I liked this comment so much from Constant Reader asdf – in an odd way, I needed this comment, or one like it – that I’m giving it its own thread. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but at least the questions are still being asked, not screamed.
I have to say that it’s been pretty nasty around blogovia in recent days, both in main posts and in comments.
I’ve been thinking about why, and I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a fight for the moral high ground going on that’s as fierce as I’ve seen in my brief 25 years.
Aside from disgust and anger at the war itself, antiwar liberals are still smarting over the “you would have left Saddam in power” thing, and are striking back with a vengeance in an effort to reclaim what was lost.
And prowar conservatives are resentful at constantly having to defend the war and straining to see positive developments in a harshly critical environment. They suspect a disjunction between the unflattering media reports and the positive things we are accomplishing in Iraq. They think the war’s detractors are too eager to jump on every failure and too willing to dismiss positive secondary effects within the region.
Liberals, meanwhile see an attempt by leading Republicans to pre-emtively pin the war’s failure to live up to expectations on them, and are trying very hard to beat that back.
I msyelf was livid after watching the DeLay press conference smearing Jack Murtha, a local guy whom I respect enornmously for all that he has done for my region.
I was absolutely enraged.
Up until the Abu Ghraib photos came out, the debate was rather antiseptic and abstract. Sure, there were casualties, but even considering April’s tough weeks, still tolerable considering the stakes involved.
Moreover, there was still some resonance even among antiwar liberals to the argument that freeing people of a vicious dictatorship was a worthy achievement. I think there was doubt in some people’s minds as to whether the war wasn’t such a bad idea after all. That’s probably gone now for most of them.
I now fear that after Abu Ghraib the far left and right are going to go bezerk about all this, and that will spill over into the center.
We’re seeing the lefty moonbats like Ted Rall start to go into blame the troops mode, and wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay rush to accuse Democrats of treason and wink at torture.
Now, I’m not sure the real world is as polarized as the sphere of public debate is at this point. But it will become so very soon unless things get better in Iraq.
And God help us all if there is another attack on American soil or another major disaster in Iraq.
Perhaps the only hope for national reconciliation is that the situation stabilizes, that the handoff goes well on the 30th, and that Iraqis are by and large able to solve their own problems. I see some positive signs in the diplomatic isolation of Sadr within the Shia community, although I view the outcome in Fallujah with great skepticism. It’s still quite possible Brahimi and Sistani can pull this thing off, although a major question is what happens if the new government is pressured to ask the Americans to leave. What will we do?
Real nice post there, asdf 🙂
Here’s to geometrically typed names everywhere, hurrah!
Great post, asdf, and I agree:
the only hope for national reconciliation is that the situation stabilizes, that the handoff goes well on the 30th, and that Iraqis are by and large able to solve their own problems.
But call me a pessimist: I don’t think that if the Iraqi government tells the US occupation to leave, that the occupation is going to go. The handoff on the 30th may go well, but plans for afterwards do seem to be more or less on the same lines as most pre-war planning. I don’t think the situation is going to stablize so long as the US is running Iraq – and the longer the US runs Iraq, the worse it is going to get. (And this is not partisan mud-slinging – I think this is so regardless of who wins in November, by this time.)
I’m sorry. I’m really not sure that the above comment represents how I feel on this topic. (Think, yes. Feel, no.)
When I think about the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, in what this says about conditions in other military detention centers, I feel sick. And I knew this was bad: I’ve known it for a long time. But the photographs are something else – direct visual images impact in a very direct way, and I think this is what is causing a lot of the worst posts in the blogosphere – I don’t think anyone can look at them and be unmoved, and rightly so, but I think that some people are letting the images affect them in a wrong way – or forcing themselves not to react.
We’re used to words. We can let words slide over us, especially when they’re phrases we’re so used to we don’t think about them any more. Images make a difference. Honestly, I think we’re all suffering a degree of mild trauma – a bit like the reaction after September 11, for those of us who saw it in images rather than in reality – and over-the-top reactions should be given a bit of leeway and tolerance, whichever “side” we’re on.
Good post asdf. I agree with alot of it and it’s surprising that no one is writing about exactly what is causing all of the polarization in general, let alone with just our occupation of Iraq. I would add though that one of the things that the prison torture and abuse exposes for many Americans is they bought into Bush’s rhetoric about Good (us) vs. Evil (them) but the photos show us clearly being ‘evil’. How can we rail against evil when we show ourselves to be just that? The next step is downplaying it as a ‘very small group’ and defending the abusers (the media is already airing loads of ‘my friend/brother/sister’ didn’t do this). But the next set of whopping photos and videos showing worse things is on the way and the press actually digs for this kind of stuff so it will air sooner than later. Then the next stage comes into play where the goal posts will be moved yet again. I feel the public will veer, as always lately, to the right and swallow the new rounds of excuses/rationalizations as we as a whole here, are not too reflective these days. But every time this happens, the group never comes quite back to where they were before. Therein lies the shift toward the middle for many instead of left/right. We may actually end up with an appreciable Center by years end.
Here’s why I feel desperate: I feel like this is our last chance to turn back from a terrible mistake. If we don’t now, we won’t ever.
And the Muslim world’s response is….some of it’s justified, most of it not, but it’s entirely predictable. And if this happenes I feel like ‘m going to have to move, if not to Canada, at least away from the Northeastern cities that have been my home my whole life. And like someone I know is going to get killed.
So. Not so much a struggle for the moral high ground, because….this sounds arrogant as all hell, but by now I’m pretty confident which side has it in U.S. politics, idiots like Ted Rall aside. I had my doubts about that before, about the war. No longer. (I was always pretty freaking sure that things like “extraordinary rendition” were wrong.)
(by “turn back from a terrible mistake” I don’t actually mean “withdraw from Iraq”.)
“Not so much a struggle for the moral high ground, because….this sounds arrogant as all hell, but by now I’m pretty confident which side has it in U.S. politics, idiots like Ted Rall aside.”
We have a problem, then, because if you substitute ‘Rush Limbaugh’ for ‘Ted Rall’ your thought mirrors mine.
Moe
PS: I say ‘we’ in the generic sense, of course, not ‘we’ in terms of ‘Moe and Katherine’.
It seems to me that the polarization is not as much a product of politics as it is the American people themselves. This site is a great example of why as country we are polarized.
It seems many of you are against the Bush administration no matter what. Katherine just commented the other day how her head migh explode at the RNC. Asdf is enraged. I don’t think you really hear that sentiment from the middle-right. It is very difficult to build consensus in that environment.
Even in asdf’s relatively humble post he still works from the assumption that the approach the Bush administration has taken is wrong in it’s entirety and allows for very little room that it may turn out to have been an effective approach. And this is consistent for him in his posts.
But the reality is that he lacks so much information with which to make a decision, but he doesn’t acknoledge that. I feel many people who post here really don’t have experience with the military or the government.
So in his vast experience of 25 years he seems completely convinced that he “knows” the Bush administration is competely wrong when analyzing his posts. Doesn’t that seem quite arrogant?
Hence, there is no finding common ground with him or others who share his opinion… if you happen to believe that going into Iraq was a strategic decision and an opportunity the U.S. could not pass by or else we would pay the consequences later.
I don’t mean to be overly harsh after his thoughtful post, I just think it is important to understand what is causing the polarization. There is very little attempt at finding common ground… only criticising the adminstration. I would love to find common ground with some of you here, but that is virtually impossible. In many posts I acknowledge someone else’s opinion or answer their questions. The reverse is rarely true.
For those of us with more experience in life than 25 years and have been around the world the debate was never entered in this manner:
…
Up until the Abu Ghraib photos came out, the debate was rather “antiseptic” and “abstract”. Sure, there were casualties, but even considering April’s tough weeks, still tolerable considering the stakes involved.
…
Say what??? I’m dumbfounded he could actually have felt that way!!! No one who knows anything about war would have ever felt that way or been that naive. No one who understood 9/11 as an attack on our country by a determined enemy who would continue to attack us would think that way. So it seems he clearly has strong opinions about a subject which he truly knows very little.
Again, I don’t mean to be harsh… just honest.
And most Americans believe there should be no “IF” but a “WHEN” in the following sentence:
…
And God help us all if there is another attack on American soil or another major disaster in Iraq.
…
Jes then comments:
I don’t think the situation is going to stablize so long as the US is running Iraq – and the longer the US runs Iraq, the worse it is going to get.
…
So he doesn’t really support continued U.S. actions in Iraq. He does’t think the U.S. can continue to make a positive contribution in Iraq. Again… look at his posts as a whole and you will find that as a common theme. So if you believe we are working to build a better Iraq how can one find common ground with him. If you believe that Hussein was a tyrant who killed his own people how can you find common ground with him?
And Jes:
When I think about the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, in what this says about conditions in other military detention centers, I feel sick. And I knew this was bad: I’ve known it for a long time.
….
So he has known it was bad for such a long time. Is he specially enlightened or has he just always believed the worst about the U.S. From his posts I think I know the answer.
And his standards to which he holds the U.S. to in his many posts are virtually impossible to reach. We can’t reach it in the U.S. itself. Is it a shock that we may also have problems in Iraq? Tragic, yes. Disgusting, yes. But do we not deserve some credit for fixing it?
And then Wilfred says:
bought into Bush’s rhetoric about Good (us) vs. Evil (them) but the photos show us clearly being ‘evil’.
…
So now people like myself have just “bought” Bush’s rhetoric like I’m an idiot. How conceited is he? There’s no possiblity that Bush is sincere and that I may be also. And he doesn’t really allow for the possibility that this kind of treatment is fairly common all around the world in war and in prisons. Prisons are harsh. There are many cases of this type of behaviour in the U.S. prison system. But, no… we are now evil in his eyes. How can I find common ground with that?
And then Wilfred says:
I feel the public will veer, as always lately, to the right and swallow the new rounds of excuses/rationalizations as we as a whole here, are not too reflective these days.
…
Does he think the public is just stupid? Maybe, ther is a reason that they will veer left. Maybe the public knows we really are trying to help Iraq and maybe this is due to a small group of bad people. Nope! Wilfred is smarter than the rest of us. That just couldn’t possible be the truth.
And Katherine gives herself away also:
And if this happenes I feel like ‘m going to have to move, if not to Canada, at least away from the Northeastern cities that have been my home my whole life.
…
Thank God Americans before you Katherine didn’t behave that way. She doens’t want to “cut and run” in Iraq, but in the U.S. maybe… And the Northeast has been her home her whole life. Americans don’t give up their homes Katherine. They stay and fight for what they believe in!
But Katherine knows who has the moral high ground! I wonder if she will cut and run on her moral high ground like she plans on doing with her home?
So from my perspective the divisiveness comes from making statements about things which one does not really have the experience to and exagerrating to make ones point and beleiving that we are the perpetrators of evil in the wolrd when the reality is we have some bad people who will be punished and the rest in Iraq are doing their best and sacrificing their lives.
But, here at this site the U.S. seems to be the bad guy and the Bush administration is evil.
Well I don’t beleive that, but many of the posters here certainly seem to practice that belief in their posting. I also don’t believe the Bush administration is perfect. They do plenty of things wrong. But they are under attack constantly from every direction… by Americans… like many here.
“For those of us with more experience in life than 25 years and have been around the world the debate was never entered in this manner”
Wrong. As someone with a little experience, this debate feels quite similar to 1967-75 between the right and the left. Vietnam was tough, I was vaguely pro-war, you may judge that argument as you like. For those who think we live in difficult times, I can only say that then Americans were killing each other within our borders, directly or indirectly, over politics.
But 1972-74 feels even more similar. And the Republican grass roots defended Richard Nixon without reservation and with frequent attacks on the sanity and patriotism of his accusers, until the very moment he boarded the helicopter. That was unforgivable, and I have not forgiven. Although it figures into my judgement of a party, not my measure of its members.
Most here were born after those days, and are not responsible for the actions of their party in those days. Affiliation was chosen for any number of reasons. And perhaps the party was not damaged by the Nixon years. I think it lost its center, but many believe that itself is a good thing.
I speak as one who supports the war, the strategic goals, without reservation. Accepting that the costs may be unbearable, and I am finding the costs currently hard to bear, I still support the war.
And forgive me, at least my second reaction to prisoner abuse concerns the damage it does to our strategic goals. Both abroad and at home. And despise George Bush for his incompetence and irresponsibility. His associates from within his party may and should, in good faith, soon decide where their best interests as party members and Americans reside. Tacitus has decided.
Serenity now….so we’re polarized because the left thinks America is evil, are we?
This may be the most insulting post I’ve ever read. It makes me too angry to evaluate whether it violates the posting rules, but if it doesn’t it just goes to show how you can get around neutral rules to dishonestly mischaracterize and viciously attack people.
“My head would explode” is a common, joking expression and you need to fricking let it go. It translates, to those not familiar with the idiom to, “I would be very angry and frustrated.” Oh my God. I said I would react negatively to the RNC! I have given away the dark hatred that eats at my very soul!
I am perfectly willing to fight for what I believe in. I am not really going to move short of an evacuation instruction or a nuclear attack. But f***, you had better know as many people close to major likely targets as I do before you start lecturing me. And read the Maher Arar series and any of the articles I’ve linked to, if you want to know why I think it goes beyond six bad people.
I know Osama bin Laden is evil. I know Saddam Hussein was evil. I know the people blowing up innocent kids in Iraq are evil. I don’t believe George Bush is evil–as someone said somewhere once, he is merely awful. I don’t know how many times I have to say it before it gets through. The thing is, we can be a lot better than them and still a disgrace to ourselves. The other thing is, I don’t have any direct control over Al Qaeda or any terrorists; the only thing that there’s even a faint hope of influencing is the U.S.’s policy in fighting them. And I think it’s wrong in many respects, and contrary to our interests in even more respects. And the stakes are very very high.
And for the most part, the people who will probably vote this disaster of an administration into a second term don’t live in the cities that are most likely to be destroyed if our foreign/defense policy fails. Which drives a lot of my bitterness, and a lot of the geographic element of the polarization.
Moe…see, now that’s a good response to my admittedly overheated post. I know that, and I respect you so I respect that view. But I’m no closer to understanding WHY you think that than I ever was.
“It makes me too angry to evaluate whether it violates the posting rules,”
I’ve been trying to figure that out myself; I’m leery of overusing the ‘reasonably civil’ rule, because it’s reaaaallly easy to abuse, but given how Katherine feels about this… yeah. This is your one warning to follow the Posting Rules, OdysseusInRTP. Please examine them before posting here further.
“But I’m no closer to understanding WHY you think that than I ever was.”
Different base assumptions, I guess. Couple that with the mutual, bone-crushing sense of worry that gets reinforced by the political blogosphere and we’re well on the way to explaining our current situation.
Moe
“Perhaps the only hope for national reconciliation is that the situation stabilizes, that the handoff goes well on the 30th, and that Iraqis are by and large able to solve their own problems.”
I wouldn’t count on it at all. Even Turkey has had a number of near misses with its somewhat democratic system, and it is far mor amenable to democracy than Iraq.
If there is a significant pullout of American troops anytime in the near future I absolutely guarantee a long civil war followed by a brutal dictatorship. (Or maybe a number of smaller dictatorships).
Katherine, I respect you, but what does this sentence mean:
“And for the most part, the people who will probably vote this disaster of an administration into a second term don’t live in the cities that are most likely to be destroyed if our foreign/defense policy fails.”
The policy driven by the people in these cities is every bit the failure that you think the Bush policy is. I’m not going to engage in Clinton bashing, because I think it wasn’t at all obvious to Americans how bad things were getting in the Middle East. But the multi-lateral, talk to terrorists (i.e. Camp David offer the Palestinians what they claim they want) approach has been tried too. We have no common ground to talk about. They are in throes of a horrific battle for the soul of Islamic culture, and for the most part moderates aren’t fighting back.
I live in California. Which is nearly the same as saying that most of my friends are liberal. But even now, even they say that if there is another major attack we should be ruthless in destroying much of the Middle East. Every single one of them talks about things I wouldn’t even consider and you know I’m extremely hawkish. Most of them are the apolitical liberals. They vote. They vote for Democrats. But they aren’t on your side of the argument.
I don’t think you are right about how people in ‘the cities’ feel. I think you are influenced by the political actors in your circle. Talk to the non-political ones who will become radicalized by another attack. I suspect if there is another attack, it will be very bad–for the Middle East.
So he doesn’t really support continued U.S. actions in Iraq. He does’t think the U.S. can continue to make a positive contribution in Iraq. Again… look at his posts as a whole and you will find that as a common theme. So if you believe we are working to build a better Iraq how can one find common ground with him. If you believe that Hussein was a tyrant who killed his own people how can you find common ground with him?
Well, OdysseusInRTP, you can find common ground with Jesurgislac in wanting a better Iraq. You disagree on how it can be done, sure, but the core goal is the same.
And two people could agree that the US is working to build a better Iraq, even though they might disagree on whether they are being (or going to be) successful or not.
There’s so many levels to all of this – yeah, on the surface we disagree, but on deeper levels we’re closer.
“I suspect if there is another attack, it will be very bad–for the Middle East.”
Agree with 99% of that comment. I keep telling people that the loss of life, both here and in the ME, would be minimized with the maximum possible aggressive strategy.
My heart is breaking. We have not enough troops.
Another attack in the US, or a rapid collapse in Iraq, and we are a hair’s breadth away from nuclear weapons.
Jeez, so much for trying to build common ground.
I’m holding my tongue.
Thanks, Moe.
I kinda agree with Katherine and Moe, yet Odysseus addressed several questions to me direct.
My reasons for believing that the US military was behaving unlawfully towards prisoners began with the establishment of the illegal prison camps at Guantanamo Bay. Nothing about Guantanamo Bay has been in any way reassuring since – the more we hear about it, the worse it sounds.
Next clue was the release of Massacre at Mazar The documentary implicates U.S. troops in the torturing and deaths of approximately 3,000 men from Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. The documentary follows the finding of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), which concluded that there was evidence of the disposal of human remains at two mass gravesites near Mazar-i-Sharif. Two witnesses claim that they were forced to drive into the desert with hundreds of Taliban prisoners who were held in sealed cargo containers. The witnesses alleged that the orders came from a local U.S. commander. Prisoners, who had not yet suffocated to death inside the vans, were shot by Northern Alliance gunmen, while 30 to 40 U.S. soldiers stood watching.
In December 2002 two men were kicked to death in Bagram Airbase, another US military detention center with interrogation areas to which the Red Cross are not permitted access.
Through most of 2003, the Red Cross and Amnesty International reported that reports had been made to them of prisoner abuse by American soldiers in military detention centers in Iraq.
Now, I understand people who simply dismissed all of the above as nasty lies because Americans simply don’t do things like that. But I never believed that Americans are intrinsically better than any other people on earth* – and the evidence is in, as anyone old enough to remember the contras in the 1980s (as I am) or the Vietnam War (which I’m not) that Americans do do things like that – and are doing them now.
That’s what I meant when I said “And I knew this was bad: I’ve known it for a long time.”
*No worse, either. But no better.
James Casey wrote: Well, OdysseusInRTP, you can find common ground with Jesurgislac in wanting a better Iraq. You disagree on how it can be done, sure, but the core goal is the same.
Exactly.
Clinton’s foreign policy was bad–really bad, though I think it was improving and we’d probably disagree about what was bad about it. But we haven’t had a smidgen of a chance to try since 9.11. If it “changed everything”, as is often said, mistakes pre 9/11–when most people, me included, did not pay half as much attention to foreign policy as they do now–are much more forgivable than mistakes post 9/11.
My friends are liberal, but for the place we live we’re pretty moderate. Which is Cambridge, so it’s not so impressive, but….If the election were held only in cities with populations over 500,000, Bush would lose. There’s just not even a small question in my mind. Hell, if rural, low population states weren’t slightly overrrepresented in the electoral college I’d be a bit more confident.
Oh, and it’s not strictly hawk/dove. If you forced me to choose between Bush and Kucinich….I shudder. And I’d prefer McCain over Bush by at least as much as I’d prefer Kerry over McCain. Tony Blair would be a perfectly acceptable compromise too.
It’s not that I’m such a dove. I think pre-emption’s a lousy idea, certainly it is until we get better intelligence, and I’m deeply skeptical of the ability to bring democracy by invasion, but if the occupation went differently the war with Iraq could’ve ended up a net gain to humanity. I think the Patriot Act gets a bad rap to some extent, and there did need to be big changes in how we dealt with terrorists. But. There’s no excuse for Abu Ghraib, or Maher Arar. Guantanamo and the abuses in Brooklyn post 9/11 go beyond what was understandable and inevitable. There’s no excuse for the gratuitous scorn for allies and diplomacy. There’s no excuse for the failure to deal with the nuclear Wal-Mart or North Korea. I don’t trust this administration’s good faith, I don’t trust their competence, and I don’t understand why anyone would anymore.
One of the reasons I’d like Rumsfeld to go is that I would rather NOT feel so completely screwed if Kerry loses in November, and I think Bush’s instincts are not as bad as his advisors. If Nunn or Lugar or McCain or Hagel were Secretary of Defense, and someone other than Cheney was VP, and Ashcroft was replaced by almost anyone, and Rove stayed far far away from foreign policy….well, we’d still be going bankrupt. But still.
Bob,
I agree with your comparison. I was speaking to the “abstract” comment that he made. Given your accurate comparison of the times I think supports my point that anyone with experience wouldn’t have approached it that way. That was my point.
Katherine,
I never said it was the left’s evil that is causing the polarization.
ODY said:
I just think it is important to understand what is causing the polarization. There is very little attempt at finding common ground… only criticising the adminstration.
ODY said:
So from my perspective the divisiveness comes from making statements about things which one does not really have the experience to and exagerrating to make ones point and beleiving that we are the perpetrators of evil in the wolrd when the reality is we have some bad people who will be punished and the rest in Iraq are doing their best and sacrificing their lives.
…
to dishonestly mischaracterize and viciously attack people.
…
Is that what you really think or are you exaggerating? How am I supposed to know? I was not being dishonest. You said the things you did. I disagree with something you say, which is why I posted. I was not being vicious. I was being sincere. But, it seems you don’t like what I had to say so you attack me and call me vicious. Ironic. But, you are the one who is now dishonestly mischaracterizing. Every where in my post I was being polite and sincere. Honest, yes. Harsh, yes. But nowhere was I being dishonest or vicious or even disrespectful. I disagree with your position. That’s it.
Katherine said:
I said I would react negatively to the RNC!
…
Actually, Katherine you didn’t say that. You said your head would explode.
Katherine said:
I am perfectly willing to fight for what I believe in. I am not really going to move short of an evacuation instruction or a nuclear attack.
…
Well, you didn’t really say that either. You said:
And if this happenes I feel like ‘m going to have to move, if not to Canada, at least away from the Northeastern cities that have been my home my whole life. And like someone I know is going to get killed.
Katherine, 9/11 was in the plans way before Bush was elected. It was totally independant of the WOT. I don’t think anyone would argue that. The WTC (93 and 2001) was bombed long before we took military action. Our NE was/is/most likely will be attacked whether we put up the white flag or wage the WOT.
Katherine said:
as I do before you start lecturing me.
…
And maybe you should hold off on lecturing me. FYI, I USED TO WORK AT THE WTC and worked hard to rebuild my life and career afterwards. I am so thankful that I arrived in Spain on Septemember 10 on vacation!!!!
Katherine said:
articles I’ve linked to, if you want to know why I think it goes beyond six bad people.
…
Katherine I actually agree with you that it goes beyond six bad people. I think Bush summed it up perfectly. It’s un-American. It’s a gross affront to who we are as a people. Or atleast who we want to be as a people.
Katherine said:
don’t believe George Bush is evil–as someone said somewhere once, he is merely awful.
…
I accept that you sincerely believe that. That is very consistent for you. You seem to begin most of your posts from that point of view. But, I truly disagee. I am very thankful that he is President and not Al Gore.
Katherine said:
The thing is, we can be a lot better than them and still a disgrace to ourselves.
…
I would say we have proven that in someways, but msot of the time we have lived up to our ideals. We are not perfect, but we do try to improve. That is an admirable quality in America.
Katherine said:
The other thing is, I don’t have any direct control over Al Qaeda or any terrorists; the only thing that there’s even a faint hope of influencing is the U.S.’s policy in fighting them.
…
I disagree with you here. I think you do exert some control over how the enemy behaves. If the world thought the U.S. was united in the WOT it would change the dynamics entirely. I truly do believe that YOU make a difference!
And Katherine, I find your attempt to paint me as dishonestly mischaracterizing you when I had no such intention and being “vicious” extremely inaccurate and… typical.
Moe,
I am not sure how I even came close to violating the posting rules.
1)Be reasonably civil.
Ody said:
I don’t mean to be overly harsh after his thoughtful post, I just think it is important to understand what is causing the polarization.
Again, I don’t mean to be harsh… just honest
2)No profanity. For the record, ‘hell’, ‘damn’ and ‘pissed’ are not considered ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule; also for the record, the more offensive racial slurs and epithets will be deemed to ‘profanity’ for the purposes of this rule
I came no where near doing any of that.
3)Don’t disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake.
I was obviously repsonding to his thoughts on polarization.
4)Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.
And I most certainly didn’t do this. At no time, did I abuse or vilify anyone for its own sake. I made comments about their comments and posting habits.
5)Lastly, just a reminder that Left and Right have very broad definitions and that people are going to take it personally if you inform them that of course all Xs eat babies, should they themselves be Xs (or Ys trying to keep things cool).
I didn’t do this either. I was not extreme in my thoughts about those who post.
ODY said:
So in his vast experience of 25 years he seems completely convinced that he “knows” the Bush administration is competely wrong when analyzing his posts. Doesn’t that seem quite arrogant?
…
This is not villifying anyone. This is a legitimate question. If someone came to asdf from High School and started making all kinds of comments about how he should behave and what he should do with his life I bet he would find the person arrogant and so would you. That is a relvant point in reading his post. I don’t have any issues with him having an opinion, but he seems to be consistently bashing. That is what I am opposed to. There is a difference between trying to problem solve and telling someone how wrong they are. Many here bash first and then discuss.
So Katherine can say that her head might explode asdf can discuss his rage, but when I comment on that behaviour I am violating the posting rules?
Katherine said:
I am perfectly willing to fight for what I believe in. I am not really going to move short of an evacuation instruction or a nuclear attack. But f***, you had better know as many people close to major likely targets as I do before you start lecturing me.
…
Two points, you can see how I said the exaggerations were a problem. She admits to doing it. In my post I said it is this tendency that is part of the problem. I think it is. To point it out is not attacking her. It is the truth.
Katherine then goes on to claim the moral high ground. Well where does that put me. In a hole. I question Katherine’s right to claim the moral high ground and that is bad of me. It seems to me that she is the one who villified everyone who doesn’t agree with her. And she did it in her response to me. She actually accused me of dishonestly mischaracterizing her and being vicious.
And I didn’t abuse or villify Jes. I merely pointed out the consistency in which he critizes the Bush administration. And he is consistent.
So Wilfred can say people like me have, “bought into Bush’s rhetoric.” I find that statement to be quite insulting. And then goes on to say, “swallow the new rounds of excuses/rationalizations” Well I also find that insulting to myslef and the American people. He has the right to question the American people’s intelligence, but, I can’t question his motvies.
I think you have unfairly referenced me to the posting rules and you should reference them.
Odysseus –
How many years before I can question the actions of the U.S. government?
Because, by my estimation, I’ve done a few things.
One, my parents applied for and received a social security number attached to my name.
Later on, I began paying taxes to the federal government as I started my first job.
On my 18th birthday, I assumed the right to vote and became eligible for the draft.
That is all I have to say on this topic.
I would appreciate if you kept your personal remarks to yourself in the future.
asdf,
I said in my post you are entitled to your opinion. I would never deny you that.
But, I think the context in which and from which you express your opinion is important… as is mine. Your original post was about polarization!
You and others have taken it personally because I have used you as examples of where I think “part” of the polarization comes from… lack of experience, exaggeration, always assuming the worst about this Adminstration… the list goes on.
This took place in the Clinton administation, too.
I regret that it upsets you and Katherine to be used as examples, but I think the way that many here approach the discussion is very telling and speaks directly to you post about polarization.
Don’t shoot the messenger…
I’m not attacking you personally. I’m pointing out what looks like your starting point in your criticism and the consistency.
You and others take it personally, but I find it difficult to understand your intentions given the context.
If Sebastian thinks I have been totally unfair, dishonest and vicious… then I will gladly go into self-imposed exile.
Jes,
I don’t have much of a response because I question the sources of your post so deeply.
1) I’ve always thought that all this huggermugger (to steal a great word from Lileks) between the two sides has been driven by the success of those on both sides tasked with convincing their side that the entire other side was populated with people who agree with the views of Ted Rall or Rush Limbaugh (except for those you know personally of course) when the truth is that those people make up perhaps 1% of each side. I do my best to realize that those with opposing views whom I don’t know are more likely to be like my personal friends with opposing views rather than the maniacs these “population handlers” would like me to believe them to be.
2) I suspect if there is another attack, it will be very bad–for the Middle East. This is my opinion as well. IMHO we’re in Iraq to try and keep this from happening, because if NY or Boston or Lincoln Nebraska is hit by Muslim terrorists, I think it’ll be tough for anyone to hold back the tide of nuke Mecca. IMHO each death of someone in Iraq is saving the lives of hundreds in Mecca.
3 And for the most part, the people who will probably vote this disaster of an administration into a second term don’t live in the cities that are most likely to be destroyed if our foreign/defense policy fails. Which drives a lot of my bitterness, and a lot of the geographic element of the polarization.
Katherine, I know you’re frustrated, but that’s just an incredibly terrible sentiment. Yeah, my in-laws in Western Kansas are unlikely targets of terrorism, but they have loved ones in probable targets. And sure, my friends in Dallas are likewise less likely to be targeted than Boston but they have children living in probably targeted areas. For you to say that their votes are driven by a lack of concern about their own safety based on their location, well, even given what I said in 1) above, I honestly believe that someone else must be posting with your handle.
I won’t even go into how different the response felt from NYC to Oklahoma City in ’95 compared to Oklahoma City’s response was to NYC in ’01. Oklahomans got flowers, a monument and now derision about their voting propensities from someone who doubts their concern for their fellow Americans.
That statement (and the ones in your 6:32pm and 6:57pm posts) are the main reason a lot of people I know from the Middle of the country and many of those in the big cities believe that your side has no respect for them or their opinions. Jeez, talk about polarization. I cannot believe you feel that way. I’m flabbergasted, honestly.
And I didn’t abuse or villify Jes. I merely pointed out the consistency in which he critizes the Bush administration. And he is consistent.
I deliberately didn’t quote your question when I replied to it, because it seemed to me that your question was phrased aggressively and unpleasantly – it did not follow the “Be reasonably civil” guideline. FWIW, I think that phrased more courteously, it would have been a perfectly reasonable question. I chose to answer it as if it had been phrased courteously, but I admit to feeling an impulse to reply to you in the form in which you had asked the question – rudely and aggressively. Had this escalated, and flame wars start from these beginnings, we might well have both found ourselves violating several of the Posting Rules. I get the strong impression that you’re very new to online debate, but I refer you to a recent post from Moe, A Spoonful of Sugar. I would take this on board, if I were you.
I don’t have much of a response because I question the sources of your post so deeply.
Your choice. But would you have believed Abu Ghraib, if the only “sources” were Iraqi witnesses talking about how they had been abused and humiliated? Yet Abu Ghraib is real.
I agree with Josh Marshall.
Jes, Yeah, his last para rings true to me too.
I must say folks is puttin’ words in my mouth today! So you’re mad that I said “the public” and that means a general consensus and you chose to take it personally. I did not address you sir.
And the reason the public will ‘swallow’ the rhetoric is out of fear. and i know it because i see it, hear it and discuss it with people every day since 9/11. And the government and the media have stoked the public’s fear for far too long. I live within a mile of ground zero so i know of what i speak.
And I’m not speaking to you. I don’t know you and most likely by the sound of it, won’t be doing so anytime soon. Please stop taking things personally unless they are directed at you. And I used no labels to describe anyone but ‘the public’ so you must really be looking to be insulted.
This is your one warning to follow the Posting Rules, OdysseusInRTP.
Actually, he’s gotten a warning before, on The Wrong Questions:
I’m going to have to stop taking weekends off, it seems.
Mario, Jadegold, OdysseusinRTP, this is your one warning each as per the Posting Rules. Please read them fully before posting here again.
And no, this is not subject to debate.
Posted by: Moe Lane | April 25, 2004 09:37 PM
‘Course, that may change the decision on whether today’s post qualified as a violation.
“‘Course, that may change the decision on whether today’s post qualified as a violation.”
Well, don’t I look goofy now.
I was never rude or impolite to anyone at this site. I never called anyone a name. I was never vicious or attempted to twist what someone was saying. I find your posting rules to be applied conveniently for yourself when they fit your needs. I suppose we can find common ground as long as I agree to stand on your ground.
I sincerely find this site to be an excellent example of why we are so polarized as a country. And the fact, that you think I haven’t followed your posting rules is indicative of why we are so polarized.
I won’t be back. There is no reason to come back.
Crionna–
You’re probably right that it does me no credit. (If Moe is not yet a Buddha, I shudder to think where I am. Definitely several steps further from Nirvana.) And I don’t think at all that people in less likely targets don’t care, though I do sometimes suspect them of not paying enough attention. But let’s face it, political apathy is not a red-state/blue state problem.
But. If you’re asking about sources of polarization—-it may do us no credit, but that is a very big one, for me and some other people I know.
Maybe it would help to step back and draw an analogy: the draft. If there’s already disagreement about whether a war is a good idea, the draft is going to unquestionably polarize people along generational lines. The 18-25 year olds will feel, “easy for them to support this, they don’t have to go.” Now, it’s the rare 25-80 year old who does not know or care about an 18-25 year old male. Everyone has a stake. But that’s not going to be much comfort to the 18-25 year olds. Legitimately or not, the differential risk, when combined with a strong disagreement about policy, which the group at the most risk is losing over and over….it’s going to lead to bitterness.
(Obviously, that bitterness will increase if you’re told it’s cowardly to move from a dangerous place to a less dangerous one, by someone who you suspect already lives in the less dangerous one.)
To argue against myself, though—the people MOST at risk from the Iraq war are soldiers, who tend to come much more from “red America” and be pro-war.
Well, don’t I look goofy now.
I bet you’ll look even goofier in a beret. 🙂
Katherine
I’m not so sure that you’re correct in your assumptions regarding 18-25 year olds given some (but admittedly not all) of the articles Google pulled up.
Also, and maybe this takes a little while until earnings are larger, if you want to see intergenerational battle, wait until the Boomers REALLY start to retire. It’ll be 16-40 year olds against the rest.
Maybe red-states, blue-states are just different. Not to go nuts here, cause things certainly changed in ’01 (I hope) but here’s a story from OKC ’95. I had a friend who’s Dad was fire chief. He told us that the rescue teams were amazed at their welcome. You see, there was a restaraurant owners convention and equipment show in town that day and so the chefs and equipment people got together with suppliers to feed the rescue teams steaks, pasta etc. etc. Their recollection of NY in ’93? They were charged for coffee.