The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 13 of 20
YOu can find an editorial by Max Boot, a noted right-wing editorialist here: / www.cfr.org/pub6857/max_boot/the_fringe_fires_at_bush_on_iraq.php
The topic is Lt Colonel Karen Kwaitkowski's statements that the Bush administration set up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) to funnel specious pro-war information, mostly from Chalabi, around the CIA and other intelligence organizations directly to the Office of the VP. (The CIA had already dtermined that Chalabi was unreliable.)
Lt. Colonel Kwaitkowski was assigned to the OSP but was troubled by its mission. What she said was:
Quote:Read this editorial carefully. I challenge you to find a substantive discussion whether her statements are true or false.
It wasn't intelligence -- it was propaganda ... they'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together.
The entire editorial consists of name-calling and personal attacks, not only on Lt. Colonel Kwaitkowski but also on Joseph Wilson and retired CIA officers. Nowhere does Max address their statements- that the war was based on a lie, that intelligence was deliberately subverted, and that the neocons had taken over foreign policy. Their "crimes" are that they publish their views in non-mainstream outlets- you know, like FF fans. Here are a few tidbits:
Quote:
Since her retirement in March 2003, she has become a prolific contributor to isolationist publications like the American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine, and lewrockwell.com, an ultra-libertarian website. Pretty much all her work is devoted to uncovering "neoconservative warmongers" who have supposedly taken over U.S. foreign policy.
No discussion about whether the neoconservatives HAVE taken over policy... personally, I think they're the ones who got us into this mess. BTW, you Libertarins can tell me if the site he points to really is ultra-libertarian or if he's mischaracterized it.
Quote:
The best-known example is Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who has accused the administration of spreading misinformation about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium and of deliberately outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative.
All of this is true, so he avoids the topic strenuously and settles for name-calling....
Quote:
Wilson is ...a world-class publicity hound who makes Paris Hilton look meek by comparison...
Wilson is motivated by more than a desire for fame and fortune. He's also an ideologue. (And Max isn't?)
Quote:
Equally biased are the former CIA officers who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ...have many decades of intelligence experience among them... What is seldom mentioned is where the VIPS-ters publish most of their anti-Bush screeds: on Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn.
This is just one example of hundreds. Now, how does one heal the rift after this kind of demonization? I'm not sure that it's possible or even desireable. What Republicans voters might want to consider is that some people within the administration don't represent the majority Republican view.
BTW, there is a SERIOUS internal power struggle going on withing the ranks. I've mentioned this before, I'll mention it again: career diplomats, military officers, and intelligence agents are livid with the Bush administration. They think that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle and Feith got us into a mess against both State Department and CIA recommendations, chose the wrong political startegy (de-Baathification) and hung the troops out to dry with insufficient forces and supplies- and no exit strategy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know the previous post may have seemed off-topic. The point is that I find this kind of dirty politics to be sourced mainly in the right wing of the Republican Party who, when challenged with a dissenting view, shift the topic, accuse the dissenters of being "publicity hounds", "unpatriotic", "extreme", and bring up "information" that is patently false.
That isn't indicative of wanting an honest discussion. The Administration has to be especially careful if it truly wants an exchange of views because they have the military, police force and intelligence agencies behind them... and now they have the legal right to "dispapear" citizens, at least for awhile. It doesn't matter whether the Administration is Republican or Democrat- during the Vietnam War we had the National Guard kill demonstrators and satellites tracking Jane Fonda.
When an Administration only intends to shut down the opposition, you're not in a mode of "politics as usual" and I don't think it's possible to reach an accomodation with that kind of mind-set and you will probably negotiate away too much of your position if you try.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
==================================================
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know the previous post may have seemed off-topic. The point is that I find this kind of dirty politics to be sourced mainly in the right wing of the Republican Party who, when challenged with a dissenting view, shift the topic, accuse the dissenters of being "publicity hounds", "unpatriotic", "extreme", and bring up "information" that is patently false.
==================================================
SignyM, you cannot be serious? You only see demonization as coming from the right? You accuse Drakon of being "..too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing." (Post dated 7/14/04 on this thread) That is good advice I think.
If you truly believe that the demonization is one-sided then how do you explain Moveon.org's ads which equated Bush with Hitler, the recent Hollywood fundraising bash for the Kerry Campaign, or Michael Moore's Bush bashing film "Farenhiet 9/11"? These are only a few examples of the left's efforts to demonize the current administration.
I refuse to delude myself into believing that those who hold an opposite view than myself are the sole purveyors of demonization. I recognize that both sides are equally responsible and am abhored by it. I do not see this as a good thing in any way shape or form. I see real hatred in our political discourse today, whether it be rabid Anti-Clinton conservatives or angy Bush Bashing liberals is beside the point.
==================================================
"Keep Flying"NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bump
Quote:
SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 03:22
Drakon ... Show me a single post where I blew you off as paranoid.
SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 04:59
... I expect to see that post by Sunday noon Zulu time. Without that post, by your own black and white extreme way of looking at things, you either lied or you're incompetent to judge reality.
SIGNYM
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 15:10
Drakon, redeem yourself. Did I, or did I not, call your concerns "paranoid"?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Demonization ... turning people into a faceless non-humans, that are to be thought of with revulsion. A two-part response - depersonalization of others AND creation of hate-response?
You can't demonize if you don't depersonalize.
And depersonalization happens naturally in the US. Perhaps demonization serves a specific psychological purpose. In stratified and uber-competitive US society, most people view most others as inhuman and have very little social empathy for them. (That also goes for the very wealthy - like Bush and Cheney - looking down on the rest of everyone. They really DON'T view nearly all people as human.) But everyone experiences physical pain. And except for the born-sociopaths, people learn to fear and avoid it, and recognize it in others. And so most people probably have some empathy for others' physical pain. It may take the installation of loathing to reliably make people take the initiative to personally inflict pain on another. (As opposed to the Milgram experiment where 70% inflicted 'pain' at the specific direction of an authority. http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html)
It might seem like I went past HK's posting, I didn't. Better minds than mine will need to put this all together.
And personalization (assigment of motivations to another based on experience) followed by revulsion - can it be a rational response to an attacker? Or can one defend against an attacker without hating them as an enemy?
Demonization IS obviously propaganda. By its nature it must be untrue. It is the first step in seeking to obliterate an 'enemy', however defined, whether it is the Hatfields or the dissidents.
I see demonization coming from Repulicans - logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, evading issues etc. As SignyM points out, everyone else documents their case.
........
My understading was that the military didn't start investigating until a soldier sent letters and a videotape home. That was after the torture at Abu Ghraib was brought up to superiors many times and simply buried. It was sheer luck that the letters and videotape didn't hit the media BEFORE the investigation. If I am wrong, direct me to reliable sources. (with urls - too many people make claims that aren't true).
........
A military campaign - a war - is a special type of social effort for obliteration. War is only fought when one side thinks it might win. And it is started during uncertain times. These are two necessary conditions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SignyM, you cannot be serious? You only see demonization as coming from the right? You accuse Drakon of being "..too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing." (Post dated 7/14/04 on this thread) That is good advice I think.
Was I turning Drakon into a "faceless being" ready to be hauled away? No, I was responding directly to HIM, personally, and what I said was that he lacks objectivity. I still think it's true and frankly I consider it to be a useful observation (useful for Drakon, not me). How is that "demonization"?
OTOH, Drakon dodged, wove, called me a lot of names and repeatedly tacked a number of opinions onto me that aren't mine. Now, I'm not sure that I'm ready to call THAT demonization, but it sure isn't an attempt at two-way conversation!
Quote:
If you truly believe that the demonization is one-sided then how do you explain Moveon.org's ads which equated Bush with Hitler, the recent Hollywood fundraising bash for the Kerry Campaign, or Michael Moore's Bush bashing film "Farenhiet 9/11"?
It wasn't MoveOn.org's ad. I don't know why they posted it in the first place; maybe they didn't screen the submissions before posting them- but they pulled it within hours.
'Fraid I don't know about the Hollywood bash- you'll have to explain it to me.
As far as F911- Have you even seen the film? Go see it first before you tell me about it.
Quote:
I refuse to delude myself into believing that those who hold an opposite view than myself are the sole purveyors of demonization. I recognize that both sides are equally responsible and am abhored by it. I do not see this as a good thing in any way shape or form. I see real hatred in our political discourse today, whether it be rabid Anti-Clinton conservatives or angy Bush Bashing liberals is beside the point.
IF I were to call Pol Pot a tyrant, is that demonization? The problem Razz, is that it's only demonization if it isn't true. Now, I realize that both sides in the USA believe fervently that they hold the truth. But what I find is that the right-wing conistently refuses to engage in dialogue about the facts. THis administration has a particular history of witholding information- on everything from the cost to Social Security for drug coverage to the makeup of Cheney's energy commission to identitees of detainees to reconstruction fund exepnditures to Presidential papers.
The left-wing, OTOH, generally tries to back up its assertions. O'Neill brought 19,000 pages of documents. Lt Colonel Kwiatkowski brought her presonal obervations. Ambassador Wilson really did write a report which turned out to be true- and his wife Victoria Plame really was outed. Videotapes and photos came from Abu Ghraib. There really was a memo that said that torture was legal. The Administration really did have a court case where they were contending the right to hold detainees- even US citizens- indefinitely, without cahrge, without legal recourse, and without notice. So, bringing this up really isn't "demonization" because it happens to be fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now HERE'S a typical demonizing political statement:
"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men," Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.
The first sentence is a straw man argument- attaching a indefensible position to the oposition.
The second is an ad-hominem argument- attacking the opposition personally, in a way that has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Possibly. But I think you are missing something here.
Originally posted by rue:
I do seriously think the US has a system which leads to two (and only two) major parties, and feedback that's so delayed it doesn't count. And that, I still think, leads to a level of struggle not seen in other places, and therefore demonization. IMHO.
Or, maybe it's just a US cultural quirk.
The two party system is a result of the voters, rather than the parties themselves. They want to be in power and have to offer something (policies, programs) that the voters want, that the voters think will work, and in general that appeal to the voters. It is because of those voters that you end up with just two major political parties.
Some have remarked favorably on various concepts of portional representation, but I think have failed to make their case effectively. The fact this comes mostly from parties that cannot appeal to enough voters to become even a contender is problematic for them and their case. But the bigger hurdle is they need to explain how including voices that have already been voted against, how they will not end up with political power incommensurate with their demographic appeal.
One worry is that under such a system, a government ends up with no majority. So in order to get a majority, one of the majority parties forms a coalition with a minor party, thereby giving it far more power than the voters had agreed to in the first place. That does not have a lot of appeal.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My post was not there, because I had other things to do over the weekend. Besides which, your style and tone does not lead me to even suspect you are interested in what I have to say. Even now, you blow it off as "honest panic" rather than any thinking or rationality.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Drakon, I see that your post isn't here. I'm going to assume that your rhetoric is driven by honest panic and not cold-blooded manipulation. Take a deep breath, come back and let's talk.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is false. The reason why MM scenes of kite flying is seen as propaganda is that is leaves the audience with a completely false impression of Saddam's government. It ignores the plastics shredder, the torture, the offical sanction of terror to impose Saddam's rule.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's why Michael Moore showing children flying kites in Baghdad is considered propaganda by the Bushites.
It ignores the circumstances under which the "no fly zones" and economic sanctions were initiated, the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait, warred with Iran, and threatened the region. That he gassed the Kurds or filled the mass graves. It also dodges completely whether we were at war with Saddam, or the Iraqi people.
Its a classic "dropping context" style of argument designed to give viewers a false impression. And thus it is dismissed as propaganda.
Quote:It has nothing to do with vengence. Pretending that there do not exist folks who want to kill you is not a successful strategy for surviving. Especially when they demostrate time and time again just how far they are willing to go to kill you. You either stop them, or end up dead. Considering their use of suicide tactics, its pretty hard to deter them, so you have to undermine their desire first, if you want them to stop, and you do not want to simply kill all of them.
Forgiveness cannot happen over night, or by a simple act of will. We must go through the pain and chaos of grief first. It was perhaps innevitable that we would go to war immediately after 9/11, as a race, we're still pretty unconscious and full of denial, but the desire for vengence fades. We are beginning, I think, to awaken to our own loss of life and humanity over there and we, as a people, want out.
War is about political objectives. In this case its not payback. Its to get them to stop it. Stop trying to kill us.
Quote:To me, evil is the willful and unwarrented destruction of human life. Granted there is a lot of that in warfare, but sometimes warfare is the only way we have of fixing problems and systems that are not functioning. And in warfare, at least with smart commanders, any destruction that does occur, is purposeful, and warrented, especially in light of the alternative, such as death for yourself, or your way of life.
The best definition of evil that I've been able to come up with is simply this: the denial of one's own rage and hate.
Saddam wanted to stay in power, even increase his power over the Middle East (note invasion of Kuwait and Iran). He did not want to end up tried for crimes against the Iraqi people. And he was willing to fight for his beliefs. Despite the objections and disagreement amongst others. We wanted him out of power, not out of jealousy or anything so trivial, but simply he was a danger. To his own people, to the people of the region, and to the US as well. Not an imminent threat, but one that would just get worse as time moved on.
Pacifism is all well and good, but only amongst pacifists. Once it encounters more aggresive ideologies and philosophies, it either dies out, becomes enslaved or has to garner the support of one such mental framework for its very survival.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME