Stop treating monsters as reasonable people

Stop treating monsters as reasonable people
2011 January 17
by Ian Welsh

............

What I've come to realize lately is that I'm not on the same side as a lot of people. If you're for the Afghan war, aka. for eternal war, I'm not on your side. If you believe in indefinite detention or the President's right to assassinate whoever he wants, I'm not on your side. If you believe that Wikileaks is evil and that citizens should be kept in the dark as to what their governments are doing, then I'm not on your side.

Through the Bush years opposition to Bush made a lot of people seem like friends, who weren't. Sure, we all hated Bush (yes, hated. I hate people who torture and engage in aggressive war, and I think that's the appropriate response), but that hatred, that opposition, concealed the fact that a lot of people didn't really object to what Bush was doing, they just objected to the fact that it was being done by a Republican, or that it was being done incompetently. They would have been ok with the same policies if they'd worked out, as with all the "liberals" and "progressives" who were pro-Iraq war until it turned into a clusterfuck.

The Wikileaks imbroglio was a real turning point for me. At least half the "progressives" I know revealed themselves as, simply, supporters of authoritarianism; revealed themselves as mushrooms who wanted daddy to keep them in the dark and feed them shit. Revealed themselves as fools who didn't either understand or, worse, believe that government exists to serve its citizens, who have a right to know what it's doing in their name.



So count me out.

I'm not interested in being reasonable, if reasonable means "a spineless sell out". I'm not interested in being pragmatic, if pragmatic means "understands that nothing can actually be done to fix any problem", and I'm not interested in being polite to people who make their living by destroying lives or apologizing for those who destroy lives.

the rest:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/stop-treating-monsters-as-reasonable-people/

And they say they aren't trying to censor us. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

or unrecs for posts that show distaste for certain Republicans.

Basically, the criticism is the same, just insert Political Correct whine for claims of uncivility.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

Before the Bush years, many years ago, there was a plane crash from a country many think of in lesser thoughts in many western countries.

A friend of mine at the bar and me were talking about it. He said if they were Americans people would be upset about it. That was years ago, before the current wars, but it really did highlight how people think about the value of life based on empathy circles.

And from there how groups can form only based on some abstract association or advantages position.

So even before the Bush years we were talking about those things in many bars. Not sure what people were talking about on the news and such, didn't watch much tv news until years later.

:thumbsup:

PB

How is that any different than the Bush tactics you claim to hate? The fact is not everyone is going to agree on every subject but if we can all agree that republicans gaining control is a very bad thing then that is a common thread we can work with.

When he said if 'you're not with me you're against me' that's what he meant. Join me in killing people and torturing them. It was easy to say 'then I'm against you'.

I am with this guy because his stand is a moral one and it hasn't changed since Bush left the WH.

He is absolutely right that it seems many of those who opposed Bush only opposed him because he was a Republican.

They were not against war and torture after all, because now they do nothing but excuse it, just as Bush supporters used to do.

And sometimes you are either for or against something. I am still against war crimes, extra-judicial assassinations, torture but I see a lot of people from the left who are no longer opposed to these things.

if anyone questions or (gasp!) opposes our current POTUS, watch his supporters rise up in rabid fury.

Isn't this ironic?

If you haven't read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, I suggest you do so. Look closely, and you will see that this administration is continuing the disaster capitalism touted by Uncle Miltie and his minions as THE penultimate mode of economic behavior. You will soon understand how the corporatists have usurped the IMF, the WTO, and virtually every currency on the planet, which means that they get to amass wealth, and control of vital resources (including human resources) on a level heretofore unknown. Such individuals have absolutely NO qualms about the hoi polloi, many of whom have already starved to death or committed suicide rather than remain a burden to their families. Klein's book is thoroughly researched and well-written, but too many people have given it a pass--likely because it deals with matters economic.

We MUST acknowledge the horrible monster of disaster capitalism which has spread its hedonistic and deadly tentacles throughout the world. It is THIS hydra that we must destroy, before it destroys us--if we're not already too late.

That people can argue that Obama's presidency is 'different' is quite telling. Do these unfortunates want to maintain the facade of a benevolent and democratic United States? I know that the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, but willful ignorance is far worse.

There are so many people here who hated right-wingers for following bush blindly and made no bones about saying so. Yet a lot of those people now follow Obama blindly and can't stand anyone criticizing him. How can they not see they're doing exactly what they hated in others?!

Obama behaving in so many ways like his predecessor has kind of been like separating the wheat from the chaff. Some of us stand by our beliefs no matter whose letter stands at the end of the name and some don't. Those of us who do are called purists and those who don't are called cheerleaders and not a bit of truly deep conversation occurs around it. Astounding, if you really think about it. DUers as a group are highly intelligent and highly articulate so for us to just throw bumper sticker slogans at one another instead of diving, truly diving into this issue, just boggles me.

You can just SEE it happening here.

And that's the problem. We SEEM to have a president that is on the side of the capitalists in their most BLATANT guise. As a socialist, this is what I've always pictured capitalism to be when it's unchecked by any competing system. Sad to say that this EVIL and SATANIC system didn't disappoint me. When Reagan and the Chicago Boys took off the fetters, it played true to form.

Thanks for reminding me ~ and yes, it is so sad to realize that many of those who I thought were on the side of justice when we all opposed Bush, were actually only on the side of a political party.

and haven't so much as cracked it open yet. I just stuck it on my bookshelf and almost forgot about it. I think today is the day I start reading it, and this OP is what decided me. As much as it hurts, I need to have a clear picture of how America left itself to the tender mercies of the predators, boxed itself in, with seemingly no exit. Maybe that's why I avoided reading it for so long?

:) Well maybe not, but you are in for a (scary) treat. It brought together EVERYTHING in a readable and documented way and pushed me to new heights of anticapitalism. It shows in no uncertain terms just what the unfettered face of capitalism really is.

There are only two sides regarding the core issues. Granted there might be some issues we disagree amongst ourselves but not on the core issues.

Therefore, regarding the core values, there are only two sides. Bushy was right.

And if someone doesn't agree (regardless of political persuasion), there is something very badly wrong with that person and progressives don't need to be civil to them. I realize a significant portion of the population has been conditioned to accept the unacceptable, but that still doesn't change the fact that it *IS* unacceptable. Or should be.

so right on

I have saying that for decades.

This.

There are some people who disliked "X" when Bush did it but now make excuses when Obama does "X".

Sorry you can't be for and against x depending on who is in the White House.

Either X was and is bad or X wasn't and still isn't bad.

What a fool.

they are monsters. I thought we had agreed about that when Bush was president.

Or what exactly are you saying?

That is what I am saying.

(well for me that's re. fucking the planet half to death but it applies to lotza good/bad stuff)

in every issue does not help at all. Some things really are just disagreements.

Believing our government has no right to classified information is believing we have no right to protect ourselves from other countries or anyone who would do us harm.

No we did not support everything Bush did in the name of security, but that did not mean we believed we had no right to protect ourselves at all.

Before I bust a gut, let me just say kudos for attempting to gender neutralize that awful phrase. Didn't work, but good try!

with how YOU view and define the issues are unreasonable monsters?

They're a pretty fucked up group of people.

Always somebody in a crowd... either a contrarian or the op stepped on their toes with where they stand on the issues. But the op is hardly a "my way or no way" declaration.

So what qualifies one as being for "eternal war" or any of the other assumptions the OP makes?

I was just foolish enough to hope for a little factual information that shows who actually believes what the OP says.

:hi:

ALL CAPS, misused punctuation, a few misspelled words, and a healthy dose of profanity.

2 out of 10 on style.

:kick:

It's not authoritarianism to realize the government has to be able to classify some information. Argue about what that might be, but it just looks really stupid to claim it has to do with knowing what the government is doing in our name. We have that.

People are really letting themselves get played on this one, because they want to be in that they just want to believe the worst for some sick reason.

This guy sounds like he's made his conclusions and anyone who does not agree is just evil. Flip side of right wingers.

with the fact that we've been sold to China? You're ok with the fact that the rich can hid their money and not pay taxes? Statistics show that the middle class in this country is dying and you support those that are doing the killing.

There are only two sides the rich bastards and us. And I know whose side you've chosen.

He can go fuck himself.

because he's against torture and war? :wtf:

I'll correct that little oversight right now, along with a few other names.

fuck off Ian Welsh you arrogant, intolerant pus-bag

and folks who believe lies, exploitation, and murder, are necessary evils, can rot in hell.

I don't think you're a monster, a mushroom, or any of the other invective you used, but it doesn't appear that you have anything particularly worth hearing to say. To pick a couple of points from the overall morass:


>they just objected to the fact that it was being done by a Republican, or that it was being done incompetently.

A lot of what Bush did - e.g. detention without trial - I object to the very fact that it was being dong; some things - e.g. the invasion of Afghanistan - I objected to only because they were being done incompetently; there were almost certainly some things I didn't object to at all.


>believe that government exists to serve its citizens, who have a right to know what it's doing in their name.

You're demanding that the law enforcement agencies inform criminals as to the names and identities of undercover officers and the dates of coming raids? That the least a negotiator will settle for in trade negotiations be revealed beforehand? That troop movements are announced in advance to the enemy? That the government reveal to each party in a conflict it's trying to end the contents of its communications with the other? The generalities of government action should be public, but many of the specifics need to be secret.


>I'm not interested in being reasonable, if reasonable means "a spineless sell out".

It doesn't.

we are not on the same side.

and of course, reasonable does not mean spineless sellout. at least you're against obama. phew, i thought for a minute there you were a complete reactionary.

Cheney/* years. Welsh is correct to point out that for some issues (torture, for example) there can't be a "reasoned middle."

That said, Welsh is merely stating his opinion on his own blog. Why all the rancor about what he wrote?

Ergo, it is absolutely imperative that for some people wishing to control the discussion on DU that criticism of the President, the American people or even a possible interpretation of the zeitgeist be savaged immediately. It's not about defense of any of those things or ideas, it's about flushing all other interpretations of something away until there remains whatever the desired idea is.

Normally, this sort of thing goes on in discussions on DU, other web forums and also (to a lesser extent) in real life during conversations, especially ones involving groups of people. And it's normally not very noticeable. However, there are persons or entities whose desire to quash all thought in a specific direction leave even the most loosely-defined interpretation of "discussion" and become pernicious. And that perniciousness and the regularity with which it is used to interrupt a discussion draws attention to itself as being a tool of control rather than a dissenting opinion.

PB

the media isn't just about teevee and radio...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Obama and the Democrats are not living up to their potential. They are the excuse-makers. How sad.

...the facts of the matter (especially at this point in time, because we've all now had more than enough time to see where things are going) are very distressing. And they indicate that Obama and the majority of the Democratic party are...not what we want them to be. And, honestly, that's such an understatement but I'll leave it at that.

Ok, so what's the alternative then? What worldview or course of action does one adopt in that extremely stark situation? There are few answers. Really. So there's a stark, desolate landscape filled with few/no alternatives, fear, sadness, political disillusionment, etc.

Or...keep believing in Santa. Don't mean to be dismissive and I guess it sounds that way but...the alternative is just keep hoping.

And as painful as that is, it's still less painful than accepting what I feel is something of an obvious truth at this point in regards to the current state of, direction of and support for Liberalism within the Democratic party and from our President.

PB

As they say, ignorance is bliss ... or, Obama is the opiate of the masses. Let the freepers dissect that one to their hearts' content.

thought the same thoughts. Other "progressives" really disgust me....

Um, I suspect that's not going to go over well around here, and not just because of the incorrect apostrophe use.

I think we have a lot of "monsters" who support the teachers unions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The 1000s of crimes that followed and are now being ignored were expected by me. Nothing will ever change in the U.S. until crime at the highest levels of government are prosecuted. By not prosecuting the crimes and obstructing the investigations, the current admin is just as guilty.

Being told to just move on from the crimes is an insult to everything humane.

They not only took our president that day but our "people's" government, as well!

That's MUCH more important than prosecuting criminals for killing hundreds of thousands, and probably MILLIONS, isn't that right?

Much like John Hathorne and Jonathan Corwin, using the knowledge of their day too, concluded that Sarah Cloyce and Elizabeth Proctor were monsters and should stop being treated as reasonable people.

Wow, it must be nice to know the conscious or unconscious reason why millions of people you haven't met do or do not "object" to what a presidential administration is doing.

I guess what needs to be clarified is the "it" to which you refer, because there's a lot off stuff that can fall into the category of "it."

I'll tell you the biggest reason why I hated CheneyBush:
They used 9/11 as a false pretext to launch their Project for a New American Century in Iraq, told BIG lies about a non-existent threat, exploited the anger/grief/fear/patriotism of the American people in the wake of a national tragedy, betrayed millions who trusted them (and sickeningly still did afterwards), and launched two fucked-up wars that have drained our treasury, killed & wounded thousands of our young people in uniform, and killed tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands; maybe a million) civilians in Afghanistan & Iraq.

I underlined launched because there is an enormous difference between getting us mired in a war and inheriting a situation with no good options.

Anyway, that is how I define the "it" that I objected to the most. This is not to say there weren't countless other outrages of varying magnitude during the CheneyBush years, and it is not to say that I don't strongly object to some of what Obama is doing (including Afghanistan). What I'm saying is that although you may find some objectional policies common to both administrations, the valid reasons for objecting to (and even hating) CheneyBush are not even remotely equal to the valid reasons for objecting to Obama -- regardless of party affiliation.

"The Wikileaks imbroglio was a real turning point for me"

Not really, Welsh simply hates Obama.

And action "x" may be wrong no matter who does it, but there is no parallel to the dreadful CheneyBush actions and the Obama positions. I may not agree with him on a number of things, but I'm not ready to discount him "in toto."

Watched this parade during Clinton.

Enjoyed a certain camraderie during Bush 2, but now am realizing that most dems are hypocrites because when "Our Guy" does it it's OK...again...just like W. Clinton.



The learned helplessness got to me in the 80's when I might have actually joined the dem party and worked for it.


...Frankly, government secrets are there to be used against us as well as the 'enemy'. Check out all those lovely crowd control devices. DU, I am dissappoint. Thought maybe you learned something from our previous pres...

to convince the authoritarian followers in both parties that they are following their leaders over a cliff..

I find that being reasonable is the best way to accomplish this.

K&R anyway, cause we need the attitude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning.

I totally agree with what Welsh says.

We're seeing Palin double down on her violent rhetoric the same way.

I think everybody needs to take a fucking deep breath.

It is your choice whether you want to communicate your positions rationally or not. No body is "censoring" anybody.

If you fail to support my exact position on each and every one of them,
then I'm not on your side.

and I'm not sure what is controversial about what he wrote.

We're not talking about arbitrary preferences here (and, to a large degree these days, whether a congresscritter has a "D" or "R" after their name is somewhat arbitrary, at least in that it isn't a good predictor anymore of the person's policy proclivities). We're talking about fundamental principles that are not negotiable and I don't think would be debated by honest progressives. The rub, of course, is that this isn't a predominantly progressive message board.

If you think this board isn't predominantly progressive then you're on the fringe of American politics. This board is SIGNIFICANTLY more liberal than the American public and even the Democratic Party in general.

but "progressive" is not a content-free term that simply describes relative positions on a sliding scale. Progressives share certain ideological preferences that this board, as a whole, generally does not.

Nail, meet Hammer.

K&R

Reason IS and always has been a dialectic with the phenomenal world. There can be no dialectic if there is no anti-thesis to a thesis, no ground out of which, against which, a position manifests itself. For BOTH elements, thesis:anti-thesis, if, in the process of that dialectic, discovery results in newly ordered priorities, or even if extrinsic factors are appropriately identified as such, authentic commitment is clarified, not abdicated, and both elements, thesis and anti-thesis, become more authentic in the process, which one would expect to be the who purpose and objective of that which is referred to as "reasonable".

Perhaps it is my age and big family background, but I have always assumed that reason requires that I honestly know for certain sure who/what/when/where/why/how _________________ well enough to take a functional stand for those truths relative to other truths, not ______________ instead of those other truths and not those other truths instead of __________________ . The relationship is what justifies both and that relationship requires clarity not abdication.

Well, now that's casting asparagus if I have ever seen it cast!

Rec

particularly to the right to assassinate. All I could say was I thought Obama was fighting a rear guard action, ceding ground he never would have in a desperate attempt to save what he could from the money power, and to protect processes he'd started from its ravages.

At the same time, I take a realistic view of the threat of climate change, meaning I think anything less than a total, Manhattan Project style response will not be enough to save the planet. I fear Obama was the best we could do, and although he gets it, he doesn't get it with the clarity we need, and the political process is incapable of saving us even if he did. OK, trying to move towards green technology and green technology education is good, but it seems to be missing the scale of the problem. Worse, we're rapidly running out of the cheap energy that we'd need to solve the problem it caused.

Maybe as in Kim Stanley Robinson's novels on the subject ("40 Signs of Rain" etc), it will take the re-insurers, who have to get it, and the scientists, and a few politicians who can force the government to take direction from the scientists.

Most likely though, we're toast. Very very very burnt toast.

So for me, all these other concerns like objecting to war (don't get me wrong, I submitted to arrest to try to stop the start of the Iraq War and risked arrest to try to stop the start of the Afghanistan War) are so beside the point as to make my brain sweat. They're the moral equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

That doesn't mean I consider people like my friend or the author of the article to be monsters who think those more petty concerns are pivotal to be monsters though. Just a bit sadly incognizant and precious, given the gravity of the crisis of our time.

particularly to the right to assassinate. All I could say was I thought Obama was fighting a rear guard action, ceding ground he never would have in a desperate attempt to save what he could from the money power, and to protect processes he'd started from its ravages.

At the same time, I take a realistic view of the threat of climate change, meaning I think anything less than a total, Manhattan Project style response will not be enough to save the planet. I fear Obama was the best we could do, and although he gets it, he doesn't get it with the clarity we need, and the political process is incapable of saving us even if he did. OK, trying to move towards green technology and green technology education is good, but it seems to be missing the scale of the problem. Worse, we're rapidly running out of the cheap energy that we'd need to solve the problem it caused.

Maybe as in Kim Stanley Robinson's novels on the subject ("40 Signs of Rain" etc), it will take the re-insurers, who have to get it, and the scientists, and a few politicians who can force the government to take direction from the scientists.

Most likely though, we're toast. Very very very burnt toast.

So for me, all these other concerns like objecting to war (don't get me wrong, I submitted to arrest to try to stop the start of the Iraq War and risked arrest to try to stop the start of the Afghanistan War) are so beside the point as to make my brain sweat. They're the moral equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

That doesn't mean I consider people like my friend or the author of the article who think those more petty concerns are pivotal to be monsters though. Just a bit sadly incognizant and precious, given the gravity of the crisis of our time.

for all of these reasons -- many of them I consider crimes --

We need a new Democratic candidate in 2012 --

preferably someone like Bernie Sanders who can run on a Dem ticket and

whom I think many feel trust in --

Maybe someone like Tom Hayden for VP --

I'm sure there are other names as well -- ???

Who do you trust these days?

Politicians who are millionaires and multi-millionaries who we are expecting to

be on our side?

Perhaps it is an error to assume that they expect to be on our side; certainly most of our complaints about Obama are that he is not.

Perhaps they expect to be what they are and they expect us to be what we are, so the real problem is HOW, precisely, those two different (though not absolutely different) things interact.

who has been able to explain what's been going on in my head. Dog knows I couldn't figure it out but your point, "through the Bush years opposition to Bush made a lot of people seem like friends, who weren't" I suddenly recognize as the source of much of my sadness and confusion the last two years. It's not merely that we aren't all united by a hatred of the shrub, it's once that union fell apart we've been divided by more factors than I can count. By "we" I don't mean just DUers, though that's been hard enough to acknowledge, but Democrats everywhere. I thought we were all on the same page - call me naive because I was - but I couldn't have been more wrong. Well said, kpete, and thank you.

"You not only have only the rights you are willing to fight for, you have only the economic livelihood you are willing to fight for. Americans, being unwilling to fight for either, will soon have neither.

And I have nothing but contempt for those who have led them to this impasse, and with them, much of the world."

-Ian Welsh - (from the end of the referred commentary initiating this thread).

We are way past the point of polite discourse. If you cannot recognize that situation, whether you agree with me on the details or not, then you really are not paying attention to what is happening. That is what Ian Welsh among many others is saying.

How can anyone who has followed the last 10 years of lies and deception so often documented here on DU look at it any other way? My neighbors and I literally put our lives on the line to help achieve a Democratic majority in our state, and Congress, and put Obama in the White House, only to watch this President, his appointees and the Congressional leadership turn our future inside out as if nothing had changed but the party labels. Yes, there have been some meaningful changes, and along with them an unending if not amplified corporatism...And now some of you here would tell us sit down and don't rock the boat ?????????

We have an excuse for a President at least half of the time. He seems to have no awareness of the meaning of nearly every speech he has given. If he did grasp the fundamentals he so often cites he would fight for them rather than merely give lip service to the past. If he does indeed understand what he has said then one can only conclude that he waves the flag proudly but marches to another tune. That is cheer-leading not Leadership. Your Job in that office is to make the hard decisions, to stand up to the opposition, and to take the risks of attempting to go forward. Your job Mr. President is to give voice to those who may have none, to Protect and Defend ALL of those whom the Constitution identifies as citizens. That indeed is the contract.


While all is not yet lost it IS rapidly being given away. This is not said as hype. The harsh is reality. If you cannot see that for what it is you have lost the perspective to tell the difference regardless of labels.

to representing my political views. Like me and unlike the Democratic Party, Libertarians are anti-militarism and pro-civil-liberties, but Libertarians are complete assholes when it comes to economic justice and helping the less fortunate. And Repugs are worse than Democrats on militarism and civil liberties and economic justice and helping the less fortunate. So I guess I have to stick with the Democratic Party, and hope it gets better.

This is the first article I've read that has reflected 100% my sentiments on this subject. I say I hate--yes, HATE!--Republicans, the Christian Right, the teabaggers and anyone who engages in what I call "identity politics," that is, they are perfectly okay with torturing Muslims (for example), because they are allegedly subhumans; they are not "Us."

I certainly have my issues with radical Islam, but then I feel the same way about the far right in ANY religion. Including Christianity. Including Judaism. I'm a human being FIRST, dammit! I have no patience with anyone who feels otherwise, and no "civility" to spare for them either.

The faux-liberal hero whose new crusade is to get us all to be nicer to MONSTERS.

Outstanding article - couldn't have said it better.