While I am not blind to the problem mentioned here and here or here, right now what we have going on is sporadic anti-Republican and/or anti-Bush violence being done by a bunch of unconnected yahoos with no further connection except for the fact that they all made the decision to surrender to fear (and hate, but that’s just another form of fear). It’s not organized, and it’s certainly not a conspiracy; if nothing else, somebody would have blabbed by now. And as long as it isn’t organized or directed, this kind of violence is only a danger to those directly affected by it, and not really a danger to the Republic as a whole*. It’s only when such drives are deliberately led that we should hit the panic button. At the moment, I see no evidence that someone is leading this whatever-it-is: statistical glitch, fringe-of-a-fringe, whatever, and I certainly don’t see it as being part of the mainstream. To put it another way, true Brownshirts would need a Hitler – and while I’m not a supporter of Senators Kerry and Edwards, they’re no more avatars of Satan than President Bush is.
That being said, the Knoxville incident in particular worries me. More than a little.
Moe
*Make no mistake: people who steal or deface campaign signs are schmucks and people who burn swastikas on lawns should be publicly shamed as they’re led off to jail. But in and of themselves they don’t influence events at a big enough scale to wreck the country.
It’s only when such drives are deliberately led that we should hit the panic button.
On the contrary, disorganized, decentralized violence is often a cause for panic in itself. Potentially far more insidious, really.
I hesitate to comment.
You are, of course, right. Both of you. But I’ve been very afraid of political violence for something like 15 years. Against me and my fellow liberals, my fellow government civil servants, etc.
Glad to see you’re on board. Which is more snarky than I mean. I just mean I’ve felt like this for 15 years or so. And folks serving in your Party right now and influencing this Admininstration have advocated a revolutionary state of mind.
And I know that you have and continue to condemn this in a non-partisan way. But your worries seem to be catching up to my worries.
Just saying.
Godwin’s law has been invoked.
No worthwhile discussion will occur on a post that tries to sneakily compare Democrats to Hitler, so please repost at freerepublicstate.org where it will find it’s true audience.
David Neiwert is afaik the leading blogger on this issue – people unfamiliar with his site Orcinus will find it under hilzoy‘s links.
felixrayman, I think you’re way off at 11:25. Moe didn’t need to invoke Hitler, but he’s not smearing Democrats that I can see. Perhaps he fails to acknowledge violence on the other side explicitly, but that’s nothing like what you allege.
Felixrayman:
Let the thread go where it wants to go. Maybe a little empathy for either side in this mess we’ve all created will be reached.
Who’s next?
On the other hand, I need to go to bed cause the kid’s carpool takes off at 7:00 a.m.
It is dangerous, and the sort of thing that can escalate. I hope the police are giving these incidents some serious attention.
No way of knowing, obviously, but as Roy Edroso pointed out, this might have something to do with the bank robbery across the street.
Perhaps he fails to acknowledge violence on the other side explicitly
Perhaps?
You think there is a real possibility the examples were chosen at random?
Please.
What was posted was propaganda, pure and simple.
Moe: These are ugly times.
Well, given that the shots were fired prior to 7:30am, I rather doubt it. Unless someone radically reorganized banker’s hours while I wasn’t looking.
I mean, really. It doesn’t pay to shoot up a bank when no one’s there and the vault’s closed, now, does it?
Speaking as a Democrat, the folks doing that are idiots.
It’s immoral.
It has no possible benefit.
And I can’t think of anything more likely to be used as a negative example by the Republican campaign.
That said, I expect the reason that it seems more a problem this year than in years past is not that it’s happening more often, but because it’s much easier to find out about the incidents in the days of blogs and rss feeds. Every little incident makes the “national news” for political junkies. (Like the guy with a crying little girl on his shoulders. I mean, really!)
Felix: I know that given the blogs I frequent, I am much more likely to find out about violence directed against Democrats than Republicans. I was horrified by the stories Moe linked to, and hadn’t seen them before. (As he said, they are covered mostly in local papers.) Possibly the same phenomenon affects the right. In any case, we should give the people here the benefit of the doubt, since as both Moe’s links and mine (the product of ten minutes with google) make clear, the political world needs some generosity just now.
PS: My signs were stolen yesterday.
Hmmm
So Kerry supporters are now shooting at a Bush HQ and then realizing that … hey, seems like a good diversion to rob a bank?
“In an unexpected twist, a bank directly across the street from the headquarters was robbed as KPD officers were busy investigating at the scene of the shooting.”
Were Kerry supporters also involved in Davenport?
Not worthy of discussion unless you truly believe the events weren’t connected despite the amazing coincidence of HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME!
Felixrayman:
Great name, by the way.
No, I think Moe wants to enlarge on this.
You see, my fear is that the rhetoric is becoming Bosnian and maybe Hutu and Tutsi in tone. I exaggerate to make a point; rhetoric leads to action and has consequences. I am complicit in this. But… I react.
I happen to believe Hastert and Delay and Norquist mean everything they say, just like the Weatherman and the Symbionese Liberation Army meant everything they said.
O.K. It’s merely cynical political rhetoric? Then they know not what they reap.
involved with the bank robberies in Davenport?
Republican staffers break into Democrats computers and have faced no consequences. What message has been sent to the average joe? Our ethics panel in Congress has been toothless for years now allowing bad behavior to go virtually unchecked. What message does that send to the average joe? Someone high up in our government leaks the name of a CIA agent for spite and those at the top who could ferret this out in an hour do nothing or drag their heels which helps this traitor. More than just economics can trickle down to the populace.
Even if it is coincidental that some F-up and a bank robber happened into the same neighborhood around the same time, I can’t imagine that the F-up has never heard rhetoric like this…
“LINDA VESTER (host): You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6]”
Moe, please forgive me for being a bit cynical about this, because I know your heart’s in the right place and you do genuinely condemn this sort of thing. But I have the same reaction to this as John–where were you when this was happening to the other side, as it has been for a very long time? It feels like you’re just now taking sharp notice of it because it’s happening to Republicans.
Whatever the case, I’m glad you’re on board, and can join us in condemning this sort of violence and intimidation towards and by anyone, regardless of their political stripe. People like this stain the causes they’re trying to advance.
hilzoy:
Moe could have made a great post on the subject if he hadn’t been so concerned with scoring partisan points. You quickly found examples from the other side, he could have too.
Then he started talking comparing people to Brownshirts, now really, where did he expect the discussion to go after that?
That’s just trash.
Now the guy next door to me is a hardcore Republican living in a working class Democrat neighborhood. He’s put up about half a dozen Bush signs so far in his yard, none of them have lasted more than two days. He just put up another one today, it’ll be gone in the morning – and no, not by me. He actually put one up that was technically in my yard, I let it be. It was gone the next morning.
And in the heavily Republican wealthier neighborhoods near where I live, theft and vandalism of Kerry signs is endemic. The police caught a few of the rascals who claimed “there’s nothing to do around here”, a letter to the editor in the local paper advised them that they could enlist to fight Mr. Bush’s war if they were his supporters and that bored.
Someone could make a great post out of all this if they weren’t purely partisan.
But that’s not what we have here. A one-sided post that says “hey…Democrats would be Brownshirts if only they had the centralized control”…please.
What sort of discussion do you expect to come out of that?
john:
Great name, by the way.
A Rucker fan?
I think the Hutu vs. Tutsi thing should be discussed more in regards to US politics today. I don’t know that it can be fixed at this point. The main division is urban vs. rural and how do you fix that?
felix
I disagree on the urban/rural thing. Rural America does not equal half of our population nor half of our electoral votes.
Closer if you say urban/suburban (plus rural).
My above quote from Ann Coulter?
I suppose everybody knows that she’s not inciting. She’s like a satirist…you know…like Oscar Wilde.
It’s a joke. Ha ha.
(But the quote is real.)
I would say it’s idiotic, but it’s obviously much worse, especially the shots fired at the office.
I do think some people are telling one side of the story for political gain, but I very much doubt Moe’s one of them. He’s right of center, he reads more right of center blogs, they talk about this. And the shooting incident is especially disturbing.
On the other hand, the RedState poster is way over the top. So, in a much sillier way, is Stanley Kurtz: “Several readers noted that Kerry bumper stickers seem to show up mostly on Mercedes, BMWs, and other “high-end Euro-steel,” while Bush-Cheney cars are more modest American models. But at least part of the reason for this could be that Bush supporters are afraid to put stickers on new or expensive cars. Some families with two cars restrict the Bush-Cheney sticker to the beat-up old family van, keeping it off the better car….Why do Kerry supporters feel free to vandalize Bush signs and damage the property of the president’s supporters? Corner readers agree that it’s the liberal feeling of moral superiority that “puts them above the law and gives them leave to abridge the rights of others.” Um. Okay.
For the record, the federalist society members I know roam the streets of Cambridge unmolested, though perhaps shaken by the liberal decadence. There is only one Bush bumper sticker in my neighborhood–on a car with Florida plates no less. I pass it most days on the way to school, and it has not yet been overturned by bands of marauding college professors. I’m pretty sure that there’s only one Bush sticker because I live in the bluest city in the bluest state of the country,
More seriously, I’d tell anyone vandalizing signs or cars to grow the f*** up, but I doubt they read this site. Who does this?
Given how bitter things have gotten, and given that people actually got beaten and killed last time the country was this bitterly divided, I actually have been surprised it hasn’t been worse. I was really afraid of assassination attempts this year (I was most afraid for Gavin Newsom back in March.)
P.S. I read one account saying the bank robbery’s thought to be different because the suspect was unarmed, but another said he told tellers he had a gun. Don’t know.
oh, and this person, from one of hilzoy’s links, really lacks a sense of irony:
“On September 4, The Bozeman (Mont.) Daily Chronicle reported that rocks and eggs were thrown through the window of a local GOP headquarter and peace signs were spray-painted on the building.”
This is pre-emption. Republicans and the Administration will soon need “to defend themselves” from the amorphous and general threat of “disorganized, decentralized violence”.
“Potentially far more insidious” My guess is that Tacitus has filled Moe in on the plan. First step is to claim a fear of violence from unnameable enemies.
I didn’t think I could get any more disappointed in Moe.
The rest of you should look at the way he said it.
This may be the most disturbing thing I’ve read:
Antonio Flores, 57, needs to be put away somewhere concrete and dismal for a long, long time.
bob et al., Moe has in my view some history of getting emotional, but he has no history of being insidiously evil. It’s an inartful post, give the man a break.
Wow. Did a poster here seriously just accuse one of the hosts of conspiring to lay the groundwork for violent repression of Democrats?
I normally am very reluctant to ban or even warn, but that is so false and so far over the line that I don’t even know how to respond.
Reminds me of a few years back when one of the mayoral candidate’s lawn signs said “BRISTOL NEEDS NICASTRO”. It was so hard to supress the urge to head out late one night and change a bunch of them to “BRISTOL NEEDS CASTRO”. In the end however, cooler heads prevailed.
Posting rules keep me backspacing over every response I attempt. Maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, I think anyone who’s convinced themselves that Moe would even kiddingly advocate violence as suggested has serious cognitive issues.
Powerline seems to think that some of the attacks were coordinated by the AFL/CIO. I don’t know why they think that, but if true (please note the IF) it would be very serious and not historically out of character for the organization.
Katherine, if you’re referring to bob mcmanus, I don’t think he was making the accusation you read – at least given my experience of often struggling to catch his drift. Hopefully he’ll clarify.
This place is a real tinderbox lately – could the powers-that-be consider some more posts conducive to amity? Perhaps another one of you could get engaged?
As a lefty myself, I read Moe’s post as telling the more fluttery folks on the right side of the aisle to get a grip, that there’s no conspiracy afoot.
Trumped up investigations against labor unions would also not be historically out of character, and I trust PowerLine–and for that matter much of the House GOP–as far as I could throw them.
Katherine – It is over the top, and I’d sure like to discount it as over the line as well. But over the past few months, RW blogs and GOP activitsts have been laying similar groundworks.
A news story about international observers monitoring US elections had the Black Helicopter crowd in a muck sweat. They were raving, calling for armed resistance, up to and including shooting the observers.
And, as the news coming out of Iraq got worse and worse, many bloggers – led by InstaPundit – did some wishful thinking-type speculating about how good, loyal Americans would/could/should rise up in patriotic rage against the “liberal media.” Not by writing angry LTTEs, mind you, but by physically attacking members of said “liberal media.”
Not to mention incidents where excited Republicans *have* physically assaulted people: a bunch of Schwartzenegger supporters who swarmed and groped volunteers for one of the other candidates during the California recall campaign; a woman at a GOP rally who pushed her hand over another woman’s mouth (to shut her up, I guess) so hard the second woman’s neck bent nearly double and she about fell over backwards; and the guy at the GOP Convention who kicked a protestor who was helpless on the floor.
So, I’d take the oh-so-horrified reaction here to some apparent anti-GOP hooliganism with a whole shaker of salt.
Moe –
You make some good and necessary points. And I will stand with you in decrying such actions.
But for a moment, try to put yourself in my liberal shoes.
We watched as the VRWC paraded Clinton hit lists before a willing media. We watched as our president was called the “Rapist in chief.” We heard the first lady referred to as ‘Hitlery.’ We heard that she was a lesbian who murdered her lover Vince Foster. We saw the Republican leadership scream outrage at his attacking Osama and Saddam because it might distract from the blowjob impeachment.
After 9/11, after Clinton, we were told to shut up and support the president. The new White House told us to “watch what we say.” Republican leadership said our elected representatives were committing treason (‘giving aid and comfort’). We saw books like “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism” and “Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism” on best-seller lists. They called us traitors for speaking out about our vanishing liberties.
The say we want troops to die They say we want Saddam gassing people again. They say we want a peace treaty with Osama. They say we hate our country.
No, no, a thousand times no.
This has been my (political) life in the last few years. I write this not as an indictment of you, or your values, but as an indictment of the rhetoric that has been built up among the VRWC. Every year it seems worse and worse, lower and lower. And, sadly, every year the numbers of people saying such things get greater and greater.
I heard about the swastika from some friends last Friday after the football game. What was deeply surreal was that I missed the first part of the story and so I assumed because of the swastika* that the sign was a Kerry/Edwards one. The fact that it was a Bush/Cheney sign… that weirded me out in a way I hadn’t been in a long time.
[And seriously, who the hell uses swastikas in Madison?]
* Disclaimer that probably isn’t necessary but is needed anyway: not because Republicans are brownshirts, but because people who run around burning swastikas into other people’s lawns usually identify themselves (incorrectly) as conservative or at least (correctly yet too restrictively) as anti-liberal.
I’m not really sure which is more prevalent in history–trumped up labor charges or actual labor violence. Both have been quite common.
Fledermaus’s 1:25 comment speaks for my feelings 100%. My first, admittedly unworthy thought upon reading this was, “Well, now you know how /we/ feel.”
This is not a slam against you, Moe–I know you and I know you don’t condone the kind of belligerent asshattery that liberals have been putting up with for years now. But I do think it’s a lot easier to recognize there’s a problem when it’s no longer the people on the other side who’re getting hit by it.
So rather than impugning Moe’s motives in posting this, why don’t we instead take it as an opportunity to reach across the aisle and take a public stand against all lunacy of this sort, regardless of who it’s against? Maybe this’ll give us one more thing we can all agree on.
So rather than impugning Moe’s motives in posting this, why don’t we instead take it as an opportunity to reach across the aisle and take a public stand against all lunacy of this sort
The place to do that would be in the parent article. Other options were chosen instead.
And that’s a shame.
Fledermaus’s 1:25 comment speaks for my feelings 100%. My first, admittedly unworthy thought upon reading this was, “Well, now you know how /we/ feel.”
This is not a slam against you, Moe
Thanks, C. And I just want to reiterate. None of that post applies to Moe, Sebastian or any of the other bright, considerate conservitives I have had the pleasure to know. None of them support or condone the arguments stated above.
But nevertheless, they’re out there. There have always been nasty campaigns, silly accusations of having carnal relations with barnyard animals. But some nights it just seems like things have gone too far.
The fringe left is hardly immune from outragous statments (hell, it seems like that is all ANSWER and PETA does these days), but (except for the asshat Ted Rall) none of them have a national soapbox.
Mr. Bat,
Your comments are amazingly close to, “Oh, I of course don’t mean black people like you Mr. Cosby. You’re funny.”
“The fringe left is hardly immune from outragous statments (hell, it seems like that is all ANSWER and PETA does these days), but (except for the asshat Ted Rall) none of them have a national soapbox.”
I wish people had heard of Michael Moore. If he had a national soapbox he might be an excellent counterpoint to your statement.
The idea that the right has some sort of near monopoly on thuggish or intimidating behaviour is quite simply ahistorical. May I introduce you to the Weathermen? I hear the NYT did a very flattering story on them dated September 11, 2001.
Katherine, reread. What I said was “defend themselves”. That can take many forms. If you can find an imputation of violent Republican intentions elsewhere in the comment let me know.
I have seen acts of violence mentioned on the left wing blogs, but always, to the best of my memory, as isolated acts. Even if not intended by Moe, to list multiple acts of political violence will imply a pattern. It is safer to say the the Bainbridge and RedState posts go further than implication. This is extremely dangerous. Further, when I see a theme of “Republicans victims of violence” on multiple conservative site within two days, I tend to see another pattern. A widening or repetition of this subject could be unintentionaly inciting.
As I said, I really do not see this on the left blogs I frequent, with the exception of Neiwert, who I think is deliberately ignored. The lefties do have a counter-theme, of electoral manipulation, fraus, and voter suppression. This is obviously also extremely dangerous. There is strong reason to believe that the losing side, whichever it may be, will feel disenfranchised and cheated. We are certainly headed for a trying winter. Our best bet is perhaps to let local events remain local, and not nationalize misbehavior.
The imputation of a conspiracy between you and Tacitus was unfounded. He was the first commenter, and expanded on your post in what I felt was a dangerous and “insidious” manner.
I do not deny tension, mistrust, and paranoia. The immediate fear I had in response to multiple sites discussing “violence against Republicans” was that an excuse was being sought for voter protection measures and increased police presence at polling places. Democrats often feel that is a method of voter intimidation and suppression. I also won’t deny a larger and more diffuse paranoia (I probably should not read Neiwert) but events will dispel it if it is unfounded. I am not totally impervious to actual facts.
I waited two hours to comment, and should not have. I apologize. Most conservative sites I would not bother, and the fact I commented here does not mean I hate you more than all other conservatives. 🙂 Of course, I presume Tac has me blanket banned. I lose my temper and become immoderate. That is irresponsible and self-indulgent. Ban me if you must. I mean no harm.
May I introduce you to the Weathermen?
May I introduce you to Tim Mcvey?
As soon as Michael Moore accuses the President of treason let me know, I’ll even make the prostest signs.
And on the off chance (not entirely unlikely) that he has, I have my sharpie ready.
Moore strongly suggests that Bush sent US soldiers to die in Afghanistan for an oil pipeline.
That would be an accusation of treason in my world.
And who exactly were you attacking? Moe isn’t trying to kill liberals. I’m not. The Republican Party isn’t.
“This is obviously also extremely dangerous. There is strong reason to believe that the losing side, whichever it may be, will feel disenfranchised and cheated.”
For the first time in months I agree with bob.
“And who exactly were you attacking? Moe isn’t trying to kill liberals. I’m not. The Republican Party isn’t.”
Sebastian, if this is intended for me, all I can do is quote myself.
‘This is pre-emption. Republicans and the Administration will soon need “to defend themselves” from the amorphous and general threat of “disorganized, decentralized violence”.
“Potentially far more insidious” My guess is that Tacitus has filled Moe in on the plan. First step is to claim a fear of violence from unnameable enemies.’
The fact that so many in this thread see an accusation of violence by Republicans there probably speaks to a really bad national mood. Or deep mindreaders.
It was never intended. Honestly.
Moore strongly suggests that Bush sent US soldiers to die in Afghanistan for an oil pipeline.
That would be an accusation of treason in my world.
Bush and Cheney and other Republican leaders have more directly accused Kerry of committing treason (cite) Which is far more serious than any accusations levelled by an independent moviemaker. Michael Moore is a private citizen: as is Ann Coulter*. Both of them have the right to say anything they like about anyone they like. Bush and Cheney aren’t private citizens, and they don’t have the right to fling random accusations of treason at their political opponents.
*In the realm of political ranters, I personally rank Michael Moore well above Ann Coulter, because Moore has never sunk to the depths that Coulter swims at regularly**, and because Moore is actually funny – but I don’t insist on it.
**”We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” cite That hit a low.
As a lefty myself, I read Moe’s post as telling the more fluttery folks on the right side of the aisle to get a grip, that there’s no conspiracy afoot.
Which is good, because that was the intent.
As for felixrayman… dude, if you had, I don’t know, read the links provided, you might have noticed that the RedState article was titled “The Rise of American Brown Shirts” or somesuch; of which article this article is an attempted refutation. I presume that you did not, because that’s the only charitable way that I can see somebody misreading it so badly as you did, particularly when I explicitly noted that such behavior was not of the mainstream and that we were not seeing a new Brownshirt movement. Which, again, would have made sense to people clicking through.
Christ. And I expected to get brickbats from the Right on this.
That would be an accusation of treason in my world.
Here in the United States (on Planet Earth), Treason shall consist only in levying war against [us], or in adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid or comfort. There’s a whole story about why it’s written that particular way, should you at some point develop an interest in the founders’ thoughts on that topic…
So no, there’s no treason involved. Fraud? Easy. Failure to uphold the oath of office? Sure, and I think that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. War crimes? Hmmm. Rummy, Franks et al for sure, Cheney maybe. GW would probably be difficult to convict.
Moe, you know, with trackback, it really looks like you are one of the Greek chorus on the right. Take a look at the first link you gave. dangerous times indeed.
It’s not a conspiracy at all. It’s a reflection of the way a faction of our population is enabled to act. A quick Google of “church vandalism” gives us a taste. Our Eugene, OR anarchists always represent us well at any World Bank gathering. What is the experience of most abortion clinics. Many college campus towns deal with riots at certain times of the year annually, in places where you would never imagine. Humans are extremely sensitive and highly emotional. Any extremist leader worth their salt can gather a mob, incite a riot and wreak havoc at the drop of a hat. The fact that we are shocked – shocked, that this type of behavior flares up in this tinderbox of an election year is fine. Awareness at any level is helpful. hilzoy’s ethics expertise should be able to help navigate through this thread, if it’s not too overpowered by her politics.
“Moe, you know, with trackback, it really looks like you are one of the Greek chorus on the right.”
Because I’m disagreeing in at least one serious particular with the bloggers that I linked to. Riiiiggght.
“Take a look at the first link you gave.”
Do you honestly think that I link to things without reading them first? And if you are, why are you even bothering to comment here?
Ah. This is no doubt what people mean when they say that I get ’emotional’.
Much as I appreciate your effort and would like to encourage equanimity…
Moe: It’s only when such drives are deliberately led that we should hit the panic button.
So what is it that you think has been happening for the past few years exactly, which has caused so many people to furiously hit the panic button while the rest stood on the sidelines and giggled?
The Republican party as such has no credibility left, Moe. Zero. It’s not just the Ann Coulters, it’s the leadership. It’s not safe for a well informed person to assume, absent any hard evidence, that the person who shot that window was actually hostile to Republican interests. The best we can do now is to not immediately assume the opposite.
All the tut-tutting and head shaking in the world won’t change that. Your leaders have led you astray. Like it or lump it, but deny it at the cost of your own integrity. And don’t pretend that your party isn’t positively overflowing with people (at all levels) who “lead such drives deliberately” unless you want to be buried in citations.
Yesterday you were scrupulously defending a man who found Rachel Corrie’s death perfectly just. Today you think political hysteria might be worrisome under some circumstances. Maybe you should be hollering at James Baker and Karl Rove and Grover Norquist and Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, instead of legitimizing suspiciously timed nonsense with gentle dissent. Oh but they wouldn’t listen to you would they? You’d just become a “them” instead of an “us.”
Maybe you should be publishing an open letter to RedState and UCLA to remind them that if Erick and Bainbridge were lefties they would be grave embarassments who undermine the foundations of public discourse and ought to be renounced and shunned, instead of gently suggesting that up may not actually be exactly down and black might could possibly be something slightly other than white but in any event there’s nothing at all wrong with talking about it and who knows maybe they’re right… Maybe black is a sort of medium grey.
Anyway, why do you find it inconceivable that The Knoxville Incident is supposed to worry people like you? It’s as though you didn’t realize that that’s SOP psy-ops in some parts of the world. There are people working for your government who specialize in stuff like that.
or as blogbudsman says, “Any extremist leader worth their salt can gather a mob, incite a riot and wreak havoc at the drop of a hat.” Not to mention any cultural anthropologist, social psychologist, con artist, or Bush family consigliere.
Moe, I am _sure_ that you read the articles, I am simply pointing out how the _trackback_ looks.
Let me put it this way. If I said, “Poster X was not a fascist brownshirt. Yet.” I would expect to be kicked out of here so fast it would make my head spin. Just look at the last 5 titles and tell me what it looks like irregardless of what you intended your post to say
» The Democratic SS
» Tin Foil Time: Coming Bush Impeachment
» So much for THAT idea…
» Not a real concern. Yet.
» Right wingers are up in arms
If you had gotten it posted earlier, you would have been placed alongside blog posts like “Kerry should call off the thugs?” and “Who are the American Nazis again?” This is why I said that these were dangerous times, because things that mean one thing can, if placed in a different context, be taken to mean exactly the opposite.
(Just to make sure that you and everyone else understands. This is not to cast any aspersions on any portion of the political spectrum or to claim that one side is better than the other here.)
radish, out of curiousity, what evidence would you accept as legitimately disproving the viewpoint implicit in your last post?
Moe, I am _sure_ that you read the articles, I am simply pointing out how the _trackback_ looks.
Ah. (Rubbing forehead) Can’t control other people’s trackbacks, can’t control other people’s posts, getting a pointed reminder why I don’t blog like I used to – but none of that’s your fault, so my apologies for snark.
bob mcmanus – I re-read your quote which you repeated:
“This is pre-emption. Republicans and the Administration will soon need ‘to defend themselves’ from the amorphous and general threat of ‘disorganized, decentralized violence’…My guess is that Tacitus has filled Moe in on the plan. First step is to claim a fear of violence from unnameable enemies.”
I’m a lefty, but I can’t find a way to read that passage that doesn’t sound like you’re accusing Moe and Tacitus (along with the rest of the VRWC) of knowingly conspiring to create an atmosphere of fear so as to justify ‘defending themselves’ (with violence? fascistic governmental crackdowns? something beyond the normal pale, anyway).
If you say that was not your intention, then I’ll believe you, but I’ll point out that your literal words don’t seem to convey your actual meaning. You might want to figure out an alternate phrasing which will let people know what you really meant to say.
Apologies as well, I didn’t make it very clear. I just didn’t want to lay it all out cause the temp was so hot. My bad.
Well I’ve made my vicious partisan attack, just say my big flashing paranoia button got pushed. Shouldn’t a personalized it. Seems to be a lot of that going around.
Let’s try some non-partisan gloom-and-doom. Tacitus, at the top, was perceptive.
Uhh, Boomer here. Flashing. Forget the Weathermen, the bombs, the big marches, the murders. What the late sixties was about was assaults, vandalism, fistfights, confrontations,arguments, rage, contempt, irresponsibility. A slow motion riot, a breakdown of civil society, civil disorder. Had different natures in the Deep South, the urban centers, college campuses. One side or the other side , who cares who was to blame, like a bad marriage, they all fed off each other. No conspiracies, leaders, organization, or that wasn’t the real problem. Everybody was like, really mean. Gov’t couldn’t do much about people’s hearts, it just kinda exhausted itself. Heck, if it is even over yet.
But hey, to be all non-partisan, maybe it drove some Presidents a little crazy. They had to do some rough stuff, but gotta say, Johnson and Hoover and Nixon did a little extra. Necessity was the mother of invention? Advantage was taken, power was abused.
Now with a difficult foreign war, and a nasty and unsatisfying election, and perhaps a faltering economy, and some tough cultural differences, maybe we are not approaching that civil disorder again, but I’m thinking we may not be so far from it.
And is everybody happy that the next President, no matter who it might be, has the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts to play with?
If I read him right then I’m actually with blogbud on this.
We should recognize that there are idiots on all (not both because the Seattle anarchists are not liberals or democrats or obviously republicans).
We should always denounce them.
We should also continue to put pressure on the news networks who invite back guests who say things like:
“LINDA VESTER (host): You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. [FOX News Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6]”
All of it is against the very foundations our civil society is based upon.
And moe, your post would have been a bit more affective if you acknowledged (with examples?) that both sides/ all sides have idiots and others with misguided goals and tactics.
Again though, you are right to call attention to and denounce such behaviour.
Sorry missed a word above.
“idiots on all sides…”
Thanks, hilzoy, for the links. I’ve looked around for some site that’s consolidating violent (not just sign-stealing, defacing, or even burning) acts against either party or campaign but haven’t had much luck. I’ve found sites that catalogue acts against Republican offices and I’ve found sites that catalogue acts against Democratic offices but no site that catalogues acts against either one. I may have to start creating such a catalogue myself.
That RedState link was fairly vile. I’d love it if the only colored shirt references either side made was to various Star Trek geekery. There’s never a reason beyond stoking visceral hatred to make such analogies — if someone’s doing something that merits the comparison, I think their actions would speak pretty well for themselves. And they do.
One note: I live in a city, and have for some time. Sometimes buildings get shot — my dorm was shot twice when I was at college. No reason, just someone had a gun and thought it would be fun to shoot a window. I’m not saying the Knoxville incident was definitely random, but I am saying that I hope it was.
carpecthus
I’m with you on the incidence of store windows being shot out. Seems to happen fairly regularly. Sometimes with bullets or BBs or slingshot rocks. Usually can read about it in the Local section of the paper.
A campaign office raises the profile but may not be political at all.
Like you – at least I hope so.
blogbudsman: It’s not a conspiracy at all. It’s a reflection of the way a faction of our population is enabled to act. A quick Google of “church vandalism” gives us a taste. Our Eugene, OR anarchists always represent us well at any World Bank gathering. What is the experience of most abortion clinics. Many college campus towns deal with riots at certain times of the year annually, in places where you would never imagine.
Dead right, Blogbuds. I too think Moe could have made this point better by including links to equally idiotic things done by some Bush supporters, but the point is this kind of behavior is not typical of party affiliation, but of being part of a mob.
Not so long ago on Kevin Drum’s blog, he posted a comment about Jenna and Barbara Bush at the RNC, and I was sickened at the reaction it drummed up: a genuine online mob. I hadn’t been so sickened, in fact, since I last read an online mobbing of Chelsea Clinton…
This isn’t a conspiracy, and this isn’t an example of the lowest common denominator coming out to play. This is the way human beings are capable of behaving, under the right pressure, with the wrong company, when mob values triumph over civilization.
And it’s wrong. But it’s equally wrong (and, incidentally, against ObWing posting rules) to ascribe such values sweepingly to either Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, pro-war, anti-war, Bush-supporter, Kerry-supporter.
Neither brickbats nor bricks, Moe, from this corner.
If nothing else, this is an instructive exercise in left-wing victimhood and excuse-making. Typically “he started it” is wrung out of small children as a valid line of moral reasoning; presumably it reemerges in adults seeking political engagement.
Here’s the problem: Since 1994, Democrats have been increasingly unable to comprehend why the GOP regularly thrashes them in the political arena — first taking Congress, then the Presidency, and then reducing them to near-irrelevance in national policymaking. Supposedly even the media has fallen under VRWC sway. So they seek answers: and the reality — that their party organizations are too frequently inept, and that their political message isn’t always a winning one — demands too much introspection and self-criticism, and not enough blame of the malign Other. To fill that void, we get — well, the VRWC. A fundamentally evil Republican Party. An unfair Republican Party. A violence-prone Republican Party. The demonization reaches self-parody at the point at which Democrats muster frothing outrage at the idiot remarks of a third-tier syndicated columnist, but nominate a slanderer of Americans at war for President.
Worse, Democrats feel they must emulate the perceived winners to win themselves. Let’s be clear, here: they don’t emulate the actuality of Republican activism — they emulate their idea of that activism. So, if Republicans spread relentless lies throughout the media — they will too! If Republicans have a network of controlling think-tanks and grantmaking institutions — they will too! If Republicans engage in political violence and vandalism — they will too.
Decentralized. Leaderless — unless you consider the Daily Kos a leader. And dangerous.
Concurrent with this is the risible paranoia reported by so many Dems obsessed with this phenomenon, such as it is. Dave Neiwert being a prime example: remember the rise of American fascism? The GOP plan to engage in and foster 2004 election violence? Whither that, eh? Then we have Thullen, who has apparently lived in fear for 15 years(!), and Catsy, who, it seems, has experienced a long darkness of terror that Moe is only beginning to enter.
The damage done by this brand of en masse self-pity is immense. We see it in Jesurgislac, who cannot discern between legitimate policy criticism and treason. We see it in the dKos diaries musing on the possibilities for post-election civil war. We see it in Felixrayman, who cannot endure an honest discussion of the subject. We see it in the assumption by many on the Kerry campaign that election wrangling will not end on 2 November. We see it in the idiot phrase “Bush’s War,” uttered by Americans who ought to know better.
Frankly, if there is a silver lining to a Kerry victory in a few weeks, it will be the possibility that in triumph, this psychological cancer will recede, and committed Democrats may rejoin the rest of America in the broad consensus. Me, I almost hope this is what happens: the problem with the mentality described, as we see in Erick’s examples, and in the commenters here, is that it eventually becomes self-fulfilling.
We see it in Jesurgislac, who cannot discern between legitimate policy criticism and treason.
Actually, I do believe I can discern between legitimate policy criticism and treason, Tacitus: and I’m calling you on (a) ad hominem attack (b) attempted mindreading. The first I believed to be forbidden under the Posting Rules on ObWing, and the second is, on ObWing, considered socially unacceptable – thanks to the stern efforts of Slartibartfast et al.
That’s fine, Jesurgislac. Here are the options, given the cite you gave in support of your assertion:
1) You’re flatly dishonest.
2) You can’t discern between legitimate policy criticism and treason.
You can argue the point, or you can invoke posting rules to avoid doing so. Choice made, it seems.
Tacitus
I know you are a good friend of the blog so you won’t be banned but ObWi doesn’t not condone personal attacks nor sweeping generalizations.
Gee, Jes, nice of you to start worrying about ad-homs and the Posting Rules now. Where were you when it was only Republicans being attacked?
Tac, I realize that the opportunity to be a stirrer is difficult to pass up, but isn’t Edward’s Turkey and the EU thread awaiting your response?
What that thread is really awaiting is FDL’s response.
Moe
Lovely how this thread is devolving isn’t it.
Maybe the whole thing should be transported over to Tac’s site where it would seem more appropriate than in the environment you’ve insisted on here.
He could probably use the traffic too.
Gee, Jes, nice of you to start worrying about ad-homs and the Posting Rules now. Where were you when it was only Republicans being attacked?
Okay, Moe, I guess that’s the official answer: Tacitus doesn’t have to obey the Posting Rules, but anyone who breaks them by attacking him does.
Fine.
We did get to see Tac play the victim, which was pretty interesting, but I’d second carsick’s notion and say just close this puppy up.
“Okay, Moe, I guess that’s the official answer: Tacitus doesn’t have to obey the Posting Rules, but anyone who breaks them by attacking him does.”
I’ll take that as an admission that you only care when it’s your own ox being gored, then.
Moe
PS: Objections about Posting Rules? Use the freaking email.
I’ll take that as an admission that you only care when it’s your own ox being gored, then.
Nope. You can take that as an acknowledgement that Tacitus has special status on this blog, and doesn’t have to obey the posting rules.
PS: Objections about Posting Rules? Use the freaking email.
Have done.
Okay, Moe, I guess that’s the official answer: Tacitus doesn’t have to obey the Posting Rules, but anyone who breaks them by attacking him does.
Fine.
EVERYONE…and I mean everyone has to obey the posting rules.
This has taken on a life of its own recently and behind the scenes, emails are flying.
If our readers knew how hard we work to accomplish two things here 1) keep the dialog civil and 2) keep the ratio of right to left commenters balanced, I’m sure most would sympathize with the nightmare it becomes to try and keep this site from becoming a free for all or leaning too far to one direction.
The times they are intensifying, and what strikes one person as unfair strikes another as obvious (and I’ve seen this logic working on both sides here, so no one is immune from that observation).
Moe et al. have worked far too hard on this site to abandon its central premise now, our hit numbers are way up (mostly due to the great work Katherine is doing) and new commentors are joining all the time…this is all great.
I guess where I’m going with this is a request to all readers and commentors to join in the spirit that first created this site…the idea that even though those on the left, center, and right can disagree passionately on the issues, they can do so with mutual respect and civility. At a certain point, everyone who comes here owns that, and it’s everyone’s responsibility to work to protect it.
I don’t wish this to begin a series of finger pointing or he said/she said responses either. I know feelings have been hurt on both sides of the aisle, and to many there are injustices that need corrected.
If everyone would step back and own their part of increasing the civility level, however, perhaps we can work through the impasse and get on to doing what we love most…debating politics…civilly.
Okay then. Let’s go with it.
Jes,
Tac called you a liar and a treason supporter. Are you going to take that?
Come on fight…
so Moe can threaten to ban you.
And Tac
If Kerry wins I don’t think it’s the committed democrats who are going to have to join the rest of America in a broad consensus because a broad consensus of Americans will have voted for him.
Okay then. Let’s go with it.
Jes,
Tac called you a liar and a treason supporter. Are you going to take that?
Come on fight…
Or don’t.
Really…this is not a dive bar…find a better way to work through this.
Please.
Thank you Edward.
My above post was written before I read yours.
Might be time for another Beatles post…
<homersimpson>You’re all right<homersimpson>
…especially liberal japonicus.
All right, Edward.
If our readers knew how hard we work to … keep the ratio of right to left commenters balanced
How do you do that? When the needle shifts too far in one direction, do you go out and recruit people of the appropriate persuasion from other blogs? Was Tacitus sent a personal invitation to come and counter the leftward shift over the last few months? 🙂
Just take a glance at the titles for some of the current posts:
===
Guantanamo’s Evil StepSon
White House Counsel’s Letter on Torture Outsourcing
Torture Legalization: A Winning Strategy for YOUR
Congressional Campaign!
Our President Lies
Legislative Update: Torture Outsourcing Bill One Step Closer
Torture Outsourcing Update
=====
I think Tac is right about who is doing the demonizing.
D’oh! James didn’t close his homersimpson tag!
I agree with the Tacitus view of 10:43–especially about the Democratic cult of victimhood. Anecdote–in early 2002 I was talking to a fifty-year old lady at the bridge club (yes I play bridge) who was convinced that she was going to be thrown into camps for being a leftist. I always thought she was a garden variety California Marxist from UC Santa Cruz, but I walked away from that talk thinking she was completely unhinged.
Anyway, I agree with Tacitus about the dangerous unhinging of understanding the political process by some Democrats, but I think the problem is much worse. What that does is let the Republicans off the hook because their opponents end up being so disconnected from reality. In the middle of a war we need two parties, both vigorously acting to defend our country, and vigorously critquing each others tactics in such a way as to get an excellent prosecution of the war. We need two coherent parties with real understandings of foreign policy to vigorously engage each other if we are going to get the best ideas out there. I used to think we only had one, but I suspect the lack of competition in the foreign policy arena is turning the answer into ‘zero’.
Contrary to many commentor’s beliefs, I am not a dedicated Bush partisan. I’m well aware of his many weaknesses. And I ask you: against what healthy and vigorous party could Bush be within striking distance of winning? Why do you have a party stupid enough to nominate Gore and Kerry as its recent standard bearers? I know full well you are going to distract from the question by aksing why I have a party stupid enough to nominate Bush twice. It is a fair question, but it will be a distraction.
Why is the Democratic Party so weak that it has to even worry about losing to Bush?
The answer to that question isn’t that the Republican Party has magical media manipulation skills–your party is quite good at that too. The answer isn’t that Republicans are shooting people in the street to keep them from voting Democratic. I suspect the answer is within yourselves–but you won’t ever discover that.
Every time I see one of these types of posts I cringe. “Tiny minority of Side X has done something Bad Bad Stupid Wrong Bad to Side Y! Is this something to Worry About? Will all of Side X now become Bad Bad Stupid Wrong Bad? Should Candidate X loudly and publically denounce this practice? If Candidate X does not, is he condoning things that are Bad Bad Stupid Wrong Bad?” I’m waiting for the inevitable Instapundit “Where are the moderate Side X bloggers denouncing Side X as Bad Bad Stupid Wrong Bad?”
Alright, so yes. It’s bad, bad, stupid, and wrong – AND bad – to deface other people’s property, to mob and intimidate people. This is obvious. It’s also obviously wrong – and scary – to attack a campaign center. But it is the height of absurdity to cluck one’s tongue and imply that this shows that there might be “something to be worried about” – that every blue-stater is going to pick up a torch and a pitchfork and raze the local GOP canvassing center.
It is also obviously wrong – and WILDLY DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST – to declare that “Kerry should call off the thugs,” as Bainbridge does, which suggests that Kerry has sicced these morons on Bush supporters (becauuuuse… it’ll help win him votes? I’m at a loss, Professor… maybe you, with your heightened political understanding, can help educate me!).
I note that none of these posts are calling for Bush to denounce the Republicans who pulled protesters out of campaign events by their hair, who kicked protesters when they were on the floor being cuffed at the convention – and they shouldn’t. Bush has no more control over what some idiot delegate or rally attendee does than I do. He’s not responsible for some moron who decides that kicking some college student in the chest will bring Glory to the Republic.
But I also didn’t see much denunciation from the right-wing blogosphere of the arrest of over 1500 protesters during the Republican National Convention – something that probably should worry us because it’s not just a bunch of yahoos doing this, it is, in fact, our government, and most of these protesters were doing little more than excercising their right to free expression. I’m also not seeing nearly enough concern from EITHER side that the Secret Service is currently being used to fence off protesters from campaign events (this is a bipartisan phenomenon, to my knowledge, although there’ve been more protesters to kick out at Bush rallies). THIS is something that should worry us – not some shmuck who steals somebody’s yard sign or even the lunatics who took pot shots at a GOP campaign center – because this is becoming agency policy, and this DOES have the capacity to be systemic. If you’re looking for “The New American Brownshirts,” start looking there.
I’m sure Moe means well, but the people he links to aren’t concerned with a Decline Of Civility. Their interested in painting their opposition as a monolithic block that has all the traits of its smallest fringe elements (“International ANSWER! International ANSWER!”). This election cycle has made the moderate furious and the furious rabid in a remarkably bipartisan manner (in my blue state town, some civic-minded youth has spraypainted “fag” over a number of Kerry signs – I’m not rushing off to decry Republicans as “The New American Gestapo” or something similarly vapid). So let’s all agree that it’s all Bad Bad Stupid Wrong Bad, please, and try not to fall over each other comparing the other side to Hitler.
I think Tac is right about who is doing the demonizing.
Your list is a good wake up call DaveC…thanks for pointing that out. Although, there’s nothing partisan, per se, about the Torture posts (I hope we can all agree about that)…there does seems to be a good deal of demonizing the Bush Administration going on.
Good food for thought for the lefties here…personally, I’ll take that in and process it.
e
Well, this is Moe‘s place, right? 😉
If our readers knew how hard we work to accomplish two things here 1) keep the dialog civil and 2) keep the ratio of right to left commenters balanced, I’m sure most would sympathize with the nightmare it becomes to try and keep this site from becoming a free for all or leaning too far to one direction.
I had a similar experience on a much smaller scale and even that made me want to eviscerate myself on a daily basis. [Saved time, you see, from the evisceration others were doing unto me.] I have nothing but respect for the ObWiGods, regardless of any personal policy differences that might arise.
Why do you have a party stupid enough to nominate Gore and Kerry as its recent standard bearers? I know full well you are going to distract from the question by aksing why I have a party stupid enough to nominate Bush twice. It is a fair question, but it will be a distraction.
No actually, I think it answers your question.
Both parties are having a difficult time getting quality candidates, at least as far as the opposition is considered. Whether you believe it or not, Kerry has always had his core of diehard followers.
Why we generally get mediocre candidates probably has more to do with the process through which we weed them out…a Presidential candidate has to be morally and politically so bland, so as not to offend the base but still appeal to the center, that we’re getting precisely what we’re demanding, if you were to take all our brains, shove ’em in a blender and the poll the results.
The torture posts give attention to a very difficult and important issue. My complaint was that the titles made it look like a given viewpoint was completely evil, when the situation is much more complicated. Sorry if I’m picking on anybody.
Per tacitus, Democrats “spread lies” and “engage in political violence and vandalism.”
Didn’t I get in trouble a while ago for generalizing about “Republicans” doing bad things, etc.
I’m a Democrat. I don’t spread lies, and I don’t engage in political violence or vandalism.
Good food for thought for the lefties here…personally, I’ll take that in and process it.
No, I think that’s a deeply empty strawman, and I think if you fall for it you’re a sucker.
This administration has not been conservative. They’ve not been liberal. And you do not “demonize” someone by offering just critiques of them. Are the facts demonizing George Bush? Has Katherine “demonized” George Bush by pointing out that his administration is about to legalize torture, and that he’s doing nothing of substance to stop it (I don’t believe, and I don’t believe any of you do either, that this president can’t reign in a Speaker of his own party)? Have you “demonized” George Bush by pointing out that his policies don’t acknowledge gay Americans as equal human beings? Being moderate and civil isn’t the same as being toothless and false.
As to this blather from Sebastian:
The answer to that question isn’t that the Republican Party has magical media manipulation skills–your party is quite good at that too. The answer isn’t that Republicans are shooting people in the street to keep them from voting Democratic. I suspect the answer is within yourselves–but you won’t ever discover that.
There is no response I could possibly give that wouldn’t violate this site’s ludicrously oversensitive posting rules. There are so many things wrong with every level of reasoning displayed here I don’t even know where to begin, except to say that you’re not praising the Republican Party for its ideas – you’re praising it for its organizational strength. Strength isn’t praiseworthy on its own if it’s not put to the right purpose – in fact, it’s not even strength – but this doesn’t seem to concern you. You’re more interested in the appearance of strength. There’s a name for an ideology that worships the appearance of strength. It’s not conservatism.
Bernard,
You’re right. Tacitus needs to qualify his statements better. We insist that generalizations be kept to a minimum or proven…in other words prove your statements or tone them down. That goes for everyone.
Tacitus, please do your part to respect that rule.
Holy cow. Quite a thread.
Moe, let me just chip in and say, as a foreigner leftist, I appeciate the tone and the thoughfulness of the original post. Every political campaign has those who are immoderate and irresponsible, and who use dirty tricks or an unethical approach in order to further thier own political goals. On both sides.
I think that your post indicates there are also those with honour and maturity on both sides. As you say, a few attacks by yahoos does not a brownshirt organization make. This is a hot campaign, and there are bound to be more incidents like this at those times.
——
By the way, to whoever called Michael Moore a traitor in the comments above because an opinion he had – could I suggest you use the term “thoughtcrime” instead? It’s probably a more accurate term for what you had in mind.
My complaint was that the titles made it look like a given viewpoint was completely evil, when the situation is much more complicated.
May I suggest that if you’re going to make a comment like this, you don’t say something as generic as “a given viewpoint”, but rather state directly and clearly what that viewpoint is? Because it’s all too easy to read what you say as a complaint that the titles made it look like advocating torture was completely evil, when the situation is much more complicated. I don’t believe that’s what you meant to say, but a lot of people won’t take the time to ask you what you mean; they’ll just make the assumption I outlined and ream you for it. And then that leads to threads like this one.
And you know, even from the people I’ve seen who think Katherine’s wrong about this particular subject, I’ve never seen anyone deny that the bill would in fact legalize deporting people to be tortured. Mostly they argue that it doesn’t really bother them if terrorists get tortured.
So is this my fault or has it been happening since before I came back?
(I wrote that as a joke, than updated and saw DaveC’s post. I know the title of those posts are inflammatory. The thing is, I think–and have gone to no small of trouble to demonstrate–that they are accurate, and they convey a more accurate sense of what’s being discussed than the bland euphemism “extraordinary rendition”. Amnesty international and the American Bar Association, left of center though they may be, get their facts right and they agree with me. And they are directed against specific legislators and people in the administration, not “Republicans” or “The Right”.
I am running out of steam anyway. Clearly, the press will not cover this story, and with so much else going on it’s not going to get sustained attention from other weblogs. The bill will probably pass today, with 3033 intact; 3032 may or may not be watered down somehwat. I am going to finish posting on the specific cases & the factual evidence until this is either dropped or signed into law, but I’m mainly done & after that will not be posting again for a while.)
As to the rest:
Everyone has to obey the posting rules.
On the other hand, across the board, we don’t automatically ban for a violation of the posting rules. I really don’t like doing it. I’ve seen on this very thread that it’s easy to misinterpret what someone said. I like to save banning for clear, repeated and/or egregious violations. I think Tac’s latest comment is probably a violation but I don’t think it’s totally clear or egregious.
I especially don’t like banning a long time commenter who has added a lot to the discussion. If we have a bias it’s that. I think that bias has probably benefited left of center as well as right of center commenters, and I think it’s justifiable.
On the other hand:
1) that bias is not unlimited.
2) I would really ask long time commenters not to take advantage of it.
I don’t want to ban people or close threads. I especially don’t want to close a thread on the dangerous polarization of the electorate because we’re too polarized to discuss the issue. But we certainly will do it if we feel it’s necessary.
Sebastian , your move from anecdote to a general statement about the Democratic party is really, well, embarassing. A cult of victimhood? Notions like liberal media bias, academic revisionism, refusal to acknowledge the primacy of Christian beliefs in society, back to basics, complaints about teaching of evolution, opposition to gay marriage and abortion show that it’s not a Democratic cult, it’s a equal opportunity notion. Read your Hegel, fer pete’s sake.
You know when I finished my first stint in Japan, I went to grad school at the University of Oregon and suffered profound culture shock. But unlike you, what I saw were people’s foibles, some of which manifested in taking particular (generally very leftist) political stances. And unlike you, I didn’t see these particular stances as revealing of the various ‘inner political mind’ of the people, but rather, an outward manifestation of intensely individual problems that ended up getting framed as political stances. Perhaps I would not have been as understanding had I gone to some redder than red place, but I hope that I would. But it would be very rude of me to suggest that you don’t have the ability to make a similar discovery as you have sweepingly suggested.
Have you “demonized” George Bush by pointing out that his policies don’t acknowledge gay Americans as equal human beings? Being moderate and civil isn’t the same as being toothless and false.
Deep breaths Iron Lungfish (no pun intended).
DaveC’s list of titles, on their own, could convince the first time visitor that this is a leftist site. It’s not. My point is simply that if we wish to continue to attract people across the spectrum, we need to be aware of the overall tone of the site. If they get scared off or consider the site hostile to their POV, we’re not fulfilling the mission this site was created to attempt.
moe
When we’re asked to use the email (which I did by the way) it feels a bit like threatening to tell the teacher ie ‘squealer’. No one wants to be a squealer ultimately.
And to see you pile on after Tac makes personal attacks doesn’t give much confidence that the teacher will be much help either.
Now I understand why you have the email go to Edward.
There is no response I could possibly give that wouldn’t violate this site’s ludicrously oversensitive posting rules.
Um, I enjoy ObWi so much because of the civil tone here, Lungfish. If you want to debate in a mosh pit, there are many of those around. I think that the ObWi posters do a pretty good job of making sure that the tone remains civil, and I deeply appreciate the lengths that they go to to do so. If you find those rules oversensitive or ludicrous, there are many other blogs just a click away.
muchas gracias d+u!
Sebastian,
I play bridge
Bet you’re a conservative bidder too.
“except to say that you’re not praising the Republican Party for its ideas – you’re praising it for its organizational strength. Strength isn’t praiseworthy on its own if it’s not put to the right purpose – in fact, it’s not even strength – but this doesn’t seem to concern you. You’re more interested in the appearance of strength. There’s a name for an ideology that worships the appearance of strength. It’s not conservatism.”
No, my comment specifically does not rely on Republican organizational strength. My comment relies on the fact that Republican standard bearer ideas actually look good to a lot of people–especially on foreign policy–when placed in contrast with Democratic standard bearer ideas.
And I think that is pathetic.
I think that is leading us to have a bad foreign policy because the issues aren’t being dealt with.
I think it is bad because both Democrats and Republicans have useful viewpoints if only they were both actually dealing with foreign policy.
I think that Kerry’s unreality about the chances of foreign help–an unreality which is duplicated here and in almost all Democratic circles leads to perverted foreign policy debates which end up making even idiot Republican foreign policies look good by comparison.
None of that is dependent on Republican organization skills. That is all about ideas.
Once again, why is the Democratic Party so weak that they can’t swat Bush away like an annoying fly? Why is it so weak that they didn’t have this election locked up in the polls in every single poll since January?
Mostly they argue that it doesn’t really bother them if terrorists get tortured.
True. And if you’re pro-terror, I repeat a point I’ve tried to make before, and a question I’ve tried to make before:
-If torture is okay as long as we do it to Bad People, why not just make it legal in this country? Repeal the torture statutes. After all, shouldn’t we be able to trust American torturers more than Syrian or Egyptian torturers? Get the information ourselves. We wouldn’t be smart to farm out our intelligence-gathering to another country – especially countries with ties to terrorist organizations, right? So why not have officially-trained American torturers?
-And why pass this portion of the bill in the dark? If you’re sure that there’s nothing wrong with torture, hell, let’s all come out and advocate for it. I want to see Dennis Hastert on Crossfire arguing for the American Torture Act. I want to see Tom Delay on Hannity and Colmes telling us how we need torture to defend our liberty. Make a national debate of it. Get it into the public arena. Surely your just cause shouldn’t be kept from public view!
-Why restrict torture to terrorists? Think how far we’d get shutting down organized crime and the drug trade if we could use torture on criminal suspects. If there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with torture – and if there’s nothing wrong with every so often nabbing the wrong guy (hey, accidents happen), then hey, let’s go nuts. It’s just another law enforcement/intelligence gathering tool, right?
I await your responses.
Once again, why is the Democratic Party so weak that they can’t swat Bush away like an annoying fly? Why is it so weak that they didn’t have this election locked up in the polls in every single poll since January?
Is that rhetorical or are you really asking the question?
“Sebastian,
I play bridge
Bet you’re a conservative bidder too.”
That depends on your point of view I suppose. I’m absolutely a conservative bidder compared to say Marty Bergen. I’m conservative compared to some of the more crazy Polish bidders, but I think they have systems to handle it.
It is also obviously wrong – and WILDLY DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST – to declare that “Kerry should call off the thugs,” as Bainbridge does, which suggests that Kerry has sicced these morons on Bush supporters…
And how. I’ve a number of friends working for the Democrats this election and they’re just as disturbed and disgusted as everyone else, if not more so.
It’s the run up to the election. There’s a lot of heavy stuff on the table, and it’s just going to get nastier. One of the great things about this site is that there can — sometimes — be an exchange of ideas across ideologies without casual dismisall, but it’s going to be hard for the center to hold. Clearly we need some sort of Obsidian Wings cookout/gathering/gaming session, politics-free. I’m willing to bet 95 percent of the regular commenters would be both fantastically interesting and pleasant in person, once you leave the politics at the door (and no, I won’t list the 5 percent). I’m having a barbecue with a major fund-raiser for NYC Republicans tomorrow, since he happens to be a good friend of mine. Time for some similar rallies about the things that are truly important: food, drink, and hard-core geekery. You know it’s true — you’re spending time arguing on a Web site, for Pete’s sake. Time to get some sun.
Sebastian
You continue to act as though new credibility in the white house ie Kerry won’t get a renewed look at supporting our efforts in the Middle East yet:
“During the conference, German Interior Minister Otto Schily sent a strong message to Washington when he said “whoever responds to violence only with violence” was doomed to fail, the Associated Press reported.
But despite Germany’s running opposition to the US led action in Iraq, Hanning told the conference that at this point, all the countries now have a stake in Iraq’s future.
“All of us have a common interest, whether we take part in the US-led coalition in Iraq or not,” Hanning said. “This country must be stabilized.”
Hmm. Are we seeing a turning of the corner already?
Anarch, it was a real question. The sad thing is I probably won’t see the answer–but that might be good for my health anyway. I’m about to go off to a volleyball tournament in Dallas. Be back Monday night.
Don’t burn the place down while I’m gone guys. Boy will I be glad when this election is over. Then we can look where we are and plan from there. Hopefully get into some good political discussions after we unwind a bit. (And yes, I’m well aware that I’m guiltly of being wound up.)
The biggest presidential landslide was Nixon over McGovern, 68-32, I think. Was this indicative of the power of Nixon’s ideas? Why exactly was he able to swat McGovern like a fly?
Clearly we need some sort of Obsidian Wings cookout/gathering/gaming session, politics-free.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to join Timmy the Wonder Dog and I for a night of drinking at the end of the month, by the way. NYC…details to follow…let me know if you’re in town.
e
Anyone and everyone is welcome to join Timmy the Wonder Dog and I for a night of drinking at the end of the month, by the way. NYC…details to follow…let me know if you’re in town.
Crap. Wrong end o’ the continent for me. Bet you guys have all the good bars too.
Beware the perils of suggesting that McGovern’s ideas were generally palatable to the American people.
Wow, that would be a heck of a combination. I may be, in of all places, Texas depending on the day, though. Damned Republican cousin’s keeping me down, just ’cause he’s getting married and all. 😉
Sebastian, re Dem weakness in not swatting Bush: 9/11, and its political exploitation subsequent; money (not as big an issue currently); being in wartime, and the political exploitation thereof (and the run-up in 02); Fox/talk radio, plus the MSM’s refusal to confront Bush, plus the greater partisanship of right-of-center newspapers etc., plus the shark-pool media environment when Gore ran; the near-complete erosion of the Dems’ former base in the South, lost in part for reasons I feel proud of as a partisan; the division of the country on hot-button social issues like gay rights; the weakening of the labor movt.; the willingness of the slim right-wing majority in Congress to marginalize the minority; cyclical changes. Given Bush’s strengths, you could equally well ask why Kerry has a slight lead and the Senate looks like a toss-up.
No, my comment specifically does not rely on Republican organizational strength. My comment relies on the fact that Republican standard bearer ideas actually look good to a lot of people–especially on foreign policy–when placed in contrast with Democratic standard bearer ideas.
And I think that is pathetic.
Kerry’s ideas look good to about half the country. Bush’s ideas look good to about half the country. Can you prove otherwise?
I think that is leading us to have a bad foreign policy because the issues aren’t being dealt with.
I think our foreign policy right now is not only bad – it’s incoherent. How is Bush’s policy towards North Korea and Iran compatible with his policy towards Iraq/Hussein? With his policy towards Pakistan/AQ Khan? How is his policy of “democracy-promotion” compatible with his policy towards Russia? Towards China? Towards Saudi Arabia? Towards – again – Pakistan? If you have the answers, you should probably alert the Bush White House, because I think they need them – badly.
I think it is bad because both Democrats and Republicans have useful viewpoints if only they were both actually dealing with foreign policy.
On this we agree. Part of this problem is a media which long ago decided that Americans don’t care about policy, and two parties which decided to reciprocate by never talking about policy. I don’t believe either candidate has a real plan for solving Iraq. I’m voting for Kerry because (1) I think he’s less likely to make another nightmare, (2) I think he has the right view of how to fight an asymmetrical threat (that is, the answer is not always regime change), and (3) I think he’s serious about containing nuclear proliferation, and I think Bush simply isn’t. I think the last four years demonstrates that he isn’t. But I’ll agree with you that this debate isn’t happening in the public sphere. Soundbites are being lobbed back and forth. Real ideas aren’t being exchanged or debated.
I think that Kerry’s unreality about the chances of foreign help–an unreality which is duplicated here and in almost all Democratic circles leads to perverted foreign policy debates which end up making even idiot Republican foreign policies look good by comparison.
I don’t think the Powell Doctrine is “unreality.” I think the war on terror is too global and too widespread to be handled by any one country, even the world’s superpower. We can’t track al Qaeda by ourselves, we can’t close their money trails by ourselves, we can’t hunt down cells in sixty countries without help from the world. This isn’t some asinine “France gets a veto” policy. This is simple reality – the kind that Bush’s father acknowledged in the first Gulf War.
None of that is dependent on Republican organization skills. That is all about ideas.
Ha! How much was the notion of reinventing the Middle East debated as a reason to go to war – on cable or network television – prior to the invasion? There are real ideas, but the public at large isn’t exposed to them. It is sheltered from them. Are the Republicans who vote for Dennis Hastert’s re-election this November voting for torture? How many of them know of those provisions in the 9/11 bill?
Once again, why is the Democratic Party so weak that they can’t swat Bush away like an annoying fly? Why is it so weak that they didn’t have this election locked up in the polls in every single poll since January?
Thirty years ago the republicans decided to embrace their right flank; the Democrats decided to run towards the center. The Republican strategy has always been to define the debate and the political culture; the Democratic strategy has been to adapt to it. The Democratic strategy has been a colossal failure.
This is not a victory of ideas (and if it was, then Democratic ideas won the popular vote in 2000). GOP culture war ideologies don’t enjoy broad popular support. Abortion is split around fifty-fifty in this country at a generous estimate. The majority of Americans opposed the FMA. A majority of Americans support universal health insurance. Half the country thinks the Iraq war was wrong (and a substantial portion of those who think it was right believe Saddam was personally involved in 9/11).
So no. This is not a war of ideas. This is a war of advertisements.
“GOP culture war ideologies don’t enjoy broad popular support. Abortion is split around fifty-fifty in this country at a generous estimate.”
Generous-to-you estimate. If more than 20% of the population agrees with the party-line Democratic stance–no enforceable limits on even third trimeter abortion–I would be shocked.
Don’t pretend that Republicans are the only ones polarizing debate. Or rather do, and lose again.
Josh,
Look, I am typically a lurker and not a commenter. But in the case of the torture posts, I had a hunch that there was another angle to the story. Why else would the deportation provisions be in the 9/11? It can’t be as simple as “the GOP want to legalize torture”. But the titles were so inflammatory that it made people afraid to present a dissenting point of view, because they don’t want to appear to support torture. So I felt like I ought to step up to the plate – hell, you don’t know me; what difference does it make if you accuse me of being a torture supporter anyway. And when I examined the problem further, the people most likely to be deported are “not a hypothetical Christian refugee who escapes Darfur only by the skin of her teeth”, but criminals and terrorists the likes of Abu Hamza or Ramzi Yousef. I could give you a whole list of them and I already did in another comment thread. The paradox here is that the worst criminals and terrorists are the most likely to face torture and/or capital punishment, so they would have the strongest case not to be deported.
What would the alternative be? Throw them in prison in the US for crimes committed in another country? Let them live free lives and advocate terrorists acts, as is the case in Britain? To me, deportation looks like the best of several bad alternatives. But some folks would then say “DaveC supports torture!”. I guess I will just have to live with that.
The comments that I typically read are Crooked Timber, Obsidian Wings and Tacitus. You all do a great job.
Sebastian, you think you have a majority for all-abortions-should-be-illegal? Are you familiar with the third-trimester abortion rates, or Kerry’s stance on them?
“Don’t pretend that Republicans are the only ones polarizing debate. Or rather do, and lose again.”
What if the Republicans are doing the vast majority of the polarizing? Are you suggesting telling the truth will cause the Dems to lose? And what if they do so and win?
p.s. your use of “pretend” above is not conducive to amity.
Tacitus has special status on this blog
Gentlemen, your checks are in the mail.
Tac called you a liar and a treason supporter.
Wrong.
If Kerry wins I don’t think it’s the committed democrats who are going to have to join the rest of America in a broad consensus because a broad consensus of Americans will have voted for him.
I think we can take it as a given that few people will for for Kerry. Many, many people may vote against Bush, though.
As for my “personal attacks,” I find the hyperventilation over them — particularly as they apply to Jesurgislac — ridiculous. Let me spell this out: asserting that policy preference X will have effect Y — particularly when that assertion is entirely reasonable — is not the same thing as asserting that those who advocate X intend Y or act with malice.
In short, there is about as much rational justification for claiming that the President has directedly accused Kerry of treason as there is for the myth of Cleland Martyr — which is to say, none.
There, is that better? Now, I say again: Jesurgislac does not grasp the distinction in question. Given the alternative — outright dishonesty — I’m being charitable.
And yeah, given the crap Moe has had to endure from that quarter, I’d say his response was more than justified.
I will remain civil; I will remain civil.
“Then we have Thullen, who has apparently lived in fear for 15 years!”
Yeah, poor me. Boo hoo, as the eloquent Michelle Malkin might say. I lost a friend in Oklahoma City. And I love sitting around with some of my conservative friends who talk about their guns and what ought to be done to civil servants, liberals, and that traitor Kerry. All anecdotal and not Tacitus’ responsibility.
Grover Norquist. I like to say his name just to keep it front and center.
“Self-educate”, I believe, is the recommended nostrum.
But, I’ve listened for what, 2 1/2 years now while Tacitus lets us know that the awful dust of the World Trade Center coating his wife’s hair conferred a special moral status (something more moral than apparently the rest of us who only got to experience the mess on television) on him to the point where any criticism or deviance from his view that the entire Mideast must be transformed to his model and through his means (and maybe, by spilling the blood of my son)is met with, at least, condescending dismissal. Critics are “odious”, “vile”, not worthy of discussion, “Chief”.
That’s all fine, no big deal. Just a little offputting.
Now, Tacitus knows his stuff and is admirably eloquent. But that word “traitor” is always handy, not usually directly, but someone in the Committee over at Red State and a few regulars at Tacitus can be counted on to find the word when things get hot.
Let’s get something straight. “Traitor” is a fighting word on every playground except this fine one where it’s merely a posting violation. Even a traitor will knock you on your butt when called a traitor. It’s a conversation stopper.
I’m not scared. I’m pissed off. I used the word “afraid” to align my statement above with posting rules. To be nice. But it seems every time I’m nice, folks on the other side take me for one of those politically correct liberals who “sing Kumbaya” (sp?) and stick a flower in the end of an M-16.
Believe me, you’ve got the wrong guy.
I re-read this before posting and realize it may not be civil. Please delete if you wish.
What if the Republicans are doing the vast majority of the polarizing?
This is the kind of unproveable hypothesis that just makes everyone grumpy. Politicians of both parties “do polarizing” if they think it will help themselves or their team. We tend to be more sensitive to the “sins” of the other side than our own.
And I suspect Sebastian was not suggesting there was a majority in favor of outlawing all abortion, just pointing out that there’s also not a majority for the extreme Dem view either.
Wow, I posted to the humor thread first and wondered a bit why it was there. That’ll teach me to skip to dessert first.
Couple things:
1) This is not a war of ideas. This is a war of advertisements. So is everything. The difficulty I find in reading comments here (even here:( )is some on the left (well, many but I don’t want to tar everyone) always end up saying that those supporting President Bush are stupid. Hint, not a way to gain friends and influence people. I don’t know which way I’ll come down in this election (not that my national vote matters here in SF), but I can tell you it gets my back up being called stupid. So, all the good work hilzoy and Edward do with their posts is undone. I’m sure it makes those that do it feel superior, but it sure wastes progress made by others. And I’m one with time and energy to read these things. For those that don’t have the time or inclination to look real hard, its pretty easy to vote for the side that doesn’t call you stupid, mean or greedy.
2) I play bridge Seb, can you recommend a good teaching book or computer program for a first-timer?
Sebastian’s use of “pretend” was perfectly conducive to amity, except in the minds of those wishing to seize upon or manufacture linguistic process points in lieu of effective arguments.
Excuse me, DaveC, but that is blatantly FALSE. Maher Arar was not even trying to enter the United States. He was trying to change planes on the way to Canada. I have given a number of specific examples of people who were “rendered” who were 1) not trying to enter the United States, and 2) were not taken back to their home countries. I have a number of quotes from intelligence officials who say we send them to those countries for interrogation because they can “kick the [expletive] out of them” in a way that we cannot. We sometimes give the intelligence services lists of questions to ask, and get reports about what the answers are, and sometimes we have sent other people to be tortured based mainly on the evidence from these “confessions”.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between asylum and withholding of removal. I didn’t respond to your examples because they were almost all from other countries.
Terrorism, even suspected terrorism, is grounds for deportation. If you sue under the convention against torture and prove that it is more likely than not you will be deported if returned, you will win the right to have your deportation delayed, but you will probably be imprisoned until we find a country that we can legally send you to.
I am sorry the ACLU made a factual error about the Sudan posts, but those dealt with a separate part of the bill from the torture outsourcing provisions. Those other parts of the bill apply to all asylum seekers, not only suspected terrorists.
You don’t seem to realize that there is already broad power to detain aliens suspected of terrorism. You also don’t seem to be aware of Title V of the INA, entitled “Alien Terrorist Removal Procedures”. You also don’t seem to be aware that an alien may still be deported to another country where they will not face torture. You also don’t seem aware that Congressman Markey’s amendment, which the house refused to allow debate on, did not require us not to deport terrorists, let alone to release them. It required us not to deport them to countries where it is more likely than not that they will be tortured, and to require some verification before we take Syria’s word for it that they won’t torture a suspect.
radish, out of curiousity, what evidence would you accept as legitimately disproving the viewpoint implicit in your last post?
I’m not 100% sure which viewpoint you mean. If you mean my conclusion that the GOP leadership rests in the hands of individuals who lack even the rock-bottom minimum ethical principles I previously expected from my duly elected representatives then at this point I would settle for a) even one single investigation into an area where there is an appearance of misconduct (e.g. energy task force), and b) some indictments and/or resignations-in-disgrace for actions that are obviously and egregiously illegal (pick any five out of the dozens that exist). I’ll even offer amnesty for anything which came to light prior to Bush taking the oath of office. How’s that for generous?
And please allow me to elaborate a little more by answering Sebastian’s pointless and distracting [sic] question directly: the Democratic Party was weak because it had the upper hand in DC culture but no committed constituency. No “issues” or mandate so to speak, and therefore very little contact with the concerns of rank-and-file Dems. It was fat and happy and comfy and warm. The Democratic party was too weak to swat Bush away like an annoying fly because it didn’t realize that the rules had changed. Now they know. And yes, the fact that the GOP has shown an alarming willingness to divide the baby by lying through its teeth, deliberately inciting riots, and using its congressional majority to abuse the process might have something to do with it too…
I personally think that the parties are both moribund, but by Belenos and Ma’at I am going to vote straight Dem this year (disclosure: I’m registered as independent and I’ve voted a blind ticket only once before, when I was very young) because if the Dems win it is likely to at least postpone our descent into authoritarianism, whereas the GOP leadership has shown itself downright enthusiastic about using the Constitution for toilet paper. In a nutshell I will be voting a straight conservative party ticket.
There’s a lesson in there if any proponents of “collaborative Republicanism” care to ponder it.
“I think we can take it as a given that few people will for for Kerry. Many, many people may vote against Bush, though.”
That’s a tedious game.
How many people voted against Gore rather than for Bush?
Does that fact have any bearing on your appreciation of Bush or his Presidency whatsoever?
” always end up saying that those supporting President Bush are stupid. Hint, not a way to gain friends and influence people.”
I agree. At the same time, 62% of those voting for Bush said in a recent poll that they believe Saddam Hussein to be personally responsible for 9/11. In general, every time I see a poll about the public’s understanding of known facts it seems to show:
1) a majority or plurality of the electorate is misinformed about key facts
2) they are misinformed in a way that helps the GOP.
There must be polls that show mistaken beliefs that help the Democrats (outsourcing comes to mind), but I can’t think of ONE.
I won’t say “stupid” but I will say that Bush would be clearly losing if a large % of the electorate weren’t either “systematically misinformed” or “not paying attention.”
Sidereal, you’re welcome to examine the various public polls of Bush and Kerry supporters. One group loves their candidate; the other hates the opposition.
In a nutshell I will be voting a straight conservative party ticket.
Always an interesting canard, to be sure.
“I think we can take it as a given that few people will for for Kerry. Many, many people may vote against Bush, though.”
That’s a tedious game.
How many people voted against Gore rather than for Bush?
Does that fact have any bearing on your appreciation of Bush or his Presidency whatsoever?
More to this point. I watched as Bush supporters shifted the target of their complaints, but not the text of their complaints as Dean or Kerry or Edwards or Clark were predicted to win the nomination…so let’s face it, it’s not Kerry per se the Bush supporters are against either…it’s anyone who’s not Bush…which is as silly as the ABB logic.
I was asked by Tonyetc at 9:53 to explain my post of 12:41. The thread has lightened up, and I will probably make it heavy again, but hopefully bipartisan. Reread the comment, and try to see where my emphasis lay, what I found offensive. It was in the abstraction of the opponent.
….
The “conspiracy” charge. With the impression I took from Moe’s post the first comment I saw, Tacitus, felt like a logical extension, a continuation of Moe’s. I guess I saw a coordination that wasn’t there, it felt like a fast break or infield play. To paraphrase:”No conspiracy, leaders, coordination”…”And that is what makes it even worse.”
….
I may have taken stuff from Moe’s post that wasn’t there. I don’t know. I actually was a little more comfortable with the Bainbridge and Red State posts. But when Moe talked about no leaders, no conspiracy, no coordination followed by Tacitus saying the problem indeed was “disorganized, decentralized violence” a fuse blew. Exactly how is that too be combatted?
Some examples:
1968, when the enemy was Johnson, the kids worked for McCarthy. Enemy:”the war”, kids rioted in Chicago.Enemy:”the system, kids became Weathermen.
Nixon went from Ellsberg & Rubin to protestors to “my opponents”
Problem is Democrats:liberals:people who oppose our agenda
Enemy is Osama, we go after Osama;Saddam we go after Saddam. If the enemy is “terrorism” or “Islamism” we can just do all sorts of stuff.
If there is a conspiracy or leaders or organization there are specific steps you can take. If the danger is diffuse uncoordinated violence or “disorganized, decentralized violence” the countermeasures may be worse than the problem. Keep the opponents concrete, do not make abstractions the enemy.
…
Finally, I can’t deny some psuedo-Neiwertian paranoia, if you know what I mean. But really only in some proto-proto sense, as in a dangerous baby-step possibly taken, an early line being crossed, as in historical parallels. I never considered concrete dangers. Except I did not like the “Yet.”
“Always an interesting canard, to be sure.”
You can pretend to believe so if you wish, “in lieu of an effective argument.”
Always an interesting canard, to be sure.
I didn’t capitalize the c, Tacitus. Words mean what they mean as you’re fond of pointing out. And you can blame the collapse of the status quo ante on Osama Bin Forgotten all you want, but it wasn’t a Dem that turned the world upside down despite being told that it was a bad idea, and then promptly lost control of the mess he created…
to seize upon or manufacture linguistic process points in lieu of effective arguments.
Holy cow, what a nightmare! Do people really do that kind of stuff? How can they live with themselves afterwards? 😉
p.s. re the single investigation I’m asking for above, I mean a real investigation, not a frickin committee meeting. I mean public hearings and public documents and at least ten subpoenas.
That seems rather a wide dodge of my implied question, which was whether or not that was the case in the last election as well, and more or less in ever election in our history. If so, your last comment would be a pointlessly incendiary way of saying ‘this election will be like all elections’.
As to those public polls, the last on PollingReport.com:
Kerry Favorable: 44, Unfavorable: 40
Bush Favorable: 51, Unfavorable: 39
The first I found by party breakdown (in Ohio):
“A total of 78% of Republicans and 7% of Democrats say they have a favorable opinion of Bush, with 84% of Democrats saying they have an unfavorable opinion of Bush.
A total of 88% of Democrats say they have a favorable opinion of Kerry, and 80% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Kerry.”
So, despite the fact that it would be historically normal for the election to be driven by feelings about the incumbent, it seems in this case it’s ahistorically about Kerry. Do you have any counter-evidence?
My other thought is, why are you pushing it? Like I said, it’s incendiary, dismissive, and completely tangential to the conversation.
But in the case of the torture posts, I had a hunch that there was another angle to the story. Why else would the deportation provisions be in the 9/11? It can’t be as simple as “the GOP want to legalize torture”.
I wouldn’t say “the GOP” wants to legalize torture. I would say there are some powerful people within the GOP who would be perfectly happy to legalize torture if they thought they could get away with it. But more importantly, why can it not be that simple?
But the titles were so inflammatory that it made people afraid to present a dissenting point of view, because they don’t want to appear to support torture. So I felt like I ought to step up to the plate – hell, you don’t know me; what difference does it make if you accuse me of being a torture supporter anyway. And when I examined the problem further, the people most likely to be deported are “not a hypothetical Christian refugee who escapes Darfur only by the skin of her teeth”, but criminals and terrorists the likes of Abu Hamza or Ramzi Yousef. I could give you a whole list of them and I already did in another comment thread. The paradox here is that the worst criminals and terrorists are the most likely to face torture and/or capital punishment, so they would have the strongest case not to be deported.
The fact that at the moment the people most likely to be deported are likely to, in fact, be guilty is irrelevant. Governments that allow themselves to start torturing or disappearing people usually start with the obviously guilty, but somehow it never stops there. As I said in a comments on Tacitus, there isn’t a government in the world, or an administration in this country’s history, that I would trust with the power to torture or disappear even the obviously guilty.
The problem with these polls is the authority problem – the fact that poll takers are generally thought to be more knowledgeable by the average Joe being polled, and therefore make unwarranted conclusions. See push-polling for the darker side of this. What I’m guessing runs through peoples minds is:
1. They wouldn’t have asked this question (Saddam is at least partially responsible for 9/11) to me if there wasn’t something to it;
2. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least (i.e. Saddam is nuts, and hates us, therefore, why not?)
1) a majority or plurality of the electorate is misinformed about key facts
2) they are misinformed in a way that helps the GOP.
Well then, perhaps some campaign ads informing the electorate of the facts would, inform the people, lower the screed factor of most ads and benefit the Democratic party all at the same time.
Having seen few ads (CA, not so much a battleground), I cannot say that it hasn’t been tried. I just assume.
I don’t know why. I don’t claim the Democrats don’t suck at getting their message out.
Jonas may be right to some extent–look at all the polls that vary by 20-30 points depending on how you ask the same question–but it still suggests that this is a war of ads as much as anything.
“I think we can take it as a given that few people will for for Kerry.”
Did you miss the discussion about avoiding generalizations? Or did I miss the evidence you provided for this obnoxious statement?
And you might pause for a moment in your self-congratulation on Republican dominance in the political arena and consider that that “dominance” rests on a very thin veneer. Democrats might well take back the Senate, the WH (after all, Dems did get more votes last time), and they probably could take back the House if it wasn’t for Tom DeLay’s illegal redistricting efforts.
Frankly, the abuses of the House of Representatives (refusing to debate bills that have majority support in favor of debating bills that have no support at all? calling the police on Democratic members!?) do matter, but even so it’s hardly as if everyone is buying the snake oil.
Hm. Now that I actually reread my comment I realize the Moe might just as easily have meant my implication that the GOP leadership have deliberately driven down the level of discourse. I feel like I’m straying into proving a negative territory here (along the lines of Saddam proving he had no WMD) but…
For the record, I view it as a long term perception problem. I first heard Limbaugh in the late 80s. Occasionally I’d help a friend do a bread delivery route, and we’d listen to him then. I thought he was a harmless and occasionally interesting crank, and I have since learned from his trajectory the kind of lesson that Tacitus declines to learn from mine.
Meantime, I would consider four or more strong renunciations of any of Ann Coulter, Jerry Boykin, Grover Norquist, Michael “Savage” or Sun Myung Moon from GOP mucky-mucks at Senator level or above to constitute a “good faith” effort for 2004. That’s before the elections of course…
The language of victimization makes me think of “Dune” (the book, not the perfume [although the perfume is lovely {but i digress ((i too read the following post before this one and am trying to lighten the environment))}]).
at one point the emperor is about to accuse the baron of a crime of which the baron is oddly enough innocent. The baron desparately hopes for the accusation, so he can go public with how he has be wronged, and then ride the bandwagon of victimization all the way to displacing the emperor and seizing power.
both parties have tremendous political and press power. California is so democratic that the governor couldn’t veto a bill that requires car manufacturers to start regulating greenhouse gases. DC is so republican that the bill that katherine has been posting on so eloquently is likely to become law.
so, both parties are just wrong to claim victim status. it’s ugly, it’s pathetic, it’s diversionary and according to Niewart it’s proto-fascistic.
most of all, though, it’s the language of the schoolyard. and while many of us, and many politicians, have the emotional maturity of 12 year olds, i’d hope that the posters here would be a little better.
of course, since i’m casting asperions, i’ll point out that i committed a particularly egregious violation of this nature the other day.
Francis
We see it in Felixrayman, who cannot endure an honest discussion of the subject
Take this crap back to the playground, Tacitus, it doesn’t belong here.
Anatomy of a thread
This morning Moe Lane of Obsidian Wings wrote a post called Not a real concern. Yet.. You might want to read it but this post is not about that post. It’s about the comments thread that followed. The most I’ll…
I hate to make the first crank post in this thread, but wouldn’t Republicans shooting at their own offices fit in with everything we know about Rove campaign tactics? That whole drum-up-the-base, make the opposition look completely insane thing.
Sorry. Tinfoil hat–a little tight today…
In case this hasn’t made the national news: two more swastikas have been burned into the lawns of Bush/Cheney supporters here in Madison. I don’t know who these bastards* are, but they’re gonna be in a whole world of hurt when they’re brought to justice.
* Not my original choice of word, let me assure you.
Conspiracy theories and thinking hard about the panic button
So, there’s a rather interesting investigation going on in Nevada where someone’s been tearing up newly signed Democratic voter registration forms.Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who m…
Conspiracy theories and thinking hard about the panic button
So, there’s a rather interesting investigation going on in Nevada where someone’s been tearing up newly signed Democratic voter registration forms.Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who m…
Conspiracy theories and thinking hard about the panic button
So, there’s a rather interesting investigation going on in Nevada where someone’s been tearing up newly signed Democratic voter registration forms.Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who m…