The Demonization of the Opposition
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35776
PAGE 14 of 20
Quote:Or to put it another way, to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There's multiple types of demonization that serve different purposes. There's wartime demonization of the citizens of countries who we are fighting, such as what Signym talks about, the purpose of which is to help us get behind the destruction of our enemy. But there's also demonization of people who are within our own borders, the purpose of which is to marginalize. Something they both share is to turn people from individuals into faceless groups and to change opponents into enemies so that any means used against those groups become acceptable. Sometimes demonization spills over across these categories. [warning: painting with the broad brush].
But sometimes when you charge your opponent with something, when you say he is a liar, or a flip flopper, those terms have meaning and the charge itself has meaning. Sometimes you have evidence which supports the conclusion, the label. And that has got to be dealt with.
Otherwise, you end up without the ability to label, classify or distinquish between candidates, ideas and policies. While that serves the interests of those who want to see everything as a shade of grey, or all political parties as identical, I don't see it as too useful.
Sometimes demonization ain't demonization. And unless you look at the underlying charges and cases made to support the characterization, you get locked into indecision.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is not the way I saw it. What you were doing was not to disappear me, or to set me up to get hauled away. It was simply to get others to stop listening. Not argue my points, but to ignore them. The effect is the same, even if the means change.
Originally posted by SignyM:
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!
You took issue with my characterization of your views of me, as paranoid. I stand by that assessment. No, you did not use that specific word, but it is implicit in your posts, especially when you talk about my "fear". The belittling and uncivil manner you have consistently behaved in this discussion indicate that it is you that do not want any kind of rational discourse. Your 'demands' and threats don't give me reason to change that assessment either.
And since you are not taking your own advice, I see little point in continuing with you. I don't act the way you want, or think the way you would like. So you chalk it up to "panic" or some other reason.
The irony is, you fail to see you are doing just what you are accusing the Republicans of doing.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Context dropping again.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ambassador Wilson really did write a report which turned out to be true- and his wife Victoria Plame really was outed.
First off, in Wilson's own report, he noted that Iraq had sent emisaries to Niger during the 90's to try and buy uranium yellow cake. He says they did not succeed, but again, the basis of his confidence is his pool side tea sipping with certain government officals in that country. By his own admission.
Second, whether Plame was outed is a crime or not, is still under investigation. It was offered to Novak as an explaination of why someone who apparently had no interrogation or investigative experience, would be given such a sensitive mission. The explaination was that his wife got him the job. It is still possible that whatever undercover or covert status she had was unknown to the leaker.
To put it another way, the charge was nepotism at the CIA. But that got all muddied up because of Plame's covert status.
It should be pointed out that at this late stage, bringing up the Wilson affair is not a good idea for your side. Wilson said it "defies logic" to think that his wife got him the job. We now find out that there are memos with her signature, recommending him. Wilson says his wife did not get the job, later investigations shows she did.
And that has wrecked Wilson's credibility. Not the leak of his wife's status at the CIA, but the context in which that leak came about. Which is pretty inconvenient in such discussions. Unless you think nepotism is prefectly okay, or okay solely in the CIA. It makes it difficult for you to defend any future whistleblowing, even if it would help your side.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon, fear/panic is not the same as paranoia. To use your phrase, look it up in any dictionary. However, to help you out (in my snide a belittling way) paranoia is when you're convinced that someone is out to get you- and it's not true. Panic is when someone IS out to get you, and it frightens you so much you can't think clearly about it. The difference is in one case the danger is imaginary, in the other case it's real.
Now, I have said repeatedly that terrorists are a real problem. I'm not dismissing your concern as baseless. What I AM saying is that your fear is twisting your thinking.
I have responded to your points. I (and others!) have pointed out factual, logical, and semantic errors in your posts and you haven't responded directly to any of those comments. However, if you feel that I haven't responded, tell me which points you'd like to be discussed and we'll have another go at it. Feel free to cut and paste- it sure saves typing! But try to keep it short because if you put too many things into one post I can't adequately respond to all of them- my time here is pretty short, I can get in maybe fifteen minutes to a half-hour at a time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SygnM 7/19/04Was 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.."
Okay, I have to admit I'm a little confused here, not sure where I accused you specifically of demonizing anyone, if you interpreted my statements as such I apologize, certainly not my intent.
I just wanted to make a quick observation about your posts here on the thread, and I stipulate that this is solely how I percieve things, and do not speak for others. To me, you come across as a little abrasive, and the tone of your statements seem to lean more at irritating the person you are addressing rather than actually wanting to hear what they have to say. I hope that is not your intent, but that is how it comes across IMHO. Now, please do not come back at me with a response about how I am ignoring your arguements and trying to demonize you because my arguements are faulty. I'll try to address your points now.
Quote:
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.
Yes, you are correct, they were not Moveon.org's ads (it was actually two ads; see here http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm), rather they were ads solicited by Moveon.org in a contest designed to portray the Bush administration in a bad light. I'm not sure how that makes it better, the net result was that the ads were published by Moveon.org and sanctioned by them until they pulled them due to the negative publicity they received for them.
Quote:
'Fraid I don't know about the Hollywood bash- you'll have to explain it to me.
This is the now infamous Whoopi Goldberg tirade of anti-Bush insults which made innuendos about our President's last name and certain female body parts. I cannot actually find the quote because all news services have refused to post it due to its vulgarity (I hate censorship!). I'm afraid I'm at a loss to what was actually said since I wasn't there and can find nothing except vague references to it.
Quote:
As far as F911- Have you even seen the film? Go see it first before you tell me about it.
Here again I think you are assuming some things about the person your are addressing. Your powers of perception are truly amazing if you can tell about the movie watching habits of someone simply by reading two posts on an internet discussion thread. As it happens, I have seen the film, and was not amused to say the least. I'll let Christopher Hitchens speak for me on this issue (see here http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle).
Quote:
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.
Okay, here are some links to the White House's website where you can find out how much we will be spending on Social Security, Drug Coverage, and Reconstruction ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_12.xls). Are you saying that posting these figures on a publicly accessible website constitutes witholding information?
The makeup of Cheney's Energy Commission is a whole nother story that could take up an entirely new discussion thread. But let's equate it to Hillary's Healthcare Task Force and the Clinton administration's witholding of that information. Conservatives back then had shouldn't have asked for that information just as Liberals today shouldn't have to ask for this information.
Okay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I'm snide and irritating. I admit and apologize.
As far as the costs to Social Security, a staffer an actuary whose name I forget (I'll have to look it up again) calculated the costs of drug coverage and found it to be much higher than what was being touted by the Administration. He was threatened by his boss with being fired if he gave the info to Congress, which was just about to vote on the bill. Many many months later the estimate came to light when another staffer- a Congresional aide, I believe- was looking into the matter of costs and got an anonymous fax with the higher estimates. The figures put out by the Bush administration were phony. I'll have to google up the info. There was a recent court ruling on this matter that said that while threatening the actuary with dismissal and withholding information from Congress was unethical, it WAS within legal bounds.
My time's up. TTUL
---------------------------
Edited to add-The actuary was the Chief Medicare actuary, his name is Richard Foster, the Congressional aide is Cybele Bjorklund, and the person who threatened Foster is Thomas Scully.
www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/medicare/national_news/nyt3_18_
04.cfm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The makeup of Cheney's Energy Commission is a whole nother story that could take up an entirely new discussion thread. But let's equate it to Hillary's Healthcare Task Force and the Clinton administration's witholding of that information. Conservatives back then had shouldn't have asked for that information just as Liberals today shouldn't have to ask for this information
Frankly, I think the whole idea of "executive privilge" is hogwash. Everyone should be able to find out who is advising their government.
But Cheney didn't claim executive privilege, and since his group contained members outside of the government (as did Hillary's) it's clear to me that both "task forces" failed to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a LAW that was written to make advisory- committe dealings open to the public.
In point of fact, the Health Care Task Force submitted to a ruling by the DC Appeals Court and opened their records in 1994, while Cheney named the DC Appeals Court as a litigant (!) and still refuses to open the records, in apparent violation of FACA.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
Okay, here are some links to the White House's website where you can find out how much we will be spending on Social Security, Drug Coverage, and Reconstruction ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/24_12.xls). Are you saying that posting these figures on a publicly accessible website constitutes witholding information?
This is the whole Richard Foster thing. I’m linking to the San Jose Mercury News just because it’s the newspaper I read on a regular basis but any Googling on Richard Foster and Medicare will turn up tons of newspaper links (this is to forestall the “that’s a biased source” distraction).
Thirteen House Republicans had drawn a line in the sand on the cost of the proposed Medicare legislation (They would not vote for it if it cost more than $400 million). The White House assured them that the cost would be $395 million. Even with that assurance, the vote had to be held open for hours instead of the customary 15 minutes for the whip to get enough votes for the legislation to pass by one vote. Richard Foster was the chief cost analyst for the Medicare administrator. His analysis predicted that the bill would cost between $500 and $600 million. His boss, Thomas Scully, ordered him not to report those numbers to Congress. Here is the timeline: June 2003 – House passes by one vote. June to October 2003 – Scully blocks Foster from providing analysis to Congress. November 2003 – House/Senate compromise passes by 5 votes. January 2004 - Administration acknowledges that the bill probably would cost $534 billion, not $395 billion. July 2004 – “Former Medicare administrator Thomas Scully broke no law when he repeatedly directed his chief cost analyst to withhold information that members of Congress sought about the cost of the Medicare prescription-drug bill, a report released Tuesday concludes.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9096028.htm?1c
(editted to add: I just realized that this link only works if you are a subscriber. So I'm including a link to another paper)
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/9096227.htm?
1c
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza
Yes, you are correct, they were not Moveon.org's ads (it was actually two ads; see here http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm), rather they were ads solicited by Moveon.org in a contest designed to portray the Bush administration in a bad light. I'm not sure how that makes it better, the net result was that the ads were published by Moveon.org and sanctioned by them until they pulled them due to the negative publicity they received for them.
What is interesting to me is that the Republican party has gotten a lot of mileage out of these two ads. Back in January, the text was copied and posted on the gop web site. In June they were incorporated into a short video clip by the Bush/Cheney campaign and featured prominently on their website as well as being e-mailed to tens of thousands of individuals. Here's the timeline: December 2003 - MoveOn sponsors contest. December 2003/January 2004 (I haven't been able to determine an exact date) - ads posted to contest website. January 2004 - GOP demands apology; ads are removed; MoveOn apologizes. June 2004 - ads incorporated into video ad for Bush campaign and distributed.
But saying these ads are from MoveOn is like saying anything posted on this site is from Haken. In retrospect, MoveOn should have been more proactive in setting up screening procedures. But it's interesting that market forces doomed the ads to failure since they didn't make the voting cut. So, in my opinion, we have two independent fringe ad makers who made a product that was not successful. The voters for the contest made the statement that these ads were not good enough to be considered as finalists by not voting for them. Then we have a political party adopting these ads and presenting them as evidence of the views of the majority of their opposition. So the ads were not successful with their intended audience but extremely successful with another audience and used as evidence that the intended audience shared the viewpoint of the ad-makers.
This, to me, is an example of demonization. Effective demonization has some element of truth that is then extrapolated out to include a broader set of people. There are people out there that believe Bush is a modern day Hitler. That's a fact. These people are on the fringe and most others ignore them. The GOP and the Bush campaign use the work of the fringe to portray all those involved with MoveOn as having the same beliefs. And then, in a surreal twist, open themselves up to the same criticism by interspersing images of Hitler from those ads with images of Kerry, Gore, Dean, Gephardt, and other prominent Democrats speaking with emotion.
(editted to add: That link you provided to the Memory Hole web page was very informative. Thank you. I was surprised that I had never heard about any of the remarks from elected officials comparing the previous President to Hitler. When two unknown fringe ad-makers compare Bush to Hitler it is all over the news and the Republican party is outraged. When three elected Republicans compared Clinton to Hitler, not so much. All of these are protected free speech. All of these are hyperbole. All of these are attacks. Some of these were made by unknown people while the rest were made by elected officials. I just find the expressed outrage silly, forced, and hypocritical).
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also read the Hitchens commentary, and have discussed it in a previous posting. There are too many points to discuss completely in one post, so I'll pick two for now.
The first six points of his commentary:
Quote:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
Points (1-5) are all proveably true. What is Hitchen's problem with them? (1) and (2) can be found by looking up any general reference, (3) I found on the Unocal website a few years back when negotiations were underway (they were competing with an Argentinian company called Bridas, which got the bid- not that it did them any good), (4)- well Osama is till at large isn't he? (5) If you look up the "coalition of the willing" you'll find what I found- although listed in the coalition, Agfghanistan had NO troops in Iraq. (6) It is still too early to tell whether the troops have been "wasted", but this point is "divined" by Hitchens.
The second point is the Saudi's supposed influence over US foreign policy, and Hitchens makes quite a deal about it.
Quote:
Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.)...why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?
oh drats... later
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME