of black and white. I'm thinking that Drakon's argument is really a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalism is characterized by very strict definitions that the fundamentalist doesn't think are strict at all because, to him, that's just the way things are. Fundamentalists have a very mystified idea of all those words that Signy wants him to define. They mean what they mean, everybody knows that--everybody who isn't dumb, or mental, or playing word games.
When Soupcatcher started this thread I was really excited about the discussion, 'cause I'd been thinking a lot about that very issue. I gave myself a few days to think about what I had to offer, but by that time the dualism debate had already taken hold.
One of the things I wanted to discuss on the topic of demonization was the issue of projection. We tend to demonize others and condemn them for precisely the qualities we dislike and fear in ourselves. We say, "It's not my problem, it's THEM, THEM, THEM!" Captain Ahab says, "It's that darn whale, he ruined my life!"
So I was thinking: What is it that liberals are busy disowning about themselves and projecting onto conservatives? And what do the conservatives deny in themselves and blame the liberals for?
What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?
After 9/11 the left really pushed their own agressive rage way way down, and projected it on the right. I think that fueled a lot of the whole, "We deserved it" rhetoric that was flying around before a lot of the families in New York even knew if their loved ones were still alive. It was spooky. So I think a lot of formerly left leaning folk out there kinda moved away from the left. They felt their rage and owned it instead of burrying it and a lot of them supported the "War on Terror" because it spoke to them.
What I keep hearing very loudly and often from the right is that liberals "LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD!!!" But at the same time, and to a larger and larger degree it seems, the right live in the imagination of their President. If Bush says it, it must be true. Period. I don't hear a lot of rightwing skepticism about the right. Even Denise Miller, snarkiest man on Planet Earth, doesn't have a mean thing to say about George! But without skepticism we lose our ability to discern truth from illusion and are likely to swallow anything our trusted source hands us.
So we get liberals who are full of rage and painfully naive conservatives. Hijinks ensue...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know about BPD. "But everybody KNOWS what we mean by...!" and "Just because I can't argue as well as you doesn't mean I'm wrong!" were my favorite phrases.
My views were heartfelt (still are) and thought out but unconscious because nobody had challenged them. I was missing insight by lack of contrast. And when someone reduces what you thought were irreducible assumptions, the basis of your entire outlook, well, it's just a very uncomfortable place to be!
That's why I really want to talk to Drakon. He (I presume "he") has obviously thought for a long time about a lot of things, and believes and feels deeply. But he's also too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He (I presume "he")
No. Really? How can that be?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
heh heh heh
Well, either you're sleepless in Seattle or in a very different part of the world!
But I've had people trying to figure out my gender before and many have guessed wrong, so in MY mind it's always an open question until somebody declares, shows a pic, and attaches biometric data including gene sequencing! And even then I'm not sure!!!
So, where ARE you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see a difference in hte demonization. And since you brought up the word traitor...
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm not sure how we got here from there. But here's my summation of the responses to my original question. Drakon has proposed that members of the political party not in power demonize members of the political party in power because they feel helplessness and frustration. SPLibertarian has proposed that demonization is more a smoke screen put out by both sides to accentuate false differences and mask the similarities. (I hope that I have summed this up accurately). I tend to lean more towards SPLibertarian's explanation simply because I feel Drakon has only captured a portion of the demonization. For Drakon's explanation to be correct, we should have only seen demonization coming from the Republicans during the Clinton administration and demonization coming from the Democracts during the Bush administration. But from my perspective I have seen no real change in who is doing the demonizing. Liberal and neo-con are both used as swear words. People on all sides are throwing out the label "traitor" (which, in my mind, is a sure sign of demonization). Hell, this thread is headed in that general direction.
I have seen this applied two ways toward the minority party. The first way is consistent with the definition in the Constitution, aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. Some folks see what the left is doing as trying to weaken us, inhibit our effectiveness in fighting against the terrorists and jihadis, get us to give up, appease, or in some other way, simply not fight those who would kill us. If someone is trying to kill you, and you don't stop them, they win and you are dead.
Its like the old saying goes, For evil to prevail, all good people have to do is nothing. Or the riddle of steel from the Conan movies, Steel is nothing compared to the hand that welds it. If the hand refuses to weld it, the weapon ain't going to do a bit of good.
Intentions, motiviations, perceptions, none of that mental stuff matters. Its what consequences of the actions generate that counts, that makes it treason, even if the person does not intend it to be.
The other way its been used is by looking at liberal rhetoric over, well, its history. We see stuff about how the little guys, the proletariat, and peasants should rule their own destinies and not be under the thumb of some aristocracy (whether its a spiritual, military, or hereditary aristocracy is largely irrelevant.) The general idea that is there should be no aristocracy who has too much power over the rest of the populace.
Back in 1998, Congress passed, and Clinton signed a resolution that made regime change in Iraq the offical policy of the US government. At that time, Saddam had tossed out the UN weapons inspectors, and shot at US planes attempting to enforce the no fly zones. After the first Gulf war, the Shi'ia and the Kurds attempted to get rid of Saddam, but failed and were slaughtered en mass. The mass graves that have been uncovered are a testiment to that effort.
The fact that liberals and the left cannot support Bush's reasons for this latest effort in Iraq is hardly surprising. But the fact they can find NO reason, even reasons with what we are told are their own principles, that is far more disturbing. It gives the appearance that todays liberals are not for the liberation of the Iraqi people. It gives the appearance that liberals have betrayed their principles, committed treason against themselves and their own ideal.
Again the reasons for their disapproval is not that important. (The change from 1998 to now is curious, but also irrelevant) The effect of their policies would be to leave Saddam in power. With the economic sanctions weakening, with Saddam turning the UN Oil for Food program into an Oil for Palaces and Weapons program, (with the aid of bribed UN officals) it is easy to see where that would leave the state of the world, and the Iraqi people. With Saddams ties to various terrorist organ
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry for jumping in so late here.
I've just spent 2 hours reading and considering this thread and I have a real problem with Drakon stating things over and over and over again as facts with no offered proof.
I can't believe no one has called him on any of the dozens of unsupported assertions he's made. I'll just take two around the prison scandal as a start...
Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "
My offered evidence that this is not true:
" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)
"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm
Drakon's Assertion:
"...this was all being handled by the military courts long before we ever heard about it, or saw one picture"
My offered evidence that this is not true:
"Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media"
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php
(BTW: Gotta love that as a source!)
"Secretary Rumsfeld has clung so blindly to his own vision that even after the media began to publicize the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, he said last week that he had not yet read an official Army report on the Abu Ghraib abuses --- a report that had been completed in March."
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gyrosite/Content?oid=oid%3A260
5
Drakon, you said in one of your posts that someone argued poorly. Where's your proof for your many, many assertions?
I love the topic and love some of the posts and I'm rationalizing that the lack of evidence means we're discussing philosophical issues but someone has to call you one your blantant BS.
I can't ready any more of this thread... I'm going to bed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The fact that it is unpleasant does not mean it is not an inaccurate perception of the reality we face.
Originally posted by rue:
I just recently read Drakon's newest posts and I did get a sort-of frantic, manic underlying mindset. Either 'THIS' OR ALL HELL'S GONNA BREAK LOOSE ! Patriot Act or DOOM! Invade Iraq or FACE DEATH ! And sometimes it was in nearly these words. I hope Drakon doesn't take offense, but it seems uncomfortable.
All Hell did break loose on 9-11. And either we fight back, or things could get a LOT worse.
As for the Patriot act, having read it, I don't see anything in it that is much of a problem. The cops still need a warrent to do anything, such as "sneak and peak" searches, and the like. There is nothing in there that has not been a power of the government before, for organized crime cases and the like. The fact that these same tools are now applied to terrorist investigations, I don't see as a problem.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oh... almost forgot one more thing:
Quote:
Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.
If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.
Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.
Just sayin'. Look into it.
Thanks for your "concern" but you have nothing to worry about. As far as maturity, if you an examples of what maturity is, I'll pass. Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me.
And accusing those who disagree with you of some sort of pyschological problem, to dismiss their views and their voice, well that does not strike me as too mature either. I think the term is "projection"
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you misunderstand. It is within the capabilities of the US to do just that. What is lacking is the political will. I can see circumstances creating that will in the American public. Of us simply giving up on the Arab population, deciding that those who say that democracy and Islam are incompatible, (like al-Zarqiwi tells us) and since they pose a continuing danger to ourselves and our loved ones, we do what is necessary.
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
oh... almost forgot one more thing:Quote:
Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.
If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.
For something like 200 years, Carthage kept attacking Rome, invading the Roman Empire, and generally being a pain in the butt. Rome got fed up with it, and destroyed the city, killed or enslaved its population and dispersed the survivors throughout the empire. And salted the earth, so the city could never ever be rebuilt. It may have been brutal and repulsive and well I am sure you can come up with all sorts of negative descriptions. But one inarguable fact is that Carthage was never a problem again.
I don't want it to come to that. And I doubt you or anyone else does either. That is why the middle east is going to have to change. And soon too. Combine suicidal terrorist tactics with WMDs and you have a major problem. A few people can wreck death and destruction on a large population, on scales undreamed of in human history.
If the situation gets desperate enough, if the governments that use terrorism to deflect their population's anger away from their home grown problems don't change, it may create the will needed to commit such a horrible act. That is one reason why Iraq must succeed.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME